Response to Father Ioan Miron's Study Regarding the Invalidity of the Mysteries in the Romanian Orthodox Church

by Fr. Dr. Ciprian-Ioan Staicu

[From a Neo-Zealot new calendarist debate on this contentious issue.]

"All the saints see what is unseen and understand what is incomprehensible. Among them there is the same mindset, and therefore we too must follow them exactly." – Saint Gregory Palamas, On the Saints, in the work published under the auspices of the Metropolis of Thessaloniki, Life in Christ according to Saint Gregory Palamas, Thessaloniki, 2017.

 

A few days ago [in 2017], a study was published signed: Ioan, by the mercy of God, priest.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20171230023549/http://www.glasulstramosesc.ro/blog/cel_ce_se_leapada_de_hristos_nu_mai_poate_lucra_cu_harul_chiar_apostol_fiind_el/2017-10-28-535]

This refers in fact to Father Ioan Miron, judged and crowned by the ecumenist heretics through “defrocking” for his struggle against the pan-heresy of ecumenism. I regret that Father Ioan did not sign with his full name, as he did in 2016, when he signed—together with other fathers—the brief Expression of Our Conscience. What is important to note from the outset is the completely contradictory nature between the text now signed and that previously signed by Father Ioan Miron (in 2016), the bone of contention being the issue of whether or not the Mysteries performed by ecumenist heretics are valid. If Father Ioan Miron wrote this recent article, it would have been appropriate for him to disavow what he previously signed—his name and clear signature are there—otherwise, we can no longer understand what his clear and unequivocal position truly is.

Father Ioan’s study comes as a response to Father Savvas Lavriotis' study regarding Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople, where, in a separate chapter, he also addresses the issue of valid or invalid Mysteries. Of course, Father Ioan does not name that Athonite study directly, but merely lets it be implied, seasoning his own text with expressions meant to provoke indignation and outrage toward what that fool or those fools have written...

My attempt was to resolve the issue personally, without public polemics, so as not to scandalize anyone. However, the telephone threat I received from Father Ioan Miron — “by the time I return from England, you had better clean up the mess” — as well as his personal conclusion: “Father Ciprian, from the beginning I saw that you do not know Orthodox theology at all,” combined with the article presented here for analysis, and the preparations Father Ioan is making for the imminent calendar change, have led me to proceed with this analysis, so that the matter at hand may receive its proper response through the appropriate people.

[It should be noted that Fr. Ioan is currently under the omophorion of "Archbishop Gregory of Denver" in Romania. – tr.]

First of all, Father Ioan Miron does not know the Greek language, and thus does not have access to read in the original what the Holy Fathers wrote—much less the original text of the New Testament—and this can lead to conclusions that do not align with theological reality. Moreover, in his study, he relies heavily on logical deduction, approaching the issue of grace in a somewhat Barlaamite manner, drawing conclusions from biblical or patristic texts that he himself considers to be logical.

Father Ioan Miron's writing style is very pleasant, with expressions of a patristic flavor—it almost feels as though you are reading an epistle of a Holy Father. Is it truly so? May God grant it.

The main ideas of the study are the following:

1) He blesses us all with the apostolic blessing (see 2 Corinthians 13:13).

Response: Does he do this as a brother, as a teacher, or as a leader? He told me that in a personal discussion at his home with Elder Savvas Lavriotis (before the synaxis at Beiuș), the latter told him that he is the only priest in Romania who correctly understands the situation. When I contacted Elder Savvas by phone, he denied this, telling me that if Father Ioan confesses the invalidity of the Mysteries in the Romanian Orthodox Church, then he is in delusion. As will be seen in Father Ioan’s study, he considers Father Savvas (without naming him, but referring to the ideas in his study) to be insane.

2) Father Ioan says: “Brethren, ‘Hold fast the form of sound words’ (2 Tim. 1:13) which you have received from the Lord through the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers.”

Response: To be in the spirit of Holy Scripture, it must be said that Saint Paul could not have directed Timothy to the... Holy Fathers, because historically they belong to the period starting with the second generation after the Apostles—namely, first there were the Apostles, then the Apostolic Fathers, and afterward others were called the Holy Fathers. In fact, Saint Paul is exhorting his disciple to preserve what he learned from him, his teacher.

