Old Calendar Bulgarian Church: On Sacramental Grace (Pre-2014)

THE QUESTION OF GRACE IN THE MYSTERIES (SACRAMENTS) OF THE OFFICIAL LOCAL CHURCHES

Excerpted from the 2013 work, The Ecclesiological Position of the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, by Bishop Photii of Triaditza, translated and published by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, CA.

The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria has no communion with the official local Churches. Walling oneself off from such communion does not require an unequivocal affirmation that these Churches have completely fallen away from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that the Mysteries performed in them are deprived of Grace. Sufficient grounds for the cessation of ecclesiastical communion is the fact that the episcopate of these churches preach heresy or allow its dissemination through their passivity and, therefore, abide in ecclesiastical communion with bishops preaching or tolerating heresy. Clergy, monastics, and laity who break ecclesiastical communion with bishops “preaching heresy publicly and openly in the Church” are worthy of “honor befitting the Orthodox,” since not only do they not destroy the unity of the Church, but, on the contrary, they show diligence in protecting the Church from divisions and schisms. [cf. Canon 15 of the Protodeutera Synod]

Currently, the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria refrains from a definitive answer on the question of whether the Mysteries performed in the official local Churches are valid or not. Indeed, the heresy that is propagated or is being allowed to spread—mostly by bishops—ultimately leads to a falling-away from the Orthodox Church of individuals, groups of people, or even of entire local Churches. This can also happen gradually, in the course of a shorter or a longer period of time. For instance, such is the case with the Roman church. It deviated from the “correct and salvific confession of Faith” in stages, and only after a fairly lengthy period of time did it completely fall away from the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, from a theological perspective, it is precisely the question of the presence or absence of Grace in the Mysteries of the official local Churches that came to be the main rock on which the unity of the True Orthodox Christians crashed. In the tense atmosphere of decades of disputes, undue theological absolutism was reached on a question, the answer to which was not formulated dogmatically by the conciliar consciousness of the Church. This is why it should be addressed with special caution in the light of the theological consensus of the Fathers, and also in the light of the conciliar pastoral experience of the Church of Christ. This precludes debate which uses one-sided quotations gleaned from the Holy Fathers, and also precludes the absolutism of the theological opinion of specific persons or groups.

NOTE: While this Ecclesiological Position was superseded by the 2014 Pan-Orthodox document, The True Orthodox Church in Opposition to the Heresy of Ecumenism: Dogmatic and Canonical Issues, it contains essentially the same understanding.

Archpriest George Primak on Grace in the Moscow Patriarchate

Archpriest George Primak on Grace in the Moscow Patriarchate

Since none of our First Hierarchs and bishops of blessed memory have said that there is no grace in the MP, they [that is, supporters of the ROCOR/MP union talks] want us to believe that this means there is grace in the MP. This is a very strange approach to a very important question. It would be more logical and more convincing to indicate when and where it was said or written that there is complete [полная] grace there. If our hierarchs believed that there was complete grace there, then why did they categorically refuse to have eucharistic communion with the grace-filled Church? Most likely, nowhere was it said or written that there is complete grace there. Moreover, one can find personal statements of our hierarchs indicating the complete opposite.

Our Church does not have prayerful communion with the Churches that have adopted the new calendar, but I don't remember our hierarchs ever calling them graceless. Let’s think: perhaps our First Hierarchs and bishops of blessed memory set us an example of great humility, considering themselves unworthy to decide regarding the grace in the MP? In the same spirit, Metropolitan Cyprian of the Greek Old Calendarist Church expressed himself when asked his opinion on the grace in the new calendar Greek Church. He replied: "Who am I to decide this matter; it will be decided in the future at the Pan-Orthodox council of the true Orthodox Churches; but just in case, we avoid any prayerful communion with them." I invite all those who try to convince us regarding grace in the MP, to take an example from the humility of our hierarchs and ask themselves: am I worthy to decide that it exists, and do I have convincing evidence to fervently persuade my brethren in this matter?

ИГНОРИРОВАНИЕ СЕРЬЕЗНЫХ ДУХОВНЫХ ВОПРОСОВ [Ignoring Serious Spiritual Issues], by Protopriest George Primak, Online: http://www.metanthonymemorial.org/VernostNo40.htm.

On Uncreated Grace

When in the 14th century, the Western monk Barlaam came to Byzantium and preached created Grace of God, the Orthodox faithful with Saint Gregory Palamas confessed that divine Grace is uncreated.

This is also an important difference.

If divine Grace is created, it cannot divinize man. The purpose of the life in Christ, if divine Grace is created, cannot be theosis but ethical improvement. For this reason, the westerners do not speak about theosis as the aim of the life of man, but about ethical perfection—that we ought to become better men, not, however, gods by grace. As a result, the Church cannot be a communion of theosis, but a foundation affording to men justification in a nominalist and legal manner by means of a created grace. In the final analysis, the very truth of the Church as real theanthropic communion is abolished.

