Commentary on the Encyclical issued by Bishop Stefan on June 29/July 12, 2016:
RADICALIZED ORTHODOXY
-in plain language-
See: http://www.rocor-trenton.com/index_EN.htm
August 1/14, 2016
The Procession of the Venerable Wood of the Life-Creating Cross of the Lord.
Almost everyone in True Orthodoxy will agree with Bishop Stefan’s thesis in his encyclical of June 29, 2016, Radicalized Orthodoxy, that these are the end times, that the devil has corrupted the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and that the devil now intends to destroy the remnants of the True Orthodox Church if he can. But not everyone will notice the confusion in this recent encyclical.
Even though Bishop Stefan entreats his flock not to fall for the lie that Satan will destroy the Church, Stefan fails to remind his flock that the Holy Orthodox Church not only consists of the faithful remnant on earth, but also consists of all the righteous in Heaven – the Ever-Virgin Mary and all the Saints who are alive in Christ and who now comprise the majority of the Mystical Body of Christ, and that Heaven is our true home.
Most certainly, as Stefan states, True Orthodox Christians will be sifted like wheat as mentioned in Luke 21:33, but the Church will always exist as Christ has foretold.
Nevertheless, in his third paragraph, Stefan takes it upon himself to discover this ruse that the devil is using in his attempt to destroy the Church. Stefan narrows it down to “the question of grace in the Moscow Patriarchate and other ecumenical churches,” and he labels it as “the greatest stumbling stone." But is it?
3. There have always been ecclesiastical issues to be resolved, and mistakes have been made, but at the present time the greatest stumbling stone (камень предкновения) that is causing a rift amongst clergy and faithful is the question of grace in the Moscow Patriarchate and other ecumenical churches.
Stefan next warns that this question of grace “often leads to fanatical fervency" and a "radicalization of our faith.” These are vile and exaggerated accusations, which not only have been hurled by Bishop Auxentios and Met. Chrysostomos of Etna against Dr. Vladimir Moss and others who have dared to call Cyprianism a heresy (cf. An Unpleasant But Necessary Statement About Certain Misrepresentations of Historical Fact, July 2, 2015), but also have been used by the Rev. Dr. John Chryssavgis and the EP with phrases like “radical fundamentalism” to attack those who boycotted the 2016 World Council of Crete. Stefan claims that this fanaticism "never leads to unity." In fact, such gross attacks by the EP, MP, Cyprianites, etc. can never lead to unity, but only to more persecution of True Orthodox Christians, imprisonment of their monastics and faithful, seizure of churches, increased division, and/or diabolical compromise. True Orthodox Christians cannot be in unity with those who have departed from Christ’s One, Holy, and Apostolic Church as a consequence of their prayers with heretics.
4. Many have voiced their opinions, but my appeal is not so much concerning the issue of grace itself, as the importance of understanding that an overly enthusiastic desire to convince others of their point of view often leads to fanatical fervency and a radicalization of our faith, which never leads to unity (of our ROCOR remnants.)
In paragraph 5, Stefan’s ramblings create more confusion. He neither quotes from the Holy Fathers, nor does he define “grace,” for there are two types of grace, Christ’s merciful grace (actual grace) and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Mysteries. Actual grace comes down like the rain on everyone, sinner and heretic alike, but sanctifying grace from the Holy Mysteries is only found in Christ’s Holy Church.
5. To refresh our memory, let us take a quick look at the issue itself. There are those who say that the M.P. has grace. Does it? I was somewhat surprised by a question from a pious person: “Did the Holy Fathers ever say that heretics have no grace?” The answer is ‘no, they did not’ – but then the opposite is also true: “Did the Holy Fathers ever say that heretics have grace”?
A few heretics may repent through actual grace, the merciful grace of Christ, which leads these heretics to the Church by giving them faith, hope, courage, and humility. Ultimately though, it is sanctifying grace that saves them through the ministry of the Church in Holy Baptism, Chrismation, Confession, Holy Communion, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Holy Unction, as sanctifying grace purifies, illuminates, and deifies men.
In paragraphs seven through twelve, Bishop Stefan seems to be back pedaling, apparently preaching to the choir to placate his faithful.
In paragraph seven below, Stefan mentions that St. Philaret of New York called the MP a false church and a disease. Although Stefan states, “The ROCOR never accepted the concept of an ailing church,” the compromised ROCOR did have communion from 1994 to 2006 with the Cyprianist Synod in Resistance who openly taught that the MP and New Calendarists are ailing members of the Church, have grace, and thus one is allowed to have intercommunion, as Anthony of Geneva did. In addition, Cyprianites insist that an Ecumenical Council must meet to condemn both New Calendarism and Ecumenism. Therefore, it was improper for Stefan to have used the modifier “never.” (cf. http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=english&id=374)
7. The ROCOR Church , соборно , never accepted the concept of an ailing church; never considered the MP as having grace, but called it a false church. Saint Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) repeatedly stressed that we must avoid having even any informal contact with the Moscow Patriarchate - He not only called the MP a false church, but a ‘disease’. …
Below, in paragraph eight, Stefan reiterates that many theologians and hierarchs have concurred that the MP is a false church without grace.
