The Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose - 1978-82

THE
COLLECTED
LETTERS
OF OUR HOLY FATHER
SERAPHIM
OF PLATINA
PRESENTED
FOR THE EDIFICATION OF THE
STRUGGLERS
OF THE END TIMES

MCMLXXVIII

Theophany, 1978

Theophany, 1978

Dear Brother in Christ, Andrew,

Many thanks for your letter and the informative “jottings.” The situation indeed is not healthy, but if Vladimir and Olga are indeed going to go “off the deep end,” it might make others stop and think, especially Fr. Alexis. We certainly hope that the responsibility and the practical needs of his position will tone down his “zeal,” which certainly, in the cases you have mentioned, goes beyond anything necessary or proper. Our Church as a whole (and certainly almost all bishops and priests, apart from the Boston wing) does not believe Moscow and New Calendarists to be without grace. Those who wish to believe this as their personal opinion are not persecuted for it, but they certainly cannot make such an opinion obligatory on others. The two cases you mention would have cased no problem among any non-Boston clergy; our Church’s policy of non-communion with Moscow is certainly not threatened by an occasional death-bed communion of someone who is unaware of the jurisdictional differences, and no issue need be made over it. Unfortunately, the whole Boston approach to such questions seems to remain very “academic.”

However, I do hope our recent articles are not received as “broadsides.” We do feel it necessary to say some things clearly, so as to remove confusions for those who might think that “Boston” speaks for the whole Church; but we still do hope that Fr. Panteleimon (with whom we recently exchanged friendly letters) will come to see that there are valid viewpoints other than his own. We need to pray more for this, or the whole meaning of the witness of the Church Abroad is in danger of being submerged.

We rejoice in you being restored to communion, and heartily approve of Fr. Marks thinking on the subject. Truly, the letter of the law is to be respected, but the spirit is what is essential.

Please pray for us. In case I didn’t mention it before, we sent you 25 calendars about a week before Western Christmas.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Priest-monk Seraphim

P.s. We’ve just received your new letter on the subject of Metr. Philaret’s ruling. Could you send us a copy of the English and Russian text, with signature of the Metropolitan? (If there is no such Russian text, I don’t see how the ruling can be believed; the Metropolitan does not understand English.)

We agree with your comments on the situation, and indeed all sound elements in the Church think that way. The policy of our bishops has always been to speak the truth loudly for all to hear, but to leave the question of interjurisdictional relations to take care of itself on the local level. Some of our clergy have no contact with other jurisdictions, but others do, and this has caused no problem until now.

In any case, any ruling directed to clergy need not concern laymen, who certainly should be able to continue praying with those in other jurisdictions and to visit their churches.

We are in contact with several Greek Old-Calendar clergy, who tell us of the disastrous effects of their bishops’ rulings made in the name of “strictness” which only produce discord, and we are as concerned as you about this. Please keep us informed.

Jan 22/Feb 4, 1978

Jan. 22/Feb. 4, 1978

Apostle Timothy

Dear Father Hilarion,

Christ is in our midst!

Many thanks for your kind letters and Xeroxes of recent weeks. I think we never sent you a list of things we intend to publish, so here is a list of those we can think of now:

Life and Epistles of Bishop Damascene of Glukhov, new martyr.

Life of St. Andrew Fool for Christ.

Life of St. Paphnutius of Borovsk.

Life of St. Tikhon of Kaluga.

Bishop Simon of China (1933).

Bishop Iona of Manchuria (1925).

Letters of Archbishop Theophan of Poltava and perhaps Episdes also.

Life of Sts. Boris and Gleb.

A series on Elders of Optina, one by one. Zosima is being translated.

Life of St. Photios of Constantinople.

Life of St. Theodore the Studite.

Life of St. Niphon of Cyprus.

Life of St. Brigit of Ireland.

Life of St. Columba of Ireland.

Life of St. John the Baptist.

Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

Glinsk Monastery Ascetics

How are you with the life of St. Maximus the Confessor? Is it coming out soon?

The article on angels in the new Orthodox Life—isn’t it translated straight from Fr. Michael Pomazansky’s Dogmatic Theology? That should be noted; but in any case we’re working on the whole book and hope to have it out this year. We’ve also done Abba Dorotheus, but now hear that the Cistercians have published it, so will have to see what their translation looks like. Are there any special translation projects at the monastery now? Is anyone working on Vladika Averky’s commentaries? on Father Constantine’s Pastoral Theology?

Would you be able to come to visit us when you go to Alberta? We would love to see you.

Please pray for us. May Christ our God strengthen you in your labors and grant you courage and good-hearted struggle!

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Priest-monk Seraphim

Mar 22/Apr 4, 1978

March 22/April 4, 1978

St. Basil of Ancyra

Dear Andrew,

May the blessing of our Lord be with you! Please forgive us also for our offenses against you. May God forgive and enlighten us all!

Your letters, especially the last one (of Forgiveness Sunday), are saddening, as has been the whole course of church life in England recently. Actually, your situation is a reflection of a much larger ailment in the Church body.

When Fr. Herman identified the writer of the Boston epistle as “not believing in God,” he was of course speaking a little strongly. Reduced to plain prose, this statement means: this was not written with love and pastoral concern, but with a coldly calculating mind that is smug in its own “correctness” and relishes the opportunity to spread this “party line” to others—with now already disastrous results. We do not know Fr. Alexis personally, but judging from the epistles of other Boston monks whom we do know, the writers of these cold documents are invariable themselves better (at least potentially) than their “message.” The whole history of Fr. Panteleimon and his charismatic appeal to a certain kind of convert is a history of the immaturity of Orthodox Christians in our times, as well as of the anarchic church atmosphere, which is unable of itself to correct such exaggerations before they cause damage.

The wave that brought Fr. Panteleimon to the fore now seems to be subsiding (certainly his popularity among Russians is at a low ebb), and the events in England may well be his “waterloo” as a church “power.” Of course, he will not just go away, and I doubt that he will start his own jurisdiction (though he or his followers might force him into that position); but the “problem” which he represents can and should be faced now without doing personal battle with him. Many people now have been awakened to Orthodoxy and to the need for a true Orthodoxy, without modernistic distortions; even those who are too “zealous” can yet mature and overcome the mistakes of youth. The number of eager ears willing to listen to the message of Orthodoxy in English has never been greater.

Your work has been and should continue to be one of the voices that point to sound Orthodoxy. Perhaps you think your contribution is very modest. But believe me, in these times of universal coldness and calculation, the mere existence of someone (and more so a printed organ) who cares (about saints, and monasteries, about the suffering people of Russia, etc.) is a great help to everyone who is struggling on the Orthodox path.

So much for the general situation. About you personally, of course, I can’t give any definitive answer. However, I do know that in spiritual life it is often precisely in seemingly “impossible” conditions that one really begins to grow; then one has to become more sensitive, think less of getting one’s own will and ask what is God’s will, learn to see a little deeper into the reality around one—and all this through suffering, both one’s own and that of others. I can well imagine what Fr. Marks move alone has caused you.

І have not seen Fr. Alexis’ letter to you, but I can imagine its content, judging from his earlier epistles and having some idea of what goes on in the mind of an inexperienced person placed in a position of authority (the seeming conflict between the need to be “humble” and the need to “assert ones authority for the general good”). He probably has an exalted picture of the “oneness of mind” which everyone “should” have today, and little practical experience of getting along with those who disagree with you. Surely some kind of modus vivendi is possible? There is, after all, a certain difference between a real spiritual father—with whom one has a certain oneness of mind and can be fully open—and the simple spiritual authorities who are placed over one in the Church but with whom one need not actually have much contact. As for a confessor, if you do not have a trusted spiritual father, then you can “make do” until God grants you one, I.e., confess (if need be) in rather general terms until you find someone to whom you can open your soul more fully.

Without judging Father Mark, I think you would make a bad mistake if you followed him. If you wish to continue speaking to Orthodox Christians through the printed word (especially about things in Russia), I think that you will feel a difference in your freedom, whether or not your ecclesiastical superiors would give you “advice” and “hints” as to how to express yourself. And as for Archbishop Athenagoras—well, Archimandrite Kyprian of Fili has well written that when the squabbles among the small flock of “true Orthodox” are set beside our differences with the modernists, there is no doubt which part we have to choose. Our Church Outside of Russia is in an ideal position to speak the truth freely to the world, at least a small portion of which is eager for the truth; how sad that our petty passions and squabbles so often ruin this great opportunity!

Still, the starting place should always be with me. the cause of my misfortunes is first of all my own sins and shortcomings, and often God heals me through the sufferings He allows me to endure.

May God give you strength in your trials and courage to continue your good work. I think in all of this, despite appearances, God is helping us to a deeper, truer Christianity. So much of our Orthodoxy today is so self-righteous and smug, or at least lukewarm and comfortable, that we need to be shaken up a little. May God only grant that His sheep not be lost!

Are you still planning to come to California for Pascha? Alexey says that you might come later. I was able to travel to Etna last week and serve the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts for the first time in their chapel. We will be happy to see you whenever you can come.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Priestmonk Seraphim

P.s. Is The Orthodox Word getting through to you? We sent out no. 76 early in Feb., and no. 77 a few days ago.

P.p.s. Regarding the question of Western saints in the Calendar. We would agree with what you say about the impossibility of including some few Western “saints” in Orthodox Calendars (Nicholas I, Charlemagne); but such ones are really very few. Why not a conciliatory attitude towards Augustine of Canterbury and Wilfred: By the way, the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad did give official approval to the veneration of St. Anschar of Hamburg—in the early 1950 s, I believe, as reported in The Orthodox Word, 1971, March-April.

Palm Sunday, 1978

Palm Sunday, 1978

Dear Mr. Stamos,

May the blessing of our Lord be with you.

Thank you for your letter. Even though you express basic disagreements with us in it, we are glad that you have spoken frankly of your feelings, as in the long run this is the best path to mutual understanding and, if possible, agreement.

The questions you raise are very deep; the differences between our and your attitudes are the result of many years of apparently a quite different experience. I can understand how some of the statements in our articles might shock you coming “out of the blue,” as it were; but if you were more familiar with what has been happening in the Orthodox world in the 20th century I think you would find our words rather milder and more moderate. As a matter of fact, we have deliberately taken a very moderate stand, in comparison with some of the positions both to the “left” and “right” of us. You grieve over the “division and alienation” which our publication seems to represent. I assure you that we grieve together with you over this—but this division and alienation have been in our Orthodox Church now for fifty years and more. It is not our doing; we are only commenting on it. I agree with you 100% that we all need more love—we must constantly force our cold hearts to this, both for our friends and our enemies, and also our persecutors, where such exist.

But the answer to this sad division and alienation is by no means simple. You yourself seem to express in your letter a certain disturbance over the fact that in the very act of your writing about our disagreements with some Orthodox Patriarchs, you yourself are expressing disagreement with us! I myself think we should not be very disturbed over these disagreements; they exist and we should frankly admit it and try to have the most Christian and Orthodox response to them.

The fact of, not merely disagreements, but actual schism is, alas, all to real in the 20th-century Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece since 1924 has been split in two. About one-fourth of the people of Greece, and probably over half of the monks and nuns, belong to the “Old Calendarist” jurisdictions which have refused to follow the innovations of the latest Patriarchs of Constantinople and have broken communion with them. For this they have suffered persecutions, imprisonments, even martyrdom at the hands of their Orthodox brothers—the Greek government, supported by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the State Church of Greece. The latter (the “New Calendarist” churches) have excommunicated the Old Calendarists, proclaiming their Holy Mysteries to be without grace; until very recently (and perhaps even now, I don’t know) children born of Old Calendarists marriages were officially registered with the government as “illegitimate”—something even the Protestants do not suffer in Greece. In return, the Old Calendarists have excommunicated the New Calendarists, and some of them (but not all) have declared and believe their Mysteries to by without grace. There are entirely separate Orthodox hierarchies in Greece, neither thus having any communion with the other.

I give you this example for your reflection. Such a grievous state of division and alienation is a fact of today’s Greek Orthodox Church. What is to be our Christian attitude to it? Shall we be silent,’ or neutral?-—This is hardly possible, since every Orthodox Christian must receive the Holy Mysteries somewhere, and he cannot receive them in both of the divided Greek Churches. (In America, there are only a few Old Calendarist churches, so the question may seem remote to most people here; but for the Greek people as a whole it is an urgent question.) What should a bishop or priest do? He must instruct the people; even if he says nothing at all, the very fact that he belongs to the “Old” or the “New” Calendarists places him in the position of either proclaiming loyalty to the “old” tradition of Orthodoxy, or else agreeing (to some degree) with the path of modernization and abandonment of the “old” ways.

A similar state of division exists in the Russian Church, although it has not taken the extreme forms of the Greek schism. The Patriarch of Moscow and the leading bishops openly preach communism (both in the political and in a religious sense) and brazenly lie to the world about “freedom of religion” in Russia. We know that most of them do so under compulsion, and therefore we do not judge them too harshly. We in the Russian Church Abroad have our own bishops and have no communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, leaving its final judgment to a future council of bishops in a free Russia (which we pray will one day exist). But priests and laymen in the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia itself are today loudly protesting the anti-Christian acts of their own bishops, and some even proclaim that the Church there is governed by communist agents in bishops’ robes. At the same time there exists a Catacomb Church which for fifty years has had no communion with the Patriarchate and is mercilessly persecuted by the Soviet government (we have published much material on these new martyrs in The Orthodox Word). Again—a sad state of division and alienation. How can we be neutral, unless by retreating into the cowardly state of being “uncommitted” which is so common today?

The martyrs and confessors in Russia write to us that the best hope for them right now is the loud protest of free people against their persecutors. I personally would feel myself a betrayer of my brothers in Christ there if I were not to use the opportunity given me to speak the truth about them; but to do this I cannot help but contradict the lies of their bishops who say even now that “there is no persecution of religion in the USSR; those who suffer are only political criminals.” I do not feel in the least that I am sinning against the commandment of loving my brethren by doing this. On the contrary, my silence would betray love, and would only help the deliberate campaign of the Moscow church representatives to silence and exert influence on the Orthodox Churches of the free world.

I would hope that you can understand all this, even if you may not agree with our position.

The fulfillment of Gods commandment of love is by no means an easy or a simple thing. There are many “hard sayings” in the Holy Scriptures which seem (superficially) a direct contradiction of love. To those who do not do good works our Lord Jesus Christ says: “Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Even to many who prophesy and work miracles in His name, our Lord shall say: “I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:23). Our Saviour tells us sternly: “Suppose 4ye that I am come to bring peace on earth? I tell you, Nay, but rather division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two and two against three; the father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father,” etc. (Luke 12:51-53). St. John, the Apostle of love, writes of those who have not right belief; “If anyone come to you and bring not this teaching, receive him not into your house and give him no greeting, for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works” (II John 10-11). St. Paul warns against new teachings: “If any man preach to you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).

I am sure you know these and other “hard sayings” of the Scriptures and have reflected on them; I only cite them here (without going into interpretations of them) in the hope that you will not be too ill-disposed towards some of the seemingly uncharitable statements you have found in our publications. In writing them I assure you that we are trying to follow the Gospel, to the best of our knowledge and in obedience to the teaching of many bishops, martyrs, and confessors of our own times, both in the Greek and Russian Churches, both abroad and in America.

In the history of the Orthodox Church there have been innumerable cases of “hard words” spoken by defenders of Christ’s truth. I will give you only one example: In 1439, the Greek Church accepted Roman Catholicism at the false Council of Florence. One Greek bishop (St. Mark of Ephesus) refused to sign the decree of Union, accused those who accepted the Union, aroused the people against it, refused to allow the Patriarch of Constantinople even to be present at his funeral—all of these “negative” things he did out of love for Orthodoxy, and because of him the Greek people is still Orthodoxy today; if they had followed those who preached “peace” at that time, the Greek people would be Roman Catholics today and thus, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, deprived of the grace of God. (The Russian Church at that time refused to accept the Union, and broke off communion with the Greek Church until the Patriarch of Constantinople himself renounced the Union and returned to Orthodoxy.) Such champions of Orthodoxy are precisely the ones the Orthodox Church has canonized and accepts as her standard of how to act when the Faith is threatened.

There is no need to multiply such historical examples; I am sure you understand the point I am making. I am well aware, to be sure, that there can be a “fanatical” approach to this whole subject, and we condemn it as much as you. I only hope you can see the principles on the basis of which we try to speak.

I am sorry that our words have given you the impression that our attitude is “schismatic” and that we regard everyone but ourselves as un-Orthodox. That is certainly not what we have intended to convey. However, there is no benefit to any of us from hiding the truth: the hierarchy in Russia (and some other Communist countries) is indeed enslaved by the godless and does the will of the government; many people in Russia and in the Moscow Patriarchate itself have admitted it. And further, I don’t see how it can be denied that those in the free world who fraternize with the atheist-controlled church leaders and thus aid the atheist purposes which they pursue in the free world—rare larking in seriousness and responsibility. Such people are acting according to the wisdom of this world, not the wisdom of Christ and His Church. We (and many others) say such things because we hope that Orthodox people (and even these leaders themselves, if possible) will see this and become serious about their Christian responsibility; if nothing is said, the false path which Orthodox leaders are now pursuing will continue without opposition until a new “union” is proclaimed, which will deprive Orthodox people of their birthright and inheritance and—unless by a miracle of God—of the very salvation of their souls. Our differences with those who are preparing the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” are very deep and will not improve by silence; they involve a whole different view of Christ, the Church, and salvation. In mentioning a few of the leading Orthodox hierarchs by name we (following many of our bishops and confessors) are merely warning the Orthodox people whom not to follow. We say little of the priests who have to follow these leaders (we know that many of them do so with a disturbed conscience), and nothing about laymen, who generally are much less aware of what is going on and are much less responsible for it.

From your letter I understand that you are afraid that the tone of our publications and missionary work will cause—or already has caused—discord among the small number of Orthodox Christians in Redding. You mention specifically Mrs. Harvey and the Romingers. Let me say a word here about each of them.

I think it is possible that you are misinterpreting Mrs. Harvey’s attitude. She has her own attitude (shared by most devout Russians) about church life, and I doubt that she would want to participate in church life based on some other attitude. Since you seem to have a different approach to church life, it is only natural that she would not be attracted by it. But this is certainly not a matter of her being any kind of “fanatic” or thinking herself “more Orthodox” than you or others; far from it. She, like many Russians in America, has suffered much: the godless took her homeland, her parents had to flee abroad under very difficult circumstances, she herself was born in exile in a totally strange land, then she was forced to flee even that refuge. Russians who go through such experiences and traumas, if they are religious, cling to their Faith as their dearest possession and are very closely attached to their bishops and priests. For them the question of church life is primarily based on trust and personal loving contact with their bishop or priest. Often church life takes place in the catacombs or near-catacombs; at best, in difficult immigrant circumstances. The question of church organization, church building, etc,—has a very secondary place in their oulook on Christian life, and they see that when there is enough peace and quiet for these questions to come to the fore, the same worldly influences, empty disputes and wrangling enter into Orthodox church life as in any other church organization, and so they most often are just not interested in these things, and will even flee the opportunity to take part in them. If she gives you the impression that she is “avoiding your fellowship,” it is probably as a result of this attitude and nothing else.

As for the Romingers, they visited us today and both Fr. Herman and I discussed some church questions with them. They seem open to understanding our point of view on these questions, but they are level-headed people and the concern they have over these questions is a real one, proceeding from the questions themselves and not from any opinion we may have about them. They also wish not to sin against love, and not to judge anyone—but also not to adopt a misleading “peace and love” which merely hide problems that really exist and are urgent. We are not at all trying to “press” them into adopting our opinions on various questions; this is a matter of their free choice.

Whatever you may think of all this, I hope that you at least understand our point of view a little better. As for the situation in Redding, I will be frank with you. Our Archbishop has blessed us to open a mission station at Mrs. Harvey’s, and we will have occasional services there. This will not be any “organized parish,” but just a mission station to serve (to begin with) those people in Redding and outlying towns who already come occasionally to our monastery for services.

