The Antidote to the Poison of "The Two Extremes"

Monk Damianos Agiovasiliatis | March 27, 2017

 

In a recent article (Orthodoxos Typos – February 16, 2017), the person and the book The Two Extremes by Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos are extolled to the point of delirium by the Athonite monk Arsenios of the Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou, as an authority on spiritual discernment in the interpretation of the Holy Canons, and in general, he describes him as a "guide of the struggle." What is the struggle of Fr. Epiphanios' admirers, and where does it lead them? We shall see this further on.

It is deemed imperative, given the development of ecclesiastical matters over the past decades—especially today, after the Great Council of Crete, which constitutes the crowning achievement of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—to reveal the enormous harm that this book by Fr. Epiphanios has inflicted upon the conscience of the faithful of the New Calendar Church. No matter how much one tries in discussions with a clergyman, monk, or layperson of the New Calendarists to point out the Canons and prove that the timeless tradition of the Holy Fathers of our Church forbids communion with heretics, and that, in times of danger to the faith from the heretical Primates of the Orthodox Church, the cessation of their commemoration by the faithful becomes imperative, these indications and proofs fall into the void—or, more precisely, into the "black hole" that the unsurpassed sophist Fr. Epiphanios managed to create with another newly-invented ecclesiology, unfortunately. And while they do not deny the divine inspiration of the words and exhortations of the saints, paradoxically, they do exactly the opposite, thus emphatically confirming the words of the Apostle Paul, who prophetically pointed out the tribulation of the last days—namely, our days—beyond the various sins he condemns, that even our brethren "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof." (2 Tim. 3:5) [1]

In The Two Extremes, we must admit, there is an attempt—executed with admirable skill—to detach from the Consensus Patrum, as contemporary theologians call it, regarding the manner of confronting heresies and heretics before their synodal condemnation. The "black hole" of Fr. Epiphanios, through which he literally undermined Orthodox Patristic Ecclesiology, consists primarily in the misinterpretation of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council and its consequences, which can be summarized as follows:

a) Trivial matters—these things have happened before.
b) Social interactions are unworthy of any attention.
c) Obedience to the Church (=Administration).
d) We must not create a schism in the Church.
e) The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council is optional, not mandatory; it grants the right to cease commemoration but does not obligate one to do so.
f) There is no risk of defilement, neither by commemorating the Patriarch, since he has not yet been condemned, nor—much less—by communing with those who commemorate him and other ecumenists.
g) We are losing so many young people—should we really be occupied with these matters now?
h) The guardians are aware.

Although his sophistic arguments were completely refuted—to the point of pulverization—by the late Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros in his work titled The Antidote, nonetheless, The Two Extremes was widely distributed in religious bookstores across the country, whereas The Antidote was scarcely available, even to the point of prohibition, so that finding it required the luck of a gold prospector. To prove this, I will briefly share a personal experience.

Towards the end of the 1990s, a friend and I went on a pilgrimage to the Monastery of Dionysiou on Mount Athos to speak with a monk of the monastery who was our compatriot. Among other things, our discussion turned to the issue of commemorating Patriarch Demetrios at that time and communion with Ecumenism. We said what we had to say, and as we were leaving, we gave him The Antidote so that he could study it more carefully in peace. However, a passing Hieromonk, upon seeing the book, suddenly rushed over and literally snatched it from his hands, saying, "You will not read this book." Clearly, he recognized it, and at the sight of it, he became like a raging bull. The book, of course, was confiscated, and our joy over the pilgrimage turned into sorrow and distress—not because of the book itself, but because of what was happening more broadly on Mount Athos.

How, then, could there not be clergy, monks, and laypeople today who embrace The Two Extremes as if it were another Gospel? Where would Fr. Arsenios, monk of Dionysiou, and so many other clergy, monks, and laypeople find the Orthodox counterargument without The Antidote?

Reading the article by Monk Arsenios, the exaggerations regarding the wisdom, spiritual clarity, and infallible authority of Fr. Epiphanios make it "brighter than the sun" that his efforts until then were a desperate attempt to silence the voice of his conscience regarding communion with the heresiarch of Phanar. How could his conscience not be troubled when, time and again, reading the lives and writings of the saints, he learns that Saint Maximus the Confessor was exiled three times because he refused to enter into communion with the Monothelite Patriarchs?