8. Metrop. Vitaly (Ustinov) repeatedly denounced the MP as being outside the True Church . Archbishop Averky, Archimandrite Konstantine (Zaitsev) as well as other theologians of Jordanville, all concur that the MP is a false church without grace. I grew up in the Jordanville monastery, and in all the years (?) I never heard anyone question this fact. …
In paragraphs 10 and 11, it becomes apparent that Stefan speaks of sanctifying, sacramental, and mysterial grace, not actual grace, because Stefan concludes that it is doubtful that any of the current hierarchs in the MP possess apostolic succession, in which case, they would be lacking in sacramental grace. Paragraph 11 is perfectly clear and logical. If a bishop does not have apostolic succession, he is cut off from the Church, and any ordinations done by him will be invalid and lacking in mysterial grace.
10. Furthermore, it must be known that beginning with the betrayal by Metropolitan Sergius, all the hierarchs who were faithful to the holy Church were tortured to death and Stalin replaced them with his agents. These wolves in cassocks undertook to ordain other bishops (Stalin’s appointees) and clergy. Now, sixty years later, it is doubtful that any of the hierarchs within the MP ranks possess apostolic succession.
11. The Church is episcopacentric. If an MP bishop is not a bishop, then from whom do the clergy acquire the grace required to perform the sacraments? According to Church canons, a priest, ordained by a bishop who does not possess apostolic succession, is not a priest. The mysteries performed by him are invalid and without grace and in his chalice are not the Body and Blood of Christ God, but the food of demons. (As one of the holy fathers called the false body and blood of Christ.)
Paragraph 12 below is contradictory. While one cannot logically prove a negative, Stefan does not quote any of the Holy Fathers either. If grace is lacking in a synod of bishops without apostolic succession, such as the MP, as Stefan indicates in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, then it follows that such a synod would be devoid of sanctifying grace. Nevertheless, Stefan writes, “the Holy Fathers made no personal judgment of their own, nor did they make any conciliar determination concerning Grace.” If Stefan has concluded that a conciliar determination is needed to label a church as heretical and without grace, is not this the Cyprianist heresy?
Stefan also states, “Such a determination as well as the demise of those fallen away from the Church is not for us to judge – this is God’s matter.” This a non sequitur. Stefan first talks about sacramental, mysterial grace which is present in churches with Apostolic succession, then he changes the topic and talks about not judging people at their deaths. This does not follow.
12. The Church strictly forbids attending services in temples excommunicated from Eucharistic communion or heretics as well as praying jointly with them. In antiquity the Holy Fathers were quite categorical in this regard. Furthermore, the Holy Fathers made no personal judgment of their own, nor did they make any conciliar determination concerning Grace. Such a determination as well as the demise of those fallen away from the Church is not for us to judge – this is God’s matter.
Since paragraph 13 demonstrates serious confusion in Stefan's thinking, as it does not flow, I have divided this paragraph into three sections: (A) excommunication for praying with heretics; (B) the Prayers at a Priest’s Ordination; and (C) the matter of grace in the MP and if that grace is inert.
13. A. The most dreadful punishment for a believing Orthodox person is to be excommunicated from Christ, from union with Christ through Holy Communion. It is said, “whosoever will pray with a heretic, shall he be cast out”.
Yes, the Apostolic Canon against praying with heretics has severe consequences, but today’s World Orthodox do not heed that canon thinking it does not apply to them.
13. B. Would someone be subjected to such a strict punishment for praying with those who had gone astray if the Holy Fathers considered that within them the salvific Grace of God was nonetheless present, “which always heals the infirm and supplements that which is lacking” (from the order of ordination to the office of priesthood). Note the use of the word “always”.
First, Stefan cites the Ordination prayer, “which always heals the infirm and supplements that which is lacking.” These prayers from the Holy Mystery of Holy Orders specifically impart healing sanctifying sacramental grace to the new priest to heal and perfect him for the ministry. These ordination prayers are neither prayed over heretics, nor do they heal heretics and supplement that which is lacking in them. If a priest prays with heretics, his prayers certainly do not heal, as by that action, the priest has violated the canons and becomes a heretic himself. However, if a heretic repents through the action of actual grace, then a priest can grant the former heretic absolution from his sins. And yes, a priest can grant absolution to a heretical bishop repenting from his sins and restore him to the Church. This is precisely what St. Matthew of Greece did as a hieromonk when he received the repenting Chrysostomos of Florina and two other hierarchs into the True Orthodox Church of Greece on May 12/25, 1935. (cf: http://www.svetosavskasrbija.com/sites/ ... ce_goc.pdf )
Are ecumenists using the priestly ordination prayers as their rationale for praying with heretics? Do ecumenists really believe that their prayers of Ordination give them the power to pray with and to heal heretics? If so, then why then are the Papal and Protestant heretics in the Ecumenical Movement growing even more heretical? In fact, the EP has prayed many times with the Pope, yet the EP is becoming more bold in his heresies as seen at the 2016 World Council at Crete, and Pope Francis is daily pontificating more novel ideas and outright blasphemies. Indeed, these outrageous heretical outbursts from Francis’ mouth show no sign of stopping.