With regard to “jurisdictions,” we are in full communion with the Greek Old-Calendarist jurisdiction of Archbishop Auxentios in Athens and with the Catacomb Church in Russia; with other jurisdictions our relations are strained, and in some cases broken altogether (owing to the sad history of 20th-century Orthodoxy, outlined above). Our Church as a whole simply refuses to accept the excommunications hurled by the various jurisdictions against each other under the heated circumstances of controversy; but on the other hand a state of free intercommunion does not exist between us. In our own case, we would not be able to concelebrate with the priests of any other jurisdiction; as for laymen (whose responsibility in these sad divisions is much less, but who still must be striving to be conscious and responsible Christians), those who wish to receive Holy Communion must go to confession first and must be prepared to accept instruction from the priest in preserving oneself in true Orthodoxy. Most Orthodox people today, at least in America, do not seem very open to taking such guidance, and would find our approach too “strict.” To name but one problem that could arise: many decrees of the Greek and Russian Churches in the 20th century have forbidden the giving of Holy Communion to members of masonic lodges. In open disobedience to these decrees, many priests and even bishops of several jurisdictions do give Communion to them, our Church does not. We are no “fanatics” on this question, but we are required to explain to Orthodox Christians who in their ignorance have joined masonic lodges, that there are religious aspects to masonry which make it incompatible with membership in the Orthodox Church.

Judging from your letter, you will not find what I have said very consoling. The Romingers told us that you wish to have a “soft” (I don’t recall their exact word) approach to Orthodox Christians in Redding so as not to frighten anyone away. I can tell you frankly that anyone who is easily “frightened” at such things as we have written will probably not be at home with us. In our experience, rather few of the Orthodox Christians in any given locality have much interest in the services of our Russian Church Abroad and in our attitude towards church questions; most find us indeed too “strict” and “hard.” We understand this and try to keep quietly going our own way, at the same time warning our own faithful about what is happening in the Church. If you wish to have your own services or organized parish in the Greek Archdiocese, we will certainly not interfere or indulge in any “jurisdictional rivalry.”

Now, after saying all this to you, I really have not told you what is in my heart. Why all this “strictness” and lack of full communion? Is it some kind of phariseeism? I pray that it is not, and believe it is not. We (and the bishops and confessors whose path we follow) fear more than anything else the loss of our eternal souls and those of the flock who follow us. Our times are critical; the devil is going about devouring the souls of Orthodox Christians; a false religion of “peace and harmony” is being spread in order to prepare for the reign of Antichrist, who, as the Gospel and whole new Testament clearly teaches, is to come before the end of the world and take by a subtle seduction—so subtle that “even the elect will be deceived, if it were possible”—all but the “little flock” which Christ our Saviour will find when He comes. With all this in mind, and with the experience of anti-Christianity in action which those of us in the Russian Church have had either directly or through our close ones—our whole tone and approach is and has to be urgent and uncompromising—although always within the bonds of love, “speaking the truth in love” as far as we are able. We do not expect many in America to understand or follow us—sadly, because we believe that this is the authentic Christian Orthodoxy handed down to us by our Saviour through His Apostles and all His Saints.

Having said all this, I repeat that you are welcome to join us in any of our services. We will be reading the Twelve Gospels of the Passion (in English) on Thursday evening at about 7 p.m.; the bringing out of the epitaphion will be on Good Friday at 2 p.m. (but the Lamentations service will be not in the evening but only early in the morning, 2 a.m., following monastic tradition); Liturgy Great Saturday about 11 a.m., and midnight Matins and Liturgy on Pascha itself. If after all that I have written here, there remain differences in our approach to the Faith, these differences have not yet gone so far that it is impossible for us to pray together. The question of receiving Holy Communion is something deeper; this is a spiritual question which our Superior, Father Herman, decides individually in confession. In cases of the dying, of course we will not refuse Holy Communion to any baptized Orthodox Christian who desires it and repents of his sins.

No matter what you may think of all this, I hope that our relation will continue to be a friendly one.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

May 19/June 1, 1978

May 19/June 1, 1978

St. Cornelius of Komel

Dear Father Chrysostomos,

In truth Christ is risen!

Thank you for your letter and kind gift. Regarding Fr. Theodore in Cleveland: I believe he is not a “fanatic” regarding Fr. Panteleimon, but still he has ties with him and your serving with him in any case would produce “complications.” Sadly, this is the way it is with most of the English-speaking wing of our Church. There are only a few “fanatic” partisans of Fr. P., but few have as yet come to see the whole meaning of his “movement,” in its negative as well as positive aspects. Those who see this are usually those who have suffered as a result of his political orientation, or have seen the suffering of others. To those who have not gone through something like this, it is difficult to speak directly about him. We have tried to set a different tone in our publications for several years now (that is, different from Fr. Panteleimon’s), but this is seen only gradually. In the meantime, most of our convert priests are not capable of being very objective about the “Greek” question, and would probably be afraid of holding an opinion different from Fr. Ps. There is a further complication in that Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal has never been very well-disposed to Metropolitan Akakios. We hope and pray that with time and greater maturity all this will change for the better.

In the meantime, your friends in our Church will probably continue to be more or less “secret.” But spiritually this is probably not bad. We feel the signs of the times point more and more to a coming “catacomb” existence, whatever form it may take, and the more we can prepare for it now the better. I think you should have no hesitation in having Sunday services in your own building, even temporary or unfinished; it would probably even be helpful to those who attend to participate in your struggles in establishing yourself.

You will probably go through many trials and difficulties in your new location, the devil’s envy being what it is. May Christ our God strengthen you to bear them courageously. Every such monastery or community we look on as a part of the future catacomb “network” of strugglers for true Orthodoxy; probably in those times (if they will really be as critical as they look from here) the “jurisdictional” question will recede into the background. However, be assured that even now Fr. P. himself cannot deny that, at least theoretically, we are in full communion with the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios; the complications are owing to politics and rivalries, from which you do well to remove yourselves as far as possible.

If you are ever in need of help, please let us know.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

June 16/29, 1978

June 16/29, 1978

St. Tikhon of Kaluga

Dear Father Chrysostomos,

Christ is in our midst!

From Fr. Auxentios we receive the impression that my last letter to you has caused a feeling of some hopelessness regarding any emergence from your state of isolation and any normal relationship with the priests and faithful of our Russian Church Abroad. I would like to correct the impression I seem to have given you, and at the same time give you a few words of encouragement as you prepare to begin your new life in Ohio.

In advising you to continue your “hidden” way of life, I did not really have in mind that you should always be as isolated as you are now. In fact, on the contrary, we would like to see you gradually enter into more contact with the members of our Church. My meaning was rather that you should always place first the leading of your own independent way of life, and let the relations with others develop gradually, take care of themselves so to speak. By the very nature of the situation in our Russian Church Abroad today, your very existence has a “political” significance, whether you wish it or not; but this need not be any overwhelming obstacle. Your existence is now becoming known in our Church, as we have recently heard, so you cannot really hide in any case.

——-

Now, some days after starting to write this letter, we received Fr. Auxentios’ new letter, telling about your illness. May Christ our God heal and preserve you for many years of service in His Holy Church! We will be praying for you.

Thank you for the Xerox—we had not seen this document before, although we had seen another one of about the same time and with the same basic content. We had assumed that you were aware of such statements, and now we understand better how deep must be your sense of isolation. This document gives the general principle which governs the relationship of our Synod to yours; but in practice, of course, there may be local complications owing to the attitudes of the Greeks who are with us, who are unfortunately rather political-minded. This is why we have advised you to go slowly in your contacts with our clergy.

At the present time there is occurring something of a “reaction” in our Church against the over-zealousness (almost fanaticism) of some of our Greeks, and their political involvements. Several years ago one could say that Fr. Panteleimon was “setting the tone” for a large part of our Church; but today, his influence is restricted to a “political party” within the Church, and no longer is his position such a central one. We ourselves would like to see a quite different “tone” prevail in our Church, but without having to battle against our Greeks to do it. Our two-part article on Blessed Augustine is an attempt in this direction—to correct the onesidedness of some upstart “theological experts” without engaging in a battle over it, pointing rather to the ordinary Christian virtues of moderation, forgiveness, tolerance, etc.—which are often lost sight of when the emphasis is placed on “correctness.”

As you begin to come into contact with more of our clergy (as I suppose you will in Ohio), you could help us in establishing a more moderate and normal Orthodox tone, especially among our converts who are still so immature and easily diverted from the path of a profounder Orthodoxy. Your very existence as “Greeks” who are not “fanatical,” who do not follow the “party-line” of our own Greeks,” but also do not engage in polemics with them—could help many to have a more balanced Orthodox outlook and place our “Greek party” in its proper place. Among many of our younger (especially Russian) priests there is already a good beginning in the direction of establishing such a tone.

I was planning to visit my mother in San Diego this summer, and had hoped to be able to come and visit you at the same time. Now, as it seems, my visit will be probably later in the summer. If by any chance you would be coming as far up the coast as Monterey (where a friend of ours says he saw you in church some time ago) before you leave, perhaps a meeting could still be arranged.

In any case, please know that our prayers and best wishes are with you. Your experience up to now has not been in vain; precisely such suffering and anguish gives understanding that is much needed in our days. Do not be afraid, by the way, to get into contact with Fr. Theodore in Cleveland; we would only advise not “involving” him to the extent of asking to use his church (for which he would have to ask his bishops permission in any case, which would further complicate matters).

Asking your prayers,

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. A problem that could conceivably arise concerning yours and our jurisdictions: Some of those who have been “fanaticised” by some of the attitudes of our Greeks have now been expressing dissatisfaction with our Synod as too weak, compromising, etc. In Geneva Fr. Basile Sakkos (Fr. Ps offspring) has left our Church (to join the Mathewites, I believe) and in England a new group of fresh converts has just joined the Mathewites. Fr. P. and the priests with him would not do such a thing, if I understand them rightly, but some of this followers might. Presently there is a very unstable follower of his in Canada, Deacon Lev Puhalo, who has been spreading tales of the supposed lack of strictness of most of our bishops; he is now being challenged on a ridiculous accusation he has made against the teaching of life after death as printed in Orthodox Life and The Orthodox Word, and it is entirely conceivable that he could suddenly decide to solve his problems by changing jurisdictions—in which case he might appeal to Metropolitan Akakios. Please keep this in mind, and if necessary warn His Eminence of the mentality of those who might want to make such a change—they will only bring him misery. A good and close cooperation between us would be the best answer to such problems, and with time we believe this could come about.

Oct 18/31, 1978

Oct. 18/31, 1978

Holy Apostle Luke

Your Grace, dear Vladika Laurus,

Bless!

Thank you for your letters and the copy of Fr. Levs letter (which I am returning with this). Fr. Lev sent us none of the letters exchanged in this controversy, and we were sent a copy of his letter and Br. Isaac s reply by someone else. In general, Fr. Lev has not been in contact with us for over a year, I think, and his last letters to us were so strange and irrational that we did not even try to answer them. Some time ago he sent a letter to Alexey Young violently disagreeing with several of our articles (especially the article on Prof. Andreyev, for some reason) and saying that we, together with other “Russians,” are in serious error and are making an “occult cult of 19th-century Russia.” He has not tried to write us politely and charitably expressing his disagreement with us about these things; I think this is because his disagreement is primarily emotional and not theological, despite what he says about it.

Fr. Lev has long impressed us as being quite unbalanced emotionally; even Fr. Neketas has had trouble with him in this regard, even though he supports Fr. Lev’s publications because they express the Boston “party-line.” But we also do not have a high opinion of him as a “theologian.” Several years ago Fr. Panteleimon of Boston told me that Fr. Lev apparently does not understand Russian very well; he simply re-works the translations of his friend Vassily, but is not able to translate for himself. I believe his knowledge of theology is of the same kind; he takes the ideas of someone else (mostly Fr. Panteleimon) and expresses them in his own way, thereby shining in the reflected “glory” of Fr. Panteleimon, as it were, but he himself is not a theological thinker, and sometimes he makes astonishing errors, as in his recent letters on the state of souls after death. In general, I think he is like a “barometer” of the opinions of our “Greek convert” wing: some of the things which Fr. Panteleimon, Fr. Neketas, and others believe but would not say except within their own “party,” Fr. Lev speaks out for everyone to hear.

What disturbs us most about the statements of Fr. Lev (and our “Greeks” in general) is not as much the opinions he expresses as the exalted, superior tone in which he expresses them, reflected in the name-calling he and our Greeks indulge in—accusing the rest of us (“Russians”) of being under “Western influence,” being “naive” and “untheological,” believing in “moral fables,” etc. This seems to us not a theological spirit at all, but just intellectual conceit.

I don’t think Fr. Lev will be satisfied with any answer to his outrageous protests against the traditional Orthodox teaching on life after death. Some of the points he raises are treated in our articles on “The Soul After Death”—but not in a controversial way; most of the rest of these articles will be simply the teaching of Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov, especially on the “Toll-houses,” and I think the subject is clearly enough presented by him to satisfy everyone except Fr. Lev and other “reformers.”

Fr. Gregory of Boston visited us lately, and left a bad impression on us also. For him monasticism seems to be some kind of “formula,” but without love or any real idea of struggle. The “training” that Fr. Panteleimon gives his monks seems to be bound up with a cold, calculating self-centeredness—far from the real monastic spirit as we understand it. Fr. George Cheremetiev also visited us— and, just the contrary, we felt very close to him. He also, just like we, finds that Fr. Dimitry Dudko has just the right spirit for us today. Fr. Gregory wants to start a monastery in California, but both our bishops are against it, and Fr. Herman spoke very sharply with him against it.

We are in contact with some people in the Old Calendar jurisdiction of Archbishop Auxentios in America (and Greece also), and they are horrified to learn that our Sobor of Bishops has “broken communion” with them. Is this really true? There are many good people with them, who are closer to our Russian spirit than Fr. Panteleimon (even though their bishops may sometimes act irresponsibly) and it would be heartbreaking if we were to abandon them now.

We are very grateful for your concern for us, and ask your prayers for us. Besides our printing, we now serve several mission points in California and Oregon with Divine Liturgy once every month or two. In a few days, God willing, we will be sending our book “Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky” to the binder, after several years of printing (this is the book Br. Makarios [was] working on last summer when he stayed with us).

With love and respect in Christ,

MCMLXXIX

Jan 14/27, 1979

Jan. 14/27, 1979

St. Nina of Georgia

Your Grace, dear Vladika Laurus,

Blagoslovite!

I hope you and the brethren spent the feast days peacefully and joyfully. For us these days went very well, both in the monastery and in our missions in Redding and Etna. Despite the troubles of the times and our sorrows over many “converts,” there are still some people left, both Russians and converts, who are willing to give their hearts and sacrifice themselves for the Orthodox Faith, for which we thank God.

I am writing this letter in hope of receiving from you some advice (your personal opinion, and not any decision of the Synod) regarding one particular problem which has been presented to us: the reception of converts from the “non-canonical” Orthodox jurisdictions.

Last November we were visited by a priest from one of these jurisdictions. He is in his early 30 s, is married and has several children, and lives on a farm in Tennessee, where he has a very small flock. He is very poor and has deliberately chosen a path of “struggle.”

After studying at an Anglican seminary, he became Orthodox in a “non-canonical” jurisdiction about 10 years ago and was ordained priest about five years ago, I believe, by a “Bishop Christopher” in Pennsylvania (who has since died). He is now under a “Bishop Trevor” in Pennsylvania, who is head of a very small jurisdiction of probably no more than six priests; this jurisdiction is one of many that trace their ancestry back to the Metropolia’s “autocephaly” of 1927 (Bishop Eftimios).

The priest who visited us left on the whole a good impression on us (unlike some other “non- canonical” priests we have encountered); he seems not very different from many of the serious convert-priests in our own Synod. He realizes that he has much to learn about Orthodoxy, and that he really started learning only after becoming Orthodox and becoming a priest. He came to visit us because he is very much attracted to the kind of Orthodoxy he finds presented in The Orthodox Word (as opposed to the “Boston” emphasis on “zealotry” and “strictness” and “correctness,” which he does not like). While he was with us (for nearly a week) he asked us if we could find out how he might be received into the Synod, and we told him we would inquire. We asked our Archbishop Anthony, but he seemed to indicate this was not his sphere, and so we are writing to you.

With all this in mind, could you give us your opinion on the following questions?

[1.] What is his present status in Orthodoxy, in the eyes of our Russian Church Abroad, and how might he be received into our Church? Is he simply without grace and should be baptized and start over again as Orthodox? I know our “Bostonites” would say this, and according to “strictness” perhaps they are correct. But is a more “pastoral” approach not possible? I ask this for two reasons:

[a.] He himself sees his coming to the Synod as the culmination of a process of growth in Orthodoxy, and he would have a very difficult time totally denying his past Orthodox experience, as he would seem to be doing if he were to be baptized now. (And then would he not have to “rebaptize” those he has already baptized as a priest?) We tried to give him as his example the Orthodox Church of Eastern Africa, which began in a “non-canonical” jurisdiction but persevered until finding true Orthodoxy; but even there, I wonder how those first priests were received by the Patriarch of Alexandria—were they baptized and ordained, or received br cynzemr caht?

[b.] Our experience with converts of the “strict” school (the “Bostonites”) has made us a little afraid of total “strictness,” which sometimes seems to produce something like a “sectarian” mentality.

Therefore, our question is: if he could be a priest in our Synod, could he be accepted ________, in the manner that Roman Catholic priests are sometimes accepted? (As a matter of fact, he knows one Old-Catholic priest who was accepted by Vladika Nikon in this way—Fr. Augustine in Florida).

[2.] He is married to a widow, who has children from her first husband. I already told him that this would probably be the biggest obstacle to his being a priest in our Church. I realize .that he probably could not be ordained in our Church with such a canonical impediment; but is it at all possible for him to be received

[3.] Under what diocese does Tennessee come?—Chicago is by far the nearest diocesan see.

We ourselves would very much like to see him received into our Church, first because he seems to be a “normal American” (unlike some of our converts) who would be able to give Orthodoxy to some ordinary people who would never think of going to a “Russian” Church, and second because he is hungry for a deeper kind of Orthodoxy than the “OCA” and other jurisdictions are giving today. It grieves us to see so much of the American “missionary territory” occupied by the “OCA,” which is becoming more and more spiritually empty (as we hear from people who are there), when there is the possibility for at least a few “strugglers” to give something deeper.

If it would be possible for him to be received into our Church, I am sure he would be willing to go to Jordanville for some time in order to increase his knowledge of Divine services, customs of our Church, general Orthodoxy, etc. He clearly indicated to us his desires to learn and be corrected.

I hope this letter has not burdened you too much, and it will not be too difficult for you to give at least a brief reply. Please pray for us.

With love and respect in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Jan 20/Feb 2, 1979

Jan. 20/Feb. 2, 1979

St. Euthymius the Great

Dear Fr. Johnikios,

Christ is in our midst!

Thank you for your letters. Regarding Fr. Lev: your letter is a study in restraint in the face of attacks which, from what we have seen of them, are simply outrageous. Until about a month ago, Fr. Lev had sent nothing whatever to us of all his letters on the subject of life after death, despite the fact that one of the letters (which we received from elsewhere) specifically said a copy was sent to us. The few letters of his we have seen strike us as simply immature struttings based on an obvious failure to have studied the question well or read many of the basic texts he wants to attack. Then a month ago or so he sent us his one and only communication with us on the subject: a copy of a letter addressed to an unnamed priest (perhaps this was the letter you were answering?) wherein he has various unkind words about the “Platina doctrine of the soul,” the un-Orthodoxy of Jordanville publications, and the “ghastly” teaching of Archbishop John Maximovitch on life after death. Such things are inexcusable; they reveal not a love of truth or theology, but intellectual adventurism in search of new “victories” over anyone who disagrees with his whims. The recent Tlingit Heralds also, with their new “victories” over the Shroud of Turin, “after-death” experiences, etc., are just cheap and totally unobjective and unfair. How did he get the reputation of a “theologian”?!