3) “…the enemy … has devised a new soul-destroying snare, tempting the sailors of the Ship to make steering errors and to bring the Ship themselves, along with all who have sought refuge in it, to ruin.” And further down: “It is evident that some have not understood what their role is as sailors on the Master’s Ship and, being repulsed by the Helmsman’s commandments … have turned their hearing away from the Truth and have been turned unto fables (2 Tim. 4:4), saying against Scripture and against God’s Saints, that the heretic who has not been condemned by a synod still has Grace and therefore has Holy Mysteries, which he performs unto his own condemnation and to the condemnation of those who partake of them knowingly. Truly, brethren, it is unheard of that Christ should have fellowship with Belial, Truth with falsehood, and Light with darkness—yes! Unheard of!”

Response: Father Ioan does not understand that the existence of Grace is one thing, and the operation of Grace is another. Here is what Saint Gregory Palamas—the theologian of Grace—teaches us about this uncreated divine energy: “Just as the sun transmits its light and warmth undiminished to all who expose themselves to its rays, so too are the energies of God transmitted to the person who desires to commune with Him.” And again: “The name ‘God’ is the name of an energy, from the verb θέειν [to run and to govern all] or αίθει [to ignite], meaning He burns.” (On the Divine Energies, op. cit., p. 49) Therefore, from the beginning, the Holy Fathers teach us that God burns. What is it that prevents us from being consumed, and instead causes us to be illumined and deified? We shall see below. One thing is certain: the mechanistic understanding of a “mixing” of Christ with Belial, as implied by Father Ioan, does not apply to the teaching clearly expressed by Elder Savvas in his study, where he shows—among many other things—that to speak of the automatic loss of Grace is to think in a papist manner.

4) Father Ioan speaks at length about the fact that Jesus gave power to the Apostles and analyzes the moment of the Mystical Supper, concluding that Judas lost the grace, and that is why Satan entered into him.

Response: Things taken in haste can bewilder us, so let us approach them step by step, with patience:

– the expression “disciples anointed with this Grace” is not in accordance with the Gospel, since the verb to anoint is not used, but rather the verb to give (according to Matthew 10:1);

– the conclusion is to be drawn at the end of the argumentation, not like this: “this is very important for what we want to prove, namely that the one who denies Christ can no longer work with Grace, even if he is an apostle, and this before any condemnation by any synod.” Nothing has been proven yet and already we have reached the conclusion? And the multitude of quotations that follow are to be understood exactly as the author wishes? I am sorry, that is not how research is done in general, and especially not theological research, but according to the principle: sine ira et studio (without anger and without prejudice), we lay out the arguments and draw the conclusion which they yield, not another and not beforehand;

– who was the traitor? “Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a piece of bread, when I have dipped it. And when He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the bread, Satan entered into him.” (John 13:26–27). Father Ioan’s conclusion: “The Gospel says that Satan entered into him, in other words, Judas at that moment no longer had the power, no longer had the grace, the grace which, as we read, had been given to him as well, to have power over demons. What is the meaning? Why did Judas no longer have the power? Do you know why, brethren? Because he lost the Grace when he sold the Lord.”

Response: For anyone who has studied biblical archaeology (which is taught at the Faculty of Theology—it is not something novel), it is much easier to understand the moment of this Supper: the one who led the table, the host, according to Jewish tradition, was also the one who distributed the food to the guests—but not arbitrarily, rather according to a clear principle, observed without deviation: he gave the food based on the feelings he had toward each, beginning with the closest, the most beloved, and proceeding in descending order down to the last. In the case of the Lord Christ, He loves all the Apostles, but most of all Judas, because He knows—in His eternal divine foreknowledge—that Judas has already betrayed Him. And yet He communes him first, showing him love, that is, desiring to fill him with grace.

The fundamental question here is not why Satan entered into Judas, but with what did Judas commune? With the True Body of Christ, with a valid Mystery, or only with bread? He, the traitor, the infamous Judas—did he receive in Communion the True Christ or not?

Yes, he received Christ, but being a traitor (he had already betrayed the night before, having received the money which, ironically, was the price of a good working slave—thus he downgraded Christ from the status of a man to that of a non-person, a slave, as was the conception at that time). That is why Satan entered into him, that is, he truly communed, but unto condemnation, with Christ; thus, he was burned by His divinity, just as Satan is burned.