Second, there is a huge difference between "praying with" and "praying for" a heretic. The faithful are to pray for heretics, not with them. If a heretic asks for a prayer, yes, one can pray for them even if they are present in person, but the faithful cannot join with heretics in prayer. For example, if an Orthodox Christian layman is at a family gathering with persons of different "faith," he can lead a prayer for the blessing of food in an Orthodox Christian manner, but he cannot join in and pray with these heretics of different faiths even if they were to encourage everyone to say the Lord's Prayer.
13. C. One RTOC Church writer, possibly attempting to justify his personal views concerning this matter wrote: “the MP has grace, but that grace is inert”. How can we mortals formulate such a determination concerning Grace, that it is supposedly inert?
In the last section of paragraph 13 above, the RTOC Church writer is not identified. How is one to know if this quote has been taken out of context or mistranslated? Nevertheless, God’s grace is never inert. It either enlightens and sanctifies, or it burns and damns. God’s grace may seem ineffective because every person endowed with free will is always able to accept or reject God’s grace to their salvation or to their damnation.
14. There exists yet another incongruity: where is the limit? Who gave us the right to determine in which heretical church is “Grace present”, and in which it is not? Did the Holy Fathers give us such instructions? No!
In the paragraph above, Stefan again espouses Cyprianism, which teaches that only an ecumenical council can determine if a church is heretical and no longer has grace.
15. I recall something of interest from a lecture by Archimandrite Konstantine (Zaitsev) in a class at Jordanville Seminary: “There exists one and ONLY one Church of Christ. There is no other like Her and in the event of some sort of calamity, She has no substitute. She is irreplaceable. I once had the occasion to hear a person who expressed his view that of all the churches, the Anglican church was closest of all to the Orthodox, closer even than the Catholic. How should one understand this? In what sense is it “closer”? In no sense. They are both heretical and without grace. Could we possibly say to a person who does not have an Orthodox church nearby: it would be better if you went to the Anglican church than to the Catholic one?!”
16. A few words about those who say the reverse, that there is no grace in the churches which have fallen away from the Truth. This is correct, but one must nonetheless avoid extremes. Extremes do not yield spiritual instructiveness but sow disdain toward those who think differently as well as unnecessary strife. I will cite an example of “inappropriate extremes”:
In paragraph 15, Stefan quotes from Fr. Konstantine who says that there is no grace in heretical Papal and Protestant churches, yet in paragraph 16, Stefan causes chaos by questioning everything anew saying, “one must nonetheless avoid extremes.”
17. “The Moscow Patriarch… is not the True Church of Christ and its sacraments cannot be valid unto salvation”. This, so far is acceptable. But what is NOT acceptable is the last line of this DETERMINATION: “Outside the Church it is impossible for the soul, stricken by passions to receive true spiritual healing and salvation.” I repeatedly wrote to the RTOC Synod, asking them to REMOVE the word “impossible": It is impermissible to say that 'Outside the Church salvation is impossible', but my pleas have been ignored.
18. The Holy Gospel gives us a definite answer to this question concerning salvation. To the disciples’ question: “Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.” (Mark 10:26-27). Repeatedly I wrote to one RTOC bishop, that the final judgment over each person and his salvation is God’s matter. If you consider that you know for sure for whom salvation is possible and for whom it is impossible; then you contradict Christ Himself, saying “not all things” [slashed out]all things[/slashed out] are possible for God.
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 Ladouceur 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 Florina—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).
In conclusion, Stefan’s encyclical is modernistic, poorly written, and possibly involves plagiarism. Most certainly, this encyclical wrongly attacks those who are opposed to the Cyprianite heresy. Instead, it is the Cyprianites who are causing the lack of unity.
Should there be silence and false unity in the face of heresy? Lord forbid. Separation from a synod to promote heresy is schism, which is exactly what Stefan is doing. Has not he left the RTOC to embrace Cyprianism and to accept priests under him who are Cyprianites? And is he not encouraging others to follow him into schism?
-- Maria
p.s. No doubt this encyclical was written by Bishop Stefan's lay theologian who resides in Australia. Who is this lay theologian?
