F. E. Melnikov

In the Snares of Heresies and Anathemas #

(On the Contemporary Disputes over the Names of God)
[Moscow, 1913]

Introduction #

A wondrous fate befell the creation of the former Patriarch of Russia, Nikon. The reforms he instituted resemble, in many respects, that house of which Christ speaks in the Gospel—“and great was the fall of it.” “Everyone who heareth these sayings of Mine,” the Lord saith unto His disciples, “and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came… and it fell: and great was the fall of it” (Matthew 7:26–27).

All that is built upon sand is unstable, ready to collapse at the first breath of wind. It took but the slightest gust—Russia’s faint “tempestuous breath” of religious liberty—for Nikon’s edifice to tremble in its very foundations. Freedom was not the cause of this trembling. It merely stripped away the veil from this construction, and all could now behold the materials from which this great structure—whose grandeur had beguiled many—was made. Nikon’s invasion of Russia, with all the councils convened in Moscow during the latter half of the 17th century, in many ways resembles Napoleon’s army, which ravaged tens of thousands of the Russian people, devastated the very heart of Russia—Moscow—and perished in our homeland in its retreat.

Out of what tribes and tongues was the army of that great commander composed? There were Frenchmen, Germans, Poles, Spaniards, Hungarians, Italians, and others besides. The invasion of Russia by Napoleon is called the incursion of the “twelve tongues”—though surely there were more. Observe now the ruling church: it too is made up of diverse religious groups, sects, and beliefs. Until April 17, 1905, no one had the right to depart from its ranks. Within it were sectarians of every stripe—rationalists, materialists, atheists. All were considered integral members of the ruling church. These sectarians—Baptists, Anabaptists, Pashkovites, Stundists, Tolstoyans, Skoptsy, Khlysts, and many more, both named and nameless—were officially recorded as “Orthodox.” They partook of the sacraments of the ruling church as its lawful members: they were baptized, confessed, communed, were wed, and died within its walls. One can only imagine what atmosphere was created in the church by this vast and motley multitude of sects and heresies.

Add to them also the Mohammedans and pagans. Entire villages were baptized—sometimes in absentia—and thus were counted among the “Orthodox.” But in truth, they were not Christians at all. As soon as freedom of exit from the ruling church was proclaimed in Russia, all these “Orthodox” sectarians and heathens promptly scattered. Like Napoleon’s army in its retreat from Moscow, Nikon’s followers began to melt away. The house upon which “the winds beat” began to sag rapidly, and now verily there remain of it naught but ruins.

The openly declared sectarians departed from the ruling church. But the seeds and roots they left behind. The very atmosphere of the church remains steeped in the spirit of sectarianism, heresy, and unbelief. Within the church there has again sprung up a multitude beyond number of religious movements and sects. “Our time,” attests Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia, “is an age of extraordinary infatuation with Khlystism—among both the Russian people and Russian society.” Having strayed from the true path that leads to Christ, men “devise for themselves other paths to the divine—sectarianism, magnetism, neo-Buddhism, and above all Khlystism, which is, alas, a uniquely Russian and hardly new phenomenon. The Khlysts—under the names of Johnites, Urikovites, Koloskovites, Stephanovites, and Innocentievites—have filled both capitals, Little Russia, the East and West, the Volga region, and Siberia. They have even penetrated many monasteries—Nilov Hermitage, the Pskov, Suzdal, Podolsk, and Olonets monasteries, and others besides.” (Church Gazette, 1913, no. 20, p. 871).

It is hard to say who there is not a sectarian. The upper, the lower, and the middle strata—all are infected with either sectarianism, heresy, or outright godlessness.

Last year, a new heretical movement arose, calling itself the “Name-glorifiers” (more precisely: Imenoslavtsy). It originated on Mount Athos but, supported from Russia, now roars like a turbulent stream within the ruling church. The Name-glorifiers declare all who disagree with their beliefs to be heretics—“Name-fighters” (properly: Imenobortsy)—and anathematize them as impious and brazen blasphemers. It is concerning both these groups that we shall speak in the present treatise.

I. The Heresy of the Name-Glorifiers #

The Name-glorifiers and the Name-fighters, despite the very recent origin of their dispute, have already managed to produce a rather considerable body of literature. The story of the emergence of the Name-glorifiers’ heresy is quite striking. A certain Athonite schema-monk, the venerable elder Iliodor, wrote a book entitled On the Mountains of the Caucasus. Drawing upon the teachings of contemporary pastors of the ruling Church, especially the meditations of Fr. John of Kronstadt and the interpretations of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, Schema-monk Ilarion explains in his book that the saving power of the Jesus Prayer lies in grafting the most holy Name of Jesus upon the heart.¹

The author of On the Mountains of the Caucasus affirms that the Name is divine—that it is Jesus Himself, for the Name cannot be separated from the One named.

Curiously, Schema-monk Ilarion’s book was published with the permission of the ecclesiastical censor, who fully approved it. Within a short time, it went through three editions. The most recent was issued by the Kiev-Caves Lavra. A monk of the Elijah Skete, Chrysanthus, wrote a review of On the Mountains of the Caucasus and published it in the Russian journal The Russian Monk. Chrysanthus noted the erroneous views of Ilarion concerning the Name of God. This critique became the catalyst for the more precise formulation of the new heresy. On Mount Athos, there turned out to be many supporters of Schema-monk Ilarion. In the wilderness of “New Thebaid,” a council of monks and laymen was convened, which issued the following declaration:

“We confess that the Name of God is God Himself, and that the Name of Christ, ‘Ісус (Isus),’ is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, equal in honor to the other Names of God; and we regard the review by Monk Chrysanthus, as being contrary to Holy Scripture, to be heretical, and we reject it together with its adherents.”
(Church Gazette, 1913, no. 20, p. 889)

The disputes on Athos over the Name “Ісус (Isus)” immediately took on an intense and bitter tone. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Joachim III, intervened and issued a special message to the Athonites, in which he declared the teaching of Fr. Ilarion and his followers on the Name of God to be “senseless, heretical, and blasphemous.” This patriarchal message was printed in The Russian Monk (no. 20, 1912, pp. 78–79). In the same journal, Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia emerged as a public critic of the Name-glorifiers. While refuting the errors of the Name-glorifiers concerning the Name of Christ, he himself diminished the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ by equating it with the names of Jesus of Joshua, Jesus the son of Sirach, and Jesus the son of Josedek. The Athonites justly called him a Name-fighter.

In defense of the Name-glorifiers’ belief, a group of Athonite monks led by Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich stepped forward. He published a rather voluminous work in Russian entitled An Apology for Faith in the Name of God and in the Name ‘Ісус (Isus)’ (1913, published by the “Religious-Philosophical Library”). In it, the full foundations of the new dogma of the Name-glorifiers regarding the Names of God are thoroughly presented and argued. The Apology is their symbol of faith.

With extraordinary persistence, Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich asserts in his Apology that the Name “Ісус (Isus)” is God Himself. He reiterates this assertion tirelessly, seeking to support it with every manner of argument and inference, stopping at nothing—not even at the most flagrant distortions of patristic texts. According to the belief of the Name-glorifiers, not only the Name “Ісус (Isus),” but every Name of God is God. “Every Name of God,” the Apology explains, “as a truth revealed by God, is God Himself, and God dwells in them with His whole being, for His essence is inseparable from His activity” (p. 5).

Elsewhere in the Apology, it is written: “A man must be satisfied with the knowledge of those Names of God which are known to him, and these Names are God Himself, for even to hear the Name of God is difficult—that is, fearful—for a believing soul” (p. 37).

Fr. Bulatovich enumerates some of the Names of God: “The Name of God, such as, for example, ‘the Good,’ or ‘the Terrible,’ or ‘the Great,’ or ‘our Savior,’ or ‘our Creator,’ or ‘Jesus the Sweetest,’ or ‘He who commanded us to ask all things of Him and to believe in the fulfillment of our request,’ or ‘He who forbade, under threat of eternal torment, that sin which I committed’—all these are designations and Names of God” (p. 50). And all these designations and titles, which signify the attributes of God, are, according to the confession of the Name-glorifiers, nothing other than God Himself.

This confession is justified in the Apology in the simplest of terms. For every word of God, reasons Hieromonk Anthony, is an act of God—“therefore, every God-revealed Name of God is a verbal act of the Divinity, in which dwell: the Father by thought, the Son by word, and the Holy Spirit by life” (p. 23). Precisely because the Name of the Lord is His activity, it is therefore God Himself. One would suppose that the works of God should be acknowledged as merely the works of the Lord. But Fr. Bulatovich goes further: he believes that they are God Himself.