Incidentally, if Fr. Lev has made any specific references to Egyptian sources concerning life after death, I’d be interested in seeing them, as a student of the question. The after-life “gates” and “mansions” of the Egyptian Book of the Dead certainly have nothing remotely to do with the Orthodox teaching, and if he is looking for “influence” on the toll-houses from there, he is a million miles off. It seems natural to suppose that the image of the toll-houses comes from nothing more complex than Roman civil law; but no one except Fr. Lev seems to mistake the image for the reality. The qualification that the toll-houses are not “dogma” is, it seems to me, unnecessary and rather dangerous; we believe and accept and hand down ourselves, as a full part of our Holy Orthodoxy, much that is not “dogma”: the sign of the Cross, the way of performing the Mysteries, holy water, prosphora, the services of the Trebnik, our love for the Saints, etc. etc.—but if someone begins to take them away from us, or undermine the foundations for our acceptance of them, he is helping to destroy our faith as surely as one who challenges basic dogmas. This dissatisfaction with the way Orthodoxy has been handed down to us, this “reformism on the right,” so to speak—seems very unhealthy to us.

Well, enough thoughts on an unpleasant subject. We ourselves don’t plan to answer any attacks Fr. Lev may throw in the air around us; but of course if he would deign to write us personally and tell us of his disagreements we would try to write a polite reply. Our last attempts to communicate with him resulted in emotional replies which (in one case) even Fr. Neketas thought was too much.

A more pleasant subject: we are pleased with your tape-project on Vladika Averky’s Gospels and will stop ours where we are (something like 60 or 70 pages). Actually, we had specifically in mind having something in English by the time our Br. Thomas is ready for that class, and your tapes will do that nicely. I have started the Apostol and will continue that. Fr. Michael’s Dogmatic Theology, God willing, is to be out by this summer, if I can get all the transcripts corrected by then (the task I find hardest and slowest). Pray for this—the book is needed and overdue.

Thomas Delp has had rather a miraculous recovery, after receiving Unction on his deathbed; but spiritually, alas, he seems as bad as ever. He is in full possession of his faculties, but is an utter slave to his own passionate inclinations and self-justification. He is in a rest home in Redding now and we see him occasionally, but he is very displeased with our attempts to shake him out of his sleep of sin. He is an alcoholic, and quotes St. Paul on “wine for the stomachs sake” to justify it; and for the sake of a worse passion he even disagrees with the Orthodox teaching on sexual morality. We did get to meet his mother for the first time\because of all this; she is a pious Roman Catholic, and attended an Orthodox Liturgy for the first time when Fr. Herman served in Medford (where Thomas was in the hospital). She has given up on him and doesn’t want him back in Florida. His future is grim if there is no change in his will; this whole trial was obviously sent him to wake him up, but up to now he resists God’s call.

Please pray for us. We’re struggling to print a few more things while we still have freedom, which seems short the way things are going. May God grant even us fat geese to exercise a little even if, alas, we just can’t fly any more!

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Jan 28/Feb 10, 1979

Jan. 28/Feb. 10, 1979

Sts. Ephraim and Isaac of Syria

Dear Fr. Donald,

Please forgive my long delay in answering your letters. I wanted to hear first from Bishop Laurus, and I wrote to him only after Christmas in order not to burden him at a busy time. I received his reply on the same day as your new letter this week, but now it has been nearly a week more before I am writing this, what with our printing, missionary trips, etc.

What Vladika Laurus writes will be difficult for you to accept, and I only ask you to receive it with prayer for God’s guidance. Here I will simply quote his words, translated from Russian (parentheses added by me for clarity). I had mentioned to him your Bishops Christopher and Trevor, but had not mentioned you by name.

“Inasmuch as the one who called himself Bishop Christopher did not have a correct ordination, all (of this jurisdiction) are unordained. Consequently, their uniting people to their jurisdiction, whether through baptism or however they receive them, is also without effect, for what they celebrate are not sacraments. Therefore, there can be no question of the reception (into our jurisdiction) of such (clergy) in their existing rank. (In the past) it has been allowed among us to receive Catholics and Uniates in their existing rank, on the ground that they have apostolic succession in their ordination. But in this (jurisdiction) there is no succession. If their “bishops” had been in schism (after being properly ordained and in communion with the Orthodox), this would have been a different question.

“With the person you mention there is another difficulty in that he is married to a widow. This is an impediment to ordination.

“I understand your feelings and, of course, it is sad that there are good people who are beginning to understand Orthodoxy correctly but by their previous actions have closed the way to priesthood. Of course, if he will sincerely approach and understand Orthodoxy, he should leave his priesthood’ and become a good Orthodox layman, perhaps, with God’s help, to raise up children who might themselves serve the Holy Church in priestly rank.”

I have also spoken to Bishop Nektary of Seattle about you, and while he knew nothing of your jurisdiction, he did say that the canon forbidding marriage to a widow is one that is strictly kept and cannot be put aside.

What to say? These words are from bishops who are loving and understanding as well as strict, and I accept them as from God Himself. I believe Archbishop John would not have given a different opinion. It is not for me to advise you to abandon what you have thought was the priesthood; I will only tell you my thoughts on your alternative.

To join yourself to our church as a layman would be an act of courage and suffering, but would open up to you the possibility of spiritual fruitfulness in genuine Orthodoxy, which comes only with suffering. (To remain in our Church alone will require suffering.) To deny the grace of Christs Church on your previous ministry would be difficult, but would not mean denying God’s guidance of you during this time. The character of your present mission, of course, would be different: there is no reason why you could not continue the mission of the printed word (avoiding the pitfall of trusting oneself too much, and listening to the advice of others), but it would be a “priestless” community, with daily common prayers and hopefully occasional visits for Liturgy by a priest like Fr. Theodore in Cleveland.

To remain as you are, on the other hand, would mean to remain outside of communion and deeper contact with us in the Church Outside of Russia, and probably stuck in the rut of “non-canonical” Orthodoxy. In the latter case there will not be much we can do to help you, though of course we would remain in contact with you.

May God guide you in His path, by the prayers of Archbishop John. Please pray for us also.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. We will continue to send you our publications as they come out—if we overlook you, please remind us. Please send us your publications also.

As for the title Living Orthodoxy, the idea is good, but Fr. Herman fears the word “living” is already “polluted” for us because of the “Living Church” in Russia and now has an overtone of “renovated.”

Feb 9/22, 1979

Feb. 9/22, 1979

Dear Rev. [Roy] Goodridge [Wales, UK],

Thank you for your letter, expressing your anguish over the present state of the Anglican Church. Fr. Herman has directed me to reply to [you.]

There is really only one answer to your situation: to be joined to the Orthodox Church. This, of course, will not solve all your problems, but at least it will put you in a place where you can face them with your feet on solid ground.

Our Orthodox Church too, alas, is suffering from the disorder of the times, and now most of the Orthodox jurisdictions are expressing their willingness to go along with the “spirit of the times.” (although, compared with the Western confessions, they are still quite “backward,” thanks to God). Our Russian Church Outside of Russia, however, has clearly taken its stand against compromises with the times, for which reason it is considered rather “backward” by the other Orthodox jurisdictions. It would be good for you to get in contact with one of our priests in London (a convert to Orthodoxy), who could discuss the whole Orthodox Church situation with you:

Fr. Yves Dubois

25 Emily Road

London W12 9TF

As long as you are in the Anglican Church there is not much we can do to guide you. I would only advise you to pray fervently to God to show you the way to be fruitful in His True Church. The prayers of a recent saint of our Church, Archbishop John Maximovitch, are also very helpful. I am sending you one of our recent publications about him. Please feel free to write any questions.

Feb 9/22, 1979

Feb. 9/22.1979 b

St. Innocent of Irkutsk

Dear Timothy,

May the blessing of our Lord be with you!

We were glad to hear from you; thank you for the information on Russian periodicals.

About your personal problems: Fr. Basil Rhodes has also written us a letter, saying about the same things he wrote to you, but apologizing for calling our Church “schismatic” and a “fringe” group. He says he has no objection whatever to your being baptized here—he just doesn’t want you marrying Anna if you are in the Russian Church Abroad!

I think he is being overly-dramatic about the whole matter. The question of “jurisdictions” (in one case of the OCA and our Church Abroad) is not such a crucial one that it would prevent marriage, even if the partners were to belong to different jurisdictions; to be sure, oneness of mind on this question is preferable, but in practice this is worked out by the couple themselves.

Neither the OCA nor the Russian Church Abroad deny the grace of the sacraments of the other. It is true that on the clergy level there is no communion between us; this is a matter of principle on the part of the Church Abroad, which will not compromise on the question of accepting the Soviet-dominated Patriarchate of Moscow (from which the OCA receives its “canonicity”) as a normal Orthodox Church. Now, also, there is the question of the increasingly evident modernism and ecumenism of OCA pronouncement^ and practice, both official and unofficial. The recent publicity given to OCA bishops’ travels to Moscow and Rome, with photographs taken of them with Patriarch Pimen and the Pope—underscore the path which the OCA is taking, following the path of the Greek Archdiocese and other modernist jurisdictions. Our Church stands deliberately apart from this path, and that is the reason for the tensions between us.

Father Basil wants you to have a “true vision of Orthodox Christianity in America”—I heartedly agree. Our Church Abroad stands for preserving the Faith handed down from Christ and the Apostles; the OCA goes along with the times—even though they are slower in this than the Greeks, and they camouflage it with high-sounding but very abstract words about Orthodox “mission.” We are in contact with priests and laymen in the OCA (and some who have left it) who only confirm this diagnosis. Recently we ourselves were given a vivid illustration of this: the people in Medford for whom we served Divine Liturgy several times told me on my last visit that they were asking the OCA to come and serve them, because we are “too strict.” Actually, we were very mild with them, and our “strictness” consisted of speaking about spiritual life during talks and sermons, and once refusing to bless a table of meat and cheese during a fast period (without, however, making a “scene” of it or expressing anger). Their understanding is that the OCA is not “too strict” in this way; and that indeed seems to be the case.

All this is something you will have to see for yourself, and probably already see. Laymen are generally less responsible for seeing the issues involved than are clergy, and in actual practice there is some “intercommunion” between the OCA and the Church Abroad on the lay level. We ourselves do not refuse communion to OCA members if we see that they simply can’t understand the issues (which do, indeed, seem a little complicated to those who are not too close to church life). But Fr. Basil is right that he could not concelebrate with us, because that would imply that we approve of his Church’s positions.

My advice to you now would be to concentrate on the most important personal questions before you: Baptism and marriage. If you understand the meaning of the position of the Russian Church Abroad, I think you should prepare for Baptism here this summer. If you are sure Anna is the woman you want to marry, then that question will be next after Baptism. I think your confusion will disappear more or less by itself as you solve for yourself these two questions. Fr. Basil’s seemingly irreconcilable attitude will probably change also.

Fr. Basil makes a point of the “immaturity” of both of you. Well, of course, you have both proved by your past actions that there is some truth to this; but maturity begins by realistically facing present problems and praying for God’s help to grow into true and fruitful Orthodox Christians. May God help you in this task.

Please write if you have any more specific questions. We plan to have services (and Bible study) on the fourth Sunday of March (the 25th, I think) in Redding, and would be glad to see you then. (Right now we are deep in snow up here, with 3 feet falling this past week.)

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Feb 14/27, 1979

Feb. 14/27, 1979

St. Cyril, Equal to the Apostles

Dear Father Basil,

Thank you for your letter, and please forgive this delayed response, which is partly caused by our recent snowstorms and other winter difficulties.

I was glad to see the kind tone of your letter, and I hope that we will continue to be on friendly terms. There are at times some unkind words exchanged by various people in both our “jurisdictions,” but the unfortunate phrases that sometimes come out in the heat of argument are best forgiven and forgotten. May God forgive us all for our careless acts of uncharity!

You know Anna much better than I know Timothy, and I am really not prepared to counsel him on his “maturity” or “immaturity” for marriage until I know him better; if he is to be baptized here by us, this counselling will come as he prepares for baptism and afterwards. The basic decision, of course, is up to them, and if they do choose to marry, they will probably come to a harmonious resolution of the “jurisdiction” question also.

The disharmony between our Church Abroad and your OCA is perhaps not as drastic as you may think. It is true that we (for the reasons I will mention below) would not consent to concelebrate, as things now are, with priests of your jurisdiction; but we do not deny the grace of your Sacraments any more than you deny ours, and we regard the giving of Holy Communion to lay members of the OCA as a pastoral rather than a “canonical” question. The issues that separate us are so complex (at least in our days when the general church consciousness is so low) that most laymen simply cant be expected to grasp them. Our own spiritual children, I will tell you frankly, we do discourage from receiving communion in OCA churches, trying to arouse in them a more conscious attitude to the Orthodox Church situation today.

What is this church situation that separates us? It has two aspects:

(1) Recognition or non-recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate as the normal and legitimate Orthodox Church of Russia. The Metropolias reception of “autocephaly” and “canonicity” from Moscow in 1970 (which is now the chief “official” reason for the strained relation between us) seems to us an example of crude “legalism”: the reduction of Orthodoxy to a purely outward question of church forms, no matter what alien spirit might be using those forms. (This is the sin of “Sergianism.”) The episcopate of the Moscow Patriarchate is the puppet of an atheist organization (the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) whose aim is the destruction of the Church; granting full and normal recognition to it (whatever ones aims in doing this) means giving aid to this alien organization and its purpose, and crushing the spirit of those in Russia itself who are trying to preserve the genuine Orthodox view of church life and organization (the “True Orthodox” or “Catacomb Church” of whose present existence we have many proofs). The over-abundant journeys of OCA clergy to the USSR are propaganda fodder for the enemies of Orthodoxy (religious enemies first, not political). Perhaps you may think this difficult to understand, or far-fetched; I am sending you some back copies of our Orthodox Word which explain various aspects of the issue, from the words of hierarchs and laymen in Russia.

(2) The second question is the path of ecumenism-modernism which the leaders of “world Orthodoxy” (led by the Patriarch of Constantinople) are pursuing, and from which the OCA has shown no indication of separating itself. This is another complex question, going back (like the Moscow question) to the 1920 s, but becoming clearer than ever in recent years. This path is a tragic betrayal of Orthodoxy, which differs from the betrayal of Florence in the 15th century only in that it is not yet complete; but it [letter ends]

Mar 7/20, 1979

March 7/20, 1979

St. Paul the Simple

Dear Anna,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

Thank you for your letter. I think it reveals less confusion than you think—perhaps your ideas are still somewhat confused, but I think your basic attitude is correct, and if you persevere in spiritual struggle your ideas also will straighten themselves out.

Your battle with “demoniac fornication” is not as unusual as you may think. This passion has become very strong in our evil times—the air is saturated with it; and the demons take advantage of this to attack you in a vulnerable spot. Every battle with passions also involves demons, who give almost unnoticeable “suggestions” to trigger the passions and otherwise cooperate in arousing them. But human imagination also enters in here, and it is unwise to distinguish exactly where our passions and imagination leave off and demonic activity begins—you should just continue fighting.

That the demons attack you in dreams is a sign of progress—it means they are retreating, seeing that you are resisting conscious sin. God allows this so that you will continue fighting. Often this demon goes away altogether for a while, and one can have a false sense of security that one is “above” this passion; but all the Holy Fathers warn that one cannot consider this passion conquered before the grave. Continue your struggle and take refuge in humility, seeing what base sins you are capable of and how you are lost without the constant help of God Who calls you to a life above these sins.

About our Russian Church Abroad—I think it is not a bad description to say that it is in a way the “conscience” of Orthodoxy today. One Greek priest once told us a very similar thing. Of course, we in this Church are all very human and weak ourselves, but we do try to keep the standard visible, from which almost all the Orthodox churches are falling away at a rapid pace.

I think the Protestants are not too far off about the “one world church,” the harlot of the Apocalypse—but, like all their apocalyptic ideas, they add many distortions to their ideas. From the experience of the Council of Florence in the 15th century (when the Greek Churches did for a time join the Pope of Rome), and from the recent pronouncements of Patriarch Demetrios of Constantinople and Pope John Paul II—I don’t see how anyone can deny that the “Union” of most Orthodox Churches with Rome (and through Rome to at least some of the Protestant bodies) is rather close. As for the Catacomb Church in Russia, it certainly exists, and quite a bit of material has been published on it (from eyewitnesses) in the Russian language/press in recent years. Its chief bishop, as far as we know, is still Metropolitan Theodosius (who is of course a different person from the OCA Metropolitan), who issued a declaration that was circulated in Moscow and Leningrad when the present Patriarch Pimen was elected in 1970.

About your joining the Synod: let this decision come naturally and peacefully. We are not out to make “fanatics,” but to speak the truth of age-old Orthodoxy which most Orthodox Christians today are abandoning (in fact, many Orthodox people aren’t even aware of them, so great is the level of ignorance today). If you are to marry Timothy, this is something you will decide together. Since our parishes in Sacramento and Calistoga have no English services or English-speaking priest, you would probably do best to continue attending OCA services there while you think and pray about this question. We certainly recognize the sacraments of other Orthodox jurisdictions, and there is no doubt that you have been baptized Orthodox. Your decision (if you make it) to join the Russian Church Abroad will mean that you want to join the small band of strugglers who recognize the process of apostasy in the Orthodox Churches and consciously want to separate yourself from it. We tell our own spiritual children that, wherever there is no Synod church, they can attend other Orthodox churches, but that they should not receive Holy Communion there (except in case of mortal necessity)—this is basically the position of Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, one of the Catacomb bishops of the 1930’s.

I will be serving Liturgy in our Redding mission church this Sunday (March 25) and conducting a “Bible Study” afterwards. You are very welcome to attend if you can. Liturgy will be early (around 8 a.m.), followed by lunch and Bible study around noon. The address is 1972 Jewell Lane (in the southern part of town, just off Business Route 99). If you were to come by bus, someone could pick you up at the station; you could call 241-1732 (the telephone number of Mrs. Valentina Harvey, in whose garage our service are held). I would be glad to talk with you then.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Apr 20/May 3, 1979

April 20/May 3, 1979

St. Theodore Trichinas

Dear Barry,

CHRIST IS RISEN! May the blessing of our Lord be with you!

We were very happy to receive your letter and hear of your path to Orthodoxy. May God send you His grace abundantly and grant you eternal salvation in His True Church!

The light you saw, and the presence you felt, I am sure, are from God. Such a thing is fairly frequently experienced by converts to Orthodoxy, and the remembrance of it is often of great help in the temptations that come upon one in leading a true Christian life. However, don’t think much about it, and especially don’t make any “theories” about it! Just know that God is close and sometimes lets us feel that closeness.

As you prepare for Baptism, I would give you several words of advice:

[1.] Don’t allow yourself to get stuck on the outward aspect of Orthodoxy—whether the splendid church services (the “high church” to which you were drawn as a child), the outward discipline (fasts, prostrations, etc.), being “correct” according to the canons, etc. All these things are good and helpful, but if one overemphasizes them one will enter into troubles and trials. You are coming to Orthodoxy to receive Christ, and this you should never forget.

[2.] Don’t have a hypercritical attitude. By this I don’t mean to give up your intellect and discernment, but rather to place them in obedience to a believing heart (“heart” meaning not mere “feeling,” but something much deeper—the organ that knows God). Some converts, alas, think they are very “smart” and they use Orthodoxy as a means for feeling superior to the non-Orthodox and sometimes even to Orthodox of other jurisdictions. Orthodox theology, of course, is much deeper and makes much better sense than the erroneous theologies of the modern West—but our basic attitude towards it must be one of humility and not pride. Converts who pride themselves on “knowing better” than Catholics and Protestants often end by “knowing better” than their own parish priest, bishop, and finally the Fathers and the whole Church!

[3.] Remember that your survival as an Orthodox Christian will depend very much on your contact with the living tradition of Orthodoxy. This is something you won’t get in books and it can’t be defined for you. If your attitude is humble and without hypercriticism, if you place Christ first in your heart, and try to lead a normal life according to Orthodox discipline and practice—you will obtain this contact. Alas, most Orthodox jurisdictions today (such as the OCA) are losing this contact out of simple worldliness. But there is also a temptation on the “right side” which proceeds from the same hypercriticism I just mentioned. The traditionalist (Old Calendar) Church in Greece today is in chaos because of this, one jurisdiction fighting and anathematizing another over “canonical correctness” and losing sight of the whole tradition over hyper-fine points. Our Russian Church Outside of Russia is in the best possible position in this regard, being rather in the middle of these two extremes and maintaining a balanced position (for example, grieving and occasionally remarking on the loss of Orthodoxy by the other jurisdictions, but not going to the extreme of declaring them to be “without grace”). We have recently written an article, in this connection, on Blessed Augustine, whom some converts (and Greeks) would like to regard as simply a “heretic,” without seeing that despite his errors he is actually more Orthodox than the modern, formally-correct “theologians” who criticize him

You yourself have had enough experience in life to avoid these temptations, which are actually those of the young and inexperienced; but it is good to keep them in mind.

