Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy Name give glory

7/31/2019 Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy Name give glory

1/46

NOT UNTO US, O LORD, NOT UNTO US, BUT UNTO THY NAME GIVE GLORY

ONOMATODOXY AND ONOMATOCLASM

I n t r o d u c t i o n .................................................................................................................................................. 1

The Divine Word and Name. A brief sketch ....................................................................................................... 8

The Epistle of the Russian Synod of 1913 and the doctrine about the Word of God ........................................ 11

Onomatoclasm and the Barlaam heresy ............................................................................................................ 15

The saving force and effectiveness of the Name of God ................................................................................... 19

The Orthodox doctrine about praying ............................................................................................................... 22

The faith in the Name of Jesus Christ ................................................................................................................ 23

Onomatoclasm and iconoclasm ......................................................................................................................... 26

Accomplishment of the Church Sacraments by the Name of God .................................................................... 28

The latest onomatoclasts.................................................................................................................................... 31

I n t r o d u c t i o n

The disputes about the Name of God flamed up in the beginning of the 20th century, have touched on

not only one particular question, but also those basic concepts, through which only we can properly perceivethe Divine Revelation. Unfortunately, despite of all importance of these questions, there was no serious

council consideration upon them until now. In Russia, the Synod Epistle of 19131

containing a number ofheretic statements remains the last official definition about the Name of God. The accusations against Athos

worshippers of the Name of God (imyaslavtsy or onomatodoxes)2

and against schemamonk Hilarion, an

author of the book On the mountains of the Caucasus, were brought and examined in their absence. Theaccused persons were neither listened to nor tested about their faith; they had no opportunity to justify

themselves. Since any discussion on this problem was prohibited at that time for a church press (except

several publications of onomatodoxes opponents), many people until now believe that the point of question

was about deification of sounds or characters of the Name of God, or about mixing up of God's propertiesand actions with His essence. Though the Court of Synod Office, having place in 1914, under presidency of

Metropolitan Makary of Moscow, had cancelled interdictions against Name-worshippers, finding no heresyin their confession of faith

3, but the Court had no authority to decide the questions of Faith, and could not

cancel the Synod Epistle. For this reason, the interdictions were imposed again in 1918 with an explanation

that the previous cancellation of them was but personal indulgence, and that the sanction of serving for the

clergy-onomatodoxes had a reason only in the conditions of the military time (?). On the other side, the All-Russia Council of 1917-1918 determined that the question about reverence of the Name of God did not

belong to the Synod competence, but only to the competence of a Council; however, no council consideration

was made and only two preliminary sessions of the commission having to prepare materials for thisconsideration were held.

A cause for all these disputes was the book On the mountains of the Caucasus, devoted to the Jesus

Prayer and containing nothing unusual in comparison with the Holy Fathers' doctrine, but written from

experience of this practice and having a purpose to inspire monks and all believers of nowadays to it. The

1 The Epistle was made by Archbishop Sergey (Stragorodsky) on a basis of the reports of Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky),Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) and Professor S.V.Troitsky, and published in Tserkovnye Vedomosty (The Church

bulletin), 18th of May 1913.2 They were named as imyaslavtsy, and by their enemies as imyabozhniky; imyaslavtsy named their opponents as

imyabortsy. Prof. Losev invented the term Onomatodoxia. Therefore, maybe it would be correct in English to use terms

onomatodox (imyaslavets, imyaslavchesky), onomatodoxes (imyaslavtsy) and also onomatoclasm, onomatoclast.3 Bishop Modest, to whom the direct talks with imyaslavtsy were committed, wrote the follows: Thanksgiving to the Lord God,

all the monks imyaslavtsy proved to be the true children of the Church (The letter by bishop Modest to A.L.Garyazin, 14 th of

May 1914 . // Kolokol, 1914, 24th of May).


2/46

2

book was published three times (the third time by Kievo-Pecherskaya Lavra), and was highly appreciated

by the monks, skilled in praying practice. For example, elder Barsonophy of the Optina Skete wrote the

follows: It is necessary to read this book several times to apprehend completely all depth of its contents. Itshould deliver a great pleasure to the people having inclination to contemplative life; may God give, that the

reading of it should bring you not only high spiritual pleasure, but also a help in saving your soul4.

It would not be strange, if some expressions used by the author of this book seemed not quite clear for

somebody and required the further explanations. It could not in itself lead to the interdictions, which, by theway, elder Hilarion learned only indirectly, through the third persons. We know that even Holy Fathers'

writings directed against some heresies were sometimes interpreted for the benefit of other heresies; forexample, monophysites used some works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, written against Nestorius. It is not at allthe fault of St. Cyril writings, which had a definite purpose and had perfectly achieved it. And in this case

also, it was necessary to look at the purpose of the book and at the essence of the problem, and continue an

explanation of the question if any misuses or misinterpretations appeared.

The Synod Epistle said that Fr. Hilarion had put forward a certain new dogma about the Name of God;thus, it is necessary to understand, in what sense it might be true. The word dogma sometimes means a

particular part of the Orthodox doctrine. In this sense, new dogmas cannot appear, and we shall see that elder

Hilarion did not invent any new doctrine in his book. However, dogma means also a formula or definition,and in this sense new dogmas appeared in the history of the Church and they certainly ought to appear

because of new heresies. Therefore, elder Hilarion in his book offered such a formula having quite a definite

purpose; however, this formula was not absolutely new, as it had already appeared in the writings of St.Father John of Kronstadt. The arisen disputes showed very clearly that the question about reverence of the

Name of God was put forward quite in time, and thus both explanation and definition of this question was

really required. In fact, Fr. Hilarion did not at all intend to put forward any doctrine question by his book: the

dogmatic disputes begun only after insulting declarations oral and printed against reverence of the Nameof God. Besides all, the Name-worshippers of Athos did not mean to ratify a new dogma by themselves, i.e.

to find some obligatory definition for the whole Church, but on the contrary, they constantly sought a councilconsideration, because only in this way any true definition may become a dogma.

Therefore, it is necessary to consider with all attention, against what sort of errors a formula the Name

of God is God Himself was directed, and what did St. Father John of Kronstadt, elder Hilarion,hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich) and their adherents mean by these words.

Let us notice that when this expression, strengthened and repeated more than once, had appeared in the

writings of St. Father John of Kronstadt (some years before the Athos disputes), this fact passed unnoticed. It

means that if the academically educated part of the Russian clergy, who later condemned the heresy ofimyabozhnichestvo, had ever read the Father John's writings, they did not attach to them any essential

dogmatic significance.

Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) himself, the future organizer of devastation of the Russianmonasteries on Athos (accompanied by the beating, mockeries and even by murders of monks-

onomatodoxes, and also by destroying of icons), before all these disputes wrote: The name of God is

always Holy. It accomplishes our saving Sacraments; it seals up the truth of our oaths and promises. By it we

defeat our visible and invisible enemies. The name of God is the same as the incomprehensible essence of

God, opening itself to the people

5

. These words expressed the same doctrine, against which the authorstruggled afterwards, even by the help of armies. What was a reason of such a change? We can find the

answer in the Synod Epistle of 1913, which without any substantiation announced the most strong and greatsayings of the Scripture about the Name of God and glory of God to be simply descriptive expressions, i.e.

the words meaning nothing in essence.

Therefore, Archbishop Nikon also followed in his writings those standard expressions about the Name

of God that became for him and for many others as decorous but empty words, which we can repeat without

4 The conversations of schema-archimandrite of the Optina Skete, elder Barsonophy with his spiritual children. SPb, 1991, p. 58.5 Troitsky listky, 1899, v. 5, p. 137. Here and further is italicised by the compiler.


3/46

3

any serious consequences, as they do not contain the Absolute Truth, i.e. God Himself. Thus, it was

continuing until there appeared some writings showing clearly that these words were not at all empty and that

it is necessary to accept them quite seriously.

Afterwards, Archbishop Nikon explained the words of St. Father John of Kronstadt in psychologicalsense, as a reflection of some subjective experience of praying, because St. Father John became famous not

owing to his science-theological works, but owing to his asceticism and beneficial gifts6.

Nevertheless, it is impossible in any way to agree with such an approach. We know that in the writingsof the Saints, those words are worthy of the most serious attention, which are the fruit of their spiritual

experience of praying, in contrast to the statements being a simple transmission of things acquired from otherpeople. Let us also remember that St. Barsonophy the Great explains the possibility of errors in the Saints

writings by the fact that not the whole contents of these writings was gathered from real experience of Godcommunion, but some part of it was borrowed from other people through external training. Let us notice also

that the decisions of the Holy Councils and their definitions are strong not because of the large number of

bishops, which accepted them, but since they were a voice of the Spirit of God, Who spoke in His Saints.Therefore, a judgment of only one St. Cyril of Alexandria, or of St. Maximus the Confessor, or of St.