According to his dogmatic interpretation, not only the Names of God, but even every word of God is God. “There can be no doubt,” exclaims the author of the Apology, “that the Name of God is God Himself, when the Lord so clearly saith, ‘I am the Truth’ (John 14:6). Is it not plain that My Truth is Myself? ‘The Word was God’ (John 1:1), and, therefore, the words themselves are God? —‘Thy Word is Truth’ (John 17:17). ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life’ (John 6:63), that is, they possess Divine properties, and are therefore God Himself” (p. 26).

Whatsoever words proceed from the mouth of God, they are God—not by designation alone, but in very essence, according to the Apology. Time and again, it says, “God Himself.”

Christ spoke of Himself not only as the Truth, but also as the Way and the Door: “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me” (John 14:6). “Verily, verily, I say unto you: I am the Door of the sheep” (John 10:7). According to the strange theology of the Name-glorifiers, the Way, the Door, and the Life—all these are God Himself. And not these only, but every word of the Lord is God, according to the faith of Fr. Bulatovich.

For example, Christ said to the Apostle Peter: “Get thee behind Me, Satan” (Matt. 16:23). The word “Satan” was spoken by God; and since, reasons Hieromonk Anthony, “every word of His (note: every) is a verbal act of the Divinity” (p. 23 of the Apology), “and the act of God is God Himself” (p. 22), then, according to the blasphemous belief of the Name-glorifiers, Satan is God Himself.

The theology of the Name-glorifiers, as we see, is utterly contrary to the conscience of believers and to sound reason. This, then, is the first argument of the dogma of the Name-glorifiers.

And now, the second argument:

God, undoubtedly, is present in His Names. “In the Name of Jesus dwells the very Creator Himself, fearful to every creature!” — say the Name-glorifiers (Apology, p. 63). And if this be so, then the Names of God and the Name of Christ, “Ісус (Isus),” are themselves God, and every word of God is God. “He is like a Holy Fire, penetrating every word: anyone may experience this himself, if he prays sincerely, fervently, with faith and love. But He is especially present in His own Names: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; or Trinity, or Lord, Lord God, Lord Sabaoth, Lord Jesus, Christ, Son of God” (p. 81).

“If,” Fr. Bulatovich develops his dogmatic basis, “every word in prayer is acknowledged to possess divine power, as a verbal act of Divinity, then is not the Name of God and the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ in prayer all the more God Himself? Can it be imagined that the petition in the Jesus Prayer — ‘have mercy on me’ — would be God, but the Name ‘Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God’ — not be God?” (p. 55).

The God of the Name-glorifiers becomes ever more expansive: according to Bulatovich’s first argument, every word of God is God Himself; and now, even our own words in prayer are also God. If every object or thing in which God is present must be acknowledged to be God Himself, then who is not God? “God dwelleth in every man,” wrote the Apostle, “for ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you” (1 Corinthians 3:16). “The Holy Spirit is given not by measure,” says St. Cyprian of Carthage, “but is poured out in full upon every believer” (Works of St. Cyprian of Carthage, Part I, p. 372, 1891 edition). But does that mean that every Christian is God, simply because the Lord Himself dwells within him?

God is omnipresent. The Prophet David, addressing the Lord, says: “If I descend into hell, Thou art there” (Psalm 138[139]:8). Then the Name-glorifiers must become Hell-glorifiers, since by His omnipresence God is also in hell. And they believe that if God is present in something, then that thing is God Himself. This second argument of the Name-glorifier dogma regarding the Names of God is wholly irrational. The first argument led to “Satan,” the second — to “hell.”

Hieromonk Anthony, author of An Apology for Faith in the Name of God, after declaring the Name-glorifiers’ first dogma — that the Names and words of God are God Himself — proclaims another: that the Son of God is not a hypostatic Person of the Trinity, but merely a Name of God, like the imprint of some seal. “The Son of God is a Name of God,” writes Bulatovich, “of like-form with the Father and True God” (p. 31). But what does “True God” mean here? We have seen that the Name-glorifiers recognize every word, even those spoken in ordinary human prayer, to be God. For them, it makes no difference whether it be the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the words in a prayer: “have mercy on us” — both are God.

“The Name of the Lord, or of the Mother of God, or of a saint,” he writes, “shall be as the Lord Himself, or the Mother of God, or the saint: the nearness of the word to your heart shall be a pledge and token of the nearness to the heart of the Lord Himself, the Most Pure Virgin, the angels or the saint. The Name of the Lord is the Lord Himself, the All-present Spirit who filleth all things; the Name of the Mother of God is the Mother of God herself; the Name of an angel is the angel; of a saint — the saint” (p. 81).

According to this astonishing doctrine, it is as if there is neither God, nor the Most Holy Mother of God, nor angels, nor saints — but only their Names live and act. Yet Names are not script, not arrangements of letters, but ideas. “When we speak of the Name of God,” explains Hieromonk Anthony, “having in mind the essence of the very Name by which we call upon God, we say that the Name of God is God Himself; but when we have in mind the letters and syllables by which the truth about God and His Name is conditionally expressed, we say that God is present in His Name” (p. 41). “We do not deify these conventional sounds and letters, for we do not incarnate the Divine Truth in them, but we view them only as conventional signs, by which mankind has chosen to express certain ideas; we regard these created sounds and letters as merely the outward shell, so to speak, of the Name of God itself. And by God we mean the very idea of God, the truth itself concerning the Trihypostatic Divinity. For this Name — that is, the idea of God — is, as St. Tikhon of Zadonsk puts it, ‘a spiritual Being,’ and not an abstract concept” (p. 101).

And not only ideas, but even mere words — so long as they were spoken by God — and even our own human words spoken in prayer, are called God. Fr. Bulatovich reiterates this more than once in his Apology.

He considers even the invocation of the Name of God to be God. This is yet another dogma of the Name-glorifiers. “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit,” they quote the words of the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 12:3), and interpret them thus: “that is, the invocation of the Name ‘Jesus’ is God Himself” (p. 75).

Elsewhere in the Apology, in place of “invocation,” the word “naming” is used. And this naming itself is, properly speaking, God. “The Apostle Paul speaks even more clearly of this,” theologizes Fr. Bulatovich, “that the confession — that is, the naming — of the Lord Jesus in spirit and in truth is the act of God, and is God Himself.” He cites again the Apostle’s words: “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit… Now there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom… to another faith by the same Spirit… to another prophecy… But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3–11).

“Do you hear, then?” exclaims the author of the Apology, “all these gifts — the naming of the Lord Jesus, the word of wisdom, the insight of faith, the prophetic word, and so forth — are divine operations and are God Himself” (pp. 5–6). “The noetic-heartfelt confession of the Name of God,” Bulatovich repeats, “is God Himself” (p. 54).

The belief of the Name-glorifiers is indeed strange—it leads to the acknowledgment of an infinite number of gods. Bulatovich attempts to find justification for his doctrine among the holy Fathers. But these attempts are unsuccessful; they are aimed solely at the ignorant and credulous. In his Apology, he cites the following words from St. John Chrysostom: “The prophet adds: ‘Bless His Name’—whether you mean the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit—for the Name of the Trinity is God. This Name is also blessed by the angels who declared unto us the new song.” (Works of Chrysostom, vol. V, p. 926). “Do you hear?” exclaims Hieromonk Anthony. “The Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of Jesus Christ, is God” (Apology, p. 97).

But in the text cited from the works of Chrysostom, the author of the Apology introduces a barely perceptible distortion: Chrysostom wrote “the Name to the Trinity is God” (имя Троице — Бог), while Bulatovich changes this to “the Name of the Trinity is God” (имя Троицы — Бог). He alters only one letter—replacing “е” with “ы”—but with this change, he distorts the meaning of the holy Father. Chrysostom does not even hint at the Name-glorifiers’ dogma—that the very Name of the Trinity or of one Hypostasis of the Trinity is God Himself. He merely says that the whole Trinity is called “God.” She has the Name “God.”

If we say, “The name of John is Chrysostom,” that is clear: it means that St. John, Archbishop of Constantinople, is called “Chrysostom.” This is perfectly true. But if we say that the mere name “John” is Chrysostom himself, that would be absurd. Millions bear the name John, but not all are Chrysostom. Chrysostom was one man. Bulatovich needed to distort the text of this great Father of the Church precisely because, if left intact, it says nothing in support of the dogma of the Name-glorifiers.

Likewise, the author of the Apology treated a passage from the works of Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria. On page 35 of the Apology, he cites the following words of Theophylact: “The Holy Church conceives the Holy Trinity as indivisible; thus, due to the unity of the three hypostases in essence, the one baptized in the Name of Christ is baptized into the Trinity, for the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are indivisible in essence. If the Name ‘Father’ were not God, and the Name ‘Son’ not God, and the Name of the Holy Spirit not God, then one ought to baptize in the Name of God Jesus Christ, or only in the Son. But Peter says, ‘in the Name of Jesus Christ,’ knowing that the Name ‘Jesus’ is God, just as the Name of the Father and the Name of the Holy Spirit” (Commentary on Acts, ch. 2, v. 38).