You are already probably fairly well prepared for Baptism in outward knowledge (that is a lifelong task in any case, and one is never really “prepared”!). I would advise you to read some things that give more the “feel” of Orthodox Church life. The Confessions of Blessed Augustine is good reading for repentance and the warming up of the heart, and the ascetic and devotional literature of the Church is also very good—Lives of Saints, Desert Fathers, collections like the Lausiac History and the Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great (who is much loved in the East). I am sending you separately our newest publication—some Homilies of St Symeon the New Theologian, which serve as a kind of catechism of the meaning of our Christian life, and also (in case you haven’t seen it) our article on Blessed Augustine from last year’s Orthodox Word.

As for serving God in the clerical state—that can be seen better after you become Orthodox. It is best not to think too eagerly of it in the beginning for fear of going “too fast” and not absorbing the lessons right in front of one. God will show. Just this Saturday (two days from now) we will have the ordination here of a young convert from Roman Catholicism. He joined the Church about 9 years ago and matured through various trials into someone who is just “ripe” for pastoral service. You must definitely meet him, and will gain much from talking with him. (He is Alexey Young, editor of the missionary periodical Nikodemos. He will take over our missionary labors in the southern Oregon area. By the way, the latest issue of Nikodemos is an excellent appeal to Roman Catholics to come to Orthodoxy—you should read it. We will have some extra copies soon in case you don’t subscribe.) There are many complications in pastoral labors today, and there is more hope for success in them if one “matures” into them rather than follow a standard path of “being assigned to a parish.”

This summer we will have our St. Herman Pilgrimage again on August 8-9, and then a week of courses on various Orthodox subjects (this year it will probably be a rather intense course). It would be good if you could attend. Of course, you are welcome to come and visit us any time. Please feel free to write about any questions you may have, also.

May God guide your steps into His Church and make you a fruitful laborer for Him!

With love in Christ,

H.S.

Apr 30/May 13, 1979

Sunday

April 30/May 13, 1979

Apostle James

Dear Fr. Herman,

Christ is Risen!

We were glad to hear from you from Jordanville, and look forward to news from Mt. Athos. Friday night we sang the canon to St. Demetrius the Great Martyr, praying that he would be able to open the way to the Holy Mount for you, and every day we sing his magnification.

Why do they want you to stay in Jordanville for two weeks? If it’s absolutely necessary or useful, then of course you should. But if it’s just so they can “test” you and see if you’re “worthy” to be having an independent existence outside of Jordanville, or to prepare you for bishop—then run from it as fast as possible. Vladika Nektary on his last visit mentioned again his desire to retire with us here, but said that now he would not, because now we will be taken away for bishops in 2 or 3 years, and then no one knows who will be “appointed to Platina,” and he wouldn’t like it. I suggested to him that we would take the path of Sergius of Radonezh instead of George Grabbe (who says that according to Metr. Anthony one can not refuse to be a bishop), and he was consoled a little.

I deeply, deeply feel that we have God’s work to do here, and if we allow ourselves to be taken from it we will betray our calling, and probably be flops besides. Vladika Laurus apparently looks on us with the eyes of the organization, not giving much importance or value to what we do, and only looking for the right hole to plug us into for the “good of the whole.” Your two weeks in Jordanville (if it is not really very necessary or useful) would hurt not so much we as our common work—making it seem less urgent to the church world, and making you very “visible.”

Forgive me if I’m not looking at this right. You will know best what to do when you return.

We have been all right this week, working fairly well, and with only a few visitors. I find myself rather nervous being “in charge” and having to read the mail, but there’s no great suffering yet. Pray for Dima—his family is visiting next week and want to take him home for a “normal life,” and he is frightened that he will do whatever they say. But it’s probably best for him to be scared. If he goes, of course, it will be difficult for us. Guma and Sergei are behaving well. The kids are due today in Wildwood. The sisters are about as usual.

I think most of all about our summer Pilgrimage, which could be a magnificent opportunity for “Orthodox enlightenment” such as is not being given very much nowadays. How are the sermons in Jordanville? I have the impression that a heavy “church” atmosphere is hanging over everything and stifling a much needed freshness, and we could be helping to give this freshness. Perhaps when we’re dead they’ll even recognize our labors—but at least we have to help those we can. Is this wrong?

I watched Fr. Alexey serve twice, and he will do fine. I gave him some general advice on confession, and he basically understands it. I confessed Ian and Susan by telephone on Friday.

Robert Murray (Iakov’s father) was in a terrible accident at the time of the ordinations, and miraculously escaped with only a sprained ankle and bruises. Fr. Alexey and I went to visit him and I liked him—I think he wants faith but just can’t break out of his rut. I gave him Fr. Dimitry Dudko’s book, and he promised to read it.

Today was the wedding in Etna, and next Sunday the first service in Medford.

A few days ago it was snowing in Wildwood, and today it’s 80 degrees—real summer weather.

Pray for us. May God make your trip fruitful.

With love in Christ,

Your brother, hieromonk Seraphim

P.S. Chuck and Roberta came yesterday with their baby Timothy, who is healthy. They have 30 people now, with 10 children in school.

P.P.S. Someone sent us a Xerox from Jordanville of your Zutie Ctareza Theodosius—76 pp.—is this right?

P.S. I had a long talk With Dima. He is preparing himself psychologically to leave, and I can’t “push” him not to—his mother wrote him that he is “brainwashed” and that we are “exploiting” him, and he probably begins to believe it a little. Obviously, he is being given a “test” of his freedom—he will have to respect his place here more if he will be able to stay.

Don’t write him a letter “demanding” or “forcing” anything on him?—he already thinks you “force” him too much. May Gods will be done. This is evidently a “test” that he needs. I will grieve more for him than for us if he leaves, but of course it will be discouraging to have so few hands with so much to do. I grieve most of all the “church public opinion” (Jordanville, etc.) doesn’t seem to approve of our existence. But God is with us!

Enclosed is a copy of a letter to Fr. Roman Lukianov.

May 1/14, 1979

May 1/14, 1979

Prophet Jeremiah

Dear Father Roman,

CHRIST IS RISEN! Christ is in our midst!

We send our heartfelt congratulations on the Feast of Christ’s Resurrection. May God grant you new strength for faithful labors in this holy season!

In your latest church bulletin there is an announcement of a talk by Fr. Lev Puhalo on the Orthodox Christian teaching on life after death.” Fr. Lev’s recent statements on this subject have upset us and quite a few other people, and I would like to share our feelings with you.

In recent issues of The Tlingit Herald Fr. Lev has put forth the rather startling doctrine that the soul sleeps, or at least is virtually unconscious, without any kind of knowledge or memory, after death, and several times he has indicated that the Orthodox teaching on the “toll-houses” encountered by the soul after death is not to be understood the way it is set forth by the Holy Fathers and in the Lives of Saints, but rather is to be thrown out entirely or re-interpreted as an “allegory.” The Tlingit Herald, vol. 6, no, 2, has some rather unkind remarks about those who accept these accounts the way the have been handed down, as if these people are “overturning the clear teachings of the Church,” and he even compares such people with Billy Graham and the Protestants. It is evident that in these words he is attacking (among other things) our own series of articles on “The Soul After Death.” In private letters from Fr. Lev to other persons, which we have seen, he openly attacks what he calls the “Platina doctrine of the soul,” as well as the “un-Orthodox” Jordanville teaching on life after death, and the “ghastly doctrine of Archbishop John Maximovitch” on this subject. In making these attacks he presents such a caricature of the Orthodox teaching on the “toll-houses” and other aspects of life after death (calling them “pagan”), and is so self-confident in dismissing all Patristic writings and Lives of Saints that disagree with his own opinions (calling the “spurious,” “suspicious and dubious,” or “apocryphal,” etc.) that we are very much afraid that he will lead people astray concerning the very important teaching of the Church ;; life after death. When we noticed that both Fr. Neketas’ bulletin from Seattle and your own bulletin announced Fr. Levs lectures on this subject, we were dismayed to find that he is receiving support from our parishes in spreading his teaching.

The teaching which he is spreading is not only un-Orthodox itself, it is also filled with a spirit of disrespect for everyone who keeps to the “old teaching” on this subject (whom I suppose he would accuse of being under “Western influence,” not seeing how very Western and rationalistic his own teaching is), and what he is doing is to undermine respect for Lives of Saints and other basic Orthodox sources, at the same time setting himself up as the “interpreter” of these sources for all of us who are not as modern and “sophisticated” as he is. This, to my mind, is something just as bad as what Fr. Schmemann is doing in the OCA; but we never expected to see such modernism and rationalism in our Russian Church Outside of Russia!

I wonder what we can do about this? Recently Fr. Michael Pomazansky wrote a good article on the “toll-houses” in Orthodox Russia (1979, no. 7) as a direct answer to Fr. Levs attacks, and our own recent article in The Orthodox Word on this subject covers about the same material as Fr. Michael’s article. We thought that after seeing such articles Fr. Lev would stop and at least acknowledge that he had not looked carefully enough at all the Orthodox sources on this subject; but alas, he continues to confuse people and insist that he knows how to “interpret” these sources, and that the rest of us are anti-Orthodox, Protestants, etc.

We have no desire whatever to enter into a public debate with Fr. Lev on this subject, which we think would only confuse and upset people all the more; but what can be done to restrain his spreading of disrespect for Orthodox sources, as well as his setting himself up as an authority on questions which he obviously has not studied well? It is true enough that the question of life after death is one that is rather complex and involves images that sometimes are not to be taken “literally” (our own article on the “toll-houses” discusses this point—Orthodox Word #83, pp. 247-249); but Fr. Lev unfortunately uses this as an excuse to “throw the baby out with the bath-water,” and this can only have a bad effect on those who trust his words.

These are the feelings of both Father Herman and myself on this subject, and I am writing this at least to make you aware of them. I don’t know if practically you will be able to do anything about this situation; Fr. Lev himself seems so emotional about his opinions that I wonder if he will be restrained even by his best friends. I would be glad to hear your comments on all this.

Please pray for Fr. Herman. God willing, he is already on Mt. Athos, but we still worry that he will not be allowed to enter. Please give my greetings to Matuskha.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. Please pray also for our missionary labors here. Just in the last year we have been able to begin missionary parishes in Redding and Etna, Calif., and Medford and Woodburn, Oregon (three of them English parishes, and the last one Russian). Just last weekend Fr. Alexey Young was ordained priest to take care of Etna and Medford. We all feel very strongly the difficulties of preaching true Orthodoxy in these terrible times, but we also see very clearly Gods help in our humble labors.

May 12/25, 1979

Tuesday St. Nicholas Day

May 9/22, 1979

Dear Brother,

Christ is Risen!

Glory be to God that you arrived on Athos—may God grant that your stay be fruitful, both for now and the future.

We are fine. We are all at Wildwood after serving Liturgy for St. Nicholas. Today is cold and foggy, after a week or two of hot weather. OW is just over half done. The brothers are fine, as long as I watch over them. Br. David wants to stay, but has to face the temptation of his parents’ visit yet. Guma is usually my consolation, but sometimes difficult. Sergei is all right as long as I don’t expect too much for him—but he’s all moods.

The two little goats are very lovable. The goat’s milk is very good—just like cow’s milk, but richer. The sisters are fine. Svir has been staying with them for a week and is very happy.

Fr. Alexey is fine and very calm. There are already problems—Liuba wants more money for her house, and now it looks like she won’t give it. They were to have services on Sunday at the rented hall again.

We are working well. I get time for writing only on Sundays—if this were a permanent situation I wouldn’t get much done. The two of us can accomplish much, but separately not much, I think.

Give thanks to God for everything, and take what you can of value from the old world. May God return you safely. We miss you!

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

May 12/25, 1979

May 12/25, 1979

St. Epiphanius of Cyprus

St. Hermogenes of Moscow

Dear Father Laurence,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

Thank you for the news and the copies of Fr. Lev’s letters. We have heard from Fr. Herman from Athens, Thessalonica, and Karyes; but no word yet whether he will be able to stay more than four days. The Metropolitan of Thessalonica gave him the permit with no difficulty.

We too are sick of the “polarization” in the Church; I think a better name for it is “politics” and “party-line”—the rest of us don’t want to be “polarized” and are content to leave the party-line to itself. I once thought that the Party would gradually mellow and come together with the rest of us; but now I’m inclined to think that the silly extremisms are necessary to the Party in the same way that atheism can’t be separated from communism: once you take them away a person might begin to think for himself on other points also, and then the party discipline is ruined. It is so silly (but also so tragic) that even “theologians” and “ThDs” think so much in terms of prepared slogans and cliches and refuse to look at things with an open mind. The Shroud of Turin is indeed a very interesting question to anyone willing to look at the evidence; there are some difficulties and “holes” in the evidence, but also much that is persuasive. There is a new book (by Ian Wilson in England) that explains the “missing links” in the Shroud’s history by hypothesizing that it is actually the same as the Image not Made with Hands, and that it wasn’t until the 11th or 12th century that it became generally known that the folded-over image was actually the whole body and not just the face. This theory seems rather plausible to me, but unfortunately he has no very solid evidence to back it up, just circumstantial evidence. Probably there will never be “certainty” on this question—but the very fact that someone like Fr. Constantine of Jordanville should accept the Shroud so wholeheartedly is already enough to silence any arrogant denials of its authenticity—at least for those who are sensitive and respectful of opinions outside one’s own circle (a rare quality nowadays, which is itself a symptom of the lowness of our church life).

Unfortunately, the many “disciples” and would-be “theologians” who surround Party Headquarters with adulation make it all the more difficult for the party people to break out of the mold. Perhaps the best hope is when individual party members are placed out in the “real world” of non- party members and are forced to become more realistic and less doctrinaire. From what we hear, this has been happening to Fr. Alexis in England, although it remains to be seen how free he will actually become, especially since the rest of the Church seems so passive with regard to the doings of the Party.

About life after death: Yes, I think that the experiences of the “sectarians and idiots” should be taken seriously, because the experiences are obviously real, and while on the one hand they confirm what Orthodox sources say about the first moments of death (and thus give an opportunity for some people to find out about and accept the whole Orthodox teaching), on the other they most logically point to a non-Orthodox conclusion about life after death. The object of our articles is to place them in the whole context of Orthodox teaching, and incidentally to set forth this teaching in detail. Our model is Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov’s volume III, where he speaks in detail of the Roman Catholic teaching in order to set forth the Orthodox teaching. Many of our Orthodox people, I think, have very vague notions about this teaching—as witness the support some of the parishes are giving to Fr. Lev’s lecture on the subject, which, judging from what I have seen, is far from the Orthodox teaching and falls into several of the Roman Catholic pitfalls which Bp. Ignatius warns against. Even after all the Patristic citations in our article on the toll-houses, and Fr. Michael Pomazansky’s article on the same subject, Fr. Lev continues to repeat his Schmemannisms about the toll-houses, and people like Fr. Neketas support him. This, by the way, is what I think is Fr. Neketas’ weakest point—not so much that he joins “bandwagons” as that he is a 100% party-man and refuses even to look at evidence that contradicts the party line. (Although from what I hear lately, Fr. Panteleimon himself is not so much against the toll-houses any more; but evidently the party hasn’t heard this.) I’m sorry if We ourselves have given the impression of jumping of a “bandwagon”; but is this really such a sin, if what one says is accurate and relevant?

Fr. Alexey Young is off to a good start in the Medford mission—please pray for him, as it will be difficult. God sends His grace, but the odds against any kind of spiritual life today are so strong. Fortunately, there are quiet workers like him here and there, and the Church is not yet·, entirely swallowed up by politics.

May God give you strength to bear your cross with courage. For a little struggle, God gives a great reward. Please pray for us.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

May 16/29, 1979

May 12/25, 1979B

St. Hermogenes of Moscow

Dear Barry,

May the blessing of our Lord be with you!

First of all—yes, you are welcome to come and visit with Dan on June 5-7, or whenever you can make it. I trust you know from Dan that we have “primitive” accommodations.

I will be glad to talk with you about confession. However, you should be encouraged to know that according to Orthodox Church rules there is no sin whatever that can prevent a man from becoming a monk—since the monastic state is supposed to be specifically one of repentance. Priesthood, of course, is something different, but even there, it is possible for a monk to be ordained priest after being divorced in the world and repenting his sins. But this is something you definitely should not think about for some time after becoming Orthodox—it will only cause you unnecessary temptations. God will show you what is right for you when the time comes.

Dan is right—don’t be too taken up by “fantasies.” But don’t entirely squash them, either— without dreams, we can’t live! May God grant your Ruben the grace to be baptized and find his place to be a fruitful Orthodox Christian. It is true, though, that our modern parishes would present a problem for him. Here in the monastery we are largely free of such problems; in fact, at various times we’ve had quite a collection of “misfits” staying here. God will provide the answer for Ruben also.

I hope you will be able to force yourself to finish your courses—you will be surprised how later some of the things which now seem so useless will turn out to have a use after all (even Kant and Skinner!).

May God grant you to continue with such freshness towards Orthodoxy as you felt when reading St. Symeon’s Homiliesl Be aware, however, that this will be possible only with sufferings; everything you need to deepen your faith will come with suffering—if you accept it with humility and submission to God’s will. It is not too difficult to become “exalted” by the richness and depth of our Orthodox Faith; but to temper this exaltation with humility and sobriety (which come through the right acceptance of sufferings) is not an easy thing. In so many of our Orthodox people today (especially converts) one can see a frightful thing: much talk about exalted truths and experiences of true Orthodoxy, but mixed with pride and a sense of one’s own importance for being “in” on something which most people don’t see (from this comes also the criticism against which you’ve already been warned). May God keep your heart soft and filled with love for Christ and your fellow man. If you will be able to have a spiritual father with whom you can confide the feelings of your heart, and can trust his judgment, all this will be easier for you—but if it’s pleasing to God for you to have such a spiritual father, it will come “naturally,” as all things do in spiritual life—with time, patience, suffering, and coming better to know yourself.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

May 24/June 6, 1979

May 24/June 6, 1979

St. Symeon of Wondrous Mt.

Dear Father Theodore,

Christ is in our midst!

I received and read your letter with some sadness. (Father Herman is presendy on a month- long pilgrimage to Mt. Athos and won’t be back for a week or so.) I had heard, rather briefly, from Fr. Chrysostomos and Fr. Auxentios about this incident, and then that they had left you to “sort things out for himself,” and that they could expect no more “support” from you. I was rather puzzled as to what this might mean, and only replied briefly to them that this trial would pass and they shouldn’t let it upset them too much.

We do not know Fr. Chrysostomos well. We began correspondence with him 10 or 11 years ago through a friend of ours who met him in southern California; I assumed at that time that he was a convert, though I haven’t much of a memory for such things. He visited us once at our bookshop in San Francisco for a few hours, and we had a good visit (he had just returned from Greece, where he had visited Dr. Kalomiros and other Old Calendarists). Later he wrote a letter thanking us. Then, after our 1969 issue on “Western Orthodox monasticism” we received a kind of “open letter” from him, which I believe he sent to Boston also, criticizing our use of the term “Western Orthodox”; not a vicious letter, just critical and rather cold and “correct” in tone. Then we heard no more from him; we heard that he had gone to Jordanville to teach, but had been asked to leave in connection with some accusations he and some others had made of some seminarians. He seemed to suffer from the “correctness and criticism” disease of so many young zealous Orthodox people.