Gregory Palamas, or of St. Mark of Ephesus, and the expressions found by them were sufficient for

condemnation of heresies. Thus, the Church has accepted these expressions as dogmas, and the councils,which had rejected them, proved to be false councils.

If St. John of Kronstadt has written down something from his experience and then blessed this for

publishing, it is obvious that we should consider his thoughts with all seriousness and try to understand, whatthe Spirit of God has revealed through His servant for our benefit, of the last Christians, and in protectionfrom errors. You know, the Holy Spirit not only reveals something true through His servants, but also

provides the medicine most necessary nowadays; otherwise, it would be enough only ancient writings for our

guidance.

If we see that some years after St. Father John, another ascetic and prayer has realized that it was

completely necessary to offer for monks and all believers the same theological definitions (not only becausehe had read them in the book of St. John of Kronstadt, but also because they were a result of his own

experience too), this fact especially forces us to look at these expressions seriously. Obviously, through this

sort of writings we should verify our concepts used commonly according to the habit only, without analysing,

whence we have borrowed them.

Unfortunately, in fact the faith and views of the Orthodox person are usually only partially determined

by the Divine Revelation. To a great extent, he gathers his concepts from the spirit of time penetrating

imperceptibly into each soul through thousand of ways. Here, we should make some digression from themain subject.

It is known that besides the supernatural Revelation kept in the Scripture and in the Church Tradition,

the natural Revelation, which is traced in the whole creation and especially in the human soul, is an important

support for understanding of Divine truths. The Holy Scripture repeatedly in parables and variousexpressions refers us to the natural life experience, which is accessible to all people in this God-created

world. The natural, sensible concepts constitute a God-established basis for perception of truths above the

nature.

Through darkness of the fall until the time of Christ's coming in the world, the Divine Providence hadbeen keeping in humankind these natural concepts, though partly in deformed and spoiled form. The

Christian Faith has opened true sense of these mysterious parables filling the life of the creation. However,

when the former Christian nations had deviated from Christ, the Lord allowed in their consciousness anunprecedented destruction not only of God-revealed truths, but also of those natural concepts, which earlier

had been helping them in perception of the Gospel. The way of life and all the reality surrounding the

modern man is infinitely far from all that surrounded the ancient people, who heard the preaching of the

6Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) The double-edged sword, SPb, 1995.


4/46

4

Gospel. Nevertheless, more important thing is destruction not only of external frame of life, but also of

internal system of concepts, in which the human mind lives and works.

Our time is significant not because the world having already lost the Orthodox Faith long time ago, in

its apostasy goes now further and further, but because the false philosophy of this world penetrates deeplyinto consciousness of the Orthodox people. Ever-memorable Father Seraphim (Rose) in his work about the

world Creating, mentions that numerous false doctrines (for example, evolutionism), having appeared once

outside of the Church, are spreading gradually, obtaining external authority, and then, after having got astrength, penetrate into the Church fencing. As covering for them deceiving many of believers, their pseudo-

scientific character serves, as well as some false philosophical presuppositions, which seem natural nowadaysand deform unnoticeably the perception of the very basis of the Christian doctrine.

Under the influence of this everywhere-penetrating philosophy, modern man, very often withoutrealizing it, believes that only subjects or phenomena, visible or invisible, are quite real; but words or names,

even God-revealed, he considers as conditional designations, which correlate with the named subjects by

rather indirect and casual way. Such a nominalistic view follows directly from the materialism, i.e. from theidea of the primacy and the absolute of substance. As another reason, we can see both the human language

damage with lie and also the lost of its sense that have nowadays spread unusually deeply, so as in fact the

language is now losing the remaining connections with the reality as a result of rejection and violation of theDivine Word.

Proceeding from such, sometimes not realized, presuppositions, modern man often considers God-

revealed words of the Scripture and of the Church Tradition as insignificant, conditional, relative ones, andregards dogmatic disputes as senseless debates about words, which in any case cannot and should not reflectthe Divine reality in adequate way.

The result of similar complex of views isadogmatism the 20th centurys principle illness, which has

caused all other illnesses; on such a ground, modernism and ecumenism were born and grown up inside ofthe Orthodox community.

In ascetic and praying sphere, on the same ground, subjectivism and psychologism are developing,

indissolubly connected with ecumenical way of thinking of nowadays. A praying person, without giving dueattention and reverence to the God-revealed words of prayers, and first of all to the Name of God, through

which only it is possible to enter into a real communion with God, remains isolated in sphere of intellectual

or emotional representations and impressions.Let us notice that it is not at all easy to detect and denounce this state, which is really the death for the

soul. The heresies of the ancient period consisted in rejecting some particular dogmas, but worked in the

borders of unchanged natural system of ideas, so it was rather easy to condemn them. But everyone who

came in touch with far-expanded adogmatic damage, so usual for the official orthodoxy, can notice thatany discussions there are being carried out in absolutely other language, in which the most basic Christian

concepts had lost their sense long time ago; so, very often any polemics appears to be completely impossible.

The same danger imperceptibly penetrates into the midst of the true Orthodox people, whence theofficial orthodoxy had proceeded from, which lately has obtained so doubtless quantitative overweight in

the world. The ordeals, similarly to the touchstones that fell to Christians lot in the beginning of the 20th

century, have shown how deeply the illness had spread under covering of respectable appearance.

However, before the external distresses touched the believers society, the voice had sounded of St.Father John and of the other prayers. This voice was to force each heart to beat faster: some due to joyful

recognition of those things, which were subconsciously guessed, but were not realized through their own

poor experience, others because of indignation, for the sounded words have touched the ill nerve ofseemingly protected Church life.

St. Father John of Kronstadt writes the follows: The Name of God is God Himself. Therefore, it was

said: Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain. Or again: The Name of the God of Jacob

defend thee (Ps. 19, 2). Or:Bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise Thy Name (Ps. 141, 8). As the Lordis the simplest Essence, the simplest Spirit, He is completely whole in a single word, in a single


5/46

5

idea, and at the same time everywhere, in all the creation. Therefore, call only the Name of the Lord, and

you will call the Lord, the Saviour of believers, and you will be saved. Whosoever shall call the Name of

the Lord, shall be saved(Acts 2, 21). Call My Name in the day of thy trouble, and I will deliver thee, andthou shalt glorify Me (Ps. 49, 16)

7. The Lord in spite of all His infinity is such a simple Essence that He is

able to be in a single name of Him the Trinity, or in the name the Lord, or in the name Jesus

Christ8. When you either in yourself or in your heart speak or utter the Name of God, or of the Lord, or of

the Holy Trinity, or of the Lord of Sabaoth, or of the Lord Jesus Christ, in this Name you have all the Lord's

essence; in it there is His infinite Goodness, boundless Wisdom, unapproachable Light, Almightiness,

invariability. With fear of God, faith and love do touch by thoughts and heart this all-creating, all-possessing, all-ruling Name. That is why the God's commandment strictly forbids using of the Name of Godin vain, i.e. becauseHis Name is He Himself, One God in three Persons, the simple Essence, in one word

represented and contained, and at the same time not contained, i.e. not limited by it and by anythingexisting. Great names [of God] either called with sincere heartfelt belief and reverence or represented insoul, are God Himself, and they bring from above into a soul God in three Persons. This infinitely simple

Essence is able to be, in some way, grasped by one our thought, by one word9.

However, since the expression the Name of God may have various meanings, it was necessary to

specify, what it means in this particular case. Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich) explains this asfollowing: In the highest meaning, the Name of God is the Word of God

10, the beyond-names Name of the

Deity, which possesses all the Divine properties. Secondly, in the Names of God, by which we can name

Him, we esteem their Divine virtue, for they are true beams of the true beyond-names Name, and as they arethe verbal action of the Deity, they possess all the Divine properties. However, we do not attribute these

Divine properties to those characters, which conditionally express the Divine Truth, but only to the word of

Truth. Therefore, when we speak about the Name of God, meaning essence of the Name, we say that theName of God is God Himself. When we mean the letters and syllables, by which the Name of God is

expressed, we say that God is present in His Name11

.