Bulatovich emphasizes the phrase, “the Name ‘Jesus’ is God.” It seems to express clearly the belief of the Name-glorifiers. That is how it is presented in Bulatovich’s book. But in the actual writings of Blessed Theophylact, something entirely different is said. Here again, Bulatovich substituted a single letter. Theophylact writes: “The Name of Jesus is God”—meaning that Christ is called God because He truly is God (see Commentary on the New Testament by Blessed Theophylact, p. 40, Soykin edition). But Bulatovich alters this to read “The Name Jesus is God,” replacing the “a” with a hard sign “ъ.” In Theophylact, the phrase is: “If the Name of the Father were not God,” while Bulatovich distorts this too: “If the Name Father were not God.” These distortions were made quite consciously, because without such alterations, the texts of the blessed Father contain none of the doctrines which the Name-glorifiers profess. These very falsifications committed by Bulatovich bear witness that among the holy Fathers, one cannot find what the Name-glorifiers teach and believe. They themselves acknowledge this—otherwise, why resort to altering the words of the Fathers?

Despite the manifest absurdity of the Name-glorifiers’ beliefs, their teaching infected all of Mount Athos, spread into the Greek and Bulgarian monasteries, and is successfully gathering followers even in Russia. There, certain theologians of the ruling Church have come forward in its defense. Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich’s book, Apology of Faith, was published under the editorial guidance of the directors of the Religious-Philosophical Library, who expressed considerable sympathy for the heresy of the Name-glorifiers.

One of the “most respected and distinguished theologians” of the Synodal Church wrote: “The question raised by the Athonites, I consider to be very timely for general discussion. It may serve as a basis for transferring the dispute over the Name ‘Jesus’ into the broader dogmatic realm, and provoke attempts—if not to resolve it, then at least to clarify the nature of the debate” (Apology, p. XII).

It is said that certain bishops of the Synodal hierarchy also actively support the Name-glorifiers’ heresy. What will be the final outcome of the debates stirred up by the Athonites remains to be seen. But for now, one thing is clear: the contemporary Greco-Russian Church has split into two camps—Name-glorifiers and Name-fighters. They accuse each other of heresy and relentlessly cast anathemas and curses upon one another.

“This rejection,” say the Name-glorifiers to the Name-fighters, “that you perform, has long ago been condemned by the Church and anathematized. And even now, from that same Church, every year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, alongside other heretics, Barlaam is cursed in this wise: ‘To Barlaam and Akindynos, and their followers and successors—anathema, thrice!’”

“Do you hear, Name-fighters?” the Name-glorifiers address them. “You are heretics. You are accursed” (Apology, p. 76).

The Name-glorifiers are especially outraged by the accusations of Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia and his views on the Name of Jesus Christ. They regard his teaching, and that of the Russian Synod which agrees with him, as the heresy of Antichrist. “Is this not,” they say, “that heresy of which the Seer speaks in Revelation: ‘And the beast opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His Name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven’ (Revelation 13:6)? Are not the following words of the prophet Malachi directed at these Name-fighters: ‘And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto My Name, saith the Lord of Hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart’ (Malachi 2:1–4)” (Apology, p. 20).

“This Name-fighting doctrine,” say the Name-glorifiers, “we boldly call heresy—not out of arrogance or insolence, but due to its complete likeness to the long-condemned and anathematized heresy of Barlaam” (p. 20).

The Name-fighters, for their part, did not remain silent. They, too, condemned the Name-glorifiers as madmen and heretics, and placed them under the anathema of the ancient Church.

II. The Judgment of the Name-Glorifiers #

Following the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III, whose message to the Athonites we mentioned in the previous chapter, the Name-glorifiers’ teaching concerning the name “Ісус (Isus)” was likewise condemned by his successor, the new Patriarch of Constantinople, Germanus. “Since,” he declares in his letter sent to Mount Athos, “this newly-arisen and unfounded teaching, born of error and distorted, ignorant interpretation, constitutes blasphemous calumny and heresy—inasmuch as it identifies and confuses the Incomprehensible [Godhead], and thereby leads to pantheism (all-god-ism)—therefore, our humility, together with the most holy and honorable metropolitans, our beloved brethren and fellow-servants in the Holy Spirit, being greatly troubled not only by the appearance but also by the persistent spread of this impious and soul-corrupting teaching in our venerable place, have deemed it a lawful and urgent matter to turn our attention anew to this issue, and to review it again following its earlier condemnation by our ever-memorable predecessor, the Most Holy Patriarch Kyr Joachim, together with the Holy Synod” (Church Gazette, 1913, no. 20, p. 885).

“At the synodal council,” the Patriarch continues, “we unanimously condemned this newly-arisen doctrine concerning the name ‘Ісус (Isus),’ namely that it is truly the very Jesus and God Himself, essentially contained in His name, and we declare, in the Holy Spirit, that this teaching is blasphemous and heretical” (Church Gazette, 1913, no. 20, p. 885).

In Russia, the governing Synod and two archbishops from the theological academy in St. Petersburg appeared as accusers and judges of the Name-glorifiers on behalf of the ruling Church. In issue no. 20 of the Church Gazette were published: the Synod’s message “to the most honorable brethren laboring in monasticism,” and the articles by the following individuals: Nikon, “A Great Temptation Concerning the Most Holy Name of God”; Anthony, “On a New False Teaching Which Deifies the Names and on Bulatovich’s Apology”; and Troitsky, “The Athonite Tumult.”

The article by Archbishop Nikon is extremely weak. He stumbles along like a blind man, afraid to trip and fall. He tries only by logical reasoning to prove that the Name-glorifiers are in error in equating the Names of God with God Himself. He offers no patristic foundation whatsoever—clearly, he is poorly acquainted with the works of the Fathers. He scolds the monks, claiming that theology is not their affair, as though the ancient theologians themselves had not come from the ranks of monastics. As for his own theological reasoning, it is uncertain and obscure. He lacks clarity of conviction and definiteness of belief. Nonetheless, he ventures to state that the teaching of the Name-glorifiers leads to ditheism. “From it,” says Nikon, “it follows that, just as the Divine Essence is God Himself, so also is His Name God—and thus, in their thought, the Name becomes a separate person apart from God. There is no need to draw a logical conclusion from this that leads to some form of ditheism” (Church Gazette, p. 856).

Archbishop Anthony writes more decisively and explicitly; as is his custom, he is not restrained in his language, though at times his article lacks any sense of persuasive or convicting force. It is clear that he writes as one of little faith—or perhaps no faith at all—an embittered and domineering man, intolerant of any contradiction. About him and his Athonite allies, Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich justly remarks that “all of them, apparently, have been corrupted in their Orthodox worldview since their schooldays, and have been infected with all the poisons of ‘intelligentsia-ism,’ Tolstoyanism, and every other venom of Western free-thinking” (Apology of Faith, p. 46).

Nevertheless, Archbishop Anthony denounces the Name-glorifiers and their defenders with pitiless severity. “Is it possible,” he asks, “without renouncing both Christianity and reason, to repeat their absurd assertion that the Name ‘Ісус (Isus)’ is God? We acknowledge that the Name ‘Ісус (Isus)’ is sacred, given by God and announced by the angel—a name bestowed upon the God-man at His incarnation (that is, what He remained, and what He became)—but to confuse the Name with God Himself—is that not the height of madness?” (p. 873).

“Has there ever been a heresy,” Anthony exclaims, “that has descended into such insane conclusions?” (p. 873). “Yet more blame,” he qualifies, “falls on those who, like Elder Ilarion, seek to immortalize their memory by inventing new dogmas, joining the company of Macedonius, Eutyches, and Nestorius—whose memory too shall not perish until the Second Coming of the Lord, though that memory is bound not with blessings, but with curses” (p. 872). Here Archbishop Anthony seems clearly to be referring even to certain bishops of his own Church. A few lines earlier he notes the kinds of temptations that afflict bishops: “pride and vainglory.” These, he says, are seduced by the “laurels” of Macedonius, Eutyches, and Nestorius.

The teaching of the Name-glorifiers regarding the magical significance of the Name of God, claims Archbishop Anthony, “connects them with the Jewish Kabbalists”; and their teaching that every word of God is God “connects them with the Buddhists” (p. 880). There is, he concludes, no doctrine more pernicious or impious that could be conceived.

The article by S. Troitsky is marked by a calm exposition and serious substantiation. Compared to his work, Archbishop Nikon’s article appears as a poor attempt at writing. No matter how much Nikon insisted in his writings published in Church Gazette and the newspaper The Bell that only bishops possess theological knowledge and that the laity must simply heed their voice, his own attack on the Name-glorifiers—when placed alongside the work of a lay writer—immediately refuted that claim. Troitsky’s theological knowledge is far more substantial than that of Archbishops Nikon and Anthony, and even the Synod itself. They ought to learn from him how and on what basis to refute and denounce the heresy of the Name-glorifiers. He demonstrates a thorough command of patristic literature, the canons of the ancient Church, and church history. Troitsky’s article is highly persuasive and utterly destroys the teaching of the Name-glorifiers at its root. Yet at the same time, as we shall see below, it also undermines the doctrine of the ruling Church itself.