In this case, the Mysteries of the Church are not signs of the presence of God in the Church and of the communion with the uncreated Grace of God, but in some way, “faucets” which the Church opens and out flows created grace, with which men wait to benefit and to be legally justified. Thus, even the Mysteries are interpreted legally and not ecclesiologically. Ascesis also lapses into ethical gymnastics. The struggling Christian cannot receive experience of the uncreated Grace. He does not behold the uncreated Light of Tabor. And so, according to the divine Palamas, he remains inconsolable and untouched by the Divine Light. He does not participate in the glory, the brightness, and the Kingdom of the Trinitarian God. Thus, theology without experience of the uncreated Light becomes scholastic and discursive. Man remains closed off in the dark prison of the present world without an opening or a foretaste of the coming Kingdom.

- Archimandrite George of Grigoriou Monastery, Mount Athos, Catholicism in the Light of Orthodoxy, Uncut Mountain Press, 2022.

Bishop Petros Astyfides on Grace

"I want to be sincere with you, I respect your strictness, but my faith is different. I believe that the Holy Mysteries of the New Calendarists possess grace. And you know, it’s a very good thing that I did not sign the 1974 Encyclical. I did not, and of course I know the hypocrisy of those who did. They didn't believe in it and would never have dared to [originally] introduce it."

- Metropolitan Petros of Astoria, during a visit to the Holy Synod of the Matthewites in 1986. Quoted by Archimandrite Kyrikos Kontogiannis (later Matthewite Metropolitan of Mesogaia) in A Brief Sketch of the New Calendarist and Florinite Schisms, 1989, pages 24-25 (in Greek).

Monument to Orthodoxy: The Trial of a Zealot

 

We present to you the minutes of the trial of the Athonite Zealot Monk Theokletos Germanos (in the world, Thomas Vasileiou), which took place in 1973. The reason for the trial of Fr. Theokletos was his cessation of the commemoration of the name of the then Patriarch of Constantinople Dimitrios. The dialogues are particularly revealing regarding persons and views, and Fr. Theokletos' boldness is most impressive, reminiscent of the ancient Fathers in times of heresy.

PATRIARCHAL EXARCHY

1) President: Metropolitan Maximos of Stavroupolis

2) Exarch: Metropolitan Dionysios of Drama

3) Exarch: Metropolitan Titus of Rethymno and Mylopotamos

 

COMMITTEE

4) Protos: Elder Archimandrite Mitrophanes of Hilandar
5) Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Dionysiou, Archimandrite Gabriel
6) Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Philotheou, Archimandrite Papa-Ephraim [later Abbot of St. Anthony's Monastery in Arizona]
7) Former Abbot: Archimandrite Bessarion of the Holy Monastery of Gregoriou
8) Secretary: Archimandrite Panteleimon Davos

DEFENDANT

9) Monk Theokletos Germanos, Zealot of Mount Athos

 

President: Father Theokletos, why do you not commemorate our Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios I?

Theokletos: Because, according to his statements in his enthronement speech, he declared that he would faithfully follow the heretical line of his predecessor Athenagoras I, and because he continues to commemorate in the diptychs of the Great Church of Christ the heretical Pope of Rome.

President: This, Father Theokletos, is a malicious slanderous defamation.

Theokletos: Holy President, we write and say what the newspapers publish. In the event that His All-Holiness is innocent, let him respond in writing that what is published against him is false and unfounded.

President: I am fully aware of the entire situation, and the Patriarch will give an account to no one.

Papa-Ephraim: Father Theokletos, I will ask you something.

Theokletos: What?

Papa-Ephraim: Are the Mysteries of the New Calendarists valid or invalid?

Theokletos: God knows.

President: Father Theokletos, you must answer specifically to the question posed to you by Papa-Ephraim.

Papa-Ephraim: Father Theokletos, I will ask you another question. If someone violates Tradition, are they condemned?

Theokletos: Of course, they are condemned.

Papa-Ephraim: So you admit that the Mysteries of the New Calendarists are invalid.

Theokletos: Won't you stop this legalistic quibbling, Spiritual Father?

Papa-Ephraim: Holy President, he is the one who wrote a letter to Abbess Makrina of the Holy Monastery Panagia Odigitria in Volos and urged her to wall off from me.

Theokletos: Yes, it was I, Holy President, because the current Holy Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Philotheou, Papa-Ephraim, was my spiritual father back when I was still at the Holy Monastery of Saint Paul, and he urged us not to commemorate his predecessor, Patriarch Athenagoras I, because he aligned with the heretical Pope of Rome. Furthermore, when he travels to the Holy Monastery Panagia Odigitria in Volos, which belongs to the jurisdiction of Archbishop Auxentios of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, he commemorates Auxentios; but when he returns to Mount Athos, he commemorates the Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I.

President: Father Theokletos, leave your personal matters aside.

Papa-Ephraim: He, Holy President, is the cause of the entire situation.