Let us notice that in the Church Tradition, such a using of words is usual, where name or worddenotes neither sounds nor characters serving only for external expression or embodying of it, but the very

truth kept in it. Therefore, we shall not find in the Scripture expressions telling, for example, that God is

glorified by means ofHis Name, orwith the help of it, orthrough it, orin it, as He is glorified in His Saints.Nevertheless, the Scripture everywhere identifies praise or veneration of the Name of God with praise of God

Himself. So, for example, the Scripture says the follows: And will be praised about Thee those who love ThyName (Ps. 5, 12), but nowhere has it said those who love Thee in Thy Name or those who love Thy Namefor the sake of Thee.

Blessed art Thou, O, God of our fathers, supremely praised and supremely exalted forever. And blessed

is the holy Name of Thy glory, supremely praised and supremely exalted forever (Dan. 3, 26, 52-53). Here

absolutely identical expressions are applied both to God and to His Name, and this certainly does not meanthat something created and external is equated to God, but it means that God, unapproachable and

incomprehensible in essence, is supremely praised and supremely exalted, exactly because supremely praised

and supremely exalted His Name is.

Without Divine names, it is impossible either to recognize God or obtain the true belief in Him, or

glorify Him, or pray to Him, or accomplish any of Church Sacraments. The most part of the Creed (and the

entire Creed in the edition of the First Ecumenical Council) is nothing else but the detailed Name of Three-

7 My life in Christ, v. 1, p. 237.8 Ibid. p. 422.9 The thoughts of the Christian, SPb. 1903, p. 464710 The words of St. Cyril: He said:for Thy Names sake,i.e. for the sake of the Son. For the force of the Father is the Son (The

interpretations on Psalms by Euthymius Zigaben, Ps. 67, 3, Kiev, 1882, v. I, p. 326, footnote 1).11Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich).The Apologia of the faith in the Name of God and in the Name Jesus, Moscow,

1913, part II.


6/46

6

Persons God, in Whom we believe. But also all the Scripture and the Tradition are the explanation of the

Divine Name's sense and the evidence about it.

Everyone, who says that he esteems God, and also everyone, who offers praise to Him, thus gives

reverence and praise to His Name, willingly or unwillingly. On the contrary, everyone who blames the Nameof God unavoidably blames God Himself; and everyone who rejects the faith in the Name of our Lord Jesus

Christ, rejects the Christian Faith, for the Apostle tells about this Faith: He gave them the power to be God's

children, them whobelieve on His Name(John 1, 12). These things have I written unto you thatbelieve on

the Name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the

Name of the Son of God(1 John 5, 11).The Holy Fathers interpretations of these expressions of the Holy Scripture and similar to them

explain that we actually believe in the Name of God, as the essence of God is completely incomprehensiblefor us, and this Name is worthy of belief, as amazing and working a number of miracles. The true belief of

the heart that is unto righteousness is actually the belief in God-revealed names of God; and these names of

God we confess with the mouthunto salvation.

The knowledge, which we obtain from God-revealed names of God, is limited owing to our

limitedness, and because very often, hearing the word of God, we neither hear nor understand, for a true

knowledge of God is knowledge through life, and not through reason only. However, the truths expressed inthe names of God, as beams of the incomprehensible and ineffable Sun, are not at all conditional, relative or

limited.

Through the calling of the God-revealed names of God, we really touch God, Who has revealed

Himself to the people, and it is independent even from whether we want this or not. As in ChurchSacraments, the grace, i.e. God Himself, works quite objectively, to justification or condemnation of those

who receive them; so the calling of the Name of God cannot be inactive, but either consecrates and heals our

ailing nature, or scorches visibly or invisibly those who disrespectfully use it.

More in detail, we shall consider the doctrine about the Name of God a little further, at first followingthe Scripture and the Church Tradition, and then comparing this doctrine with statements declared in the

Synod Epistle of 1913 and in other writings of the same direction. Now we would like to note only twothings.

Firstly, there is a certain prejudice against onomatodoxy, caused by the fact that it was supported by

some philosophers known by their deviations from the Orthodox Faith: Pavel Florensky, Sergey Bulgakovetc. But it is easy to notice that their specific views, being gradually formed into the Gnostic doctrine known

under the name of Sophiology, are not at all identical with the views of hieroschemamonk Anthony

(Bulatovich) and other onomatodoxes of Athos; at the same time it is characteristic that the same

philosophers did not undergo the interdictions either in 1913 or in 1918.

On the other hand, it is quite natural that the rationalistic doctrine declared in the Synod Epistle of

1913, which reduces all religious life to the subjective and psychological component, proved to be the

antagonistic not only to the true spiritual experience, but also even to the mysticism, far deviated from thetrue way. Besides this, there were cases in the Church history, when heretics defended the true Orthodox

doctrine, and sometimes rather successfully: the activity of Origen was the brightest example of this kind.

In fact, it is no wonder that the Synod Epistle met objections from the most educated philosophers of

that time. It could not be hidden from their observation that this Epistle included well-known philosophicalconcepts such as Kantianism or positivism, which had formerly influenced the modern consciousness so

strongly, but to that time, had already withdrawn to the background in scientific world, having lost their

former attractiveness. Therefore, it is quite natural, for example, that the analysis of the Synod Epistle madeby Vladimir Earn contains a number of correct and useful observations, which without any doubt are worthy

of attention.

Another thing we need to notice is that among the opponents of onomatodoxy there were also some

persons worthy of respect, especially those who had obtained the fragments of information on this dispute indesultory way and via the third hands. Through a closer dialogue with confessors of the Name of God such a


7/46

7

prejudice often disappeared, as it was for example with the elder archimandrite Arseny, who arrived on

Athos in March, 1913 with the letter of the Chief Procurator of the Synod for persuading of onomatodoxes.

Having found no heresy in their doctrine, he not only supported them, but also anathematised their opponents onomatoclasts and rejected the Synod Epistle, and thus he was deprived by onomatoclasts of the Holy

Communion before his death, and of the Christian burial.

There were often the cases, when the very experience of noetic praying had led monks considering

onomatodoxy as a heretic doctrine, to confession of absolutely the same dogmatic statements, which werecharacteristic for onomatodoxy. One of those monks was elder Theodosy of Karula, who described in his

diary the experience of noetic praying12

. The typical case we can see also in memoirs of ArchbishopBenyamin (Fedchenko) about Optina Skete: he saw in Optina, how two monks were arguing about the Nameof God, and as the opponent of onomatodoxy was more educated, his interlocutor soon ceased to speak,

having nothing to answer. After some silence, the first monk suddenly said this: Nevertheless the Name of

God is God Himself. These unexpected words obviously testified the real praying experience contradictingthe acquired concepts and theoretical conclusions.

Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich) writes that at the first acquaintance with the elder Hilarion's

book, he decided that his doctrine on the Name of God is erroneous; so he wrote about this in a letter,

intending to send it to the Elder. After that, feeling an extreme burden in his soul and being unable to realizeits reason, he took in his hands the book of St. Father John of Kronstadt given formerly to him by Father

John as a spiritual manual, mechanically opened it and found there the same words: the Name of God is

God Himself13. Such evidence forced him to consider more seriously the question, which appeared as astone of stumbling and offence for any person brought up in modern rationalism.

Unfortunately, many people have been involved in sympathy to the doctrine of onomatoclasm,

following the reasons, which seem quite natural nowadays, and not noticing that these reasons, caused by

antichristian philosophy, completely contradict the Church Tradition. So, we could hear that onomatodoxesas if had mixed up a head with a skufia on this head. Thus, this phrase seems to be reasonable and similar to

the truth: this is a head, and that is a skufia; so, this is God, and that is His Name.

However, take off a skufia from a head and the head will remain a head; give a skufia to another

person and it will become his skufia. On the contrary, removing the Name of God from God and giving it

to somebody else is as impossible as removing from God all His most holy properties. The Catechesis also

tells about this as follows: God may be named with the most glorious and various names, which nobody can

separate from Him. If somebody dares to name with Divine names any human being (as Khlysty and

other sects and some spiritual impostors did), still God will not cease to be the only Holy Trinity and the

Name of God will not become the human name. A thief is able to steal the consecrated vessels from a churchand to melt them, and he can not only convert a church into a den, but also destroy it at all, because all these

things are creations, though they are devoted to God. Nevertheless, no sacrilegious person is able to take

away the Name of God from God. In the case of false and blasphemous using of this Name, he willindispensably blame God, inseparable with His Name.