Troitsky deems the Name-glorifiers’ theory of the Names of God to be “completely heretical” (p. 888). The Name-glorifiers appeal in their defense—and to condemn their accusers—to the decree of the 1352 council that condemned the heresy of the monk Barlaam and proclaimed eternal memory to St. Gregory Palamas as the refuter of the Barlaamites. That council pronounced a threefold anathema upon Barlaam’s followers. Troitsky demonstrated that the Name-glorifiers themselves fall under that same anathema. The council issued the following condemnation:

“To those who speculate and assert sometimes that the Light (of Tabor) was a created phantom, appearing for a brief moment and then vanishing, and at other times acknowledge it to be the essence of God, yet who do not confess… that this Divine Light is neither a creation nor the essence of God, but the uncreated and natural grace, and illumination, and energy ever proceeding from the very essence of God, yet not separate from Him—anathema thrice” (p. 895).

“Thus,” Troitsky concludes, “the Name-glorifiers, at least in their belief and terminology, stand entirely on the side not of the Palamites, but of the Barlaamites” (ibid.).

The Name-glorifiers are not accused solely of holding heretical teachings, but also of insubordination to ecclesiastical authority and of having caused disorder on Mount Athos, including even the plundering of the monastery treasury. “All that was disobedient, stubborn, ambitious, and avaricious among our monastics,” says Archbishop Anthony, “seized upon the new senseless dogma, and, caring little about it, rejoiced at the opportunity to ‘despise dominion and speak evil of dignities’ (Jude 1:3), to seize positions of authority for themselves, and to pillage the monastery treasury” (p. 872).

Anthony reminds these rebels and agitators of the 121st canon of the Nomocanon, “which declares that a monk who dishonors his superior—even if he be in the right—let him be accursed, for he is cut off from the Holy Trinity, and let him go to the place of Judas.” “Alas!” exclaims Archbishop Anthony, “we are compelled to admit the thought that these very divisions and expulsions were the real goal of Fr. Bulatovich in composing his spurious book, full of open distortions of sacred texts and knowingly false interpretations thereof” (p. 876). In short, the Name-glorifiers are cursed on every side. The merciless Anthony of Volhynia even excommunicates them from the Holy Trinity and consigns them to the lot of Judas.

But how did the Governing Synod respond to them?

The Synod’s message directed against the Name-glorifiers is striking in its gentleness, its leniency toward them. It is extraordinarily cautious in its language, its definitions of doctrine, and especially in its address to the Name-glorifiers themselves. The entire message breathes with a certain vagueness, an uncertainty in its own correctness, a fear of saying too much, of making a careless slip or admission. It is remarkable that the Synod published its message without signatures. Some necessity must have compelled it to do so. The Synod, of course, acknowledges the teaching of the Name-glorifiers as heretical and blasphemous. “They, most likely, do not even suspect,” the Synod says of the Name-glorifiers, “to what terrible conclusions such a teaching inevitably leads. For if it is true, then even the unconscious repetition of the Name of God becomes efficacious” (p. 279).

“To assert,” the Synod exclaims, “along with Fr. Bulatovich, that ‘the very sounds and letters of the Name of God possess the grace of God’ (p. 188), or (which is essentially the same thing), that God is indivisibly present in His Name, ultimately means placing God in some kind of dependence upon man—indeed, even more: it means openly acknowledging that He is, as it were, at man’s disposal. All it would take is for someone—even without faith, even unconsciously—to pronounce the Name of God, and God would be compelled, by His grace, to be with that person and act according to His nature. But that is blasphemy!” (p. 279). “This is the deification of a created thing—pantheism, which regards all that exists as God” (p. 281).

In its message, the Synod reminds the Name-glorifiers of one of the anathemas in the Greek Triodion. “It would be just,” it says, “to remind them of the anathema against those ‘who seek to reinterpret and distort that which is clearly spoken by the grace of the Holy Spirit’” (Greek Triodion, p. 149)—an anathema which they themselves quote in their Appeal of the Union of the Archangel Michael (p. 282).

In the dispute between the Name-glorifiers and the Name-fighters, anathemas are cast freely and abundantly. The Name-glorifiers curse the Name-fighters, and the Name-fighters in turn curse the Name-glorifiers. “The Most Holy Synod,” we read in its message, “fully aligns itself with the decision of the Most Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod of the Great Church of Constantinople, which condemned the new teaching ‘as blasphemous and heretical,’ and on its part entreats all who have been drawn into this teaching to abandon such erroneous speculation and humbly submit to the voice of the Mother Church, which alone on earth is ‘the pillar and ground of the truth,’ and outside of which there is no salvation” (p. 284).

Such is the full extent of the Synod’s judgment. In truth, it is not so much a judgment as it is a plea—a request to abandon “erroneous speculation.” It is very telling that the Russian Synod dealt so gently with the perpetrators of the Name-glorifier heresy. Recall what fearful anathemas were thundered forth by the Russian and Greek hierarchies against Orthodox Christians for the mere use of the two-fingered sign of the cross. Consider the savage curses contained in the Synod’s own Rite for Receiving the Schismatics. For what are the Old Believers anathematized there?—for their fingers, their “Alleluia,” their prayers, their cross. These anathemas are couched in the most decisive and harsh terms.

Recall the recent missionary congress in Irkutsk. At that gathering, missionary Nikita Grinyakin presented a report calling for a new anathema against the Old Believers for their “ritualism”—that is, for recognizing deep spiritual meaning in the rites. But now the Synod has had to deal not with Old Believers—men who are truly Orthodox and pious—but with actual heretics and terrible blasphemers, who have publicly printed defenses of their heresy, who have anathematized their opponents, declaring them the worst of heretics, akin to Antichrist; and yet the Synod has not had the boldness to deliver a firm condemnation of these heretics who have already sown division in the Church and displayed disobedience to ecclesiastical authority. All it could bring itself to do was to timidly recall the condemnation issued by another body and align itself with the decision of the Constantinopolitan Synod.

III. The Like-Minded of the Name-Glorifiers #

The Synod is cautious in its actions not without reason. It seems that its old anathemas—over which it often must blush—now serve as a great restraint, preventing it from acting rashly. The Synod fears lest, in cursing the Name-glorifiers, it might inadvertently curse itself and its own saints. For the Synod itself has not yet resolved how the Names of God ought to be understood.

In one place, the Synod’s message states: “Even if one were to recognize the Name of God as His energy, then even so it could only be called Divinity, not God—still less ‘God Himself,’ as the new teachers do” (pp. 280–281). This “if” betrays the Synod’s uncertainty: perhaps the Name of God really is a divine energy.

Elsewhere, the message declares: “The Name of God is only a name—not God Himself, nor one of His properties; it is a designation of a subject, not the subject itself, and therefore it cannot be acknowledged or named either as God (which would be senseless and blasphemous) or as Divinity, because it is not even a divine energy” (p. 285).

Yet in the article by Mr. Troitsky, on which the Synod’s message is based, it is written that the Name of God is a divine energy: “The Name of God, understood as divine revelation—and in its objective sense, i.e., as the revelation of truths to mankind—is the eternal, indivisible energy of God, perceived by men only to the extent that their creatureliness, limitations, and moral capacity allow” (p. 906).

Archbishop Nikon confesses otherwise. “For us,” he says, “the Name of God is merely a faint shadow of one of God’s properties or states, marked in our speech or thought. We render due reverence even to that shadow, as to an icon—for the shadow of the Apostle Peter healed the sick—but we dare not equate that shadow with God Himself, nor say that ‘the Name of God is God’” (p. 855).

Thus it turns out that Nikon calls a “faint shadow” what Troitsky describes as “the eternal, indivisible energy of God.”

Yet other authorities of the ruling Church—such as Tikhon of Zadonsk, canonized after death, and John of Kronstadt, glorified as a saint even during his life—preach in their works the very teaching that the Synod of Constantinople has declared blasphemous and heretical, and that Archbishop Anthony deems the height of madness. The Name-glorifiers make very effective use of the writings of Tikhon of Zadonsk and John of Kronstadt.

“The Name of God,” teaches Tikhon, “in and of itself, being holy, is also glorious and supremely glorious, and therefore requires no glorification from us; it remains always glorious, holy, and fearful, and sends forth rays of its glory into creation… For the glory of the Name of God is eternal, infinite, and unchangeable, just like God Himself; therefore, it can neither increase nor diminish in itself… The great Name of God contains within itself His divine attributes, which are communicated to no creature, but belong to Him alone—such as: consubstantiality, eternal being, omnipotence, goodness, wisdom, omnipresence, omniscience, righteousness, holiness, truth, spiritual being, and so on.” (Works of Tikhon of Zadonsk, vol. III, book 2, pp. 64–65).