Theokletos: Yes, Spiritual Father Papa-Ephraim, it is I. I am not to blame, but His Beatitude Auxentios is, who, after my revelations about you, still tolerates you and has not removed you from his records.

Papa-Ephraim: I do not recognize any Auxentios.

President: Father Theokletos, with whom are you in communion?

Theokletos: Holy President, administratively, we belong to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, but now, since the Patriarch is not walking in the Orthodox way, we are in spiritual communion with Archbishop Auxentios of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, with the Russian [Metropolitan] Philaret of the Church Abroad, and with the Tikhonites of the Catacombs in Russia.

President: Father Theokletos, leave aside these fabrications. Do you not know that you are obligated to commemorate the Patriarch? You are in his house, yet you insult him?

Theokletos: Holy President, is Ecumenism a heresy?

President: No.

Theokletos: Holy Abbot of Dionysiou, I ask you, is Ecumenism a heresy, yes or no?

Abbot Gabriel: Holy President, he goes around with his bag and has left his repentance.

Theokletos: Leave those things aside and answer what I am asking you. Holy Former Abbot of Gregoriou, what do you say, is Ecumenism a heresy, yes or no?

Former Abbot Bessarion (in a low voice): I do not want to get involved.

Papa-Ephraim: It is not the Ecumenism that you mean.

Theokletos: What is it, Spiritual Father? Isn’t it the one Archimandrite Charalambos Vasilopoulos writes about in his book titled "Ecumenism Unmasked," and others?

President: Father Theokletos, I see so much vitality in you, and you should use it more profitably in missionary work in Uganda, rather than being confined within the four walls of your cell and writing pamphlets against the Patriarch.

Theokletos: I sought that in the year 1967, when I left Mount Athos and went to the Holy Metropolis of Thessaliotida and Fanariofersala, and I asked the then-Metropolitan Kyrillos to grant me permission to preach the word of God in the villages, but he did not allow me, and I was forced to return to Mount Athos following his official letter.

Dionysios of Drama: Father Theokletos, did you perhaps intend to preach Old Calendarism?

Theokletos: Yes, Holy Exarch.

President: Father Theokletos, do you follow the line of the late former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos? Why did he not leave a successor?

Theokletos: Yes, Holy President, I faithfully follow his line, and he was the most prudent and conservative of the hierarchs of the Innovating Church of Greece. He did not leave a successor, fearing that he might also rebel, like the late Matthew...

President: You previously said that you have spiritual communion with the Russian Philaret of the Church Abroad. Are you aware that he concelebrates with both the New Calendarists and the Old Calendarist Serbs, who are in spiritual communion with us?

Theokletos: Yes, Holy President. As the Serbian hieromonks Atanasije Jevtić and Irinej Bulović informed me, they concelebrate with him — both studied Theology at the Theological School of the University of Athens, along with others whose names I cannot currently recall. However, Holy President, please note that Philaret does this out of sensitivity and gratitude towards the Serbian Church, as the Russian Church Abroad was hosted in Serbia for twenty years.

President: Very well, but Elder Mitrophanes, the Protos, can tell us even better as he is competent and a member of the Serbian Church.

Protos Elder Mitrophanes: Yes, Holy President, Philaret has fully canonical spiritual relations with the Serbian Church.

Theokletos: Holy President, I also have a written Orthodox confession, which I wish to read to you now, so that you may form an even clearer understanding of the Sacred Struggle of the Zealot Fathers of Mount Athos.

President: Father Theokletos, since it is quite lengthy and time has passed, you may hand it to me personally or to the Secretary of the Committee tomorrow morning.

Theokletos: Holy President, the World Council of Churches is a council of heresies, and you should not participate in it because you are praying together with heretics.

President: Father Theokletos, it is not joint prayer if we say an "Our Father" together with the heterodox.

Theokletos: Holy President, the Holy Canons of our Church forbid joint prayer with heretics.

President: In the W.C.C., we present Orthodoxy to the heterodox, and the "lamp should not be put under a bushel," or do you question my Orthodoxy?

Theokletos: Holy President, the distinguished Professor of Canon Law at the Theological School of the University of Athens, Mr. Konstantinos Mouratidis, calls the W.C.C. "a World Council of Heresies," and you are "Orthodox" in quotation marks.

Dionysios of Drama: Father Theokletos, how do you follow and listen to Mr. Konstantinos Mouratidis since he follows the New Calendar?

Theokletos: Holy Exarch, I do not follow Mr. Konstantinos Mouratidis in the innovation of the New Calendar, but I listen to what he rightly preaches in accordance with the Holy Canons of our Church.

President: I see, Father Theokletos, that despite all the tolerance and leniency we have shown you, you have deviated in your behavior.

Theokletos: Yes, Holy President, if I have indeed acted improperly, I ask for your forgiveness, but not for my Orthodox views.