In order to understand better, let us take the example of the second traitor: Peter. Did he deny? Yes. Three times? Yes. But he wept bitterly, and repentance resurrected him. When the Risen Jesus came and asked him three times: Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me? — what actually happened there? According to the Greek original, Christ asked Peter twice: Με ἀγαπᾷς; (Me agapas? = Do you love Me?), and Peter answered twice: Φιλῶ σε (Philo se = I love you); then the third time, Jesus asked: Φιλεῖς με; (Phileis me? = Do you love Me?), and Peter was grieved and replied: Φιλῶ σε (Philo se). What is the meaning?

In the ancient Greek language of those saving times — in which the Apostles wrote the word of the Gospel — "to love" is expressed through three verbs: erōtō, phileō, and agapaō, meaning to love physically, erotically; to love as a friend; and to love sacrificially, totally, divinely. The verb erōtō actually indicates a distortion of love, a stripping of its divine purpose; phileō expresses the love between friends, between parents and children, between siblings — it is positive, good, but has no salvific value, as it is something natural, innate in human nature; agapaō expresses sacrificial love — the only true and real love.

Therefore, the Lord Christ asks Peter twice: Do you love Me divinely? And he replies: I love You as a friend. The third time, the Lord lowers the standard and says: Do you love Me as a friend? And Peter is saddened because God humbles Himself before his weakness, yet he still does not rise to the expected level, but answers: I love You as a friend. But Christ does not leave him in his weakness; rather, He foretells that the time will come when he will be bound for Him and will be tormented and die for Him — meaning, he will come to love him totally.

Therefore, Peter also betrayed, yet Christ did not say anything about him no longer being an Apostle, but sent him to feed the sheep and the lambs. This does not mean — as the papists say — that through these words Christ made Peter’s successor, that is, the pope, the head of all, but that He sent him to put His grace into action.

Father Ioan, it is clear that Judas partook of a valid Mystery, of Christ Himself — but what benefit did it bring him? Is the Mystery to blame? God forbid! No, it is the man who is to blame. And what Elder Savvas says is nothing else but a warning cry: do not continue to commune, you ecumenist heretics, to your own condemnation with the true Christ, but repent and serve Orthodoxy in truth.

I have before me the booklet by Father Theodoros Zisis that came out last Sunday. I will translate it soon. I have already read it. And the greatest connoisseur of the theology of the Holy Fathers — of whom no one, I believe, can reasonably doubt or say he has no idea — says the following: heretics place themselves outside the Church, the one they serve is no longer God, but the adversary; however, in no case are their mysteries invalid or nonexistent. This matter can only be judged by a [competent – tr.] Synod. We hope that by then they will have only the heresy itself left to be judged — the idea — and that all its promoters will repent, like the Apostle Peter.

5) Father Ioan insists on the words Judas fell.

Response: That is true, and unfortunately, he fell to the very depths of hell — but Peter returned (see above).

6) Statement: “And to make it even clearer for each of us how it is with the heretic, condemned or not, the Apostle Paul says: ‘A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that such a one is perverted and sins, being self-condemned.’ (Titus 3:10–11).”

Response: Self-condemned means that his own conscience continuously reproaches him, even if more and more faintly over time, if the heretic continues to commune with the real Christ — yet unto condemnation. Instead of receiving light, he receives fire.

7) Fr. Ioan says: “Ecumenism is the sum of all synodally condemned heresies.”

Response: True, but not sufficient, for the Church has never condemned heresies such as: dogmatic minimalism, episcopocentrism, ecumenist baptismal theology, the branch theory, the theory of a divided or split Church, etc. Therefore, as St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite urges, a [contemporaneous] synod is needed to condemn these as well, together with the blasphemy that took place in Crete in 2016. We are not the synod, but the hierarchs who rightly divide the word of truth — wherever and whoever they may be.

8) The interpretation given by Fr. Ioan to Canon 15 is erroneous, for nowhere does it say there that pseudo-bishops no longer have grace, that they are deposed from the start; rather, it says that we separate ourselves from them until they are judged by a synod. If they no longer have grace — which, I repeat, is of no benefit to them but burns them — then what is left to judge in them? The fact that they commune with bread and wine? That’s their business. But it is not so: rather, they blaspheme the true Mysteries of Christ and dare to partake of them. Christ is not defiled, no matter what, just as Christ Himself did not become guilty of any sin, even though He took upon Himself all the sins of the world, from the creation of man until the Second Coming, offering as a ransom for them His own Blood.