It is difficult to say how this teaching of Bishop Tikhon differs from the doctrine of the Name-glorifiers. This saint of the ruling Church attributes to the Name of God all the properties of the Holy Trinity: consubstantiality, omnipresence, omnipotence, and so forth, and even calls the Name “holy in itself” and “a spiritual being.”

At any rate, the teaching of Tikhon does not accord with the assertions of Archbishop Nikon, nor with the definitions of Anthony of Volhynia, nor with the Synod’s message. Perhaps this is why the Synod’s message was published without signatures—because among the Synod’s own bishops there are convinced Name-glorifiers. To anathematize themselves—this they lacked the courage to do.

In the writings of John of Kronstadt, one observes a fully Name-glorifier doctrine. He explicitly and firmly declares that the Name of God is God Himself. Thus, in his book My Life in Christ we read: “The Name of the Lord is the Lord Himself, the Spirit who is everywhere present and who filleth all things. The Name of Almighty God is God Himself—the omnipresent and perfectly simple Spirit” (My Life in Christ, Part I, p. 237). This is exactly what the Name-glorifiers repeat word for word. For this very teaching, the Constantinopolitan Synod declared them “heretics” and “blasphemers.” Has John of Kronstadt now been counted among that number?

In another place, he attempts to provide a basis for his teaching concerning the Name of God: “The Name of God,” he again asserts, “is God Himself. Therefore it is said, ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain’ (Exodus 20:7). Or: ‘The Name of the God of Jacob defend thee’ (Psalm 19:1). Or: ‘Bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise Thy Name’ (Psalm 142[141]:8). Since the Lord is the most simple Being, the most simple Spirit, He is entirely present in a single word, a single thought—and at the same time, everywhere, in all creation. Therefore, only call upon the Name of the Lord—and thou callest upon the Lord Himself, the Savior of believers, and thou shalt be saved: ‘Whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved’ (Joel 2:32). ‘Call upon My Name in the day of thy trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me’ (Psalm 49[50]:15).” (My Life in Christ, Part V, “On Prayer,” public edition, 1893, p. 30).

The Name-glorifiers are fully justified in considering John of Kronstadt their forerunner. He has proven a most fruitful root for many heresies. Already in his lifetime, the sectarian Johnites arose; later came the Kiselyovites, a peculiar variety of Khlysts. And now the Name-glorifiers have emerged, having drawn their new teaching on the Name of God from the writings of John of Kronstadt. It is said that the Johnites and the “sobriety movement,” led by the well-known brattsy (“little brothers”), have also joined this new heresy.

Archbishop Nikon admits that the teaching of Fr. John of Kronstadt indeed forms the foundation for the Name-glorifiers’ heresy. “Of all the citations,” says Nikon, “which Fr. Bulatovich brings forth from the vast ascetic literature, this spiritual struggler and man of prayer most clearly expresses the teaching of the divinity of the Lord’s Name in a form most favorable to Fr. Bulatovich” (Church Gazette, p. 858).

Thus, the Synod is almost compelled to refrain from issuing a strict judgment upon the newly arisen heretical movement, since its origins are found in a figure as eminent as the renowned miracle-worker of Kronstadt. The latter is simply unstoppable in preaching this “blasphemous heresy” which, according to the definition of Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia, constitutes “the height of madness.”

“The divine commandment strictly forbids taking the Name of God in vain,” insists John of Kronstadt, “because,” he continues, “His Name is Himself—the One God in three Persons, the simple Being, expressed and contained in a single word, and at the same time not confined by it, that is, not limited by it or by anything created. The great Names—‘Most Holy Trinity,’ or ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,’ or ‘Father, Word, and Holy Spirit’—when invoked with living faith and reverence, or even contemplated inwardly in the soul, are God Himself, and bring God Himself in His three Persons into the soul… This infinite, simple Being may, in a certain sense, be encompassed by a single thought, a single word.” (Christian Thoughts by Fr. John of Kronstadt, pp. 46–47).

What if John of Kronstadt were alive today? Without a doubt, he would have anathematized Archbishop Nikon, Archbishop Anthony, and the Synod itself for their condemnation of the Name-glorifier heresy—and he would have proclaimed his own doctrine, that the Names of God are God Himself, as a new dogma. “Therefore,” Fr. John of Kronstadt insists with striking tenacity, “the Name of God is God Himself. And since God is Spirit—most simple and omnipresent—and since the saints rest entirely in God, then communion through prayer with all the saints is the easiest thing—easier even than communion with men who live among us” (My Life in Christ, vol. II, pp. 7–8).

IV. The Foundations and Roots of the Name-Glorifier Heresies #

The “blasphemous slander and heresy” of the Name-glorifiers is not found solely in the writings of one or another hierarch or saint of the ruling Church—it is also embedded in her conciliar, polemical, and liturgical books.

To support their belief that the Name of God is God Himself, the Name-glorifiers point to the Extended Catechism of the ruling Church, which professes that “the sacrament of baptism is conferred in the Name of God.” But the Name-fighters object: the same text also says that “the power of the sign of the Cross is equal to the power of the Name of God.” Therefore, they conclude, the Name of God is equal to the sign of the Cross, but is not God Himself—just as the sign of the Cross is not God.

Curiously, the Name-glorifiers have a response to this conclusion. They expose the ruling Church in her own heresy. “It is not difficult,” they reply, “to expose the cunning of such reasoning: in the Catechism, it is not speaking of a material cross—wooden or otherwise—but of the name-bearing sign of the Cross, made by the hand of the priest. And what, then, is this sign of the Cross, if not the symbolic inscription of the Name ‘Jesus Christ’? The fingers inscribe the Name ‘Jesus Christ’; the sign of the Cross depicts the justification of this Name on the Cross and the idea of salvation through Jesus. Thus, the testimony of the Catechism not only does not diminish the divine power of the Name of God and of the Lord, but: first, affirms that the sacrament of baptism is performed by the divine power of the Name of God; and second, indicates that even the name-bearing sign of the Cross derives its power from nothing else but the Name ‘Jesus Christ.’” (Apology by Bulatovich, p. 45).

The argument of the Name-glorifiers is difficult to refute. The ruling Church truly does ascribe extraordinary significance to the name-bearing formation of fingers, placing it far above the ordinary sign of the Cross. The famous leader and inspirer of the still more famous Council of 1667, Archimandrite Dionysius, wrote a specific treatise On the Honorable Cross against the Old Believers, in which he expressed the following dogma on the name-bearing blessing:

“Bless and say,” he says to the Old Believers, “for it is proper that as each is marked by the Cross, so also each should bless himself with the same configuration of fingers. But by your view, even swineherds and any common person and woman may bless themselves just like a hierarch or priest, and there would be no distinction whatsoever between a hierarch and priest and a layman or swineherd. This is a manifest heresy of the headless, and Lutheran and Calvinistic, who neither have nor esteem the priesthood. But we Orthodox have a great distinction between the priest and the layman, and the act of blessing has been granted only to hierarchs and priests, not to all. And the formation of fingers for blessing is different—because it is another mystery—whereas the marking of oneself with the Cross is again another mystery, and it is given to all. Therefore the formation of fingers for blessing is different.”
(From the book of Prof. N. F. Kapterev, Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, vol. II, appendix, p. XXVI)

As is clear from this teaching, the Name-glorifiers quite justly point out to their accusers that, according to the doctrine of the Greco-Russian Church, the name-bearing sign should not be compared to the sign of the Cross. The former is as much more significant than the latter as, in Dionysius’ words, a hierarch is holier than a swineherd and above him in rank and authority. In the name-bearing formation of the fingers there is a different mystery altogether from that found in the common sign of the Cross, which every person may use to bless himself. But the name-bearing sign is to be used for blessing only by bishops and priests.

The Name-glorifiers assert that the sign of the Cross has power precisely because it draws that power from the Name “Jesus.” “Is not,” they ask, “the sign of the Cross a symbolic inscription of the Name of the crucified Jesus? And is not its power derived from the Name of Jesus? Is it not the Name of Jesus Christ that sanctifies the Crucifixion itself—that is, the Cross—and thus distinguishes it from the cross of the thief? In making the sign of the Cross, are not the fingers arranged either in the Name of the Holy Trinity and the God-Man Christ, or solely in the Name of Jesus Christ?” (Apology, p. 170).

And the peace of Christ, conveyed during the liturgy by the clergy, is likewise administered through the sign of the Cross accompanied by the Name of Christ. “Is it not through the sign of the Cross, symbolically inscribing the Name of the crucified Jesus—and by the finger formation in the Name of Jesus Christ—that peace is conveyed?” (p. 180).