After a few years we heard from him again when he was studying at Princeton (I think he was teaching there in the end), and we exchanged some short notes: he sent us a manuscript or two of his student friend (now Fr. Auxentios), promised to send a tape of one of Fr. Florovsky’s lectures if he could, etc. He mentioned being close to Bishop Petros, then Metr. Akakios, and his grief at church politics. Then he was teaching at the University of California at Riverside (in southern California, near his home), and finally (probably no more than three years ago) revealed in confidence that he had formed a monastery with Fr. Auxentios. He sent photographs of the church, then of Metr. Akakios’ visit to make him Archimandrite, and began/to write much longer letters, together with his monthly church bulletin (there was a small parish attached to the monastery). He mentioned Fr. Panteleimon, at first hesitantly, and I told him freely that not everyone in our Church followed the “Boston party line,” and it was possibly for us to have communion with Greek Old Calendarists who were not “approved in Boston.” I read his letters with great sympathy, seeing him as someone broken and humbled by his own over-critical approach in earlier years, as well as by the factions and jealousies of the Greek Old Calendarist movement. Fr. Herman, however (who is sharper psychologically) noted that his letters were too humble and too complicated, and that he probably wasn’t too different from the other Greek factions we already knew about.

Well, all this is the basis of whatever knowledge we have of Fr. Chrysostomos, and it isn’t enough to explain what happened between you. (I imagine that Fr. Herman will not find it too surprising, however.) Apparently, he has some deep personal insecurity about something, and the church situation sets it off. His getting so angry at obviously untrue accusations must be a psychological mechanism for defending himself [against] the deeper attack he feels against his “weak point,” whatever it is. I myself have a feeling that it is all somehow bound up with the great problem of our present-day Orthodoxy (where it tries to be serious and faithful to tradition): too much calculation and not enough heart. We’ve seen this in Father Panteleimon, in Dr. Kalomiros (especially when he formed his own schism over the iconographic depiction of God the Father), in the priests who follow the “Boston line,” in numerous converts; well, why look further—I see it in myself, it’s part of the air we breathe in our “enlightened,” mind-oriented times. Russian priests seem to be freest of it, and I think there’s hope for us converts too, if we suffer enough.

I don’t think you need to doubt the genuineness of the good you received from Fr. Chrysostomos; it’s just that now you see his weak side also. God knows if your relationship with him will ever be anything like what it was. Perhaps, indeed, you were “used,” when his calculation overcame his good heart; but perhaps this calculation itself is only the slave of his deeper emotions.

Well, we are all flawed. Perhaps that is the great spiritual fact of our times—that all the teachers are flawed, there are no great elders left, but only “part-time” spiritual teachers who spend part of their time undoing their good works. We should be thankful for the good teaching we can get, but sober and cautious.

The lesson to you is probably: sobriety. Yes, you should trust your heart (I’m sure Fr. Herman will agree with me)—what thing better do we have? Certainly not our calculating mind. I don’t think you will be harmed by the trust you gave Fr. Chrysostomos; the good he did will stay with you, if you stay humble and sober. (If you did give him excessive trust, in the guru-sense, then you are suffering the punishment for it now; but that should pass.) But your own conscience and heart have to speak; totally blind obedience simply isn’t possible, especially in our times. In your future relationship with him (if he will allow it), you will just have to keep trusting your heart, I think. Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov’s constant advice to the Christians of the last times is: there are no elders left, check all teaching against the Gospel (of course, not in the sense of “calculating” to see where the teacher is wrong—but naturally, with the heart and conscience).

Fr. Chrysostomos wanted to stop his correspondence with us over this incident, being afraid our friendship with him would “taint” us. We wrote to him that if we were going to be on anyone’s “black list” we were probably already on it, and that our friendship with him had nothing to do with politics. I gather from Fr. Auxentios that at least part of their reason for cutting you off was to protect Fr. Chrysostomos from any taint of controversy, which upsets him terribly. (He had some kind of heart attack over this whole incident.) Of course, one of the reasons why it upsets him is, apparently, because he likes to get into the thick of it himself. His cutting you off is probably as “escape” for him, but the drasticness of it shows that it is not very rational. Fr. Hilarion of Jordanville once wondered aloud to me whether Fr. Chrysostomos might have a “persecution complex,” and perhaps that is the case (whatever precisely it might mean).

Years ago, when Fr. Herman and I were young and naive, we dreamed of a vigorous, single- minded movement of zealous Orthodoxy among young converts, Russians, Greeks, etc. Alas, we have become older and wiser and no longer expect much. All our confessors of Orthodoxy have their all- too-human side also. We had great confidence in Fr. Panteleimon for a while, until we saw the cold and callous way he and his followers “dropped” those who deviated from the “party line”; then we saw the blindness with which he followers repeated even his minor opinions (and kept to them even when he abandoned them!), and we began to hear from his critics in Greece also (it’s astonishing how he has alienated his one-time friends there). Fr. Neketas Palassis virtually cut us off cold when he saw we weren’t accepting the “party directives,” even on such debatable questions as grace among the New Calendarists, the Shroud of Turin, and evolution. We had a good correspondence with Dr. Kalomiros for a while, and then he also dropped us, apparently because we dared to disagree with him over “evolution” (I thought it was just a friendly debate, but apparently it was more important to him than that). We still have a good correspondence with Bishop Kyprian, whom you met, who seems the most moderate of the Old Calendarists we know; but we don’t know him too well. In so many Orthodox zealots, it seems to me, there is an intellectual narrowness, combined with some kind of political orientation, that produces factions right and left and loses sight of the “common task” which we thought (and still think) is so clear, especially when you contrast it with the crude renovationism that is going on now in the Metropolia, Greek Archdiocese, etc.

We ourselves try to keep peace with everyone, but don’t conceal our opinions when we see someone trying to force narrow personal opinions on the Church (as in the “rebaptism” controversy a few years ago in England, which produced such unnecessary schisms both on the right and left). For a while we were upset with Fr. Panteleimon’s seeming attempt to “take over” Church opinion and tell everyone what to think in order to be “correct”; but we see now that there is a “silent minority” (or perhaps even majority) of our priests who don’t follow the party line, and we are calmer about it. After all, parties come and go, but it is God Who governs His Church. In the meantime, we rejoice whenever we see anyone trying to be fervent in Orthodoxy and minding his own business; that’s why Fr. Chrysostomos’ “political fit” is so sad. Maybe (God grant it!) this is just something that will pass, and when he sees the “threat” is not so great he will return to normal.

Of late we’ve had another grief. Fr. Lev Puhalo is out to “get” us. We’ve seen his letters to Jordanville and elsewhere (a couple of which he sent to us himself), and he means to “expose” our teaching on life after death as (apparently) being utterly under “Western influence” and to be totally discarded. We’re in good company, as he places us in the same camp with Jordanville publications on the subject as he well as the “ghastly teaching of Archbishop John Maximovitch.” (He will also have to attack Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninovs teaching, but I don’t know if he realizes it yet.) His idea seems to be to show how “sophisticated” and “theological” he is, and how “simple and naive” the rest of us are for believing the “moral fables” in the Lives of Saints (which are also there in the writings of the Fathers, however)—without realizing it, he’s a real “modernist”! We’re not too upset about it—I think he’ll just burn himself out with these irrational attacks—but it’s sad to think of the unnecessary confusion he is spreading. Even Fr. Neketas Palassis sponsors his strange teaching that the soul is “unconscious” after death—which I’m sure Fr. Lev only invented because he can’t stand the “toll-houses”! For all our sympathy for “underdogs,” we can’t see Fr. Lev as anything but an unbalanced opportunist who will just cause trouble in the Church until he finally collapses. If this is the result of the “Patristic revival” (whose coat-tails he’s trying to ride), then we don’t need it! One can find and manipulate Patristic quotes to “prove” just about anything; what is really needed is a deeper reading and drawing from the writings of the Fathers (which is not being done too much nowadays, as far as I can see).

But we also have joys. Fr. Alexey Young was ordained here a few weeks ago in order to take care of our little mission in Medford, Oregon. Fr. Herman and I were serving this mission once a month, but then the group decided we were too “strict” and called in the OCA. The priest came was so modernist that part of the group was shocked and decided they wanted the “old Orthodoxy” after all and called us back; and of course they’re more satisfied with Fr. Alexey because we’re “monks” and a little too much for them. The leader of the group is a Russian lady from Shanghai, and despite her worldliness it seems that the memory of her childhood Orthodoxy stood up for her and she felt the difference. Please pray for Fr. Alexey—it will be difficult for him.

I’m sorry I don’t have any real advice for you in your grief, unless it’s just one word: yes, trust your heart and conscience, and don’t do anything to violate them. If Fr. Chrysostomos will let you back in his favor without demanding politics of you, well and good; you will already be wiser and more sober. Probably you will have to wait a while before trying to contact him again, if you then feel you should. If he doesn’t change his mind, then apparendy you will have to leave him with his own problems, which evidently are great. May God have mercy on us all! Pray for him. A monastic community, because of its close-knit character, can sometimes be a tense place, and the devil attacks it more powerfully than other places.

Meanwhile, don’t give up spiritual life just because you have no immediate guide! The Fathers still speak to us through their writings (have you read Unseen Warfare recently?), and life itself is a teacher if we try to live humbly and soberly, and once in a while you may get a good word of advice from somewhere. Treasure everything good (it’s good to keep a diary of it), and don’t grieve at what you don’t have!

Fr. Dimitry Dudko, by the way, is good to read—I think on the whole he speaks more to the heart of Orthodox Christians than just about anyone else today. (Of course, he has his mistakes also.) We’ve received two brief notes from him—all the rest of our correspondence with him is probably in the GPU files.

Pray for us strugglers. We have very few laborers (our one novice, a simple boy, was just dragged away by his parents, and he was too weak to resist), and we are surrounded mainly by women and children. I guess this is supposed to humble us, and it certainly does make us think differently than if we were surrounded by “disciples.” God is with us, and we have many joys. We remember you with much love. Hopefully, Fr. Herman will have a word for you when he returns. Pray for him. On his last postcard he says he might have a chance to go to Romania to venerate the relics of Blessed Paisius, and the thought is rather frightening—too close to the Russian NKVD, and Fr. Herman’s father was an “enemy of the people.”

With love in Christ,

P.s. Fr. Auxentios has just written us a new letter, concerning new rumors about Fr. Chrysostomos (that he is a spiritualist and believes in reincarnation), which he is afraid will get to Fr. Chrysostomos. He writes that Fr. C. is “seriously ill, and incapable both physically and mentally…. The doctor tells us that Father needs complete rest and no outside interference…. Suddenly I have seen a human being destroyed right in front of me.”

I have great pity for this man, a part of whose suffering is certainly due to the unhealthy church situation of our times (which sometimes gives me a sinking feeling also, especially all the un- Christian criticism, in the name of Christian truth, of people who at least are trying to struggle and keep the Faith). I don’t know what we can do to help him—but let us increase our prayer and love! Your suffering over him is given you, I am sure, in order to deepen your Christianity and make you better able to help other sufferers.

June 1/14, 1979

June 1/14, 1979

Martyr Justin the Philosopher

Dear Father Yves [Dubois],

Christ is in our midst!

We received your note of alarm and hasten to reply. Not knowing the specific nature of your encounter with Archbishop Vitaly, as well as the other problems you have had in the last three months, I will only give you our impressions both of the article you enclosed and of Archbishop Vitaly in general, as we know him.

The article struck both of us as extremely unrealistic, rather elitist and snobbish, and obviously written by someone with very little real experience in the missionary field. It corresponds not at all to the realities of missionary labor in our Church.

Why then was it written? I would guess, knowing Vladika Vitaly: it expresses chiefly the personal jealousy of Vlad. V. for the successful missionary labors in our Church which he would like to be heading himself, but is not. We noticed years ago that Vlad. V. has had not a single good word to say of the labors of our Brotherhood, for example. He sometimes justifies this privately by saying that we are in “prelest” for our veneration of Vladika John; but it is actually, I think, out of jealousy because he has been unable to do much in the mission field himself, despite his talk about it. Lately he seems to have developed the same jealousy for Fr. Panteleimon and his missionary labors. The article seems to be his “sour grapes”—since the convert movement in our Church is not under his control, it is not really very good. (All this began with him years ago, when he had great hopes that Timothy Ware would remain with him and put his—Vlad. Vitaly’s—missionary plans into action. After all his failures in this direction, he has gotten sour on converts in general, and neither trusts nor understands them.)

Both of us in our personal contacts with Vlad. V. have found him cold and pretentious, and totally lacking in the warmth and Christian love of someone like Vladika John Maximovitch, who inspired a spontaneous missionary movement just by these qualities, without Vladika Vitaly’s pretensions to be a “theologian,” etc.

All of this I write not out of any bitterness toward Vladika Vitaly (who has never caused us personally any trouble at all, apart from our disappointment that he never supported our work), but only so that you might not have any false picture of him or false hopes in him; he does not represent what our Church stands for and stands outside the vital currents in our Church, whether Russian or convert (the Russians, for example in Jordanville, have no more rapport with him than we do). He happens to be “powerful” in the Synod—but this is largely a superficial thing, having to do with church politics and hardly affecting at all the grass roots labors of such as you or we.

We are puzzled as to what Vladika Vitaly can possibly mean when he says that this very unsuccessful article has become “Synod policy.” Of course, it has become no such thing; and in any case, the article presents no proposals or programs as such and only expresses one mans reflections (rather poor ones) on the question. What Vlad. V. probably means is that the Bishops listened to the report and expressed their appreciation of it without thinking at all of any practical consequences of it. The Bishops could not but have noticed the total impracticality of implementing any such ideas, since almost every diocese (certainly in this country) already has well-developed church services in the English or other non-Russian languages, and Vlad. V. himself must often have been present at such services.

Please let us know of your more specific ecclesiastical difficulties. We could talk to our Vladika Anthony, but so far there is nothing specific enough to talk about. Is anybody really trying to stop you from having services in English?

I hope you understand that one does not have to take very seriously some of the things our bishops say—that is, sometimes some of them say things just to “save face” or protect their sense of authority, and no one, least of all the bishops themselves, expect such statements to be put into practice. And please don’t let Vlad. Vitaly’s coldness upset you. We would advise you to stay as far away from him as possible—he doesn’t have the right spirit at all, and is more concerned with church politics than the real needs of the flock today.

We ourselves have had complete freedom in developing our American mission. Our services both in the monastery and in our missions are almost entirely in English, and Vladika Anthony when he visits makes a point of encouraging us to do everything in English, and he himself does as much as he can in English. This is certainly the “normal” attitude of our bishops, and Vlad. Vitaly’s remarks are surely atypical.

Please write us more, and don’t become discouraged. Pray for us.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

June 5/18, 1979

June 5/18, 1979

Beginning of the Peter-Paul Fast

Dear John,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you, and give you a profitable season of the Fast!

I’m glad to hear the services went well on Pentecost. However: beware\ No matter how “right” you may be on various points, you must be diplomatic also. The first and important thing is not “rightness” at all, but Christian love and harmony. Most “crazy converts” have been “right” in the criticisms that led to their downfall; but they were lacking in Christian love and charity and so went off the deep end, needlessly alienating people around them and finally finding themselves all alone in their rightness and self-righteousness. Don’t you follow them!

Specifically: if you have a Russian congregation used to a regular choir singing—let them keep it, don’t fight with them over it, don’t insist on doing things the “right” way! You are making much too big an issue of it, and you are offering most unfair criticism to those who disagree with you. People who stand in church while the choir sings are not offering their “private prayers”—they are praying with the priest and singers, and often praying much better than the singers, who are usually so absorbed by the mechanics of following the music and text that they pray very poorly.

The attitude toward the little Woodburn mission which you reveal in your letter is a very dangerous one, both for you and others. I will tell it to you straight and pray that you have the courage to accept it and act on it before it is too late. The “zeal” you are showing for English services, congregational singing, etc.,—is not primarily zeal according to God, is not based on Christianity; it is, on the contrary, only stubborn self-will, a symptom of the “correctness disease” that plagues so many converts and leads straight to disaster. If you do not fight against this passion now (for it is a passion), the Woodburn mission is doomed, and you yourself will very likely lose your own faith and your own family. I have seen this “convert-pattern” in practice too often not to warn you about it.

You are still new to Orthodoxy, and yet you wish to teach those older in the faith (and from the way you describe it, you are “teaching” them quite crudely, without the slightest tact or Christian charity). Plain common sense should tell you that this is no way to act; Christian love should make you ashamed of your behavior and anxious to learn more of basic Christianity before daring to teach anyone anything. I haven’t heard from anyone in the Woodburn area, but I can image how your behavior must offend and hurt them. There is nothing mysterious about the fact that you are alienating people; your behavior, as you have described it yourself, is exactly the kind that drives people away and causes fights in the Church. Don’t hide behind “English services” and “no-partitura” singing: these are only half-truths which your pride seizes on in order to avoid basic Christian humility and love.

Look for a moment at how it must seem to others: you couldn’t get along in the Portland parish and had to drop out; now, in your “own” parish, you drive people away. It simply cannot be that others are always to blame and you are always innocent; you must start correcting your own faults and living in peace with the Christians around you.

How do you do this? You begin by accepting certain basic Orthodox principles:

[1.] All questions regarding church services (language, kind of singing, etc.) and behavior in church (including head coverage of women, etc.) are decided by the priest who serves. You are not to be a “policeman” who enforces “church laws” according to your understanding of them; it’s already clear that you are going to drive everybody away doing this, and in any case, people come to church hoping to escape the cold legalism of the world that surrounds us—have pity on them!

[2.] Realize that you are still a new convert and have much to learn, and are not to be a “teacher” of others, save in the sense that every Orthodox Christian is a source of edification (or the opposite) to others by his behavior. This edification is given first of all, of course, to one’s own family, and this is a place where, according to what you have told me, you are very weak. You seem to have some Old Believer “patriarchal” ideas about the family (many of which are totally inapplicable to family life today, and produce disasters when insisted on), combined with a lack of genuine love and concern for your family. You’ve indicated in earlier letters that you and your wife might just drift apart, that Stephen may not end up Orthodox—but how can a Christian husband and father realize such terrible things and not be filled with zeal to correct himself before these disasters happen? (For if these things do happen, you will be to blame: because you did not give your family an example of living Christianity to inspire and warm them, but only some kind of legalistic, soul-less “correctness” that only feeds the ego.)

[3.] Begin to humble yourself in your relations with others, to act towards them first of all with compassion and love; go out of your way to see things the way they see them and not give offense to their feelings. Cease to be an egotist and learn to live in peace with the Christians around you. This can’t be done overnight, but you can start.

[4.] Start studying seriously the ABC’s of Orthodox Christianity. Have you read Unseen Warfare recently?—that’s a good place to start.

About the Woodburn parish: you will have to resign yourself to the fact that, at the present time, this is a Russian parish, where services will be conducted mainly in Russian and in a way that does not seem strange or novel to those attending. There is room in the Church both for “Burlingame”-style services, “Etna”-style, and “Woodburn’-style—which, by the way, is not the same as “Burlingame” style at all, but rather something in between. If you are going to make war against “Burlingame” style services, you are not only needlessly offending the Russians who are used to that, but are also insulting your own bishops (who, after all, allow Burlingame to exist). There is a half-truth in your observations on these matters, but the kind of services you want cannot be dictated to people who find them strange; they must develop gradually, naturally, and in peace. (This is precisely the “Platina-Etna” way, and not the externals which you want to copy.) Otherwise they are not God-pleasing. These questions are not as important to you as you think they are right now; just a few months ago you thought quite differently and were idealizing the Assurs and your Russian services. Your ideas of “correctness” are largely dependent upon your whims and moods. There is plenty of spiritual food for you and your family in the present state of things: public Russian services once every two months, with much even then in English (sermons, Epistle and Gospel, confession); and the rest of the time the church is your family chapel for whatever English prayers you have a zeal for. To have English Etna-type public services now in Woodburn would be an insult and competition to the nearby struggling Portland mission, while there is a need for a Russian mission in this area. What will come in the future, God will show; but it will come naturally and peacefully if at all.

I’ve said enough, perhaps more than you can digest at once. I do not call on you to “abandon all your ideas,” or to become a totally different man overnight. I only want you to start working harder on yourself and to be more compassionate to others, and to relax on trying to be so “correct.” This is not so impossible, and I think you will never find happiness and spiritual peace unless you do this.

I hope you do not accept his letter as an impossible dose to swallow, as earlier you found Fr. Georges letters. Your absence of spiritual rapport with him made it very difficult for you to receive whatever good he could give you. I have been bold to write this letter to you knowing that you freely asked me to be your spiritual father and that a spiritual rapport does seem to exist between us. I would urge you to continue to look to the “Etna model” of Orthodoxy for inspiration and guidance: but not the external side so much as the inward side that is the source of its strength. Look at Fr. Alexey’s attitude toward his wife, his children, other people, the way he tries to put Christianity into practice; compare this with your own attitudes, and start to soften your heart.