President: We have no shared opinion on this matter. You should respect the house that hosts you and not insult its master, because Mount Athos belongs to the spiritual jurisdiction of the venerable Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Theokletos: Mount Athos, Holy President, does not belong to you, nor to me, but it is the portion of the Most Holy Theotokos and belongs to the Greek Nation and our Orthodoxy. Only the Orthodox remain in it; the Ecumenists have no reason to exist within it...

President: Enough of this, Fr. Theokletos. Do you have anything else to say?

Theokletos: Yes, Holy President, I have to say that what the Latin-minded Patriarch John Bekkos demanded of the Athonites back then, you have officially recognized today, namely: 1) the primacy of the heretical Pope of Rome, 2) his commemoration, and 3) the right of appeal, which you now hold.

Papa-Ephraim: We, Father Theokletos, are walking the good path.

Theokletos: Yes, Spiritual Father, just as your Elder [Joseph the Hesychast] walked it, having renounced his Zealotry [from 1924 to 1951] for the sake of temporary material goods and for the sake of economia.

President: Father Theokletos, you are free to go.

Theokletos: Good night to you!

 

After this trial, the verdict was condemning: expulsion from Mount Athos.

 

Greek source: http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2013/05/blog-post_31.html

Economia and Akrivia in relations with heretics in the teaching of St. Theodore the Studite

St. Theodore the Studite left us a particularly useful work, especially for our times, when new and personal reinterpretations and distortions are emerging regarding how the fight against the heresy of ecumenism should be conducted. Initially involved in the Moechian controversy (the adulterous synod), and later in the struggle against Iconoclasm, St. Theodore wrote numerous letters to clergy, laity, and monks, in which he provides concrete examples of the attitude that Orthodox Christians should have towards heretics and those in communion with them.

We note that St. Theodore the Studite (+826) broke communion with heretical bishops during a period when Canon 15 of the First-Second Council (issued only in 861) did not yet exist. Therefore, the practice of breaking communion should be viewed more broadly than this canon, which does not exhaust the subject, nor was it intended to do so.

It is also very important to point out that the heretics St. Theodore speaks about in his letters had not been condemned by any Orthodox council at that time. We mention this in the context of a dangerous teaching circulating widely today, which claims that uncondemned heretics are still canonical hierarchs as long as they have not been condemned by an Orthodox council, and that communion with them would not endanger our salvation.

We invite you to review a selection of excerpts from the letters of St. Theodore the Studite on topics of great relevance regarding the fight against ecumenism, in order to understand the true patristic attitude that we should adopt.

False teachers who participated in the heretical council and those of the same mind with them must not be commemorated.

"But when the heretical impurity was openly revealed during the council, it is fitting for your prudence, together with all the Orthodox, to speak boldly, having no communion with the false teachers and not commemorating anyone who participated in the adulterous council or those of the same mind with it." [Epistle 39. To Abbot Theophilus]

Communion with heretics under economia is a renunciation of the truth.

"In the justification written by Maximinus, which Athanasius himself read, Maximinus says that he took communion but did not have communion, and that this is an economia that does not entail a renunciation of the truth, even if it is not adhered to exactly. [...] Ah, how just is the bewilderment of our holy hierarch and the entire multitude of confessors! If this is not communion and renunciation, then what is the benefit of their toil and struggle, their shedding of blood and suffering? Why was he himself deposed? Why does he leave the monastery? Why is he removed from the celebration of the holy rites? Ah, I will say again, divine bewilderment! 'Holding injustice as the truth' (Rom 1:18), he believes that the Fathers acted as he did." [Epistle 25(213). To Abbot Niketas]

Heretical bishops are pseudo-bishops.

"What Christian has ever heard of the foolish and lawless acts committed by the dishonorable adulterers, who are only called bishops, but in fact are perfect defilers according to the judgment of the Apostles and the Fathers, even without considering their heresy? [...] Two hundred and sixty-six lashes, and then, after a short pause, another four hundred lashes with the whip on the back... This is what the noble archbishop did, or rather, the false-bishop of Thessalonica." [Epistle 51. To his son Naukratios]

Heretics separate themselves from the body of Christ

"The Lord has not abandoned His Church to the end, but has shown that it has power within itself, causing our brothers in the West to expose the madness of those here and to enlighten those who struggle in the darkness of heresy. And yet, these obstinate ones have refused to open the eyes of their hearts. I testify before God and men: they have separated themselves from the body of Christ, from the most exalted throne on which Christ placed the keys of faith, which, according to the promise of the One who does not lie, the gates of hell—meaning the mouth of the heretics—have not prevailed against and will not prevail until the end of the age (Mt. 16:18)." [Epistle 63(122). To his son Naukratios]

The one who commemorates a heresiarch cannot be Orthodox

"You tell me that you are afraid to ask your priest to stop commemorating the heresiarch. What should I answer to this? I do not justify him: if communion through simple commemoration causes impurity, then the one who commemorates the heresiarch cannot be Orthodox." [Epistle 58. To the wife of a spatharios named Machara]