In the Apology of Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich, he also quotes the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem on the transformation of the Holy Gifts:

“The bread and wine of the Eucharist,” says the Holy Father, “before the sacred invocation of the worshipful Trinity, were simply bread and wine; but after the invocation is completed, the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood of Christ.”

The author of the Apology inserts the following explanatory note into the text of St. Cyril: “That is (the transformation occurs through the invocation) of the Name of God in the preliminary prayers, and of the Name of the Holy Spirit in the words, ‘change them by Thy Holy Spirit,’ and of the Name of Jesus Christ in the cross-shaped name-bearing sign” (Apology, pp. 35–36).

Of course, none of the Holy Fathers ever said anything about the name-bearing finger formation—it is an invention of recent times. Therefore, it should not be attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Yet according to the teaching of the new church established by Nikon, name-bearing finger formation does indeed possess some extraordinary power. The Name-glorifiers are entitled to cite it as clear confirmation of their belief.

“We confess,” declare the Name-glorifiers, “the effectiveness of every invocation of the Name of God—whether unto salvation or unto condemnation—for we believe that the Name of God is God Himself. Therefore we believe that the sacraments, even if performed unworthily, are nevertheless validly accomplished, being sanctified by the very Name of God, by prayer, and by the name-bearing sign of the Cross, which substitutes for the Name ‘Jesus Christ.’ Believing also that both the Name of God, and the words of prayer, and the Name ‘Jesus Christ’ are God Himself—as a verbal operation of the Divinity—we hold that, without such faith, a priest cannot even minister with a clear conscience” (Apology, pp. 15–16).

The name-bearing finger formation has led the Name-glorifiers to adopt a Latin dogma, in which a magical effect is ascribed to a mere formula. “To think,” says Archbishop Nikon, “that sacraments are performed solely by the Name of God, by its mere utterance, is to think in the Latin way: the Latins believe in the so-called opus operatum—once the prescribed formula is spoken, the sacrament is considered accomplished, mechanically so to speak” (Church Gazette, 1913, no. 20, p. 862).

Yet this dogma pervades all the sacraments of the ruling Church—and, in particular, it lies at the heart of her teaching on name-bearing finger formation. The Church teaches that only through this specific finger configuration (this formula of the fingers) is special grace conferred—no other finger formation can bestow such grace. Here, power to sanctify is ascribed not to God, but to the fingers formed in the Name of “Jesus Christ.” The Name-glorifiers deduce from this that the finger formation has such power precisely because it contains the Name of God—and the Name of God is God Himself.

And the defenders of the ruling Church, in upholding her dogma of name-bearing finger formation, must either agree with the conclusions of the Name-glorifiers—thus accepting their “blasphemous heresy” as their own—or admit that the ruling Church assigns to the formation of fingers, in a certain formula, the same significance which the Name-glorifiers assign to the Name “Jesus.” And in that case, the same “blasphemous heresy” will be found in their Church’s teaching.

The Name-glorifiers claim that name-bearing finger formation arose precisely from faith in the belief that the Name “Jesus Christ” is God—that is, from the very faith which Archbishop Anthony denounces as “the raving of madmen” (ibid., p. 873). “Faith in the Name ‘Jesus Christ,’” says Fr. Bulatovich, “underlies the establishment in the Orthodox Church of the priestly name-bearing blessing—that is, the blessing with the sign of the Cross, made with fingers formed in the Name ‘Jesus Christ.’”

On this formation of the fingers, Metropolitan Gregory writes in the book The Truly Ancient and Truly Orthodox Church of Christ: “This finger formation is most fitting for blessing, and no more fitting one can be found. For our Lord Jesus Christ always presented all benefits received from Him as dependent, as it were, solely on His Name” (Apology of Faith in the Name of God, p. 13). The words cited by Bulatovich from Metropolitan Gregory are indeed found in his book The Truly Ancient and Truly Orthodox Church (part II, p. 116, 1883 edition). “This blessing,” testifies Metropolitan Gregory, “contains within itself a special grace, which is imparted to others only by those who have received episcopal or priestly ordination” (p. 112). “Just as the sign of the Cross,” he further explains, “used for blessing, belongs only to sacred persons and has in itself a special grace, distinct from that received by those who mark themselves with the sign of the Cross, so too the finger formation for the blessing-sign of the Cross must differ from the finger formation used by laypeople for the sign of the Cross” (p. 114).

Whatever the representatives of the ruling Church may object to the Name-glorifiers, they are not able to completely cleanse their name-bearing finger formation of the Name-glorifiers’ heresy. In her canonical and conciliar books, the ruling Church teaches quite firmly that in the blessing sign there must be no mystery other than the depiction of the Name “Jesus Christ”: neither the two natures of Christ nor the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are said to have such power as the one Name “Jesus Christ” in the name-bearing finger formation.

Is this not why the contemporary bishops of the Synodal Church so easily and readily agree to bless Old Believers with the two-finger sign—because, after all, with such a formation they cannot impart this “special grace”? This grace is given only through the name-bearing finger formation. To their own spiritual children they eagerly impart it—but the Old Believers are never deemed worthy to receive this “special grace.”

The ruling Church teaches that God Himself arranged the human fingers in such a manner and order that they can depict nothing else but the Name of Christ. “It is proper, then,” instructs the conciliar book Skrijal, “that the shaping of the blessing hand, in blessing those in Christ Jesus, should signify nothing else than the very Name of Him in whom we bless. For this reason, I believe, by Divine Providence, from the beginning, the fingers of the human hand were so arranged—not more, not fewer, not excessive, not lacking—but sufficient for such a sign” (Skrijal, after fol. 817).

The Council of 1666 commanded all clergy: “We declare to you and to all priests how you are to bless the people collectively, and each Orthodox Christian individually, with the phrase: ‘The blessing of the Lord be upon you.’ But this blessing of the Lord must be thus: The priest, having formed the fingers of his right hand thus: the so-called index finger extended and the middle finger slightly bent, which signifies ‘Jesus’; again, the so-called ring finger and middle finger inclined and brought together, signifying the letter X; and again, the little finger joined to the ring finger, slightly extended, which signifies the letter S; and all these three fingers signify ‘Christ.’ And with this Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you to bless the faithful, according to the word spoken to Abraham of Christ: ‘And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.’ And if any of you disobey even in the least matter of what we command, or begin to object, report such to us, and we shall punish them spiritually; and if they begin to despise our spiritual punishment, we shall add bodily punishment as well” (Acts of the Council of 1666, fol. 47v–48, 1893 edition).

To such a lofty dogma did the fathers of the Council of 1666 elevate the name-bearing finger formation that they did not even shrink from threats of violence: they warned of “bodily punishment” for anyone who dared to transgress this dogma. What this “punishment” meant at the time hardly needs explanation—thousands of the murdered and tortured speak of it more eloquently than any words, no matter how vivid or powerful.

The hierarchs of the ruling Church dealt most cruelly in their day over the matter of name-bearing finger formation. And now they are forced to abandon it—because it has become a firm pillar of the “blasphemy and heresy” of the Name-glorifiers.

V. Kabbalism and Magic #

The hierarchs of the ruling Church will likewise be forced to abandon another of their own dogmas—one upon which, just as effectively as upon the name-bearing finger formation, the Name-glorifiers base their arguments.

“The Name Jesus,” declare the Name-glorifiers in Fr. Bulatovich’s Apology, “also has great kabbalistic significance, for each of the letters used to write this name in Hebrew signifies a Person of the Holy Trinity” (p. 98). “In the Talmudic lexicon, the name Jesus is derived from the root Shem, and this root means: God, the Lord God. Collections of the most ancient traditions find in this root Shem a designation of three divine attributes. Thus,” the author of the Apology concludes, “do you see that in the name Jesus each letter bears a special and exalted meaning, representing some Person of the Godhead, and that the letter Shem, placed in the middle of the letters ‘I,’ ‘G,’ and ‘V’ (in Hebrew), signifies the deified flesh of Christ and the inseparability of Christ from the Holy Trinity” (p. 99).

In refuting this foundation of Fr. Bulatovich’s teaching, Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia accuses him of “gladly reinforcing his idle prattle with the absurd doctrines of Jewish Kabbalism” (Church Gazette, 1913, no. 20, p. 880).

Another critic of the Name-glorifier heresy, Mr. S. Troitsky, declares that such belief in the power of the letters in the Name of God was condemned by the ancient Church. “This teaching,” says Troitsky, “held particular influence in the early centuries of the Christian era, as attested by ancient writers and by many recently discovered papyri of that period; but the Church decisively condemned this doctrine and consistently battled against it, since it continually found a loyal ally in human ignorance and weakness, and the resulting desire to attain great spiritual results without expending personal effort. It frequently crept into church society, especially among the uneducated classes, as attested by the apocryphal literature. Nor have Athonite monks been free from this influence, as is evident from their references to kabbalistic interpretations of the name Jesus. Yet Kabbalah is simply another form of magic—magic condemned by the Church” (ibid., pp. 891–892).

