This is from a commentary which I wrote on August 2016 regarding Stefan of Trenton's encyclical:
Paragraphs 17 through 19 demonstrate Stefan’s confused radical modernistic thinking similar to which the ecumenist Paul Ladouceur recently wrote for the Great Council of Crete on May 20, 2016, where he, like Stefan, denies St. Cyprian of Carthage’s dictum, “No salvation outside the Church.” Stefan even suggests in paragraph 19 that Papal and Protestant heretics may be saved, which is the same position as Paul takes below.
For Orthodox anti-ecumenists, the presence of the fullness of grace and truth found only in the Orthodox Church means that grace and truth are absent in non-Orthodox Christian communities, that their members are heretics and hence deprived of the means of salvation. ...
The theology behind these affirmations reposes on a rigorist interpretation of St. Cyprian of Carthage’s famous dictum “No salvation outside the Church.” Cyprian held that salvation is possible only in the visible Catholic (Universal) Church and that those outside, even in other nominally Christian bodies, could not be saved. Modern retention of this doctrine, which is not at all sustained in Orthodox Tradition, constitutes a misreading of the main body of patristic theology and of the history of the early Church.
Finally, in affirming that divine grace is not and cannot be present beyond the visible Orthodox Church, this theology seeks to impose human-devised limits on divine action. On the contrary, Orthodox Tradition steadfastly maintains that God is indeed a God of love and mercy, who freely provides the means of salvation for Orthodox, non-Orthodox and non-Christians in the context of the existence of each person, in ways that may be unknown or incomprehensible to human understanding. ...
cf: https://publicorthodoxy.org/2016/05/20/ ... -be-saved/
Note that Christ established His Church to serve the Holy Eucharist in the Liturgy so that man can be saved (cf. John 6:53-58). So outside the Church, there is no salvation.
Throughout Stefan’s modernistic encyclical, particularly in paragraphs 20 to 21, he seems to be plagiarizing because he has not listed any footnotes or citations. Below is just one source of many that uses the word “fanaticism.”
The Church is faced with double trouble: on the one hand, there is satanically-driven Ecumenism, and on the other hand, there is soul-devastating Fanaticism, which eventually leads to horrific blasphemies and heresies and obscures the truth. Let us be fearful of both and flee from both. We must not deviate to the right or to the left. Let us walk along the middle and "royal" path, which is the path of unadulterated Orthodoxy that knows how to safeguard precision (akrivia) and is also aware of the displays of providence (oekonomia). (Emphasis is mine).
(cf. The Two Extremes - Ecumenism and Zealotism
Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, Athens, Greece, July 22, 1971)
http://www.impantokratoros.gr/3FA35DA7.en.aspx
Comparing the Elder’s writing 45 years ago with that of Bishop Auxentios a year ago, and also with Bishop Stefan’s recent encyclical, one sees very similar language.
Just as, on the far left, the ecumenical proponents of false union make us Old Calendarists the objects of their vulgar ridicule and resentment, trumpeting forth hackneyed accusations that we are uneducated, fanatic opponents of true and canonical Christian unity, so similar demonic resentment has arisen among those on the far right, who in their delusions of piety decry and misrepresent true union, since it ies in the face of their years of fomenting the divisions and fruitless contentions that have kept traditionalist Orthodox circles tragically divided.
Source: An Unpleasant But Necessary Statement About Certain Misrepresentations of Historical Fact, July 2, 2016, page 2, at http://www.dep.church/downloads/Statement.pdf (Emphasis is mine.)
It appears that Dr. Auxentios is plagiarizing this Elder without giving him any credit as both men point to the Royal Path and mention foes on the left (Fanaticism) and the right (Ecumenism). Note: plagiarism is not only defined as copying original material, but also appropriating ideas or paraphrasing words without giving the original author due credit.
In Dr. Auxentios’ paragraph below justifying the “heresy of Cyprianitism,” he correctly identifies Cyprianism as originating with Chrysostomos of Florina, who continually flip-flopped in his dealings with the New Calendarists, and who even denied his bishopric.
Regarding the “heresy of Cyprianitism,” the ecclesiology of the Synod in Resistance was not an invention of Metropolitan Cyprian, but was based on the Synod’s interpretation of the Conciliar, Patristic, and historical precepts of the Orthodox Church—an interpretation, in fact, expressed in many of the writings of the “Father” of the Old Calendar movement, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina—which it never declared to be an infallible and indisputable ecclesiological stand. ...
It should be noted, too, that the use of the appellation “Cyprianites,” which one still hears, is insulting, nescient, and hardly a compliment to the Christian comportment of those who use it as a negative epithet. (Emphasis is mine.)
(cf. An Unpleasant But Necessary Statement About Certain Misrepresentations of Historical Fact, July 2, 2016, page 3, at http://www.dep.church/downloads/Statement.pdf )
Note that Dr. Auxentios’ encyclical seems to have been plagiarized in turn by Bishop Stefan who decries the attack against Cyprianism, and who urges silence in the face of this heresy. On the contrary, true confessors are to preach against heresy. Exposing heresies such as Cyprianism is not a sign of anger, but shows a love for Christ’s Truth.
20. To trumpet over the course of many years that Cyprianism is a most terrible heresy does not yield significant fruit, but on the contrary does harm and gives others cause to accuse us of fanaticism. Those, [Cyprianites] who despite our admonitions continue to maintain that heretical churches have grace will have to answer for themselves. It is not for us to judge them, it is not for us to have wrath against them. If we are angry then we are not the preachers of Grace, nor confessors, but fanatics. The holy martyrs, sufferers and confessors were not angry at their tormentors, but prayed for them. (Emphasis is mine as is the bracketed material.)
Finally, notice how Bishop Auxentios ends his encyclical by saying that he is not angry but concerned for the salvation of those who have spread anti-Cyprianite teachings. And that he hopes that they will be reconciled as brothers.
Not with anger or pique do I expose those who are circulating the falsehoods that I have outlined above, but with concern for their souls and with the hope that they, too, will “be reconciled” as “brothers” to us, that we might together “present our offering” before God (St. Matthew 5:23-24). (Emphasis is mine).
Source: An Unpleasant But Necessary Statement About Certain Misrepresentations of Historical Fact, July 2, 2016, page 4, at http://www.dep.church/downloads/Statement.pdf
Also note how Bishop Stefan closes with almost the same sentiment, and how Stefan has exhorted the Cyprianites and the anti-Cyprianite True Orthodox to be “without wrath” and to “lift up our prayers in peace.” Yet, lifting up prayers implies praying together.
21. Our Lord Jesus Christ gave everyone an indication of how to express our annoyance with those who refuse to heed our exhortations: ”And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” (Matt.10:14). In obeying these words, we ought to go with our preaching into another house, into another city, without wrath and lift up our prayers in peace. (Emphasis is mine).