"Divine grace suffers nothing [due to our unworthiness or sinfulness], for it is impassible. But when we receive it unprepared, the grace of the Holy Spirit departs far from us, invisibly, because, says the Holy Apostle Paul: Myrrh cannot remain in a dirty vessel." (Saint Gregory Palamas, On the Holy and Dread Mysteries of Christ, op. cit., p. 65) Let us note the fact that we receive grace, but it can depart far from us. On the contrary, when they are gathered in the same mindset, the Orthodox one, Christians can become, like the Apostles: "instruments of the Holy Spirit, who act according to the will and power of That One. Within them are kindled torches, which illumine the whole world and that which is above the world." (Idem., Homily on the Manifestation and Distribution of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, op. cit., p. 125) Therefore, "let us return to the truth. Only thus will they celebrate, and we will celebrate, the Descent of the Holy Spirit upon men, within the Church of Christ." (Ibid.)

9) Statement: “I have counted no more and no less than 1,237 Holy Fathers from three Ecumenical Councils, plus the 84 from Carthage, who all with one voice say: ‘It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit that heretics have no mysteries, being outside the Church, and all that is theirs in unaccepted and defiled.’”

Response: Heretics must be condemned synodally — this is what the Holy Fathers have decreed. Not otherwise.

Let us take an example to see how the Church relates to heretics and to their supporters or opponents:

Canon 3 of the Third Ecumenical Council says: "But if any of the clergy in each city or village [country locality] were deposed from the priesthood by Nestorius and those with him because they think rightly [for their right teaching], we have justified these also to regain [receive again] their own rank. And in general, we command that those clergy who think in agreement [teach in accord] with the Orthodox and Ecumenical Synod should by no means and in no way be subject to bishops who have broken away, or to those who separate themselves [from the Church]."

The respective canon means the following: those priests who were ordained by the uncondemned heretic Nestorius did not thereby have an invalid priesthood because of the one who ordained them. Those among the ordained who later opposed Nestorius and were deposed by him or by those of like mind with him were reinstated to the rank of priest by the Third Ecumenical Council. Therefore, the Council did not consider that these were invalidly ordained from the outset. This is the essence. And the fact that they bore good witness against heresy made them all the more worthy to be shepherds of the Orthodox people.

Here is a canonical argument with eternal value, by the seal placed upon it by an Ecumenical Council, that grace is not something superadded, which is lost in some inexplicable way and received again in an even more strangely understood manner.

10) Very rightly does Fr. Ioan emphasize: “When a false priest or false bishop who is ecumenist—who, willingly or unwillingly, is united with the Filioque heresy through the recognition of Papist mysteries—stands before the Holy Table and lifts up his hands asking for the Holy Spirit, he asks through his erroneous faith for that spirit which proceeds also from the Son, which is not the Holy Spirit but a foreign and unclean spirit, which our Gospel does not proclaim. That foreign spirit will never be able to effect anything holy, because it is not holy but unclean, it is not God but a demon, according to the holy prophet David who says that ‘...the gods of the nations are demons’; never will that foreign spirit be able to change the bread into the Body and the wine into the Blood, because this is the work of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.”

11) The example with the thief who hasn't been caught is forced. Why? Somewhere in the Paterikon, it is said about a monk who kept falling into sin and then repenting with tears. At one point, Satan told him that his tears were in vain, that he wouldn’t escape him anyway. His answer was: I know one thing—that I am not yours, and I pray to Christ that I may die in repentance. And so it was. We have no way of knowing what is in the heart of the thief who hasn’t been caught. Could there not be repentance there? The thief on the cross had nothing to gain humanly by defending Christ—not a lighter sentence, not the cancellation of his punishment—but he gained Paradise. Thus, the statement made by Father Ioan after the example with the thief: “so also with the heretic” is not valid, because the example he starts from—the thief—is lacking solid logical argumentation.

12) The note of Saint Nikodemos mentioned in Elder Savvas's study is clear, showing the necessity of [contemporaneous] synodal condemnation. As for the rest, the explanations given by Father Ioan are sophisms. What interests us is not to exterminate all the ecumenists at once—as they would wish for us—but that they return to the truth; and the time to do this is until their synodal condemnation. For now, they are under condemnation, in unworthy communion, in apostasy because they blaspheme the true Christ—not a mere piece of bread and a cup of wine…

13) Concerning other opinions related to the case of Saint Seraphim or the unknowing old woman, I will not mention them anymore—it is unnecessary; let others do so, choosing what is good from this study and discarding what is erroneous. I have asked Fr. Theodoros Zisis, Fr. Nikolaos Manolis, and the Athonite fathers to contribute with further clarifications, so that we may avoid schism. I will return with details.

