From the Show: Vladimir Moss’ must-read explanation on the Name of God is here!
Tonight along with the week’s items we are touching on the HOCNA situation and name-worshipping, since the debate continues and has intensified with documents released by HOCNA this week.
Hosts: Hieromonk Enoch and Dcn Joseph Suaiden. 30 Minutes- just click the link below.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/nftu/2012/10/15/nftu-radio
0 Comments
I wasn’t following the time as closely as I should, so, we got cut off at the end with only a few sign off seconds.
Deacon Joseph,
(1) If you are recommending Moss’work, for the sake of honesty you must also reommend the Masters thesis (St. Vladmir) of Dykstra who explains a great deal of irregularities which took place during the 1913-1914 councils, and the irregularities of the actions of Met.A. Khrapovitsky. And, no I do not subscribe to the teaching that God’s name IS God, but one must be honest, and the readers must be exposed to all the intricacies of that period. If a council has some canonical ( or procedural) irregularities, it does not follow that the adherents of that council are automatically heretics.
(2) We need to allow the next wave of events ( in the next few months) to unfold within HOCNA to explain HOCNA’s position. 100 years have elapsed since these unfortunate episodes have taken place, and there has been period in the Church life when perfect orthodox hierarch were outside the boundaries of the Church for that length of time or longer. There is a tendency among converts to unwittingly believe in what I call “the switch” theory, whereby the Uncreated Grace of God is commanded through a speedy, automatic “on “and “off” switch decided by us humans as to the exact “moment” when this ir that body ceases to have valid Mysteres.
(3) There is a dangerous Latin heresy which ascribe the so-called “transubstantiations” of the Eucharist elements to the mere WORDS of the celebrant. The so-called Name worship teaching will eventually lead to that.
On point 3; the Holy Ghost, of course, accomplishes the change. However, the priest is required to say the words invoking the change for it to take place. The priest just can’t put the bread and wine on the Holy Table, and then take then off without saying anything, and say, “Ok. It’s done.”
1) I believe you mean for the sake of fairness” since I am being just fine in my honesty recommending Moss. However, Dykstra (when I corresponded with him in 2004) was a name-worshipper, as I discovered in communications with him. That leads me to ask why I would recommend it. In cases where full-on heresy is concerned, my concept of “equal time” goes out the window. In its defense it has lots of notes, but you have to trust the motivation of the author.
2) I didn’t say anything about anyone’s mysteries– what I said was that HOCNA has left the pale of what is “standard Orthodoxy” through this document. 100 years ago, a group of heretics were condemned and a heresy was mostly banished to remote regions of the Caucuses, along with the khlysts. The fact that some few lost individuals under their leader in Russia have now adopted this heresy with the hope of reviving it– not my issue.
3) Even Bulatovich appears to believe this. See Moss.
As Fr. Joseph, and we said, the Energies and Essence of God are both God and therefore Uncreated. The attempt to say that the Russian council of 1913, due to the fact that they used wrong or incorrect terminology, as an excuse to reject the previous Greek councils is something bandied about. Although, as Fr. Joseph and we all teach, the Energies of God ARE God and ARE Uncreated, this does not mean that the Name of Jesus is Uncreated. Could the Name-worshipers explain what is the Name of God that is Uncreated but can still be evoked in formal sounds by created beings?