At least the owner of a skufia has authority to give it to another man and to put on something else upon

his own head. Nevertheless, even God cannot separate His Name from Himself, as well as He cannot change

His properties, for His simple Essence is inseparable and invariable.

Who ever, wishing to communicate with a man, look with all attention at his skufia? However, HolyFathers teach us in praying to include all attention, without any exit, into words of a prayer, and first of all

certainly into the Name of our Lord. Therefore, it would be possible to liken the Name of God, as a personal

Name, not to a skufia, but to an appearance, to a human face, in beholding of which we behold the man and

communicate with his person invisible to us, i.e. with his soul and his mind.

In addition, any head, certainly, formerly existed without a skufia. However, though the sounds

expressing the Divine names formerly did not exist, God never was anonymous, as well as He never was

1213Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich). My struggle with onomatoclasts on the Athos, chapter II.


8/46

8

speechless, but in the beginning was the Word, naming His beyond-names Father. God has not taken

anything external, any human name, and applied it to Himself for the sake of our convenience, but He has

shown to us the innermost truth about Himself, i.e. His mysterious Name, and especially obviously in thesaving Incarnation of His Son and Word, our Lord Jesus Christ.

The considerations natural for the modern man can lead us infinitely far off from the God-revealed

Truth. That is why it is necessary to take care of keeping Divine words, of protecting us with them, and

especially with the Lord's Name, from any temptations and errors.

Even great ancient Saints occasionally, with God's sufferance, did incline for some period to sympathy

to some heresies, as it was with St. Gerasim of Jordan. However, he with humility had asked for help of thegreat pillar of the Orthodoxy St. Euthymius, and we, not having such an opportunity directly, are to hold

with the greater caution the writings of Holy Fathers, both ancient and sent by our Lord to the Church at thelast days. The hesitations of the ascetics, which are infinitely superior us in piety and feats, should not trouble

us, because there are proper temptations for each period, and due tests are intended to each man.

After the discussion on the doctrine about the Name of God had been stopped in Russia by revolution,dozens of years almost whole century passed. Now the moment came to return to this dispute, for in it the

spiritual illnesses were shown, which became the reason of the Revolution and of renovationism, of

Sergianism and ecumenism all external troubles grown out from neglecting of the God-revealed doctrine ofthe Church and first of all out from blasphemyof the Name of God.

Although there is a dangerous tendency to defame, without distinction, pre-revolutionary bishops and

clergy in general, as renovationists did, but there is an opposite danger consisting in idealization of all pre-

revolutionary things. There is no need to render false service to the departed bishops, by repeating, bystrengthening, by developing and spreading their errors. If even those, who were mistaken in the past, could

have some excuses, these apologies are not applicable any more to us, who have gathered the fruits of the

former errors. If some of them might be forgiven for the sake of their feats and confessional sufferings, wecan not at all hope thoughtlessly upon our imaginary virtues. Furthermore, our task certainly does not consist

in judging the faults or, on the contrary, the merits of some or other church figures, but in avoiding ofmistakes and errors that have already resulted in the great catastrophe for our country and the Local Church.

The words of Mikhail Alexandrovich Novoselov, written by him at the end of 1918 beginning of

1919, are the true testament for our time:I stated an idea that if it were possible to cover literally all Russia with apologetic leaflets andbooks, it would bring a small benefit for the Church. The principal illness of the church life is too

deeply based in the bowels of the Church for being cured through such external means, as apologetics.

This illness consists in losing the Orthodox self-consciousness and self-sensation, and also in deviationfrom Patristic basis of religious mind and life. This illness, as I pointed it out at that time, had stricken

some representatives of hierarchy (I gaveexamples and named the persons, if you remember), some

representatives of academic science, and also some shepherds, especially of educated ones. Naturally,this spiritual illness is spreading from top into breadth and depth of the Church community and of the

people.I see the deepest evading from Orthodox way of thinking in so-called onomatoclasm, i.e. in the

worldview, which was carried out in the well-known Epistle of the Most Holy Synod To the most

honourable brethren, in monasticism struggling published in May 1913, and in the reports attached toit.

The question about the terrible and most holy Name of God, which is exclusive according to itssignificance and mystery, was at that time solved by the Synod with amazing thoughtlessness in respect

of the incomprehensible Name of God, and with hardness of neck regarding the monks of Athos.

It is worthy of attention that the new onomatoclastic documents, issued already from thePatriarch Synod, are signed by the signatures not only of old onomatoclastic bishops, but also of new

ones, and concerning some of them I have the reasons to assert that this signaturewas made by themwithout personal consideration of the great question about the Name of God and without a


9/46

9

conscious belief in a righteousness of that decision, which they have fastened by their names. With

great suffering, I note this more than sorrowful according to its criminal thoughtlessness fact.The attitude of the All-Russia Church Council to this question causes even more sorrow and

amazement. It is known that the Council had not trusted in the decision issued by the former Synod,

and thus, decided to subject the question about the Name of God to consideration in essence. What the

Council was guided by, acting in this way? Was it by the understanding of its significance that had not

allowed trusting in the decision given by the Synod? It would be more correct to say that theCouncil, in overwhelming majority of its members, was so distant from essence of the question, so

poorly interested in it, that simply wrote it off in a commission, to dump away from the shouldersthis still unpleasant triviality, because of which someone quarrels and troubles the members of theCouncil with announcements and appeals. In a few words, both the Synod and the All-Russia

Church Council appeared to be not at the level of the question, which had been put forward by the

Providence of God on the Holy Mountain of Athos.In consent with professor Muretov, believing that onomatodoxy is in a basis of the doctrine

about the Three Consubstantial Persons of God, about the Divine and Human nature of the Saviour,

about the Church, about the Sacraments, especially about the Eucharist, about veneration of icons etc.,I see in onomatoclasm the religious subjectivism, which, breaking off the real ties with God and putting

relative things in place of unconditional ones, psychological in place of ontological, naturally

undermines the roots of the God-working Christs faith and of the Church, and is leading gradually to

unbelief (eventually to human-deism and antichristism).

The onomatoclastic elements have poisoned our theological school, our hierarchy, our

priesthood, and, naturally, are poisoning all the Church society. The fruits of this poisoning are evident

for all. Without going far into depth of Russia, it is enough to look what is happening in her heart Moscow. You know that only the blind or capable to see but with a covering on the eyes does not see

the corruption, which has penetrated into our ecclesiastical life and which is a fruit of old practical

onomatoclasm, recently fixed theoretically in the doctrine by the Most Holy and the PatriarchSynods. The protestant (ultimately, I repeat, human-deistic)principle of the religious subjectivism

is offered to us officially, as a standard of spiritual life. This writing theoretically justifies andcompletes all that has so strongly flourished today. There are no obligatory for all and objectively

authentic things, because there is no Christian self-consciousness universal for all; there is no unity of

faith. There are no more Guards of Israel, which would direct the life unto the universalecclesiastical way. Nobody is actively concerned in keeping the unity of faith, because by the

helmsmen of the Church, the consciousness of this unity is lost, and they are drifting outside the

Church way, where the tide of religious anarchy carries them. What ever a pretence is nowadays the

Triumph of the Orthodoxy, this pompous declaration of the unity of the Faith, as if we confess thisFaith the Apostolic, Patristic, Catholic one, which established the whole universe! When I was

present at this majestic Church celebration this year and was listening to an anathema in loud-voice by

Patriarch's archdeacon, it seemed to me that this anathema with all its power was falling down not uponabsent heretics and Bolsheviks, but upon the present onomatoclastic bishops. And with complete

gravity I apply to them a terrible prophecy of St. Seraphim uttered by him a hundred years ago: The

Lord has shown to me that the time will come, when bishops of Russian land and other clerical personswill evade from keeping the Orthodoxy in all its purity, and for this the anger of God will strike them.

