—In Response To—
“HOCNA's Point of
No Return”
By
Ephraim, retired
Metropolitan of Boston
First, we should
point out that the hierarchy, clergy, and faithful of HOCNA are solely
interested in following the consensus of the Holy Fathers and the teachings of
the Church Councils in all things. Whenever modern authors ― whatever their
personal history, jurisdictional affiliation, or circle of acquaintances ―
agree with these teachings, we will accept their arguments and quote and refer
to them; but when they disagree with the Fathers, we will reject them. This is
not a question of accepting or creating new “authorities,” as our critic would
have it, but of recognizing Truth wherever it is to be found. And simply by
citing that which is true by a given author does not imply an acceptance of
everything that he has written elsewhere, especially if he is in error about
other matters. In so doing we are following the method of the Holy Fathers, as
articulated by St. John of Damascus:
“First of all I
shall set forth the best contributions of the philosophers of the Greeks,
because whatever there is of good has been given to men from above by God,
since ‘every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down
from the Father of lights’ (James 1:17). If, however, there is anything that is
contrary to the truth, then it is a dark invention of Satan and a fiction of
the mind of an evil spirit, as that eminent theologian Gregory [the Theologian]
once said. In imitation of the bee, I shall make my composition from those
things which are conformable with the truth and from our enemies themselves
gather the fruit of salvation. But all that is worthless and falsely labeled as
knowledge I shall reject.”
St. John’s method
applies as well to Vladimir Ern’s reference to Plato, which our critic takes
entirely out of context. Ern is simply arguing that the Name of God, as a
Divine Energy, is more than just a “wonderworking icon,” as it was called by
Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) in his critique of Name-Glorifying, since an
icon is something created by man. Natural human reason’s sincere quest for God,
such as is found in the works of Plato can, according to Ern, also be called an
“icon” (image) of sorts, since it reflects
(in the words cited by our critic) a “divine power and a certain outpouring of
gifts from above.” In other words, both man-made icons and natural philosophy
can be seen as divinely-inspired but created images, since they are human
activities reflecting the divine. But the Divine Name (the eternal Truth about
God) is itself a divine activity, an uncreated revelation from on high that is
reflected in created human words (verbal icons). That Ern should think so
highly of Plato is wholly in keeping with the thought of the Fathers: St.
Justin the Philosopher calls Plato “a Christian before Christ,” while St. John
Chrysostom refers to the “sublimity of Plato,” and St. Photios the Great speaks
of “the great Plato.” Such quotations could easily be multiplied. If Ern was
guilty of “Platonism,” then so too were the Holy Fathers.
Second, our
critic's remarks in “HOCNA's Point of No Return” will be considered “good” only
by those who do not read or accept the witness of the Holy Scriptures, the Holy
Fathers, and the Hesychastic Councils of the fourteenth century.
Third,
our critic speaks of “the heresy of uncreated names.” What Orthodox Church
Council has condemned this “heresy”? Is he implying that the Prophet David
(“Before the sun doth His Name continue”), St. Clement of Rome (“His Name… gave
existence to all creation”), and St. John of Kronstadt (“The Name of God is God
Himself”), along with a multitude of other Church Fathers, were in fact
proponents of a heresy? (See “The Boundless Name”) Our critic does not tell us. If he is referring
to the “Russian Synod of 1913,” this “Russian Synod” was not a Church Council
at all, in the Orthodox ecclesiastical sense. The so-called “Russian Synod” was
only a Lutheran-style, administrative agency of the Imperial Russian
government, and its head ― who was called, in good, German Lutheran style, an
“Oberprokurator” ― was a government minister who, on occasion, was a Freemason.
Fourth,
the findings of that particular 1913 non-Church “Synod” contradicted the Tome (i.e., the Decision) of a legitimate and
genuine Holy Council ― the Hesychastic Council of 1351. Not only that, it even
contradicted itself! (See Ern, p. 29):
Fifth,
Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) himself referred to the so-called “Russian
Synod” ― borrowed from the Lutherans by Tsar Peter the First ― as
“uncanonical,” and he protested that a previous “Russian Synod” had approved a
resolution that permitted Orthodox Christians to receive “holy communion” from
the Lutherans.
Sixth,
concerning the teaching about “salvation after death,” our critic should take
the trouble to read the approximately twenty-five pages of Patristic citations
on this subject at our website: http://www.homb.org/p/orthodox-resources.html.
Seventh, our critic claims that we are at the
“point of no return.” To which we can only respond: a return to what? To the
“Latin Captivity” of the anti-hesychasts and the Lutheran “Russian Synod” of
Tsar Peter the First? To that, there certainly is no point in returning!
No comments:
Post a Comment