Heretics persecuted the Orthodox to be commemorated as bishops

"And why was this torture? To force the ascetic of Christ to commemorate him as a bishop." [Epistle 51. To his son Naukratios]

Monks who give the laity an example of communion with heretics will bear responsibility for their destruction

"The duty of a monk is to not allow even the slightest innovation in the Gospel, so that by doing otherwise, giving the laity an example of heresy and communion with heretics, they do not bear responsibility for their destruction." [Epistle 39. To Abbot Theophilus]

The relationship with Orthodox priests who, out of fear, commemorate heretical bishops

"Regarding the Orthodox priest who, out of fear of persecution, commemorates the heretical bishop, I have already answered you before and will say again: if he does not serve together with the heretic and does not have communion with such people, then he should be received in the community for psalmody, for the blessing of food, and this out of economia, but not for Divine Communion." [Epistle 40. To his son Naukratios]

Ordinations by a bishop in communion with heretics become valid only if he renounces this communion

"You answered well to the priest and the abbot that those now ordained by a bishop proven to be a heretic are alienated from the priesthood, even if he says that the council was wrong and we are lost. For why does he, recognizing this, not flee from destruction, avoiding heresy, to become a bishop of God? Then his ordinations will be immediately accepted. Or why, while heresy reigns, did the abbot send the brothers for ordination by a heretic?

"Therefore, if the one who ordained them were to repent, they would be immediately permitted to perform the holy rites; but since he remains in heresy, commemorating a heretic, then even if he claims to have a sound mind, those ordained by him cannot be true servants of the Lord." [Epistle 40. To his son Naukratios]

Communion with heresy is harmful to the soul

"Communion with heretics is not common bread, but poison, which does not harm the body, but blackens and darkens the soul." [Epistle 24(83). To his son Ignatius]

"To enter into communion with heretics on your own is an act of free will, and if someone has done this out of fear—that being your question—even in this case, he cannot be justified. For it is said: 'Do not fear those who kill the body' (Matt. 10:28), but fear God, Who can cast both body and soul into the eternal fire of Gehenna. Did you hear? Truly, the entire world is not worthy of a soul that keeps itself from participating in either heretical communion or all wickedness." [Epistle 32(91). To his son Taleleos]

"We thank God that you too, holy fathers, remained steadfast in the storm of the iconoclastic heresy, not being drawn into the soul-damaging communion with it, but running the race and attaining the most blessed crown of persecution, which is truly worthy of your virtue and has revealed the ascetic struggles you accomplished in the past." [Epistle 70(258). To the monks Avolios and John]

"Some have suffered a complete shipwreck in matters of faith; others, even if they have not sunk through their beliefs, nevertheless perish through communion with heresy." [Epistle 15(74). To the Patriarch of Jerusalem]

Communion with heresy is separation from Christ

"In these circumstances, anyone who partakes or participates in the poisonous bread, is he not rejected by Christ, an apostate, unclean, unless he returns through repentance?" [Epistle 25(213). To Abbot Niketas]

"I beg you, guard yourselves from the soul-destroying heresy, communion with which is separation from Christ." [Epistle 60(119). To the virgins]

"This heresy must be avoided at all costs, as communion with it separates us from Christ." [Epistle 161(349). To the monks]

"I have heard, beloved brother, that you did not allow those who betrayed the faith to draw you into communion with the heretics, and thus you glorified God. By distancing yourself from the communion that separates from God, even though the heretics held positions of authority as teachers, you hid yourself, living with laborers in the mountains and caves, preferring to endure hardships and suffering rather than to forsake eternal life for temporary pleasure. And now you have Christ our God as your guide and teacher, for Whom we also suffer." [Epistle 219(407). To the monk Arcadios]

"And may the Lord keep you undefeated until the end, outside of communion with the heretics which separates from God, being in all things glorious and wise." [Epistle 224(412). To another patrician woman]

"I offered great thanks to God for the fact that the laity, along with the monks, strive to be pleasing to the Lord, avoiding the darkness of heresy. Indeed, brother, this is darkness and a snare of the devil. Whoever falls into this snare, communion with the heretics separates him from Christ and drives him far from the flock of the Lord." [Epistle 245(433). To Curator Constantine]

"In these days, when not only women like you and those tonsured into monasticism, but almost all the monks and abbots of Byzantium are being enticed, you, with a few others, have preferred to suffer for Christ rather than enter into communion with the heretics, which separates from Christ. For whoever enters into such communion separates from Christ, like Judas, and becomes a participant with those who handed Christ over for crucifixion." [Epistle 256(444). To an abbess]

The communion of heretics alienates from God

"But if he again refrains from the Eucharist because of heresy, that is correct. For the communion of a heretic or of someone clearly condemned for their life alienates you from God and delivers you into the hands of the devil." [Epistle 58. To the Spatharia, named Mahara]

The bread of heretics is not the body of Christ. Who can be included in commemorations.