For three days, I has been standing and asking the Lord to have mercy upon them, and I requested

better to deprive me, humble Seraphim, of the Heavenly Kingdom, than to punish them. But the Lord

did not decline to the request of humble Seraphim and told him that He would not have mercy uponthem, for they would teach doctrines and commandments of men, and their hearts would stand far from

Me (Dushepoleznoye chteniye, 1912, p. 242-243). Has not already come the Gods anger predicted

by the Saint upon our hierarchy and together with it upon all our Russian Church for evading frompurity of the Orthodoxy!? Is it not for the blasphemy against the terrible Name of God, that our

hierarchy bears heavy blows since the first days of the Revolution? Does not this blasphemy be the

reason of the powerlessness, of this as if paralytic state, in which our ruling bishops are, understanding


10/46

10

their paralysis, however it seems not understanding the reasons of it? The rational flock is wandering

and running up in different directions, being carried in various and strange teachings, while the

helmsmen of Church, as old men of an alms-house, only peep through the windows of their alms-houseat the rational sheep, for which, instead of the uniform, strict, eternal, both live and life-giving Truth of

Orthodoxy, the various surrogates of humanistic morals, of melodramatic sermon, of liturgical false

aesthetics, and recently of socialist Christianity are offered. I have said, They are looking. No, they

not only look, but also accept sometimes direct or indirect participation in cultivating of thesesurrogates. And if it is so, what is for them the God-working, invincible and terrible Name of God,

which is necessary and close, and dear, and evident from experience only for those, for whom theChristianity is the great mystery of transforming the old man into a new creature, of deification of theman through Divine settling down into him that is given by the wonder-working Jesus Name

mysteriously settling into the human heart? Dear NN! I say this to you as to my friend and brother in

our Lord: do look into the heart of this great dispute about the Name of God, which you were avoidingtill now as if fearing to be scorched. You have to do this, if not as a Christian, at least as a missionary.

However, certainly, you will see nothing, approaching to the question with common missionary

methods and not with the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom. Do believe that this questionis incomparably more important than everything that was put forward at the All-Russian Church

Council and is now being put forward at the present Higher Church Management. In its correct

decision, our religious future is hidden.I have outlined briefly, hastily for you the thoughts, which I did not find possible to hide inmyself. What using you will make of my words, I do not know. As for me, I will tell you the following.

Comprehension of exclusive importance of the question about the God-befitting worship of the Divine

Name, on which our present and our future extending in eternity depends, and also recognizingonomatoclasm, this fruit and reason of religious unbeliefand fearlessness, to be the most dangerous

enemy of the Orthodoxy, which strikes the basic nerve of our faith, induce me to give all my vigour for

censure of this souls-destroying error and for clearing up the opposite truth, the onomatodoxy.Nevertheless, aware of all insufficiency of my own individual forces for satisfactory resolving of this

difficult task, I call upon for this activity other persons, more able than me14

.

The Divine Word and Name. A brief sketchThe Orthodox Christian doctrine about the Name of God is the particular case more precisely

speaking, the major part of the doctrine about the Word of God. Therefore, it is necessary to consider moreclosely, what this doctrine is, and what it radically differs by from modern secular concepts.

For the Christians, Word first of all, in primary and principal sense, means the Word of God the

Only-Begotten Son of the Eternal Father, by Whom all things were made. He is also the Image of His Eternal

Father, the Seal of the same image, showing in Himself Thee, His Father15

, possessing in Himself all the

properties of His Parent. For this reason He may be called also the Name of the Eternal Father16

, as theProphet speaks about Him: Behold, the Name of the Lord cometh (Is. 30, 27), because the concept of the

Word of God includes also the Name of God. St. Maximus the Confessor in his commentary on the Lords

Prayer writes: the Name of God the Father, existing in essential way, is the Only-Begotten Son17

, and St.Gregory the Great says: the Son of God relates to the Father, as a word to mind as a definition to the

defined thing [i.e. as a name to the named thing], because a definition is also called a word (part. 3, p. 80).

14 The letter to the member of the Missionary Council NN. First publishing:Rev. Pavel Florensky, Correspondence of priest Pavel

Alexandrovich Florensky and Mikhail Alexandrovich Novoselov with addition of letters by hieroschemamonk German

Zosimovsky, hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich), hieromonk Panteleimon (Uspensky), V.M.Vasnetsov, F.D.Samarin,F.K.Andreev, S.N.Durylin, I.P.Shcherbova / Under common edition of hegumen Andronik (Trubachev), Tomsk, 1998, p. 181

186. (Italicised by Novoselov).15 The words of the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great.16 Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich) explains that in the times of St. Basil the Great seals were nominal. On the seal we

hardly read the name, but on the impression it is clear and evident, so in the Son appeared the incomprehensible perfection of

the Father.17 The works by St. Maxim the Confessor, Martis, 1993, v. I, p. 189.


11/46

11

Hieroschemamonk Anthony Bulatovich writes that pre-eternal activity of the Word consisted in

contemplation or naming of the Father, according to words of St. John of Damascus that God in pre-eternity

was content by contemplation of Himself18

. The activity of His Hypostases was directed to Himself: theWord was to God.

iThe Father, eternally begetting the Word and reflecting in Him the perfections of

Himself, was contemplating Himself in Him; the Word, eternally naming the Father, was contemplating His

perfections; the Holy Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father, together with the begotten Word, was

filling by Himself the Word. But God, in His kindness, has wished to grant to His rational creature to knowto some extent His perfections; and having created it, He has been opening gradually for it in the creation and

in His Word a certain beam of His most shining Name. This beam is the action of the Deity, and the God-revealed Name of God is God Himself. The Name of God is holy and terrible (Ps. 110, 9) as a beam of Hisglory, but, certainly, the beyond-names Name, i.e. the Plenitude of the glory of Divine perfections, which

only the Son knows, is infinitely more holy and terrible, as the sun is unbearably more bright than each of its

rays. In the commentary on the Psalm 110 by Zigaben, the words of Chrysostom are cited: The Name ofChrist is holy, as it works uncountable miracles is holy and terrible, as filled with great amazing and

wonder. Therefore, if His Name is terrible, is not His Essence much more 19

.Thus, secondly, after God the Word, we understand words and names as the Divine wills or ideas:

first, about Himself, and then also about all the creatures, because the non-created, pre-eternal and Divine

wills have brought all the creation from non-existence into existence, they keep it in existence and determine

a way and a purpose of life of any creation. Therefore, they are the Same God, simple and inseparable, being

in His various and incomprehensible actions. We may say that only the Divine words exist in reality, whilecreatures brought from non-existence and having in themselves no reason of their own life exist only

depending on these wills and names.

In the narration about the creation of the world we see, how the Divine words and naming of creaturesin the twinkling of an eye, have called to existence the light, plants, animals. Through giving the names to the

main creatures day and night, sky, earth and sea their origin was accomplished, and by these names, their

further life was defined. Moreover, though Holy Fathers teach us to understand the words of the Scriptureabout the hand, or the muscle, or the ear of God as allegories, they tell nothing similar about words of God,

but only explain that the question is not about the material shaking of air. However, we have already said thatname or word always and first of all is understood as neither a set of sounds nor characters, because both

of them are only external expression, manifestation or embodiment of the word that is required for those who

are participating in substance, but not for God, alien to substance.As the man is created in the own image and likeness of the Creator, so, he also has a gift of speech.

St. Makary the Great writes about the first-created man before the fall: As in the Prophets the Spirit was

acting and teaching them, and was inside them and was appearing outside them: so concerning Adam, when

He wanted He was with him and taught him... The Word was all for him... The Word of God was for him theheritage, and the clothing, and the glory covering him, and the teaching for him. For the authority was given

to him to name all things: this he named the sky, another the sun, this he named the moon, another the

earth, this he named a bird, another an animal and another a tree. As he was taught, so he was givingnames to creatures... [The Spirit] taught him and commanded him: call this so, name this so

20. Thus, the

Word of God was for Adam the comprehension of every creature, and in this way, the giving of names for all

animals, and then for the woman, the only thing Adam had time to complete before his falling was not ahuman action only, but the Divine Revelation. At the same time, the Lord says this: let us see, what he will

call them, as if all-knowing God did not know, how Adam would name animals. This very fact

mysteriously indicates that the man, created in the image of God, was intended to be the co-creator, the

fellowlaborer of God, to act in Him freely but not disobediently, by means of participating in Divineproperties through the grace. Thus, words of the man as he was before the fall are also Divine words, i.e.

God Himself in His incomprehensible actions. St. Ignaty (Bryanchaninov) emphasizes this idea, saying that

the Lord Himself in the Gospel cites Adams words being uttered about the woman (while naming her by this

18St. John of Damascus, Exact summary of the Orthodox Faith, v. 2, part 2, About the creature.19 The Apologia, part II.20St. Makary the Great, Homily 12, chapters 6 and 8.


12/46

12

name), as the commandment of God21

. In fact, to Adams words for this cause shall a man leave father and

mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh, the Lord added: what therefore

God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Thus, He made no difference here, because though itwas Adams mouth, saying those words, but the very words, i.e. the truth enclosed in them, were the Divine

commandment.