Please forgive me if any of this is hurting; I mean you only the best, and am very concerned at where your present behavior is taking you.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. No, you should not have khitons made for you and your sons. It would make you too “special”— you’re thinking too much of the outward side of prayer.

P.s.s. Yes, God willing, one of us will come to Woodburn sometime in August for services.

June 16/29, 1979

June 16/29, 1979

St. Tikhon of Kaluga

Dear Mrs. Prokopchuk,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

Thank you for your letter and the article from the Tlingit Herald. We also have been disturbed of late, not only by this, but by other articles also in this publication. It sometimes happens, of course, that there are differences of opinion among writers on Orthodox subjects, but in such cases one should always have a moderate tone and full respect for those with whom one differs, as well as a humble awareness of one’s own fallibility and the possibility of making mistakes or distortions oneself. The articles in the Tlingit Herald on life after death, on the contrary, have been marked by a sometimes very crude tone and a crass disrespect for those whose views the author criticizes. We have noticed the same thing in the articles on Blessed Augustine, the Shroud of Turin, etc. This is all the more inexcusable in that the views the author criticizes are often not those of heretics or of theological amateurs, but often of respected theologians and hierarchs of the Orthodox Church. The attacks on Blessed Augustine, for example, are an insult to the views of virtually every one of our bishops in the Russian Church Outside of Russia. Even in a matter that is legitimately open to different interpretations, such as the Shroud of Turin, such a disrespectful tone simply cannot be taken, if only for the reason that a number of venerable Orthodox authorities do accept it as authentic (such as Archimandrite Constantine of Jordanville, who wrote a moving article in Orthodox Life some years ago on its significance for our times).

Quite apart from the tone of the articles, on the other hand, is the question of whether the author is right in the assertions he makes. It is quite clear, I think, that on a number of occasions he has been very wrong. His assertion, for example, that Blessed Augustine is a “heretic” and has always been so regarded in the Orthodox Church, contradicts every single piece of evidence there is on the subject. (He himself does not give any Patristic evidence for his assertion, but only his own opinion.) The errors of Bl. Augustine have been recognized from an early century in the Orthodox Church, but never was Bl. Augustine himself regarded as a heretic, as our own historical investigation in The Orthodox Word has shown. Some years ago we asked one of our true Orthodox theologians, Fr. Michael Pomazansky of Jordanville, what he thought of the opinion that Bl. Aug. was a “heretic,” and he only replied that yes, he did distort several Orthodox doctrines (as Fr. Michael has set forth himself in his book on Dogmatic Theology), but he could not at all understand this “campaign” against a man who, after all, is a Father of the Church and on the whole taught correctly.

On the question of life after death, the author has made assertions that are also quite far from the truth. His attack on the “toll-houses” comes from his failure (and evident unwillingness) to read the sources on them in the right Orthodox spirit; he makes a caricature of them due to his own crudely over-literal understanding of them and then wishes to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of holding this same crude misinterpretation. Any Patristic texts that disagree with his views he dismisses as “spurious” or “apocryphal” without offering any proof whatever for such statements. Generally accepted accounts in Lives of Saints he calls “wild tales.” But his recent statements on the “sleep” of the soul after death have simply astonished us: how can anyone with the slightest knowledge of Orthodox texts make such a spectacular blunder—is difficult to understand. The few texts he uses to support this and other of his erroneous views are either fragmentary and inconclusive, or simply taken out of context.

In recent months we have seen copies of correspondence between the author of these articles, (Deacon Lev Puhalo) and various other parties. In these letters he makes it clear that he wishes to publicly expose and attack the teaching on life after death of (1) The Orthodox Word·, (2) the Jordanville publications on the subject (especially the Jan.-Feb., 1978, issue of Orthodox Life)·, and (3) Archbishop John Maximovitch. Of course, he will also have to attack the teaching of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, Bishop Theophan the Recluse, and the whole tradition of Orthodoxy on this subject.

This makes us sad, and troubles us—why does such unnecessary conflict have to be stirred up in the Church? We ourselves (and the Fathers at Jordanville) have no desire or intention to enter into a public debate on this subject, and we are all doing what we can to handle this situation quietly. Recently Bishop Laurus of Jordanville saw fit to forbid Fr. Lev to speak on this subject in the Buffalo parish, and Fr. Michael Pomazansky, who is probably the most refined and profound of our still-living Russian theologians, wrote an excellent article in Orthodox Russia defending the Toll-houses against recent attacks on them (without mentioning Fr. Lev by name). Our own series of articles on “The Soul After Death” is intended to give an over-view of the whole Orthodox teaching on this subject, and hopefully when completed it will answer any questions raised by Fr. Lev, but without entering into arguments with him. (Perhaps a “positive” side of Fr. Lev’s articles is that they have caused us to present the Orthodox teaching with maximum clarity, keeping in mind any possible distortions such as he has expressed.)

We have had comments similar to yours from other readers of the Tlingit Herald. Our advice would be simply not to place any trust in any articles there that make sweeping statements and dismiss the opinions of anyone who might disagree. Also, his use of Patristic quotations is not to be trusted—his use of them is often one-sided and out of context. For whatever reason, the author seems to have “declared war” against Orthodox theology the way it has been handed down to us, and we fear he will confuse many in the name of a “return to the Fathers,” while in reality he is misusing the Fathers in the same way he so uncharitably accuses others of doing. May God preserve us from such a “Patristic revival”! It is actually much closer to theological “modernism.”

We ask your prayers for us, that we may continue ourselves to present the Orthodox teaching on life after death as it has been handed down to us from the Holy Fathers and in the Lives of Saints. These sources in the end will survive all the attacks made against them, but they are still far from being well enough known among Orthodox Christians.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Aug 9/22, 1979

Aug. 9/22, 1979

Apostles Mathias

Dear Father Akakios,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

Thank you for your letter and the copy of your article for The Old Calendarist. I had not seen it before, and my impression of it from Fr. Theodore’s brief words was, indeed, that it was more in the nature of a personal attack on Fr. Panteleimon. My advice to Andrew Bond not to print it was mostly to protect him from the attacks on him that could follow from people in our Russian Church—and that could well discourage him so thoroughly as to make him stop printing The Old Calendarist and even cause a crisis in his own faith.

Having read the article now, I see that it is much more general than I thought. I would still urge you not to print it, however, and will explain why:

In the letter you are obviously “reacting” to Fr. P’s words and actions, and this “personal” reference (even if the person isn’t identified) gives its tone to the article whether you want it or not. Fr. P’s followers, if they wanted, could easily “answer” the article and “prove” that he is not “really” what you say, that he too is against false “perfection,” that he has great “compassion” for the erring, etc.— and many would be persuaded by this to respect Fr. P. all the more. In any case, the matter would remain on the level of controversy and polemic, which must somehow be avoided if anything good is to result.

We understand and greatly sympathize with you in your sufferings, and in your desire to do something to counteract the poisonous atmosphere which has been created by Fr. P. (among others) in his wrong approach to Orthodoxy: I would characterize this approach less as one of “perfection” than as one of calculation—an Orthodoxy more of the head than of the heart. The problem is that this disease is in all of us—it is part of the spirit of the times, and we indulge in it at times. This spirit is inevitably present whenever controversy arises, no matter who is right or wrong; and therefore our only hope to clear the air is to avoid controversy whenever possible, to rise above it as much as we can, to set our eyes on what is above and not be distracted by the things below. All easier said than done!— but we can make an effort.

My own advice to you and the other Fathers would be to give up the idea of battling on this “controversial” level (they will have an “answer” to anything you say, and it will be convincing to all but your friends), and—since everyone knows about your existence now anyway—perform a mission of basic information about the Old Calendarist Church. Perhaps you could resume publication of the bulletin you used to publish in California, or in any case send articles to The Old Calendarist and to us (we could publish Old Calendar information in our letter column without making certain people too angry). Our Orthodox people in America simply don’t know anything about the Old Calendarist Church, and that is why their reactions sometimes are so hostile. For example, the formation of the new Synod is neither known nor understood here, and an objective presentation of it (together with the names of Bishops Kallistos and Kyprian, who are known at least a little) would certainly arouse interest and sympathy. The visit of the bishops to your monastery and Jordanville also is “news.” The problems your Church faces (presented as calmly as possible) would also be instructive. The more this basic information is put into the “air,” the less hostility there will be from people in our Church (except for those who just want to be hostile!). Your monastery could help to be a voice of moderation in our time of extremes.

We’ve just finished our yearly St. Herman Pilgrimage, where we strongly called for a faithful but sober Orthodoxy and warned about perils like the “correctness disease.” It takes time for new converts to understand such things—but with time, experience, and patient explaining, they do begin to get the point.

We wish you all the best—and first of all survival, and then faithfulness in Orthodoxy. May God grant you to withstand the temptations and stay in your present place to become rooted. There will be temptations everywhere! Please remember us in your prayers.

With love in Christ,

Aug 9/22, 1979

Aug. 9/22,1979

Apostle Matthias

Dear Father Chrysostomos,

Christ is in our midst!

Thank you for your letter, which was most welcome, and please forgive my long silence in not writing to the other Fathers—I have just been too busy and unable to write. My letter to Andrew Bond advising him not to print Fr. Akakios’ letter was meant more than anything else to protect him from the attacks that would come if he printed an attack on Fr. Panteleimon (I had thought that the article was more personal than it is). I have written Fr. Akakios separately about this.

We greatly sympathize with you in your sufferings caused by such uncharitable attacks, some of them from within our Church. But know that this is for your refinement and salvation, and can be of benefit to others if you endure them firmly and patiently. If you can stand firm and stay where you are, the trial will surely pass away and leave you stronger. Let the voice of the 14-year old Debra be the vox populi for you: you have more friends than you may think.

Now your monastery is known and you can’t hide from anyone. May God grant that this be the occasion for your labors in enlightening the Orthodox about the cause of the Old Calendar Church. A calm and objective presentation of information on the Old Calendar Church is much needed in America and you could do it, preferably through your own bulletin. I have mentioned this to Fr. Akakios also.

May God strengthen you in your trials. Know that GOD IS WITH US!

Please remember us in your prayers.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Aug 10/23, 1979

August 10/23,1979

Archdeacon and Martyr Laurence

Dear Andrew,

May the blessing of the Lord by with you!

Thank you for your letter. Yes, it was a little “nagging,” but I must say I agree with most of your points. Yes, the “Grabbe newsletter” is thoroughly uninspiring and has little positive to say about Orthodoxy. Its best forgotten and not spread further. (He puts it out in Russian himself, and unfortunately a great deal of it is reprinted in Orthodox Russia.)

We agree with you also on the forbidding of services to “uncanonized” saints. It’s true enough that the Russian Church in recent centuries has done this—but in our days of total desolation why forbid one of the few positive Orthodox things that is happening? The answer, I think, is that one or two of the politically powerful bishops (Vitaly of Montreal, Seraphim of Chicago) want to assert their “authority” and can find no better way to do it, and the other bishops don’t want to fight over it. It is discouraging—but again, the best thing is to “forget” it and quietly continue the veneration of these saints out of love for them. v

That our bishops don’t assert their authority when there is occasion for it—specifically, in restraining Fr. Panteleimon in some of his acts—is a sign of this weakness and giving way to political considerations.

All of this is a sad background for our present Orthodox labors—here you are right. But please listen to this: WE SIMPLY CANNOT LET OUR ATTITUDES, INSPIRATION, AND MISSIONARY LABORS TAKE THEIR TONE FROM ALL THESE NEGATIVE FACTORS: WE MUST OURSELVES BE GENERATING A POSITIVE OUTLOOK THAT WILL INSPIRE OURSELVES AND OTHERS. How?—on this I’ll say more below.

This is why I think it unwise to print the article of Fr. Akakios. He has sent it to us, and I see now it is less in the form of a personal attack than I had expected—but it is still only a reaction, and the influence of Fr. P. simply cannot be fought on that level: his followers, if need be, will simply fill the air with counter-attacks, more hero-worship, etc., and the air will be even more filled with the poisonous fumes that are choking us today.

When I say that the influence of Fr. P. is “past its peak” (or however I expressed it) I don’t mean to say that it isn’t still quite powerful and, in some respects, increasing; this poisonous influence increases exactly in proportion to the spiritual vacuum so common in new converts, and in others also—it gives easy and “correct” answers that make one feel important for belonging to the “right party” that has the answers. But this is superficial—the answer is to go deeper and get in contact with true, heartfelt Orthodoxy. And this is beginning to happen, and to such an extent that I think it’s the “wave of the future” in our Church. Almost all of our younger Russian priests, in America at least, are aware of the limitations of Fr. P. and are getting inspiration from elsewhere—chiefly from Russia, and especially from Fr. Dimitry Dudko. This is what you should be doing too—you probably sell Fr. Dimitry’s book, Our Hope and haven’t read it—correct?

The Fathers at St. Gregory Palamas monastery have, at least partially, fallen into a trap—they are so dazed by the bad effects of Fr. Pant’s influence that they are placing their reaction to it as the most important thing—that’s what their attention is fixed on, that’s what they write and argue about. I agree with them that this influence is bad and poisonous—but we simply must get above it, start getting inspiration from elsewhere and “forget” Fr. P. as much as we can. We are still on the best terms with the Fathers at St. Gregory’s, by the way, and have written them something similar. There are already enough of us aware of the “Panteleimon problem” (which in essence boils down, I think, to a question of a dead Orthodoxy of the head, of calculation, vs. the true Orthodoxy of the heart) that if we begin now to look to the sources of true Orthodox inspiration, to nourish ourselves on them, to communicate them to others, to speak out when need arises on problems of the day—we can have a substantial influence ourselves on overcoming the poisons already in the air and introducing a fresh air that can inspire and save them from dead legalism and “correctness.”

You suffer from what “Boston” has done, from the inertia of our bishops—well, be aware that THIS SUFFERING IS A PART OF THAT DEEPER ORTHODOXY YOU SHOULD BE SEEKING AND TAKING INSPIRATION FROM. Read Fr. Dimitry Dudko and start to learn; you cannot help but be inspired by him. His constant theme is: there’s hope for us, because we suffer. He is now putting out a weekly newsletter which is tremendously inspiring. Fr. Alexey Youngл;ііі be printing a few issues of it in English; if you want, I could translate some more for you. (Actually, much of it has been appearing in Orthodox Russia—do you have any translators there?) Fr. Dimitry, by the way, gives us a chance to get around some of our own problems here; here they don’t like us to talk about uncanonized saints—but Fr. Dimitry openly refers to “Holy New Martyr Nicholas” (the Tsar).

The whole Orthodox Church in the free world is in a state of near paralysis; our Russian Church Abroad is better off in that it has at least kept more of the traditions and piety of the past and doesn’t betray Orthodoxy in the Ecumenical movement. But God has given us the talent of freedom, and we who can walk and write and print have an obligation to inspire those we can with the true Orthodoxy of the heart. I’m not against a “polemical” article here and there (your articles in the last issue were good)—but such articles have to be only incidental to something more important that is being said and should have a compassionate tone that rises above mere polemics and anger.

Keep up The Old Calendarist and fill it with inspiring things. They are coming from Russia, you can find them in Greece (something about Bishop Kyprianos, for example), in Uganda, even in your England. (By the way, why don’t you write us a letter for publication on the positive opportunities for pilgrimage in Europe?)

We had a very successful pilgrimage and summer courses here this past two weeks, with large doses of positive inspiration, information on the suffering Christians in Russia, together with warnings about the perils to living true Orthodoxy today (including our Greeks, mentioned by name), and ending with the baptisms of two new converts. Here and there, positive things are going on in the Church; it’s up to us to help increase them!

Why don’t you come visit us again soon? Our missionary territory in Northern California and southern Oregon now has four mission parishes and some fervent Christians who are far away from all church politics.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. The Turin Shroud, of course, is a whole question in itself, but do you really have such evidence that it is a fraud? All the evidence I’ve seen points to the opposite, although I’m not quite persuaded of Ian Wilsons theory that the Shroud is really identical with the “Image not made with hands.” Have you read his book?

P.p.s. Vladika Vitaly has just published Metr. Anthony’s Dogma of Redemption in English, and Bishop Grabbe praises it sky-high. Please don’t advertise or sell this book—Metr. Anthony’s teaching on this subject has been controversial for decades, and our best bishops and theologians have rejected it. Jordanville and other book centers here are deliberately not stocking it, and our Bishop Nektary has asked Fr. Neketas also not to distribute it. Years ago, at the instigation of Bishop Nektary, we warned Fr. Panteleimon about this teaching, but for political reasons he fell for it; now, however, even Fr. Michael Azkoul has written a review against it, and his fashionability will probably come to an end now. His ideas on this subject are sloppy theology, at best.

Aug 22/Sept 4, 1979

Aug. 22/ Sept. 4, 1979

Martyr Agathonicus

Dear Father Mamas,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

Thank you for your letter. I wondered when I sent my little note: maybe this will just evoke another “open letter” such as your monastery is famous for? But I thought: No, it is so obviously a purely personal note that an “official answer” won’t be seen as necessary. But you did make such an answer, after all.

Why such an “over-reaction” on your part? Like so many of the letters from your monastery, there are many correct points in it, which in my case I never intended to challenge; but also there is so much that is unnecessary, as if you wish to make sure that I know you are qualified to teach me. And the parts of your letter that are wrong you (in my view) would require much effort to explain, and given the tone of your letter you would not yet be receptive to such an explanation in any case.

My short note to you was purely personal, and I aimed at your heart, not your head; if I misled you into thinking I in principle favor second-hand translations and “pious fables” and “Old Believerism,” I am sorry, especially since I caused you to take such unnecessary time explaining things to me which I had no thought of questioning in the first place.

But when all is said and done, my initial feeling remains: I am afraid for you. So you have a “community” and an “elder”—I didn’t “overlook” them, I was only trying to speak to you personally. Do I have to remind you that a group passion can be even more deadly than an individual passion? Forgive me, but I feel passion in your letter—a passion that will be expressed also in your translations, no matter now many work on them with you. Do you realize what times we live in? We live in an atmosphere of such spiritual fakery that it infects us and spreads even when we are reading accurately- transmitted Patristic texts. We are all sick with this plague—and can we be so self-confident about our Patristic translations, about our community and our elder? There is nothing automatic or infallible about an elder, a community, about obedience, or any of the words of the Scripture and the Fathers; they all can be merely outward and without effect for salvation; the only test of them is the effect they truly produce upon the soul.

I will not answer your letter on the level you wrote it; you were not writing to me, but to a straw man you could shoot down. It is pointless for me to defend myself when you “correct” me on points I never held and never defended. Even on the “literal” level, you read our Blessed Paisius book so carelessly that you didn’t find there the passages you thought you had to translate yourself, and then tell me that it is a “great pity” we didn’t translate them!'(See Blessed Paisius, pp. 81, 119, 180. 183, etc.) I’m not saying this to prove you’re “wrong” and I’m “right, or to score one more “point” against you—we’re all wrong so much of the time, if not with the head then certainly with the heart, that none of us have anything to boast about. I use this merely as an example of how unnecessary so much of your letter was.

I only wish, once more, to speak a word to you personally, using an example or two from your letter.

You mention Vladika Andrew and his “mistake.” Frankly, this story doesn’t ring true to me; it seems like a “pious fable” in reverse—one intended to show how “simple” the Russians are, and how “smart” we others are. Some Russian priests, it is true, make this simple mistake, and it is rather a joke among some of them; I would doubt that Vladika Andrew would make this mistake—but even if he did, how could it be that you, who know both English and Russian, “had a hard time figuring out” what he was talking about? Any convert or Greek who knows Russian should have got the point immediately; are you sure this wasn’t some misunderstanding on your own part, or on that of the translator if there was one, or some joke of Vladika Andrew that you didn’t get? But that’s secondary; * the point is: you stored up the incident to “use” later on, and the way you use it does not reflect well on you. You will say that you are “correct”; but your attitude is superior and cold (that’s my feeling from your words), and you do ill to repeat the story in this way. I have heard Russian clergy tell similar stories about bishops’ mistakes, but it was with warmth and affection; “correctness” is thereby maintained, but without any of the coldness and superiority I feel in your words.