–When he reads the directive of Basil the Great: "Those who, while pretending to confess the sound Orthodox faith, commune with those of different mind, such persons, if they do not cease after admonition, are not only to be held as excommunicated but not even to be called brothers"?

–Of Athanasius the Great: "Walking the straight and life-giving path, let us cut off the offending eye, not the physical one but the spiritual one. That is, if the bishop or the presbyter, who are the eyes of the Church, conduct themselves wickedly and scandalize the people, they must be cast out. For it is better to gather in a place of prayer without them than to be thrown into the Gehenna of fire with them, as with Annas and Caiaphas." [2]

–Of Saint Theodore the Studite: "For Chrysostom declared with a great and loud voice as enemies of God not only the heretics but also those who commune with such." [3]

–Or from the letter of the Athonite Fathers to the Latin-minded Emperor Michael Palaiologos: "And how can an Orthodox soul endure these things and not immediately withdraw from the communion of those who have commemorated him, and regard them as those who have profaned the divine? … Besides, communion carries defilement merely from the mention of him, even if the one commemorating him is Orthodox," and that "great is the significance of the commemoration"?

And if he believed that the ecumenists are not heretics, the above words of the saints would naturally not move him, since he would rather be an ecumenist himself. However, from the way he expresses himself in his article, it appears that he had some Orthodox sensitivities.

Heavy was the burden of conscience, then, and it was imperative to find a solution. Perhaps knowing the correct way to confront the pan-heresy, but clearly swayed by the particularly intense—compared to Greece—criticism and propaganda against Old Calendarism for the past four decades from Athonite monastic circles, except for the Monastery of Esphigmenou, he seems to have been at a loss. "No one doubts," he now says, "that our Church has suffered greatly from these two extremes: ecumenism and zealotry." A classic case of subjective self-suggestion through the exclusion of everything, attempting to convince himself of what he actually doubts! Thus, the delirium is explained, yet it is nothing more than the lesson taught to us by the following fable.

Once, a donkey complained to his master (who would take him on a one-hour journey to the city for shopping and, upon returning, would set him free to enjoy his grazing) that he was tired and asked him not to treat him so harshly with heavy loads in the future. "Very well," said the man, "tomorrow I will take better care of you." Early the next morning, he took the donkey to the mill, yoked him to one end of the axle of the large round stone, and at the other end, he hung a sack of barley. With a suitable mechanism, he brought the sack close to the donkey's muzzle, and after he ate a little, he moved it back to its place. This was repeated three to four times until late in the evening. At first, the donkey was pleased with the lighter burden he had to pull, but he kept making endless circles, trying to reach his beloved barley to finally satisfy his hunger.

Similarly "liberated" from the initial burden of the weight of conscience, Fr. Arsenios, as well as most Athonite monks (of the 19 monasteries), spend their monastic life in communion with the heresiarch Bartholomew, far, of course, from the martyric practice of the holy confessor Fathers of our Church and the Orthodox tradition.

Therefore, having "rested" his troubled conscience, in the article he concludes "triumphantly," as if from the mouth of Fr. Epiphanios:

"Come, all you who are weary and burdened by the heavy yoke of the two extremes, and I will give you rest. Take upon yourselves the yoke of the middle and royal path, and you will learn that there lies the meekness and humility of Christ, and you will find rest and peace for your souls. For the yoke of the middle and royal path is good, and its burden is very light."

What saint ever spoke with such authority, even using the words of Christ, supposedly to grant rest to Christians through new theories unknown to the tradition of the Church? Undoubtedly, such a statement is worthy of the arrogant papal authority. What saint ever applied, when the faith was in danger, the so-called middle and royal path? What is this middle path when they commune with one extreme? One either aligns with Orthodoxy or rejects it. One either accepts the light of truth or rejects it. There is no middle ground between truth and falsehood or delusion. And since the holy Fathers define that communion through commemoration brings defilement, it is clear that without orthopraxy in matters of faith, Orthodoxy itself is cast away. There may have been some tolerance at the beginning of the preaching of a heretical doctrine, but today, after a century of ecumenist activity, how can one commune with the ecumenists and rest in the mistaken belief that this aligns with the orthopraxy of the confessing saints?