Nevertheless, of all Divine truths and words the highest ones were, certainly, neither about animals nor

about human beings, but about God, i.e. His Names mysterious, unutterable, several of which the Lord hadthe kindness also to reveal to the man, i.e. to manifest Himself to some extent in His most perfect properties,

as far as it is possible and necessary for man to perceive.

The fall of the original people began through hearing the lie about God and then was completed by falsewords of the self-justifying. Likewise, the cause of any sin made in practice is violation of the Divine Truth.

Thus, the man has lost the likeness to God, the image of him has been darkened, and his gift of speech has

been deformed. The gift of speech, directed onto evil, strengthens and deepens the falling; so, giving thelimits for this suicidal activity, in Babylon the Lord has confounded human languages.

Words and names commonly used by the man after the fall are already the reflection of his restricted

and injured knowledge of things, though in them, in unclear appearance, there are as if some shadows of theDivine Truth. The words of this kind by themselves are fluid and empty, because they have not God as their

source; however they also have a seal of natural Revelation denoted in the world and in the man.Then, Righteous Enos began to call

iiupon the Name of the Lord; i.e. after centuries of repentance, he

had obtained the daring and the beneficial help of God, which was necessary for calling His Name, in spite ofall the damage of the human nature. Thus, knowledge of God and word of the Truth was not growing scarce

on earth, due to operating of the Gods Spirit in His Saints.

Before covenanting of the Testament with the chosen people of God, the Lord appeared unto Moses ina bush and opened to him His Name I am that I am, and then commanded to all the people:I am the Lord

thy God thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Hieroschemamonk Anthony Bulatovich writes about this: From the beginning of the world origin,God has written names of His properties with the pen of the world creating. Later, He revealed many of His

names by the Holy Spirit through the Prophets, and once from the mountain of Sinai He proclaimed aloud forall the people of Israel His Name and the ten commandments: I am the Lord thy God At last, He hath in

these last days spoken unto us by His Son (Heb. 1, 1) the Names of His Hypostases and the Name of His

Son Jesus, and the covenants of Him. These are not ever names of Gods beyond-names Essence, butnames of His Hypostases properties and of His Essences properties inseparable from the Essence. Therefore

in the names of God we also have all the essence of Omnipresent God, which, being not contained, contains

Himself in a single word of the Name of God, but is not limited by it or by anything existing.

The Church recognizes all the God-inspired prophetical writings as the word of God, as action of theSpirit of the Truth, Who spake by the Prophets. While reading or listening reverently of these orations, which

are restricted in their outer aspect and enclosed in sounds and characters, and therefore are similar to usual

human words, we esteem them as action of God, i.e. as God Himself, opening unto us in His most perfectactions.

The core of all God-revealed truths is the Divine Names, which are not at all arbitrary and not invented

by people (for it would be falsehood and blasphemy)22

, but in which our Lord had the kindness to show usHis pre-eternal properties. Many of the names of God are similar to words meaning some created things, but

not because something created would be conditionally or arbitrarily applied to the Deity, but because in the

created world, and especially in the man, as we have said before, the names of God properties were written

by the pen of the Divine creating of the world, and this was expressed in appropriate denominations. Thenames, which were applied to the Archetype not through human self-intelligence, but through action of God's

21St. Ignatius (Bryanchaninov). The Homily on Man. SPb, 1995, p. 27.22 The modern Protestant writer, popular even among some Orthodox people, Clive Lewis in his fairy tales represents God in

the form of the lion, named Aslan. His good heroes do their deeds in the name of Aslan; they call this name in difficult minutes

etc. For the Orthodox people it should be evident that it is already blasphemy, independently of all the rest, composed by theauthor about God.


13/46

13

Spirit, really open Truth about God; for this reason, they are the God-revealed truth, i.e. God Himself in His

incomprehensible actions.St. Simeon the New Theologian says about this as follows: God is one, having many names, and is

named by all of them, that we have said, and not only is named, but also really makes that in us, as those

who have learned this by experience have taught us. Though about us are spoken many similar things, but it

is spoken about us as about people, and about Him as about God human words are fluid and empty, but the

word of God is alive and operating, and likewise the truth of God is beyond human mind and word God immutable, existing and alive (p. 107-108). That means, as Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) notices, that

the people are also named good, wise, fathers, sons, Jesus (for example, the son of Nun or the son ofSirach)i, but only as people, in the image of One really good God and One Lord Jesus Christ; but while the

words expressing usual human concepts are fluid and empty, for they speak about restricted and fluid

subjects, the very truth about God, the truth expressed by His names, is God immutable.The Name of God of Jacob [will] defend thee (Ps. 19, 2) that was the promise about the Name of

God, given in the Old Testament; Let them praise Thy Great Name, for it is terrible and holy (Ps. 98, 3)

that was a prayer and glorification of it.

In the Scripture, as well as in the Church prayers, in some cases the different properties of God areexpressed through the different names, and in other cases they express this in more generalized way, as

follows: purge away our sins for Thy Names sake (i.e. since, in particular, Thy name is Good and

Merciful), or: according to Thy Name, O God, so is Thy praise unto the ends of the earth (i.e. according to

Thy most perfect properties, Thy actions, which Thy Name testifies).Finally, in these last days there appeared the summit, centre and plenitude of all Divine Revelation: the

Ineffable and Hypostatic Word of God was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of Grace and Truth . Among

all Divine deeds, shown by the Self-Truth, the God and Man, Christ, His both living and acting words have aspecial place. Therefore, when many of the former disciples left the Saviour, Peter answered Him: Lord, to

whom shall we go? And did not add: For Thou work miracles, cure the ailing and revive the dead, but

he said: Thou hast the words of eternal life (Jn. 6, 68).From all the books of the Holy Scripture, primarily the Good Tidings about the Incarnation of Christ

and about saving of the fallen humankind the Holy Gospel is named the Gods Word. We render the dueworship to it during the Divine Service censing, lighting candles and kissing it. It is worthy of wonder that

even iconoclasts, rejecting reverence of icons, have never dared to reject reverence of the Gospel, though it is

enclosed in a material and visible covering.While in the Old Testament the summit of all Revelation consisted in announcing the Name of God, in

the New Testament the revealing of the Name of the Incarnate God proves to be even more important. The

Holy Gospel is first of all the Good Tidings about the Name of Jesus Christ and about the Name of the Father

and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.Before anybody from the people could see the Son of God that come in flesh, His Name Jesus had

been already shown, being, as well as all Divine Names, not invented by people, but opened by God. And

also, completing His earth mission, the Son of God in the prayer to His Father testified: I have manifested

Thy Name unto the men I have declared unto them Thy Name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith

Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them (Jn. 17, 6, 26).

Why ever, though a number of Gods names are known for us, the Name of God is usually spokenabout as about unique one: according to Thy Name etc., instead of according to Thy names? Why it was

ordered to baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, instead of in the names?

Why the same baptizing is spoken about, as it is in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ?

If names only meant different human, subjective concepts or merely sets of the sounds used in somecases, all this would be senseless. Nevertheless, God-revealed names are God-revealed truths, inseparable

actions of the most simple and inseparable Essence of God, inseparably and inalienably dwelling in them.Therefore St. Gregory of Nyssa says: All the names of God equally name beyond-names essence of

Which is, according to the prophecy:I am the Lordthis is My Name forever and this is My memorial unto

all generations (Ex. 3, 15), I am that I am (3, 14), for I am merciful (Jer. 3, 12). Thus, by thousand other

names meaning height and magnificence, the Holy Scripture knew to name the God, so that we exactly learn


14/46

14

from this that when you utter any of these names, by this one name without a sound you will pronounce all

the list of names. For, if He is named the Lord, it does not mean that other names do not belong to Him, but

on the contrary, in this single name He is named by all the names23

.St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 6-th Catechism homily also writes: For our piety it is enough to know this

singlething: that there is the God, One God, God Which is and Which is eternally [i.e. to know by faith His

names] God having numerous names, and Almighty, having in His Essence nothing heterogeneous. For,

when He is named the Good One, the Righteous One, the Pantocrator, Sabaoth, because of this He is notvarious and differentIt is difficult for us even to hear the Name of Him

24.

And about the Holy Trinity St. Simeon the New Theologian says: About all the Gods names, bywhich God is named according to the properties common for all Three Persons, the same Name or property isseen in each Person and in all Three. If you call God the Light, each Person is the Light, and all Three again

are the one Light25

. Therefore we say In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,

for though there are Three Divine Persons, named by Their particular names, but the Name of God is one, asGod Himself is one.