An admirable admission indeed. But the critics of the Name-glorifier superstitions and blasphemies—so well-versed in “first-century papyri of the Christian era”—have completely overlooked the fact that the ruling Church itself, to which they implore the Name-glorifiers to return, is also founded on “Kabbalism.”

Here is the sort of “Kabbalism” that the Church has conciliarily approved and elevated to the rank of a dogma of faith in the book The Rod of Authority (Жезл правления).

“The glorious name Jesus,” it is written in The Rod of Authority, “which we received from the Greek Iesous, is trisyllabic, and signifies ‘Saviour,’ according to the angelic annunciation to Joseph: ‘And thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.’ And if it be not trisyllabic, it will not carry that signification; thus this name must be written with three syllables. Moreover, this name expresses two mysteries, according to the testimony of a certain wise man: by the first two syllables, that is, by the letters ‘I’ and ‘E’ (or ‘I’ and ‘И’ in the Slavonic rendering), the soul and body of the incarnate Son of God are signified. And by the third syllable—composed of the three letters forming ‘sous’—the Holy Trinity is revealed. If but one syllable be omitted, this mystical meaning is destroyed. Thus, the name must strictly be written in three syllables. It is also to be noted that one of the Sibyls of Seville prophesied concerning the name of the Messiah, saying: ‘His name shall amount to the number eight hundred eighty-eight,’ which is fulfilled in the Greek spelling of the name Iesous; but if one letter be removed, the mystery collapses” (Rod of Authority, Part II, fol. 107 verso, 1908 edition).

This very foundation of their Church, Archbishop Anthony branded as “Jewish Kabbalism.” In truth, however, it is borrowed not from the Jews, but from pagan writings. The Rod cites one of the Sibyls of Seville—prophetesses of the pagans—who received their inspiration from pagan deities, most notably Apollo. And Mr. Troitsky rightly notes that the ancient Church emphatically condemned belief in the mystical power of the letters of God’s name. Yet, despite this, the modern reigning Church has adopted it into its conciliar book.

Even St. Irenaeus of Lyons, a second-century Father of the Church, reproved the heretics of his own time for precisely the same interpretation of the name Jesus that the Nikonian Church later accepted as a dogma underpinning the mystery of the Holy Trinity. “The falsity of their doctrine,” says St. Irenaeus, “and the groundlessness of their inventions are further evidenced by the fact that they seek their proofs sometimes in numbers and syllables of names, and sometimes in the letters and syllables, or even in numbers expressed by letters in the Greek system. Here, clearly, is revealed the entangled and absurd, unfounded and contrived nature of their ‘knowledge.’ For they interpret the name Jesus, which belongs to a wholly different language, through Greek numerology—calling it the ‘notable number’ (episēmon), since it consists of six letters, or the ‘Fullness of the Eight,’ as it amounts to the number 888. Yet they ignore His Greek name Sōtēr, that is, ‘Saviour,’ for it does not fit their invention either in its numerical value or its letters. For if, as they assert, the names of the Lord were predetermined by the Father to reveal the Pleroma through their letters and numbers, then the Greek name Sōtēr should likewise express, in Greek, the mystery of the Pleroma by its letters and number. But this is not the case, for Sōtēr consists of five letters and its numerical value is 1408. This does not suit their Pleroma in any way; hence their Pleroma-related speculations are false.

“Moreover, in the original Hebrew, the name Jesus, as their own scholars say, has only two and a half letters and signifies the Lord, the One who holds heaven and earth—for in the ancient tongue the word Jesus signifies ‘Heaven,’ while ‘earth’ is called surra usser. Thus, the word which contains both heaven and earth is Jesus. Therefore, their attribution of a notable number is erroneous, and their calculations are clearly disproven. For in their own tongue, the Greek word Sōtēr has five letters, and in Hebrew, Jesus has but two and a half. Thus, their number 888 falls completely apart. In general, the Hebrew letters—more ancient and immutable—should be used to preserve the numerical meaning of names, yet they do not at all correspond with Greek numerals.”

“Therefore,” concludes St. Irenaeus, “if in both Hebrew and Greek, the most significant names do not match their fictions either by the number of letters or by numerical value, then it is plain that all their fabricated numerological meanings are an impudent invention” (Works of St. Irenaeus, Book II, Chapter XXIV, pp. 178–179).

It is evident from this condemnation, issued by one of the earliest and most eminent Fathers of the Church, that The Rod contains the heretical impudence of numerological speculation regarding the name Jesus—drawn from pagan priestly books. And in this impudence are equally guilty both the Council of 1666, which “erected” the book The Rod, and the modern Name-glorifiers whom the hierarchs of the ruling Church now accuse of heresy and blasphemy. Arguably, the crime of the former is the greater. The Name-glorifiers declare every divine name to be God, but the pastors of the ruling Church find in one name only—Jesus—the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Yet they revile the Slavonic pronunciation of Christ’s name, Isus, with base and cruel mockery.

“That most holy name,” declares the Synod through the mouth of Nicephorus, Archbishop of Astrakhan, “the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is to the glory of God the Father—the name above which there is no other under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved, the name composed by God in three syllables to reveal the mystery of the three co-essential Hypostases united in One Divine Essence—this very name your forebears,” he says to the Old Believers, “dared to mutilate, at the devil’s prompting, by removing one syllable and rendering it monstrous and meaningless. May the all-merciful God turn you away from this and from your other such delusions” (Responses of Nicephorus of Astrakhan, pp. 86–87, 1854 edition).

Let the modern hierarchs of the ruling Church consider upon whom they cast this brazen blasphemy. They assert that the devil himself taught our forefathers—the great hierarchs of the Russian Church—to pronounce the name of the Lord as Isus. That very name, which the Name-glorifiers revere as God, the Synod and its hierarchs now deride as “monstrous and meaningless.” Truly, they are both Name-glorifiers and Name-haters at once, and in equal measure, blasphemers of the Lord.

The most vehement and uncompromising opponent of the Name was Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov. He insisted that the Old Believers, merely because they wrote the Lord’s name as Isus rather than Iesus, thereby confessed a different god. “In the Russian tongue,” he says, “the schismatics, pronouncing Isus in only two syllables, do not confess the Savior and Healer of our souls. In truth, theirs is another Jesus: for they do not confess the true Jesus the Savior and Healer, but some Jesus the Equal-Eared” (Inquiry, Part I, Ch. 15, p. 25, 1877 edition).

Archbishop Nikon accuses the Name-glorifiers of ditheism: that they separate the name of God into a person distinct from God Himself (Church Gazette, p. 856). But are not the hierarchs of the ruling Church themselves guilty of this sin? Under the name Iesus they recognize one God—the true Savior—while under the name Isus they identify another being altogether, some grotesque “Equal-Eared” figure. A curious phenomenon indeed: whatever heresy the synodal hierarchs denounce the Name-glorifiers for, one finds that very heresy within the ruling Church itself—but in a more deformed and more culpable form.

VI. The Great Name of a Death-Dealing God #

Mr. Troitsky expended considerable effort in his attempt to expose the Name-glorifiers as practitioners of magic. His denunciations carry significant evidentiary weight. We cannot deny ourselves the satisfaction of citing them nearly in full—especially as they simultaneously serve to indict the ruling Church.

“Magic,” explains Mr. Troitsky, “was already forbidden to the Jews in the Old Testament (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10), though it still found many adherents among them, particularly in later times (cf. 2 Kings 21:6; Isaiah 57:3; Jeremiah 8:17; Micah 5:11; Sirach 12:13). From its very inception, the Church rejected belief in the inherent efficacy of the divine names, treating it as a form of magic. Already in the Acts of the Apostles, Simon the Magician and his mageiai are condemned as false prophecy (Acts 8:9); so too is the sorcerer Elymas, described as full of all deceit and villainy, a child of the devil and enemy of all righteousness, who perverts the straight ways of the Lord (Acts 13:10).

Among the names employed by such conjurers was the name Jesus itself. These exorcists would say, ‘I adjure thee by Jesus whom Paul preacheth’—yet the man possessed by the evil spirit leapt upon them and beat them bloody (Acts 19:13–17). One of the consequences of this event was that many magicians voluntarily burned their books (Acts 19:18–19), which, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, V, 8), contained teachings on the supposed inherent power of divine names—examples of which have survived to this day.

Magic is likewise condemned by the Apostle Paul (1 Timothy 1:4) and in the Apocalypse (Revelation 9:21). The earliest monuments of Christian literature also reject it. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (5:1; cf. 22:3–4) and the Epistle of Barnabas (20:1) warn against magic, placing it on par with idolatry and infanticide. We find the same in The Shepherd of Hermas (Commandment XI), in Clement of Alexandria (To the Greeks, 2), Irenaeus of Lyons (1.16), Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 69), Origen (Against Celsus, I.1.6; cf. VI.32), Tertullian (Prescription against Heretics, Apology, 21), Hippolytus of Rome (Philosophumena, IX.3.14). All of them regard belief in the operative power of divine or angelic names as a doctrine exclusive to Judaizing heretics and Gnostics—especially the Simonians, Carpocratians, Elcesaites, Sethians, and others.