"If someone who previously had communion with heresy out of human fear repents on their deathbed, receiving, for example, a penance from someone and, in this way, enters into communion with the Orthodox and dies in this state, then it is natural to include them in the Orthodox commemorations, for our Good God, in His great love for mankind, accepts the one who repents even in the last hour and judges them accordingly. Therefore, if this was the case, then it is not forbidden to perform the Liturgy for them before God. But if nothing like this occurred, and while in communion with heresy, they did not manage to partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord—since the bread of heretics is not the body of Christ—then we cannot dare to commemorate them at the Liturgy. For divine matters cannot be taken lightly, and the one praying for such a person may hear: 'You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your pleasures' (James 4:3)." [Epistle 69(257). To his son Dorotheos]

The canonical boundaries during times of heresy are not the same as during times of peace

"Question: Regarding the presbyters ordained without notification in Rome, Naples, and Lombardy and then released: can we receive them and have communion with them, share a meal together, and pray together?

"Answer: In times of heresy, out of necessity, not everything is necessarily in accordance with the rules established during times of peace. Thus, we see that the most blessed Athanasius and Saint Eusebius acted in the same way, both performing ordinations of individuals outside their regions. And now we see the same thing happening in the current time of heresy." [Epistle 87(275). To the monk Methodius]

In what case can we receive communion from the priest of an Orthodox bishop who has not broken communion with heretics?*

"If the bishop did not attend the adulterous synod and calls it a false gathering, but commemorates his metropolitan who attended that synod, should we have communion with the priest of such an Orthodox bishop? I have already answered this in another letter to Evodius, that it is appropriate, out of economia, only if he has not served together with the heretics. For when the bishop being commemorated is Orthodox, it does not matter if he commemorates his heretical metropolitan out of fear." [Epistle 49. To his son Naukratios]

*Editor's note: Therefore, the conditions that the bishop described in this letter must meet are the following:

1. To confess the Orthodox faith.

2. To not have participated in robber councils.

3. To not serve together with heretics.

4. To commemorate his superior out of fear (as opponents of the adulterous synod were then persecuted by imperial power).

Unfortunately, some speculate on this passage, insinuating that St. Theodore refers here to cases of bishops such as Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus or Bishop Longhin of Bănceni. Unfortunately, we observe that this is not the case, as these bishops have often co-served with ecumenists, and they justify their continued communion with the ecumenists through economia, not out of any fear of persecution. Such economia is not admissible, as St. Theodore and other Holy Fathers demonstrate.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220814174629/https://lumea-ortodoxa.ro/index.html@p=1155.html

St. Ignáty Brianchaninov on Spiritual Warfare

 St. Ignáty Brianchaninov on Spiritual Warfare: from The Arena

For his invisible warfare or conflict with man, especially by means of sinful thoughts and imaginations, the fallen angel relies on the mutual affinity of the sins one with another. This conflict never ceases day or night, but it becomes especially intense and furious when we stand for prayer. Then, according to the expression of the holy Fathers, the devil gathers the most monstrous thoughts from everywhere and pours them on our soul. First he reminds us of all who have wronged or offended us. He tries to present all the insults, wrongs and injuries inflicted on us in the most lurid colors. He points out the necessity for retaliation and resistance to them by demanding justice, common sense, the public good, self-preservation, self-defense. It is obvious that the enemy tries to shake the very foundation of prayer, namely forgiveness and meekness, so that the building erected on this foundation may collapse of its own accord. And this is just what happens, because a person who is full of resentment and who does not forgive his neighbor’s sins is quite unable to obtain compunction or concentrate when he prays. Angry thoughts dissipate prayer; they blow it aside, just as a violent wind scatters seeds thrown by a sower on his field; so the field of the heart remains unsown, and all the ascetic’s hard work comes to nothing.

It is a well-known fact that forgiveness of wrongs and offenses, changing condemnation of our neighbors into kindness and mercy so that we excuse them and blame ourselves, provides the only solid basis for successful prayer… We must follow our Lord’s example and teaching; we must reject thoughts of earthly glory, success, and earthly plenty; we must refuse joy brought by those fancies and reflections which destroy in us contrition of spirit, concentration and attention during prayer, and which lead to self-opinion and distraction. If we consent to thoughts of resentment and condemnation, thoughts and fantasies of vainglory, pride, love of money and love of the world, and if we do not reject them, but dawdle in them and take pleasure in them, then we enter into fellowship with Satan, and the power of God which protects us will leave us. The enemy then rushes at us with two most grievous conflicts: the conflict with thoughts and fantasies, and the conflict with despondency or sloth. 