St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, interpreting the first application of the Lords prayer hallowed be Thy Name,

writes the following: The Name of God is so holy in itself, so famous and most glorified, that does not

require any glorification from us: it is always equally glorious, holy and terrible, and emits beams of Its

glory in creations For the glory of the Name of God is eternal, infinite and unchanged, as well as GodHimself, so that it cannot either increase or decrease relative to itself The great Name of God comprises

all His Divine properties not communicated to any creature, but being inherent to Him only, for instance:homoousia, eternity, omnipotence, kindness, wisdom, omnipresence, omniscience, righteousness, holiness,

truth, spiritual essence and so on. These own properties the Holy Spirit shows to us in His word26

.

Nevertheless, what may be holy in itself, what is able to have eternal and constant glory and to give out itsbeams in creations, and so to comprise really all the Divine properties, but only the God Himself?

In My Name shall they cast out devils (Mk. 16, 17), said the Lord, and the Apostles testified: Lord,

even the devils are subject unto us through Thy Name (Lk. 10, 17). Nevertheless, what may be casting thedevils out, except God Himself in His incomprehensible actions?

St. John of the Ladder writes this: Do beat the enemies by the Name of Jesus, for there is no strongerweapon, either in the heaven or on the earth (21, 7). Nevertheless, what may be, except the God, the

strongest not only on the earth, but also on the heaven?St. John Chrysostom writes the follows: Why is the Name of Him terrible? Of it demons tremble,illnesses are frightened; through its force the Apostles were purifying the whole world; using it as the

weapon, David defeated the enemy; it has wrought uncountable deeds: through it we are being consecratedthrough accomplishing the holy Sacraments

27. It means that the Name of God works uncountable

miracles and all the ecclesial Sacraments.The same Saint writes this: And the Apostles were sent so as we also at last believed. What should

we believe in? In the Name of Him we should do. We should not examine the essence of Him, but believein the Name of Him, as it wrought even the miracles.In the Name of Jesus Christ, says Peter, rise upand walk(Acts 3, 6)

28. Here, St. John Chrysostom reminds about the healing of the lame man; after the

healing, Apostles testified before the people: Why marvel ye at this? Or why look ye on us, as though by our

own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? The God of our fathers hath glorified His Son

Jesus... And through faith of His Name, His Name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know:yea, the faith, which is by Him, hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all (12-16). And

then at the judgment: Be it known unto you all, and unto all the people of Israel, that by the Name of Jesus

Christ of Nazareth, Whom ye crucified, Whom God raised from the dead, even by itiii

doth this man stand

23St. Gregory of Nyssa, Works, part 2, p. 412.24St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Mystagogical Homilies, 1893, p. 7176.25St. Simeon the New Theologian. Works, 1890, part two, p. 73.26St. Tikhon of Zadonsk. The works, v. 3, book 2, p. 6465.27 The Interpretations on Psalms by Euthymius Zigaben, Ps. 110, 9.28St. John Chrysostom. The works, v. 9, p. 492.


15/46

15

here before you wholeFor there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must

be saved(Acts 4, 10, 12).In the interpretation on the Gospel by the Blessed Theophilact, we can read about this: After saying:

through faith of His Name, he says, correcting the speech:His Name has made strong; because the healed

man believed because of the healing. It means the follows: What do I say that the lame man had stood up

firmly on his feet after having believed in the Name of Christ? Before he believed, the Name of Christ, after

being called, had already made him strong. So great is its force and so many of beneficial gifts it emits.Among the last and grandest commands, gifts and promises, the Saviour has also left to His disciples

the prayer by His Name, the force of which they had already known. Then, after the Lords Resurrection andafter descending of the Gods Spirit, the Apostles wrought by this Divine Name a lot of the most gloriousmiracles. Afterwards, they baptized thousand people in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the

Holy Ghost, as the Lord had commanded them.

In the Name of the Incarnated Lord, the Christians were named, as they carried the marvellous Name ofChrist upon them. For the confession of the faith in the Name of the Lord Jesus, multitudes of Martyrs

suffered various torments; this Name was that the Apostles and their disciples have brought unto the limits of

the world.The Angel of God has testified for St. Hermas, the disciple and the Apostle of Christ: The Name of

the Son of God is great and indescribable, and immeasurable. It holds the whole world29

.Among the first disciples and successors of the Apostles, we could not pass without mention St.

Ignatius the God-bearer, which was so named because of his constant bearing of the Name of Jesus Christ inhis mind and heart. His torturers became the witnesses of this, when they had seen in the Saints heart saved

from lions mouth, the Name of Jesus Christ written with gold letters.Other evidences of the Scripture and of the Church Tradition about the Name of God we shall quote

further, during the analysis of the onomatoclasts writings.

The Epistle of the Russian Synod of 1913

and the doctrine about the Word of God

We must pay a great attention to analysing of the Synod Epistle of 1913 not only because it pretendedto resolve finally the dispute about the Name of God, but also because it reflects the basic positions of

onomatoclasm.

The most characteristic feature for the Epistle is that it offered the answers to the most importantquestions, not on the basis of the careful analysing of the Church Tradition but through conclusions seeming

natural for the modern man. It is no wonder that attempt of founding the faith definition on such an unsteady

basis caused many evident contradictions, because the authors of the Epistle though, certainly, did not wantto break resolutely the Divine Revelation, but completely declined to accept seriously the God-revealed

truths.

As a result, among the authors of the Synod Epistle, no consensus appeared to be even in the most

basic positions. So, Prof. S.V.Troitsky in his report considered by the Synod, said:The God's Name understood as the Revelation of God and in its objective aspect, i.e. in the sense of

revealing the truths to man, is the God's energy, eternal and inseparable from God, and which is perceived

by people only as far as their created and restricted nature and moral virtue allow this. To the word used in

this sense we may apply the name of the Deity.Nevertheless, without condemning S.V.Troitsky for his doctrine, the Epistle says: The name of God isonly a name, but not God and not His property, a title of a subject, but not a subject, and consequently cannot be recognized or named either God (it would be senseless and blasphemously) or Deity, because it is not

also the energy of God.Moreover, in the same paragraph, a little above, the Epistle declares the follows: This name is Divine,

as being opened to us by God. It means that the Synod does not consider the Divine Revelation as theaction of God; the following lines of the Epistle contain justification of such a new and strange doctrine:

29St. Hermas. "The shepherd", similarity 9, chapter 14.


16/46

16

It is impossible to equate the words delivered by human mouth, even about God, to words delivered

by the mouth of God The Apostles saw on the Tabor the Divine glory and heard the Divine voice. We may

say about them that they heard and saw the Deity. After coming down from the mountain, the Apostlescommitted to memory all that had happened to them, and then they narrated to other people, communicating

all the words they had heard. Is it allowable to say that they communicated others the Deity? Was their story

the energy of God? Certainly not: it was only the fruit of Divine energy, the fruit of His action in the created

world.Thus, it appeared as if the same words were Divine when the Lord uttered them, but in the Apostles'

mouths became human. Of course, it would be possible to think so, only if we meant under words no morethan a set of sounds conditionally correlated with some concepts and phenomena (as the nature of soundsreally may be various), or absolutely subjective ideas produced by speaking person. But it would mean that

words in the biblical sense of the word, i.e. not conditional, but absolute ones, not secondary in relation to

human mind and all the creation, but primary ones, and in which God manifests Himself unto the people, donot exist at all. Somebody might say that these very words exist, but cannot be repeated by people without

transformation into created words. However, it would mean that they do not exist at all, because the word is

characterized by remaining the same, even after transferring. If ever the words of God after transferringbecame human, it would mean that they were no more than human from the very beginning, and only the

sounds of them could be divine.

Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) in his book The Double-edged Sword confesses more in details

the modern rationalistic-nominalistic doctrine about the word: The name is a conditional wordcorresponding in more or less degree to that subject, about which we want to think; it is a certain conditional

sign necessary for our mind, and which we clothe in sounds (a word), in characters (a letter) or only represent

in mind; it is an abstract image (idea) subjectively conceivable, but having no real existence outside of ourmind. Without such a token, our mind would be unable to approximate unto understanding of the subject that

we mean under some or other name. Our spirit in itself, outside of a body, maybe does not need such names;

but now, while he is contained in solid substance, we cannot think in other way but through mind-representedimages, ideas, words, names. Usually, a name specifies for us some properties of a subject that we

approximate to our thinking, but I say once more: really, name in itself does not exist either spiritually ormaterially.