14) The quotes from the work of Saint Maximus do not have their source mentioned, so they cannot be correctly identified. This does not mean that he did not affirm what is written there. In any case, in the second quote he is speaking about those who are not in the Church, whereas we are dealing with heretics who were baptized Orthodox, were once living members of the Church, and have now fallen into heresy. We wish them repentance and return.

In conclusion, the study of Father Ioan contains many good elements (biblical and patristic quotations, texts, and canons), yet over 80% of the logical argumentation suffers from rationalism, and the theological knowledge from ignorance. One thing is clear: the ecumenist heretics gain no benefit from their dreadful audacity in approaching the Holy Mysteries, and if they do not return to the spirit of the One Church, but remain lukewarm, in the self-sufficiency of their worldly power and in their silent, unconfessing, and atheistic stance, they will face synodal condemnation and the word of Christ: “I will spit you out of My mouth” (Revelation 3:16).

A few questions remain suspended, which the author of the study briefly analyzed here ought to answer in a deliberate manner:

a) since the entire Romanian hierarchy is now ecumenist, in the future what shall we do—go forward without a hierarchy, without caring that an Orthodox hierarchy would be beneficial, [and] do we want to end up like the poor and reckless Luther?

b) do we proceed on the assumption that a synod to condemn ecumenism will not take place until the Second Coming, as some say? But how do these people know that for sure?

c) if a priest ceases commemoration today, but he has not been a priest for a long time—having lost it together with grace and the Mysteries immediately after the Crete moment—who, how, and where will re-ordain him, give him grace, etc.?

d) The insistence of Father Ioan on changing the calendar as soon as possible (to switch to the Old Calendar—not because it would not be the correct one, but because those on the New have no grace, as [some of – tr.] the old calendarists say)—what role does this play in this whole story?

e) Did we interrupt commemoration in order to form our own group, or do we desire with tears the return of our brothers to the truth and our own protection from falling?

May the Good God enlighten us all, and I ask forgiveness if I have erred in anything!

The Editorial Board

 

Appendix: the text titled Expression of Our Conscience, from:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161128061415/http://prieteniisfantuluiefrem.ro/2016/11/17/spre-luare-aminte/ [corrected link]

 

Expression of Our Conscience

 

As a result of the events that took place at the inter-Orthodox assembly in Crete (June 2016), our Orthodox conscience and our responsibility as shepherds have urged us to convey the following:

1. We have ceased the commemoration during the holy services of the Romanian hierarchs who have publicly confessed, through their own signature, the pan-heresy of ecumenism, because we wish to strictly adhere to the dogmatic teaching and the Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church, which legitimize this attitude (cf. Canon 15, First-Second Council of Constantinople).

2. We remain in the Romanian Orthodox Church and we will never leave it.

3. We do not disown the Romanian Orthodox Church, but we only wall ourselves off from the pan-heresy of ecumenism and from its promoters: hierarchs, monastics, and laypeople.

4. We confess that the unity of the Church is given only by the Truth-Christ, while the pseudo-unity imposed by the ecumenists is supported only by lies and heresy.

5. Due to the One and Infallible Head of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ, Divine Grace is present and active in the Romanian Orthodox Church, for the salvation of the right-believing people, in spite of the inadmissible dogmatic deviations of some of its shepherds.

The purpose of the cessation of the commemoration of the hierarch is the necessary walling-off from heresy, the condemnation of it, as a warning signal for the awakening of the conscience of the people. There is the great danger of the loss of Divine Grace through the spread and generalization of heresy. Therefore, it is imperatively necessary for salvation to make a clear separation from the ecumenism preached by the assembly in Crete as well as from any other heresy.

As members of the Romanian Orthodox Church, we request that our point of view be presented in the Church media, thus extending an invitation to an edifying dialogue.

In the fear of God and with love, to the pleroma of the Romanian Orthodox Church.

Signed:
Hieromonk Macarie Banu
Hieromonk Grigorie Sanda
Hieromonk Atanasie Parfeni
Priest Claudiu Buza
Hieromonk Serafim Raicea
Priest Ciprian Staicu
Priest Ioan Miron

 

Romanian source: https://prieteniisfantuluiefrem.ro/2017/11/06/o-prima-analiza-a-unui-studiu-teologic-recent/