Defeated in the first conflict and deprived of God’s protection, we cannot stand against the second conflict either. This means, the Fathers tell us, that God allows Satan to defeat us until we humble ourselves…

1974 Letter of Bishop Petros of Astoria

Holy Diocese of Astoria

New York, America

To the devout Christian faithful of the Church of Greece

My beloved Children in the Lord,

It is safe to say that the latest events have become known to all of us, which have had as its result the (uncanonical) “removal” of my name from the members of the Holy Synod, precisely because I did not want to sign the encyclical number 1191, dated June 5th, 1974. And, also, as it is understood on page nine of the pamphlet, “THUS DO WE BELIEVE, THUS DO WE SPEAK,” I have repeatedly refused my signature on this, as, in this case, it does not express the truth on this matter and at the same time constituted a clear overreach of the rights of a local Synod of the Hierarchy (see also “Orthodox Word”, October 1974, page 3 in my related article). 

The truth of the above was recently confirmed by the excerpt from the Minutes of the plenary session of the Russian Hierarchy Abroad [ROCOR]. In it, the following is stated regarding the issue that concerns us:

“The first decision of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia concerning the questions brought forward about the factions of the Old Calendarists in Greece:

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia believes that the introduction of the new calendar constitutes an error, introduces irregularity into the life of the Church and, last of all, results in a schism. As a result, She has not accepted to concelebrate with new calendarists. As concerns the question regarding the presence or absence of grace amongst new calendarists, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia does not believe that She or any other local church has the right to decide definitively, given that properly a decision about this can only be made by a canonically joint meeting of an Ecumenical Council, with necessary participation of a free Russian Church” 17-25 September 1974. (For the entire document with photocopies of the original, see “Orthodox Word” November - December 1974.)

Consequently, I believe it is a good time for me to say once again that absolutely no reason exists for my aforementioned “removal” as a member of the Holy Synod or for the imposition of any punishment against me; but, on the contrary, let it be, as can be seen from the text above, unto my praise and honor. 

For this reason, to remove any scandal from your souls and to prevent the unjust exploitation of these events, I declare once again to everyone that I firmly remain faithful to the holy and Orthodox path of our Sacred Struggle, maintaining ecclesiastical communion only with our Holy Synod and that of Metropolitan Philaret.

On this note, and on the occasion of the upcoming celebrations of the Nativity of Christ, I wish for all of us the abundant grace of our incarnate Lord Jesus Christ, who was born in a cave for our salvation, our true God.

I remain, with fatherly prayers

PETROS of Astoria

in Athens, 20 Dec 1974

Scan of original Greek letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H9ARcVk19ws49KJ-qVkwrVWxYhrY92uc/view?usp=sharing

1990-1991 ROCOR Deliberations on Grace in the MP

14. Deliberations of the Bishops of ROCOR (1990-1991) Concerning the Sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate

 

PROTOCOL No. 2

Sessions of the Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, April 26/May 9, 1990 <...>

The Chairman [Metropolitan Vitaly] proposes to the Council to compose a message to the Russian people about the state of the Russian Orthodox Church and the essence of the Moscow Patriarchate. <...>

Bishop Mark believes that it is important to establish the procedure for receiving clergy from the Moscow Patriarchate. It is also necessary to express more clearly our position regarding the sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate. Until now, there has been no clear official position on this matter, and many, for example, Z.A. Krahmalnikova, believe that the sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate can be freely received. The basis for our position should be the experience of the New Martyrs, for example, the position on this matter of the Holy Hieromartyr Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan.

Archbishop Anthony of Western America reminds that Metropolitan Kirill wrote that, in the case of extreme necessity, before death, he would have accepted the sacraments of the Sergianists.

Bishop Lazar points out that in all the subsequent decades, the Moscow Patriarchate has gone further in its deviation. <...>

The Chairman emphasizes that this is precisely the position of Metropolitan Kirill, which he derived from life and which is still applicable today. He gives the example of the spiritual rebirth of a young man who sincerely received the sacrament of baptism from a priest of the Patriarchate. On the other hand, the Moscow Patriarchate is sinking deeper and deeper into lawlessness and blasphemy.

Archbishop Pavel asserts that we cannot now resolve the question of the grace of the Moscow Patriarchate. We do not have the information, and we are not authorized to do so.

Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles objects, stating that if a KGB agent performs a sacrament, then it cannot be grace-filled.

Bishop Lazar says that in Russia, the people easily recognize who is a true priest and who is from the KGB.

Archbishop Pavel believes that there is an analogy here with the Lord's instruction to listen to the Pharisees and scribes, but not to imitate their deeds.

Bishop Mark objects, stating that this is not merely an academic question but a pressing one, and we must provide an answer to those asking from there.

Bishop Lazar conveys the opinion of the Holy Hieromartyr Metropolitan Agathangel of Yaroslavl, which is that if there is no canonical priest and it is necessary in extreme circumstances to receive communion in the official Church, one must choose a priest who is not "red."

Archbishop Laurus agrees that now is not the time to resolve this question. Perhaps in the near future the Patriarchate will be cleansed, and an All-Russian Council will issue its decision.

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva agrees that we do not have the right to resolve this question at the present time.