You mention “Eastern Orthodox Books”—which, by the way, is not “somehow affiliated” with us, but is an independent enterprise. Their printing of St. Isaac, in the copy we have, does not indicate a publisher at all, and I understand this was done deliberately to avoid giving “Orthodox approval” to it; the very few copies printed were for customers of the more expensive edition. Perhaps they should have printed the Introduction too—but my point here is that again you have “stored up” this information to “use” at the right time (and you even had to do a little research to know that Eastern Orthodox Books printed it). But then Why didn’t you store up some “good” information about Eastern Orthodox Books. Why didn’t you mention in the Foreword to the Ladder (I assume you were part of this group effort—if not, forgive me for the mistake) that Fr. Lazarus’ translation has been in print these several years and is still available in paperback with an introduction by I. M. Kontzevitch? Aren’t you, in many cases, selectively “storing up” information that makes others look bad or “simple” or non-existent? Is this the Christian spirit? (I am speaking this to you personally·, please do not write another letter defending your monastery against thinking evil of others; I’m only writing this to hit your heart, and I’m not attacking your monastery or sending this letter to your “enemies.”)

Only one more point: you “catch” us teaching “the baptism of the dead”! Good heavens! Are you going to let this image throw you? Well, perhaps if there are readers like you such images should be excised—you will extract the last drop of blood from them. But even so, the “deductions” you draw from it! No papalist would be so scholastically “logical” as you were! Would you really “eat, drink and be merry” if you thought there was “some sort of baptism after death” as described in this story? I don’t know a single Orthodox Christian who would! And because someone might want to pray for his unbaptized grandfather (in the way handed down to us by Fathers like Elder Leonid of Optina, Theophan the Recluse, and Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd)—is he really teaching that God is “the ultimate cause of the damnation of sinners and unbelievers”?! Really, your reasoning is so outlandish that I am at a loss to “defend” myself—just line me up against the wall and shoot me down! Do such accusations benefit those you show them to? I sincerely doubt that they benefit either you or me.

Well, enough. It seems I’ve now lined up my own accusations against you! Please forgive me, I am not the one to humble you—but I do hope you will extract whatever good you can for yourself from my words, sinful and passionate as they may be. My heart is sad for you; I feel there is something you miss. I think you need a big dose of warmheartedness and simplicity; may God grant that you get it! I say this because your letter was so overblown and so unnecessary. If you think images like the “baptism” one are unwise (an image which none of our readers who has mentioned it has taken literally), perhaps you could say so in a sentence or two, without making all those “deductions,” which I think are an unfruitful use of your time.

Please forgive me for my words if they seem harsh or unkind; I assure you of my sincere love and prayers for you. Please pray for us.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Sept 20/0ct 3, 1979

Sept. 20/0ct. 3, 1979

Great Martyr Eustathius

Dear Father Hilarion,

Christ is in our midst!

I had planned to write you after our Pilgrimage about your spiritual son, John Van Deerlin, and here almost two months have slipped by. Laziness and distractions! Anyway, he arrived safely before the first day of the Pilgrimage and stayed for several days of courses. He started off a little “smart” and wanted to discuss things that were beside the point (why is marijuana worse than alcohol? etc.), but he was humbled a little and seemed to get the point. He had a problem at first with “communism,” and after my talk (where I had discussed communism, I thought, from a spiritual rather than a political point of view), he wondered whether he had wandered into a “California right-wing group.” But after some gentle discussions, he calmed down and took the rest of the lectures and courses very seriously. He even began reading Gulag and was enlightened about the Tsar by one of our 18-year-old converts. In the end he left a good impression, and with maturing in the faith he could be a sober Christian. We confirmed for him what you had told him about jurisdictions and receiving Communion. Of course, he is still fresh and a little vague about his Orthodoxy—but we’ve come to prefer this to the super-correctness of some of our new converts. We remember him fondly, and he promised to write.

Of late, it seems, we’ve fallen into even more disfavor with “Boston.” Fr. Herman wrote Fr. Panteleimon a note asking if the monastery could help with some translations from Greek, to which we received a disdainful and critical answer by Fr. Mamas, condemning our use of Bp. Theophan’s translations of St. Symeon the New Theologian, etc. I replied with a brief note to the effect that “expertness” was not the highest of virtues (having in mind his boasting of knowing Syriac and Greek and translating St. Isaac from the original), and that our St. Symeon booklet was a humble venture, having as its protection the spiritual authority of Bp. Theophan. I thought at the time: what if this provokes an “open letter”?—but the note was so obviously personal to Fr. Mamas that I thought no more of it, thinking also that the “open letter” era was past. But alas! In a week we received his reply, accusing us of Old-Believerism, the spreading of “pious fables,” and various heresies (including teaching the “baptism of the dead”!), and having such a disdainful tone to our poor Russians (including Vladika Andrew) that it hurt. I didn’t answer his accusations, but wrote him a personal reply, telling him frankly that he needed a good dose of warm-heartedness and simplicity and warning him that obedience was not the infallible panacea he claimed it was. (In effect he had written that he couldn’t be criticized because he acts under, obedience, which is an infallible guide.) To this there has been no reply.

Just recently I came across some letters to us from Boston 12 years ago—and what a difference! They were just strugglers then, and too bogged down in daily labors to be writing such long- winded epistles. What has happened? I fear it is not for the good. The “correct” converts who follow the “Boston line” are going down a blind alley, I think—that’s not where the real Orthodox life and concern should be today. I hate to think of where it will end. Fr. Lev Puhalo, I think, is an example of where this mis-directed zeal can take one.

Well, enough negativism. We are trying to direct our missionary labors to a simple kind of flock, and we do have responses from it. Fr. Dimitry Dudko still seems to us to be nearest the center of the true spiritual concern today, and there are even signs that the “revival” in Russia is beginning to touch the Russian youth abroad. People who were at the conferences in Toronto and Angwin (the latter was a very boring and academic thing last year) have told us that the Russian young people are “waking up”—glory be to God, if only it will be in the right spirit!

Please pray for us. We remember you with much love. We don’t know yet when Fr. Herman [letter ends]

Oct 23/Nov 5, 1979

Oct. 23/Nov. 5, 1979

Apostle James the Brother of the Lord

Dear Father Neketas,

Christ is in our midst!

We have recently received vol. 6, nos. 8 and 9, 1979, of the Tlinget Herald. According to the return address on the envelope and the heading on the title page, this publication was mailed and published by you. You yourself in the past have indicated that Fr. Lev Puhalo at times acts in an unbalanced and irrational way, and from our own experience I know that it would be pointless to write him directly to protest against the content of this issue; it would only produce another of his irrational letters or even a whole new series of attacks against us in the Tlinget Herald. Therefore we are writing to you as the person responsible for distributing this issue.

Father, what can we say to you? You, of course, realize, that this issue is (among other things) a personal attack against our Brotherhood for our series of articles on “The Soul After Death.” The attempt of the author of these articles is, clearly, not merely to “correct” the “errors” he thinks we have been teaching, but to discredit us entirely as publishers of Orthodox material. Orthodox Christians, when they disagree, are normally able to express their disagreements in a civil way without trying to discredit those who hold errors, if such they be, and certainly without casting aspersions on their Orthodoxy in general, on their scholarship, or even on their sanity.

But what must the unsuspecting reader think when he is told that the “toll-houses” which we recently presented as an Orthodox teaching in The Orthodox Word are “a new and novel doctrine in the Church” (p. 15), that they come from an “old pagan astral cult” and “are merely an illogical mutation of these pagan myths” (p. 24), are “imaginary” (p. 18), that “Manicheism (more directly, Methracism) is fundamental to the ‘toll-house’ theology” (p. 23). What must he think to read that some of the sources which we cited in presenting this teaching are a “perverted ‘ikon’” (p. 16) which constitutes a “grotesque and radical innovation” (p. 23), and a “fantastic literature and spiritual delusion,” most notably “Gregory of Thrace’s wild tale about the Journey of Theodora” which is “heresy-filled” (p. 24) and was revealed to a man who was in “no longer merely delusion, but already insanity” (p. 24). The author declares that this literature is a “fantastic, apocryphal literature which seeks to insinuate the pagan psychostasia myths into Orthodox teachings” (p. 17).

Father, if all this is true, then we who have presented this teaching and used these sources must clearly be heretics, willful innovationists, and in general irresponsible, deceived, and nearly insane people.

Must we answer such charges? Do you believe this?

Father, we are deeply, deeply offended and hurt by this surely irresponsible attack against us which you have supported.

But this is a small part of the decisive protest which we must make to you.

We did not make up this teaching. We received it from our fathers and teachers in the faith. Quite recently it has been taught quite openly by a number of respected voices in the Church, and it is evident that Fr. Lev’s attack is more generally against them also: against Holy Trinity Monastery, which has published several of the sources which Fr. Lev attacks in issues of Orthodox Life in recent years; against Fr. Alexey Young and Nikodemos, whose latest issue was devoted to this subject; against Father Michael Pomazansky, the most respected theologian in our Church, whose recent article on the toll-houses was prompted in part by Fr. Lev’s earlier attacks against them; against Archbishop John Maximovitch, whose sermon in the last Nikodemos was already singled out for attack by Fr. Lev a year or more ago (it appeared in The Orthodox Word seven or eight years ago).

You have sponsored such an irresponsible attack against such respected teachers in our Church, some of them indeed very pillars of our Church. Father, I am deeply ashamed for you. What can you possibly be thinking of accomplishing by this?

But there is something even worse that you have done.

This is an attack not just against these recent teachers of the Church, but also against the very teaching of the Church. Father, you have been to seminary. You must know by now that Fr. Lev is no theologian. This article has no theological foundation, but is a passionate diatribe which is composed of varying amounts of misunderstood teachings set up as ridiculous “straw men,” quotations which do not prove his points or are taken out of context, unfounded private opinions set up as dogmas, arbitrary interpretations of art history, and the like, with enough obvious truths and half-truths thrown in to make the whole thing convincing to some who have not thought much about the subject or have not been much exposed to the Orthodox teaching.

If you wish to know what the Church really teaches about the toll-houses (as opposed to Fr. Levs most uncharitable and totally unfair caricature of them), I would advise you (for a beginning) to re-read our own article on them in The Orthodox Word, no. 83, where the exposition of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov is set forth and there are numerous citations from Holy Fathers, Lives of Saints, and Divine services. There you will find also a discussion of “How to Understand the Toll-houses,” in view of the sometimes figurative elements which appear in descriptions of them (I know of literally no one who has ever read these descriptions in so “literal” and one-sided a manner as Fr. Lev); you will also find there a discussion of the toll-houses as a universal phenomenon in spiritual life, the experience of which begins in this life; as well as other aspects of this rather subtle teaching which Fr. Lev has deliberately cast aside in order to set up and ridicule a caricature of it and expose all who believe in the toll-houses as some kind of simpletons or idiots.

In another article in the same issue, “The Body, the Soul and Death,” Fr. Lev continues his attack against our series of articles, and makes even more definite than before his most un-Scriptural, un-Patristic, and un-Orthodox teaching that the soul at death “enters into a condition of inactivity, a sort of sleep in which it does not function, hear or see…” (p. 19). He conveniently dismisses everyone who holds a different teaching as “Origenistic”—despite the obvious fact that those who hold the Orthodox teaching on this subject have nothing in common with Origens views and do not accept his ideas that the soul is “imprisoned” in the body, that it “pre-exists” its “fall” into the body, etc. “Origenism” here is merely a smear word he uses to paint his enemies black. This is dirty fighting.

Since you have printed and distributed this article and the earlier articles where Fr. Lev has set forth this teaching of the souls “sleep” after death, I assume you must believe it, especially since Fr. Lev presents it in such categorical terms, dismissing any other teaching as heresy. We gently reminded you that this teaching is not Orthodox in a note some months ago.

Is it really necessary to set forth the Scriptural, Patristic, and general Church texts which give the Orthodox teaching on this subject? Up until now no one has been challenging this teaching in our Church, and one would have thought a defense of it to be unnecessary. That the modernist theologians of other jurisdictions have often challenged it is not surprising; it is part of their “modernism” in general. But certainly anyone who reads and loves the Orthodox Lives of Saints and accepts the authority of the Orthodox theologians of our own Church would never think of questioning this teaching.

I hope that Fr. Lev’s “fit” will pass, and his spite against us and the recent teachers of our Church will be exhausted with what he has already written, and a lengthy defense of the Orthodox teaching will not be required. In any case, I offer to you below just one quotation from a text which has already appeared in our series on “The Soul After Death.” This is a brief statement from St. Mark of Ephesus’ “Second Homily on Purgatorial Fire” which gives some rather specific indications of how active the soul is after death. Unfortunately, we now hear that the teaching of St. Mark on life after death has also been called into question by Fr. Lev, and perhaps you will soon be printing Fr. Levs attack on it—may God not allow it! Certainly St. Mark’s words are authoritative for us (although the words of many other authoritative Fathers could also be cited), since he was the chief defender precisely of the Orthodox teaching on life after death at Florence, opposing the Latin errors. Here is the text (emphasis added by me; see The Orthodox Word, no. 79, p. 90):

“We affirm that neither the righteous have as yet received the fullness of their lot and that blessed condition for which they have prepared themselves here through works, nor have sinners, after death, been led away into the eternal punishment in which they shall be tormented eternally. Rather, both the one and the other must necessarily take place after the Judgment of that last day and the resurrection of all. Now, however, both the one and the other are in places proper to them: the first, in absolute repose and free, are in heaven with the angels and before God Himself, and already as if in the paradise from which Adam fell (into which the good thief entered before others) and often visit us in those temples where they are venerated, and hear those who call on them and pray for them to God, having received from Him this surpassing gift, and through their relics perform miracles, and take delight in the vision of God and the illumination sent from Him more perfectly and purely than before, when they were alive·, while the second, in their turn, being confined in hell, remain in the lowest pit…. And this teaching we have as handed down from our Fathers in antiquity, and we can easily present it from the Divine Scriptures themselves.”

Even from this quite explicit quote about the consequences of the soul after death, of course, Fr. Lev could take a sentence out of context (as he has already done with innumerable other Fathers) and “prove” his own point (“the righteous have not yet received the fullness of their lot,” hence are unconscious). But I am addressing you as someone who, I sincerely hope and believe, wants to know the truth and not merely to possess a collection of meaningless “proof” texts.

It would be pointless to offer many specific criticisms of these articles you have printed, when their whole intent is so mistaken and the teaching so un-Orthodox. I would only point our two or three incidental things that, it seems to us, you do very ill in presenting in such a way to Orthodox readers.

Fr. Lev accuses “the heretical teaching that the Ancient of Days (Dn. ch. 7) was God the Father” (p. 23). Father, in the past you have already printed enough of such categorical statements that find “heresy” in every corner; it is really time for them to stop. Prophetic images such as the “Ancient of Days” are of such a character that often a hard-and-fast identification is not even possible or necessary, let alone being made into a “dogma” so that misidentification of it is a “heresy.” It happens that some Fathers have indeed identified the Ancient of Days as God the Father, while others identify this image as God the Son. Specifically, St. John Chrysostom in his commentary on Daniel (ch. 7), noting that it is One “like the Son of Man” Who comes to the Ancient of Days, states that Daniel was thus “the first and only one to see the Father and the Son.” Is he then a heretic? The use of such language in this case is just name-calling and vain boasting over ones supposed “correct interpretation” of Scripture.

Again, Fr. Lev speaks of Blessed Augustine’s “blasphemous commentary on Genesis” (p. 23). Can you find one single Father or teacher of our Orthodox Church who has ever referred to this book in this way? This is simply hatred posing as “righteousness” in “exposing” someone whom the Orthodox Church continues to regard with reverence, despite such malicious attacks on him.

Again, Fr. Lev has found a new Orthodox teacher to attack and discredit: Because Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov emphatically teaches the Orthodoxy of the toll-houses (and sees the attack on them as a sign of theological modernism), Fr. Lev accuses him of “novelty” also: “Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov, who, was, of course, educated in the then prevalent Latin-milieu of Russian seminaries, accepted this novel interpretation” (p. 17). Father, despite the superior “of course,” this man doesn’t know what he’s talking about! Bishop Ignatius graduated from engineering school and never went to a seminary at all; his knowledge of the Fathers and of Orthodox doctrine came from his own Patristic reading and his experiences in Russian monasteries under some of the leading spiritual elders of his time. Soon Fr. Lev will be attacking all the Russian monasteries and elders also. Can’t you see that he merely attacks and discredits, without facts or evidence, anyone who disagrees with his opinions and whims? This is dishonest.

Father, there has been enough and too much of all this. Why do you sponsor such immature, irresponsible articles? Not long ago you told someone: “We all know that Fr. Lev is unbalanced, but he is on our side? And true enough, Fr. Lev’s extreme statements are usually only exaggerations of opinions you yourself have printed before. But don’t you see that:

(1) You are sponsoring a most unhealthy party spirit in the Church, putting “your side,” evidently those whom you regard as “theological experts” and “super-Orthodox” among the converts and Greek-Americans, against the “other” side—i.e., presumably us poor “Russians” who stick to the tradition our fathers have handed down to us and are not easily “reformed.”

And (2) You are attacking with increasing openness the tradition of theology and piety whose representatives took you in when you were in need of an Orthodox Church home. This is ingratitude to say the least.

In both these respects you are helping to create a very bad feeling in our Church, and there is disaster ahead if you do not change.

I will not speak for the rest of the Church, but will only tell you how grieved we ourselves are with what you are doing. From the moment you entered our Church we were among your most ardent supporters, as you well know. Even when we recognized some of the differences of opinion between you and us we did not cease to give you our support. And then you began cutting us off— over what, I really don’t know. Was it “evolution,” or the “Shroud of Turin,” or our “Russianness,” or just the fact that we didn’t follow your “party line”? You began to spread doubts about the Orthodoxy of our views, spreading suspicion about us and other “Russians” in our Church, even dropping us from your list of “important places in the Synod,” in your Calendar.

We know that you yourself have suffered in the past from Synod politics (we have defended you on many occasions when we could); but we have all suffered from this, it isn’t something unique with you Greek-Americans, and you will not escape such things no matter what jurisdiction you might belong to. You have at times complained about feeling yourself to be a “second-class member of the Synod” and at being told to “go back to the Greeks where you belong.” We have been sorry to hear such things, but you know that we and many others in our Church have never treated you like that.

But you yourself, for whatever cause, are playing that same game of politics. We very strongly feel ourselves that you are trying to make us (our Brotherhood and other defenders of the traditions of our Russian Church) into “second-class members” of the Church organization, and that you are trying to undermine the theologians and the theological authority of our Russian Church. You are taking advantage of an unusual situation in which your own bishops do not speak your language and cannot keep track of all that you say or understand the nuances of it, in order to promote the cause of a virtually independent kind of “Orthodoxy” within our Church, one that has no living continuity with the fathers and teachers of our Church but comes from the fashionable “patristic revival” of the modernist seminaries. Can’t you see how dangerous this is, how you yourself can lose the tradition of Orthodoxy and confuse others in the process by trusting your own opinions and the opinions of the clique to which you belong?

Apparently, for you Fr. Panteleimon is the authority. As your spiritual father no one will protest his right to spiritual authority over you. If you wish to accept also his personal opinions about all manner of church affairs, that is also your right. But you cannot make him into the authority for our Church or our converts or insist that his opinions prevail over all others in the Church. His actions and statements are public enough over the last 15 years to show that he is no infallible guide to Orthodoxy, that he has often been mistaken, has needlessly alienated many people in our Church and among the Old Calendarist Greeks, has lessened his own authority by playing politics—in other words, that he is fallible like the rest of us, that whatever his intentions, he has done both good and ill in his church activities. His authority, whatever it may be for you personally, cannot justify your sponsorship of Fr. Lev’s articles for “party” reasons, or your undermining of our Russian theologians and the Church’s teaching.

You talk much of “Western influence.” It seems to be one of your “party slogans.” Father, don’t you see how very Western you and Fr. Panteleimon yourselves often are? You can’t just go “back to the Fathers”; you must be linked to them through your own fathers—and the fathers of our Russian Church, to which you still belong, are precisely the ones you are undermining.