It is evident that in such system of views there is not any place for the Orthodox concept on the Divine

Revelation. And of course, it is impossible to find such a doctrine anywhere in Holy Fathers' writings: theFathers citations quoted by Archbishop Nikon are concerning the external, acoustical aspect of word orconcerning human words only that indicate but restricted and fluid human concepts, instead of God-revealed

truths.

Archbishop Nikon writes the follows: Nevertheless, if either in human language a word or in ourthinking an idea completely embracing all the properties and perfections of God were found, even in that

case it would be only an idea about God, only a reverent thought about Him, only oursubjective notion,

instead of Him in the Essence. You may say that it would be only a mental image of God, a spiritual, mind-represented icon of Him, and not He Himself.

Here it is definitely declared that any word about God is subjective (in the same book it is called an

abstract representation of mind); but subjective means the same thing as produced by human mind, and

therefore obviously false, because true knowledge about God may be only God-revealed.Thus, the dispute neither was about sounds nor about the outer appearance, but about the sense of the

Name, i.e. about the Divine Truth expressed in it. The opinion about complete impossibility of real

knowledge of God, which was declared by the way as a self-evident thing, shows all the depth of thediscussed question. Consequently, it becomes clear, why the humble book of schemamonk Hilarion has

roused so strongly the Church society.

Let us also pay attention to the fact that the words of Archbishop Nikon oppose our subjectiverepresentation of the God to the Essence of God. Thus, he denies the real and not subjective presence of God

byHis energies in God-revealed sayings and names that is the essence of Divine Revelation.


17/46

17

However, it seems that Archbishop Nikon, having noticed that his doctrine about the Name of God

hardly might be reconciled with the Scripture and Church prayers, tries to correct the situation as follows:

Nevertheless, are the names of God only representations of our mind about properties and conditions [?] ofGod, even though we know them from the Divine Revelation? Do they possess no practical relation to our

spiritual life, to that spiritual sphere, which surrounds us? Of course, they possess some; but for clarifying

this relation, it is necessary to pass from the sphere of Dogmatism into the sphere of psychology, into the

sphere of life of our soul, our internal man. If a mysterious bride in the Book of the Song of Solomon says toher bridegroom: Thy nameis the poured myrrh (1, 2), if we cannot utter indifferently a name of our mother,

father, brother, friend: if the King and the Prophet David, only remembering God, rejoiced in his heart: is itpossible that a soul being fond of the Lord, looking for Him, desiring Him, did not feel fragrance of thisspiritual myrrh, of the most sweet name of the Lord? Not in vain the Holy Church by the mouth of God-

revealed songs names the Lord's name the sweetest, most esteemed, magnificent, worthy of worship: you see

the most holy name tells to our hearts about the most sweet, most generous Jesus, and consequently about allthings, in which our eternal delight, eternal saving consists. Our soul is so arranged that hearing any name,

she is already as though representing in her eyes a spiritual image of a person, the name of which isuttered, and could she not to start with reverence about the name of God, if she believes sincerely in God?But even independently of thisso naturalfeeling of reverence, we believe that the Lord, Which is called in

His name, is by His grace near to people calling Him in truth. Here we can see the detailed doctrine about only subjective-psychological connection between the

Name of God and God Himself. As you see below, the Russian Synod has confessed in their Epistle the samedoctrine. It is necessary to notice the likeness between this doctrine and an explanation popular nowadays

among modernists concerning reverence of icons by analogy with sentimental feelings at contemplation of

a photo of a beloved person. (Later we will consider in more detail, what kind of correlation is betweenreverence of icons and of the Name of God).

The last cited phrase of Archbishop Nikon, in spite of its seeming correctness, in this particular context

obviously expresses an idea that the Lord is near to us independently of calling of His Name, and that thiscalling neither means nor makes any special thing, but only generates in us so natural(i.e. belonging to the

nature and not gracious) feeling of reverence. Therefore, the words well known for all of us calling Him intruth in this phrase do not mean anything at all, because Archbishop Nikon perfectly denies just the

presence of real and not subjectivetruth in the called Name.As to the Synod Epistle, how we have already seen, it asserts that the Apostles' narration was not the

energy, i.e. the action, of God. It unavoidably follows from here that it is completely wrong to name theScripture, and especially the Holy Gospel, the Word of God: the matter concerns only created human

words. Having rejected the divine nature of the words uttered by God and retold by the Apostles, the Epistle

especially rejects the divine nature of those words, which God never uttered directly, the words, by whichwe name God in Church prayers. Nevertheless, we, the Orthodox Christians, naturally name God only by

those words, which are given within Divine Revelation through the Prophets, Apostles and Holy Fathers.

Thus, their God-revealed words, in opinion of the authors of the Epistle, are not the words of God in exactsense. Obviously, here the doctrine expressed in the Creed about the Holy Spirit is rejected: Who spake by

the Prophets, i.e. that God the Holy Ghost spoke in the Prophets, as later in the Apostles and others Saints.

The Synod recognizes the true God-revealed words as the fruits of Divine energy, but in such a

sense, in which the whole created world is a fruit, or result, of Divine action, thus this expression addsnothing to a virtue of Divine Revelation in comparison to all the creation. Therefore, it is no wonder that the

Epistle further finds in the reverence of Divine words deification of the creation, pantheism that considersall existing as God.

Actually, we might, for example, to name as the fruits of Divine actions in this sense the books, in

which the Divine Revelation is written down and which are certainly created, as well as characters and

sounds, by means of which this Revelation is expressed and transmitted. However, this external aspect of theRevelation is in unbreakable connection to the truths about God, which we cannot in any way include in a

sphere of created things, restricted and having got their beginning. Nevertheless, the Synod Epistle denies

concerning the Name of God even the presence of the Divine force enclosed in it or attached to it.


18/46

18

But if a man believes not only that the words of the Scripture in their nature differ by nothing from all

other creation, but also that they have not at all any Divine force connected to them, what feelings should he

observe the lighting of candles and the censing before the book of the Gospel with? What should he think,kissing it during a Sunday service? Is it not obvious that in his eyes all this should be idolatry, and only a

habit and a feeling of decency could forbid him for a while to reject these Church traditions? Really, like

Judas kissing hypocritically the Gospel, the head of which is the Name of God, and which contains the high

doctrine about the Name of God, some onomatoclasts were not afraid to trample by their feet the same Namewritten on a simple sheet of paper

30.

The Synod Epistle says: The expressions Thy name, the Lord's name and similar to them in thelanguage of the holy writers (and according to them, in the language of of the Fathers of the Church and inchurch songs and prayers) are simply descriptive expressions similar to: the glory of the Lord, eyes,

ears, hands of the Lord or, concerning a man, my soul. It would be extremely erroneous to understandall such expressions literally and to assign eyes or ears to the Lord or to consider soul separately from man.There are also no sufficient reasons to see in the above expressions any signs of a special doctrine about

Names of God, of deification of Names of God: they mean simply: Thee or the Lord.

Therefore, the authors of the Synod Epistle, in complete concord with modern faithless consciousness,consider the greatest and highest sayings of the Scripture and the Church Tradition about the Name of God as

empty expressions meaning nothing in essence, allegories maybe adapted to mind of naive people of

antiquity, as it is now conventional to think.

Actually, the Holy Fathers, interpreting the Scripture, of course explain that it is necessary tounderstand expressions eyes, ears, hands of the Lord allegorically. However, where do they ever speak

anything similar about the Name or about the glory of God? We have already pointed out that about Gods

words the Holy Fathers explain only that we should not understand them as material sounds; they alsodiscern the difference between those words, which are caused by human restricted mind, and God-revealed

words, and at last, they distinguish a verbal action of God from His essence. In spite of all this, the Holy

Fathers do not speak anywhere that words in general are only human phenomenon, assigned to God byanalogy: on the contrary, in the man the gift of speech (in contrast to hands, legs or eyes) is the main feature

of the Gods image.However, it appears that the authors of the Epistle do not consider as the Divine energy not only the

Name, but also eventhe glory of God. They evidently show that as eyes or ears are material objects peculiar

to the man and applied to God only allegorically, so also the glory may be material only, applied to God byanalogy31

. But the Apostle writes:All the glory of man as the flower of the grass, but the word of the Lordendureth for ever; andthis is the word, which by the Gospel is preached unto you (1 Pet. 1, 24-25); so, in

the word of the Lord

Documents

Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy Name give glory