The Chairman shares the above-mentioned position of Metropolitan Agathangel. <...>

Bishop Daniel adds that, according to church discipline, our parishioners cannot receive communion in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The Chairman confirms that we warn our flock before their trips to the USSR regarding communion. <...>

 

Protocol No. 6

Sessions of the Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, May 2/15, 1990 <...>

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva reads the draft message of the Council of Bishops to the Russian people, composed by the commission headed by Archbishop Anthony of Geneva.

Bishop Lazar believes that the message should mention the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate in the ecumenical movement.

Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles says that the Moscow Patriarchate has not only no moral right to oppose our presence in Russia, but no right at all.

Bishop Lazar points out that the Moscow hierarchs also have no canonical right to oppose us, as they are subject to deposition according to the 30th Apostolic Canon. <...>

Resolved: To approve the draft message of the Council of Bishops to the Russian people.

From the Message of the Council of Bishops of ROCOR in 1990:

"We believe and confess that in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, in those among them where the priest fervently believes and sincerely prays, being not only a servant of the cult but also a good shepherd who loves his sheep, saving grace is imparted in the sacraments to those who approach in faith. These churches are few on the vast expanses of the Russian land."

 

PROTOCOL No. 5

Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, October 8/21, 1991 <...>

Archbishop Lazar reads a report concerning Sergianism and our attitude towards it. He believes that the passage in the 1990 Council of Bishops' message regarding the grace of the sacraments in certain churches of the Moscow Patriarchate is scandalous and proposes to omit the mentioned paragraph.

The Chairman agrees that the mentioned passage in the message is a mistake, and we will correct it. However, determining the grace [of the sacraments] can only be done after a judgment over the Moscow Patriarchate. We acknowledge that they are subject to judgment but not yet condemned. Therefore, we are not in communion with them.

Archbishop Lazar believes that it was unnecessary to mention the grace or gracelessness of the Moscow Patriarchate in the message.

Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles notes that Father Victor Potapov logically wrote that, based on the Council's message, the faithful can turn to good priests of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Our Church did not speak on this matter for many decades, and in one night, so hastily, an imprudent decision was made.

Archbishop Lazar believes that this passage should be rejected, otherwise many will turn away from us.

Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles reads St. Basil the Great's response to St. Amphilochius regarding the baptism of heretics. This rule should be followed in relation to the Moscow Patriarchate.

Archbishop Anthony of Western America points out that a mistake cannot be corrected by another mistake, by now speaking of the gracelessness of the Patriarchate. At present, we cannot claim to be above the All-Russian Council. This should be decided by the All-Russian Council.

Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles says that because of this message, our enemies are laughing at us. He quotes a remark by Priest Michael Ardov on this matter, as well as by Patriarch Alexy II.

The Chairman believes that we should respond that we are not given the authority to judge the Moscow Patriarchate, and we made a mistake in our assertion about the grace of certain priests.

Bishop Daniel says that the unfortunate wording regarding the grace of certain priests may have arisen from the fact that not all priests of the Moscow Patriarchate are traitors and betrayers.

The Chairman agrees with this.

Resolved: 1) To appoint an editorial commission consisting of His Eminence Archbishop Mark and Bishop Gregory, who will propose a resolution on this issue. <...>

 

PROTOCOL No. 7

Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, October 8/21, 1991 <...>

Bishop Gregory proposes the commission's draft for the correction of the 1990 Message.

Resolved: To accept the proposed draft of the commission:

"It was adjudged that, due to a misunderstanding, the paragraph about well-intentioned clergy, remaining in the ranks of the Moscow Patriarchate out of ignorance, was mistakenly included in the text of the 1990 Council of Bishops' message (the eleventh paragraph from the end)."

Resolved: To exclude the above-mentioned paragraph from the message and republish the corrected text of the message [from the compiler's archive].

 

From the compiler: As Metropolitan Vitaly defined regarding the sacraments of the MP:  "Determining grace can only be done after a judgment over the Moscow Patriarchate. We acknowledge that they are subject to judgment, but not yet condemned," and "we are not given the authority to judge the Moscow Patriarchate, and we made a mistake in our assertion about the grace of certain priests." Archbishop Anthony of Western America added, "A mistake cannot be corrected by another mistake, by now speaking of the gracelessness of the Patriarchate. At present, we cannot claim to be above the All-Russian Council. This should be decided by the All-Russian Council." Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles remarked, "Our Church did not speak on this matter (i.e., the grace or gracelessness of the MP's sacraments – VK) for many decades, and in one night, so hastily, an imprudent decision was made." Metropolitan Vitaly and, in general, the Council of Bishops "agreed that the mentioned passage in the message [of the ROCOR Council of Bishops in 1990 – VK] is a mistake," and thus the decision was made: "To exclude the above-mentioned paragraph from the message."

 

Source: Анафема РПЦЗ экуменизму: факты и значение (Новая редакция) [The Anathema of ROCOR Against Ecumenism: Facts and Significance (New Edition)], by Subdeacon Vladimir Kirillov, 2023, pp. 246-249.