Behold below the reason why the little-regarded by the New Calendarists, but great before God and excellent in practical Orthodoxy, Fr. Theodoretos chose this specific title in his refutational work against The Two Extremes.

"Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, through his work The Two Extremes, became the strongest ally of the ecumenists, the best advocate of the 'lukewarm' and indifferent 'conservatives,' the brightest underline for the rationalist theologians and misinterpreters of Church History and the Holy Canons." [4]

Addressing him directly through their written dialogue, he wrote to him:

"Not only did you not help the persecuted Orthodoxy, but in its desperate struggle to escape the deadly embrace of the papal corpse, one might even say with sadism, you would always respond: 'Patience, O Mother, until the appointed time, until the common Chalice, and then you shall see what heroic children you have.'" [5]

"Thus, by accepting those who commune with the Patriarch and commemorating him at the same time—since there is supposedly no danger of defilement (!)—when and who will ever succeed in stopping the advance of the heterodox? When will the faithful realize that heresy is being preached so that they may react? Indeed, it is only with such helpers that Athenagoras achieved what he did, and which his worthy successor continues to an even greater extent!

"The same responsibility that those who offer pornography and drugs to the youth bear today is also borne by Fr. Epiphanios, as well as those who distribute The Two Extremes, with regard to the spread of heresy in the Greek territory! Yet, for the New Calendarists, he continues to be considered the new Zonaras!" [6]

As a genuine Athonite, Fr. Theodoretos knew very well the persons and matters in the Garden of the Theotokos, and for this reason, he always said about the well-known Fr. Paisios, with pain and distress of heart:

"How could we not reach the present confusion when Fr. Paisios, speaking about Patriarch Bartholomew (with whom he proudly posed for the camera), said that 'God ordained the best patriarch for these difficult times'" [7] When he himself attempted to justify the unjustifiable, resorting to naïve and superficial arguments such as the following?

"a) Patriarch Demetrios is a withered branch, but he supports the vine, that is, the Church!

"b) If we do not like Papandreou, should we leave Greece? Likewise, if we do not like Demetrios, should we leave the Church? However, the entire holy Tradition emphasizes that the one who withdraws from the preacher of heresy and severs communion with him does not leave the Church, but rather 'preserves' it from schisms and divisions!

"c) I cry out; whoever comes to my cell, I protest. If I cry out more, they will expel me from Mount Athos. Do you not understand?"

We understand him, but he does not understand. What? The paternal saying of Saint Theodore: "But why do we prefer monasteries over God, and the comfort of this life over suffering for the sake of the good? Where is the saying: ‘Behold, I will not restrain my lips, O Lord, You have known’? Where is the glory and strength of our order?" [8] [9]

Truly, without The Two Extremes, the troubled conscience of many clergy, monastics, and faithful would undoubtedly have led them to the Orthodox practice of freedom from communion with the ecumenists. Instead of bringing them relief, lightening their burden, and granting them rest, it has, on the contrary, trapped them, ultimately transforming the initial heavy yet hope-filled burden into an unceasing circular movement—from complacency to a paper war against ecumenism, from the paper war, with greater zeal, to anti-zealotry, and back again to complacency, and so on.

 

NOTES

1. Tim. B’ 3:5.
2. P.G. 35, 33.
3. P.G. 99, 1049A.
4. Theodoretos Hieromonk. Athonite. July 1997.
5. The Antidoton, p. 152.
6. The Antidoton, p. 147.
7. Kathimerini, 27.11.1993.
8. P.G. 99, 1120D.
9. The Antidoton, p. 10.

P.S. The above article was sent to Orthodoxos Typos two days after the publication of Monk Arsenios' article. Unfortunately, however, it was not published, as it should have been, by the editors, once again proving their bias to the detriment of Orthodoxy.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/03/blog-post_10.html