Indeed, extant Gnostic literature attests to this kind of name-worship (e.g., the Gnostic Pistis Sophia, and the Roman tables of the Sethians). Among the Gnostics, the name Jesus itself was widely used as a magical name (onoma magikon). Gnosticism was regarded as especially dangerous by the Church precisely because its doctrine of the magical power of divine names appealed strongly to the superstitions of the common people and formed the core of its teaching.

In the fourth century, this belief found new support in Neoplatonic philosophy of names and was taken up by Emperor Julian in his attempts to restore paganism. Yet Christian emperors—beginning with Constantine the Great, as well as Valentinian and Theodosius—fought against it (cf. Codex Theodosianus, IX.16.4, 8, 12). The doctrine was also resolutely condemned by the Fathers and Teachers of the Church: St. Ephraim the Syrian (De magis, in Lamy, S. Ephraemi Hymni et Sermones, II, p. 393), Isaac of Antioch (Sermon XXXIV, ed. Bickell, p. 531 ff.), Augustine (City of God, 10.9), John Chrysostom (Homily 3 on Colossians and Homily VIII on 2 Timothy), Gregory the Great (Epistle XI.53), and many others.

Even in Bulatovich’s Apology, we find the following statement from St. Basil the Great: “The name of God is called holy, not because the syllables (i.e., the letters) possess some consecrated power, but because every attribute of God is holy and pure” (Commentary on Psalm 32:31).

Finally, the Church has formally condemned magic at numerous councils in both East and West: the Council of Ancyra (canon 24), Laodicea (canons 35, 36), the Sixth Ecumenical Council (canons 61, 65), and various canons of Basil the Great (7, 65, 72, 81, 83), Gregory of Nyssa (canon 3), and others. In the West: the Council of Elvira (canon 6), the Council of Braga (canon 8, A.D. 583), among others.

The belief in the inherent efficacy of the names of God is likewise forbidden in the canonical compilations of the Eastern Church—for example, in the Nomocanon of Photius (XIII.20, trans. by Narbekov, p. 559), the Syntagma of Blastares (μ 1, trans. by Ilinsky, pp. 278–285; Σ VI, pp. 356–362), and in the Nomocanon appended to the Great Trebnik (articles 16, 19, 24, 183, 196).

Belief in the inherent power of divine or saintly names is merely another form of superstition, to which the uneducated are especially susceptible. The Council of Laodicea forbids naming and invoking angelic names (a Gnostic remnant), equating it with idolatry (canon 35). Even those who venerate the names of God alone are classed among the magicians. Such magicians are designated in canonical law as goetes (γόηττες, “enchanters”).

On this point, Balsamon writes in his commentary on the 61st Trullan canon: “Enchanters sing certain divine hymns, mention the names of martyrs, or even that of the Most Holy God-bearer. All of this the God-bearing Fathers and Teachers of the Church command us to avoid, above all the Divine Chrysostom. In his Homilies on the Statues he states plainly: ‘They do not merely wear protective amulets, but also recite incantations, and when exhorted to cease, they say, in their defense: “But this woman is a Christian; in her charms she says nothing but the name of God.” And for that very reason,” says the holy Father, “I especially abhor her—because she uses the name of God and, calling herself a Christian, performs what is proper to the Greeks (pagans). The demons, too, spoke the name of God, and yet were demons. They said to Christ, ‘We know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God’—and He silenced and rebuked them’” (Rules with Commentary, Moscow 1877, tract 479, Σ II, p. 445; cf. IV, p. 233).

Zonaras likewise concurs in the same place: “For the Divine Fathers and Teachers of the Church, above all the Divine Chrysostom, say that even if the name of the Holy Trinity is invoked, even if the names of the saints are called upon, even if the sign of the Divine Cross is made—such practices must be shunned and rejected” (Rules with Commentary, p. 476, Σ II, p. 443) (Church Gazette, pp. 891–892).

Such sorcery—so thoroughly denounced and so insistently condemned by the holy Fathers of the Church and by the conciliar voice of Orthodoxy—is nonetheless still practiced in the worship of the ruling Church, as though it were a form of magical power. Since the days of Nikon, her Trebniks (Service Books) have included the following incantation “against harmful creatures”:

“I adjure you, many-formed beasts: worms, caterpillars, beetles and locusts, mice, rats, and voles, and all manner of flies and gnats and moths and ants, gadflies and wasps and centipedes, and the myriad kinds of creeping things upon the earth, and birds that fly and bring ruin and waste to fields, vineyards, orchards, and gardens—by God the Father, without beginning, and by His Co-eternal and Consubstantial Son, and by His Most Pure Spirit, Consubstantial and Life-giving with the Father and the Son.”

The adjurations continue with references to the Incarnation of the Son of God, His death, resurrection, ascension, and the entirety of His Divine dispensation. Then follows an invocation of angels, archangels, cherubim, and seraphim, and of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Finally, the following incantation is pronounced:

“I further adjure you by the Great Name, written upon a stone—not borne, but which burst apart, as wax before the face of fire: Depart from our lands unto those places which I have named unto you—paths impassable, waterless and barren—depart from these places and from the borders of God’s servants, and from me who call upon this Name for help, protection, and salvation.”
(Trebnik, Part II, ch. 21, Rite to be Performed in the Fields, fols. 19–20, 1894 edition).

The question must be asked: whose “Great Name” is invoked here?

In the preceding adjurations, the names of the Holy Trinity were already mentioned—of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and yet it was not said of them that they were “Great Names.” Of this “Name,” however, it is claimed that it was once written upon a stone, which could not contain it and burst apart, like wax before fire. Whose is this fearsome “Name,” truly? To what Unknown deity does it belong?

If this is the very Name which the Name-glorifiers recognize as a “Spiritual Being”—as God Himself, not as an abstract concept but as the “True Reality”—then it follows that the ruling Church, in her Trebniks, preaches the very doctrine for which she now condemns the Name-glorifiers as ditheists, heretics, and blasphemers. “This is the height of madness!” cries Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia in a burst of indignation (Church Gazette, p. 873).

Then why is this “height of madness” not expunged from the liturgical books of the ruling Church? Why, despite centuries of reproof from the Old Believers concerning this grievous error, does she still continue to call upon, in her prayers, the “Great Name” of some strange and dreadful deity?

Evidently, the heresy of Name-glorification is difficult to eradicate.

But perhaps this “Great Name” is not meant to signify the Divine Being at all. Then who, pray tell, is hidden beneath this mysterious “Name”? Reveal unto us this great mystery, O ye Name-fighters!

In the Life of St. Sylvester, Pope of Rome, we find the solution to this riddle. There is recounted the disputation between St. Sylvester and the “mighty sorcerer Zambres.” Unable to triumph over the Pope through Scripture or prophecy, Zambres proposed to work a miracle: he vowed to slay a bull by means of “the Name of the Great God.” He explained: “Neither parchment, nor leather, nor wood, nor stone, nor any material can bear this Name written upon it: for immediately both the writer and the object upon which it is inscribed perish.”

Is there not a striking similarity between this “Name” and the “Great Name” invoked in the Trebnik? Both are said to shatter even stone, as wax before fire.

Zambres, indeed, performed a marvel. “He whispered into the ear of the bull,” says the Life of St. Sylvester, “and straightway the bull let out a great bellow, trembled violently, and fell dead.” We know not what becomes of the “many-formed creeping things upon the earth”—the mice, the rats, the voles, the caterpillars, and the rest of the “varied beasts” conjured against by the pastors of the ruling Church—but by the precedent of Zambres, they ought to drop dead on the spot.

And whose name was it that Zambres invoked? St. Sylvester proclaimed to all: “Zambres hath wrought this death by invocation of demons.”
(Menaion for January 2nd)

So then—to whom does this “Great Name” belong?

It is terrifying to consider what aid the Nikonian Trebnik invokes when it contends with worms and flies. If the teaching of the Name-glorifiers—who proclaim the name of God and every word of God to be God Himself—is blasphemous, then is it not far more blasphemous to invoke, under the title of the “Great Name,” not the Lord, but a power opposed to Him, a dark and alien force?

Might it not be that the Synod dealt so cautiously with the Name-glorifiers in its official address to them because it knew itself to be more deeply guilty than they?

Now two and a half centuries have passed since the pastors of the ruling Church began weaving their nets of heresies and curses. With the passage of time, these nets have only grown and thickened, and no end to their weaving is yet in sight. The appearance of the Name-glorifiers has merely drawn more attention to this work. But when shall these nets be torn? When shall the millions caught within them be set free?

Has not the time come?

source