Father, be humble enough to see that this is one of the reasons why some in our Church have been suggesting to you that you should “go back to the Greeks” and work out your problems with them. As long as you are undermining the teachers and authorities of our Church (Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, 19th-century catechisms, Unseen Warfare, Bishop Theophan the Recluse, now even Bishop Ignatius, etc., etc.) and trying to force your own attitudes and opinions at least on the English- speaking part of our Church—then you really do look like a foreigner out to demolish our Russian Orthodoxy. And when you publish attacks on the toll-houses and sponsor really novel doctrines like the “sleep” of the soul, you certainly reveal yourself as “Greek-Archdiocese mentality” through and through. If these are the things you want to teach and publish, then by all means you should go back and fight it out with your Greeks, instead of taking refuge behind Russian bishops whose authority you are undermining. Your Greeks will not protest when you attack the toll-houses—because the Greek Archdiocese lost contact with the Orthodox teaching on such subjects long ago, and you’re still operating on their “wave-length.” It is just not fair for you to remain in our Church, and in a very protected place where our bishops really have little contact with you, and try to attack and convert the rest of us to your Greek-Archdiocese attitudes.

When you first came to us eleven years ago you seemed anxious to learn from our Church; now you’ve gotten used to us, spotted many of our weaknesses, and you seem only to want to teach us. All you will do by this is to cause fights, bitterness, and deep sorrow.

I’ve already said enough. If you don’t understand what I’m saying by now, you never will. We are not your “enemies”; we would be sad to see you change jurisdictions, not only because it would mean that you have lost the golden opportunity you had with us to go deeper into Orthodoxy, but also because you yourself could contribute something valuable to our Church if you could be closer to us in spirit. But if you want to stay with us and be anything other than a “troublemaker” in our midst, you must begin to learn more and teach less—at least in the way you “teach” through Fr. Lev’s articles.

I have written this with pain of heart, and I pray that you will receive it with your heart. How I wish that there could be the oneness between us that we thought existed in the beginning! There is no need for you to mistrust the “Russians”; I suspect that in you heart you are very much like them, but the ideas and opinions you have acquired are separating you from them. There are “good” Russians as well as “bad,” loving and aware Orthodox people as well as politicians. Unfortunately your mind seems to have led you into contact with some of our “politicians,” and you never got close enough to the real heart-beat of our Church. You could never have been attracted by Fr. Lev’s articles if you had.

Please forgive me if anything I have said has offended you. We have never had any intention of being your “enemies,” only to speak the truth as we see it; if you want us to be enemies you will have to make us so yourself.

I hesitate now to send this. I have not worked it over for public inspection. It is addressed to you personally, and doubtless you will have to show it to “party headquarters”—I say this not in sarcasm, but just knowing the way you do things. I don’t think such an arrangement is very healthy or good for the Church, and I suspect it also gives you a measure of false security which shields you from some of the Orthodox reality of our day. If you want to answer, please answer yourself and don’t let someone you think is “smarter” do it for you. That’s not our “Russian” way and we regard it as rather an insult.

Please forgive my over-bold words, and do not judge me too severely for them; please pray for us sinners, who grieve that such a letter is necessary (but of course it is—the situation is bad and won’t get better by silence; in particular, I hope I’ve communicated well enough that Fr. Lev’s articles are inexcusable).

With sincere love in Christ our Saviour,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. A recent issue of your Witness gives an example of how sometimes you help to undermine Orthodox traditions without even being aware of it, simply by virtue of not being in sufficient living contact with the tradition.

You reprinted Fr. Michael Henning’s article on “Christmas,” “Easter,” and the “New Year.” While the intent of the article is commendable—to show that there is an Orthodox way and a non- Orthodox way of looking at these things—the article does err, I think, in its over-zealous insistence on abolishing terms which, after all, aren’t that reprehensible, and will cause in some converts an undesirable “correctness” complex with regard to them. But worse: the author obviously views the “new year” question in a purely abstract manner and evidently has no contact with the traditional Orthodox way of handling the question: Archbishop John without fail had a new year’s moleben on January 1/14 every year, precisely to mark the civil new year by the old calendar (not the new—he refused to serve a moleben then); this is sound, living “conservatism.” The Church new year is another occasion entirely—which you yourself admit since you don’t change the year’s number on Sept. 1. But some of your “correct convert” readers, when they hear that Archbishop John did this, will very likely begin to suspect further his Orthodoxy—and you will have helped put a new poison in the air without realizing it. (Don’t think it isn’t so—how many already show disdain for Archbishop John because he venerated Blessed Augustine and did other things the “Patristic revival” forbids!) There must be a whole different tone to the preaching of Orthodox truth!

P.p.s. On reading this I find a phrase that will probably be offensive to you: “party headquarters.” Forgive me; I shouldn’t have used it. But I’m leaving it as it is trusting that you will accept this letter in good faith for the points that are made in it, and will not try to “pick it apart”; and also because it does show how this situation is widely viewed in our Church (something which perhaps you are not aware of)—so much so that even your best friends admit that “of course they have their own ‘synod of bishops’”. This letter is written with utmost frankness in the hope that real contact can still be restored between us and this whole idea of an “independent Orthodoxy” in our Church (which does amount to a clique or party) will come to an end.

Nov 1/14, 1979

Nov. 1/14, 1979

Sts. Cosmas and Damian

Dear Father Roman,

Christ is in our midst!

Thank you for the letter and the Xeroxes about the “Grabbe affair.”

About Fr. Panteleimon: whatever has happened between us is not due to the recent letters that have been exchanged between us; there is something much deeper involved, and the recent letters are only a small sign of it. Fr. Panteleimon is evidently upset because we dared to express a criticism of several of the opinions held by him and his brothers, but we did this trusting that good relations between us do not depend upon our simply accepting whatever he and his brothers say or write; but evidently he does not agree with this.

I will try to explain briefly what the “deeper” thing is (as we see it) that causes Fr. P. to be unhappy with us.

From the very beginning, even before Fr. P. entered our Church, we were extremely open and well disposed to him; later, when first he and then Fr. Neketas and other Greek priests joined our Church, we were among the first to welcome and support them, writing a number of articles about them and defending them before our bishops and others when there were controversies around them.

Quite early, we discovered that there were differences of opinion between us and the “Greeks”: they were a little too “fanatical” about other jurisdictions, rather uncharitable towards Roman Catholics and other non-Orthodox, rather unfair to some Orthodox people with whom they disagreed; and Fr. P himself expressed some extreme opinions about the Weeping Icons, about Blessed Augustine, etc. None of these differences of opinion caused us to think any less highly of Fr. P. and the “Greeks,” or to give them any less support. We accepted these as minor differences which should not lessen the bond of love between us.

In the midst of these sincere good relations which existed between us, we began to hear, from various people in our Church, complaints against Fr. P. and Fr. Neketas. Some thought that the views they expressed in their publications were too “fanatical,” others thought they were spreading false teachings, still others said they were “trying to take over the Synod.” For about two years (1971 to 1973) we were enthusiastically defending Fr. P. and Fr. N. against all these accusations, denying some of them and covering others with love and understanding. (We were so sympathetic to Fr. P. that even the most extreme thing we knew that he had done—to call Bishop Peter of Astoria a “simoniac” and “sorcerer”—we justified as the weakness of someone who was zealous but who sometimes did make mistakes of judgment.)

But then, in 1973, several of the actions of Fr. P. and Fr. N. began to upset us, and it is definitely true that a “cooling” in the relations between us began at that time—although this was much greater on their side than on ours, as I will describe below.

(1) Fr. Neketas (and back of him Fr. P.) expressed extreme displeasure over two publications of (then layman) Alexey Young—one against the theory of evolution, and one in favor of the Shroud of Turin. The fact itself that they objected to the articles did not upset us (we also had noted the weak spots in the “Shroud” article, which originally had been written for a Roman Catholic readership and had many obvious “Latinisms” in it); it was rather the way in which they objected that upset us: through our extensive correspondence with Fr. Neketas, it became clear that he believed that on such subjects it is not possible to have different opinions or interpretations; the “Orthodox view” must be one in favor of evolution (!) and against the Shroud. We had thought that Orthodox Christians could at least discuss these subjects together in a friendly way; but according to Fr. N. one cannot discuss these questions, but must accept the opinion of the “Orthodox experts” on them—and the first “expert” for him was Fr. P. After this, Fr. Neketas began to tell people to “stay away from Etna” because Alexey Young was “just a Roman Catholic,” and we know people who followed this advice. Later this uncharitable attitude was extended to include our Brotherhood also, and in general everyone in the “Russian” side of our Church who did not agree with the opinions of Fr. P. Fr. Neketas made a kind of “public demonstration” of this attitude when he dropped the name of our Brotherhood from the list of “important places in the Synod” in his 1978 Calendar; in 1979 our name again did not appear in this list. Obviously, his attitude is that since we do not agree with his opinions (and those of Fr. P.) we do not “exist.”

Thus, our first cause to be upset with Fr. N. and Fr. P. was our discovery that they had formed a political party within our Church, and those who do not agree with the “party line” are dismissed and regarded as non-existent, and people are even warned about the “dangers” of having contact with such ones. The more we found out about this “party spirit,” the more grieved we became; but in the Russian tradition of “longsuffering,” we said little about this to anyone for a long time and did not have a similar feeling towards Frs. N. and P., hoping that this was somehow a “misunderstanding” that would improve with time.

(2) At this same time (1973) we began to discover that our “Greeks” not only had a “political party,” but also used political techniques to achieve their aims. For example, in 1972 Fr. Neketas suggested to Alexey Young that he “merge” his Nikodemos with Fr. Neketas’ Orthodox Christian Witness, and that Fr. N. would be happy to print the combined periodical to make it “easier” for Alexey. We thought this a very strange thing at the time, and simply advised Alexey to continue his own independent publishing; only later did we realize that by this means Fr. N. intended to “take over” Nikodemos and ensure that it would never print anything not in accordance with the “party line.” Later our “Greeks” told Andrew Bond in England that they would distribute his publication, The Old Calendarist, in America, but only on condition that no articles be printed without their censorship. In 1973, when we had asked Fr. Neketas if he could help with the distribution of our proposed Russian-language periodical (which we were never able to begin), Fr. N insisted that we let him print it also—and we began to realize that even our Russian-language work was to be “censored in Boston”—and not even by Russian-speaking people, but by converts who had learned some Russian.

Other “political techniques” of our “Greeks” include “spreading the word” that some particular publication or person is “outside the party line.” For example, after the publication of the “Shroud” article, Fr. Alexey received a number of letters from Seattle all canceling their subscriptions to Nikodemos and offering, instead of the friendly criticism one would expect from fellow Orthodox Christians, a cold cutting him off. Alexey was so depressed and hurt by the treatment our “Greeks” gave him at that time that he would have given up printing altogether if we had not supported him and told him that the attitude of other people in our Church was not at all cold like that. Later, when it became obvious that Alexey Young was very talented and that his publications were quite good and important for our converts, Frs. P. and N. made a visit to him evidently in view of becoming “reconciled.” But even this visit was also a matter of politics, for Nina Seco (who has always been an unquestioning follower of Fr. P.) told Alexey later that the monastery in Boston had no interest in being friendly with Alexey if he was not going to follow their “party line.”

Thus, on many occasions we have received clear indications that Fr. P. and his followers did indeed intend to “take over the Synod”: i.e., to make their “party line” prevail at least over the convert wing of our Church, and if possible over the Russians also. This whole attempt is so foreign to the Orthodox spirit that we have found it to be extremely distasteful, a kind of “Jesuitism” that has crept into our Church with the coming of Fr. P. In fact, in 1973 when I visited Seattle and saw Fr. P. there, he told me something that I did not fully appreciate then, but which now I see as a part of the “problem” which he has become for us: He told me that if one is working for a good church cause, it is permissible for one to lie, cheat, etc., for the sake of the “good cause.” Sadly, we have seen this “Jesuit” principle in operation among our Greeks in the way they spread tales about people they do not like, misrepresent the position of people they wish to criticize, “warn” their followers against people like Fr. Alexey Young, our Brotherhood, etc.

(3) Also in 1973 began the era of Fr. P’s “open letters” to people in our Church whom he wished to criticize and “correct.” There had been some earlier “open letters” to people outside our Church, and even then we had noticed that, while these letters were basically “correct” in their points, there was something in the tone of them that was foreign to our Orthodox mentality. Instead of giving their opponents the benefit of any doubt as to their position or beliefs, these letters sometimes took unfair advantage of isolated statements the opponents had made in order to accuse them of beliefs which they really did not hold. We regarded this as a rather small point at the time, but even then I expressed the view that I myself would not like to be the recipient of such an “open letter.”

In 1973 (and perhaps before that, I don’t know) these “open letters” began to be addressed to people in our own Church. We have seen a number of these letters, written by Fr. Ephraim, Fr. Mamas, Fr. Alexis (now Archimandrite), Fr. Panteleimon himself, and addressed to us, to Fr. Alexey Young, to Andrew Bond in England, to Metropolitan Philaret, and to several of our bishops. Almost without exception these letters have made a bad impression on us. In most of their individual points they are “correct,” but in their tone they are filled with self-justification, subtle mockery of others, and a tone of cold superiority which seems to say: “Here is the Orthodox teaching; we are the authorities; you just listen to us and be obedient.” These open letters, more than anything else, are what have led us to the conclusion that there is something “wrong” about Fr. P. and his activities.

We now have had quite a long experience of the activities of Fr. P. and his followers and of the “convert” movement in our Church, as well as of the “Old Calendarist” movement in Greece and America, where Fr. P. has also tried to exercise his influence. I can say sincerely that, having been most open and friendly to Fr. P. from the very beginning, we do not now have any hatred or bad feelings towards him. But in all honesty I must state the negative things about his activity which we have had occasion to observe in the 15 years or so of our contacts with him (actually, Fr. Herman knew him in Boston even before that, when Fr. P. was strongly arguing against our Church and in favor of the Metropolia). These negative aspects of his activity are serious enough that if he does not make a major effort to correct them he may well end by becoming an enemy of our Church:

(1) Holy Transfiguration has become a center for spreading criticism, rumors, and tales about other members of our Church, the Old Calendarists, etc. This is not an accident; it is precisely the way Fr. P. wants it and has planned it. From the very beginning Fr. P. has taken as his principle that the affairs of everyone in the Church are his business: he knows everything that is going on, has “files” on everyone, feels it his right to “correct” everyone in the Church (from the Metropolitan on down), and himself spreads the “correct” opinion about everyone and everything. He has criticized our own monastery just because we do not have a telephone and so are not in his “network,” and he cannot call us up to “correct” us whenever he feels like it.

We believe that Fr. P. is very mistaken in his desire to know everything that goes on in our Church as well as outside it, more even than our bishops know; this desire is prompted by his involvement in church politics and is a very unhealthy thing, both for himself and for those many people whom he inspires to be interested in church matters which are none of their business. Fr. P. himself has “set the tone” of uncharitable criticism and the spreading of tales for which his monastery is notorious. As a small example: recently he told you of the rumor that Fr. Herman did not stop at Jordanville on his way back from Mt. Athos because he did not want to speak at the commencement exercises and because he was dissatisfied with Jordanville s “academic rather than monastic” emphasis. There is no truth whatever to this rumor, and this is the first time we have even hear it. Fr. Herman was not invited to speak at the commencement exercises at all, and he came directly back to California because he was totally exhausted from his trip and because our only helper at that time had left us. Why does Fr. P. repeat such rumors? We certainly knows that the main effect of such rumors would be to spread discord and distrust between Jordanville and our monastery; his first duty, then, if he means well to us and to Jordanville, would be to refuse to believe any such rumors and to strictly forbid his followers to believe or spread them. But on the contrary, he “innocently” repeats such tales, and by his authority actually causes many people to believe them. This he has done time after time; especially among the Greek Old Calendarists his words have had a poisonous effect; many to this day believe that Bishop Peter of Astoria is a “simoniac” or a “sorcerer,” that Archimandrite Chrysostomos of Ohio is “not a Greek” (as though that were a crime even if it were true), is “a former Roman Catholic,” “has forged his doctors degree,” etc. If you question Fr. P. about any of these rumors, he always has an excuse that justifies him: he was misquoted, or he did not start the rumor, or it is true “in a certain sense,” etc. But the fact remains that there is no single figure in our Church today who has such a large following of people who are willing to obey his every word; if he himself were to make a strong attack against the believing and spreading of rumors in the Church, the worst part of this problem in our Church would be ended. Instead, however, he is the one who most promotes such rumors, always with the intention of making himself and his political “party” seem correct.

By this political technique Fr. P. has acquired innumerable enemies in the Church, both in America and in Greece. People who entirely supported him and trusted him in the beginning have been alienated from him precisely because of his politics and unfair political techniques. He has alienated most of the leading figures in the Old Calendarist movement in Greece, and in our own Church these political techniques of Fr. P’s are the main cause of the “coldness” which has come about between him and many of our bishops, priests, and laymen. For a short time, it is true, Fr. P. enjoyed great respect in Greece and helped give our Church great prestige there. But unfortunately, here again Fr. Ps techniques were first of all political·, in order to make our Church look good, he felt himself free to misrepresent the real positions of our bishops, to tell half-truths about what we really believed, and as a result, in the end all of this backfired, and today Fr. P. (and also our Church, to a large extent) is not well thought of in most places in Greece, in particular among the Old Calendarists; he has his own small following there of people who belong to his “political party,” but he does not enjoy wide respect in Greece as a whole.

(2) Fr. P. and his monastery, in order to make themselves appear as “theological experts,” have systematically undermined the theological authority of the most highly respected teachers of the Russian Orthodox Church in general, and of the Russian Church Outside of Russia in particular. Here Fr. P. has applied his political techniques to a goal far worse than the “personal” triumphs he achieves when rumors are spread about people he disapproves of; in spreading the same kind of rumors about theological authorities, he is undermining the very ground on which we Orthodox Christians stand today. If such theological giants as Metr. Philaret of Moscow, Bishop Theophan the Recluse, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, Fr. Michael Pomazansky, and in general the theology taught in our seminaries for the last century and more, are not really “Orthodox” at all— then we are in a very dangerous condition, and where are we to find our theological authority by which to stand firm against all the errors and temptations of these times? Fr. P. teaches: We will teach you what is right, we will read the Holy Fathers for you and teach you the correct doctrine, we have excellent translators and interpreters who are more Orthodox than Bishop Theophan, Metr. Philaret of Moscow, Archbishop Averky, and all the rest. This is a terribly dangerous game that Fr. P. is playing, he is unwittingly undermining the Orthodox ground under his own feet.

The chief weapon which Fr. P. uses in his attempt to undermine the theological authority of our Russian theologians is the recent academic fashion of looking everywhere for “Western influence” in our theological texts. There is a half-truth in this search; Fr. Michael Pomazansky and other good theologians will readily admit that there were such “Western influences” in the theological texts of the latter period of Russian (and Greek) history—but they also emphasize that these influences were external ones which never touched the heart of Orthodox doctrine. To say otherwise is to admit that Orthodoxy was lost (!) in these last centuries, and only now are young “theologians” like Fr. P. “finding” again the Orthodoxy of the Fathers. Fr. P. is too cautious to say such a thing in so many words, but by his actions and statements he is promoting an attitude which is very close to this, and he has caused many, many ignorant converts to lose all respect for the great Russian theologians and to expect “real Orthodox theology” only from the circle around Fr. P.—including Fr. Lev Puhalo!

To give a few examples: Fr. P. has spread the idea that Metr. Philaret of Moscow was very “Western” in his theology and that his Catechism was “Roman Catholic” and should not be read; Fr. Neketas picked this up and, in his often crude way, printed several times in his Witness that the Catechisms of the 19th century were “awful” and should not be used by Orthodox Christians. (This Catechism was always the first book Vladika John would give a new convert!) Speak to any convert under the influence of Frs. P. and N., and almost certainly they will have no respect for Metr. Philaret and for Orthodox Catechisms in general. After we in The Orthodox Word and Fr. Alexey Young in Nikodemos had mentioned how respected authorities in the Greek Church (St. Nectarios of Pentapolis, St. Makarios of Corinth) had used Russian Catechisms (translated into Greek) in their own pastoral labors, Fr. Ephraim in one of his “open letters” spoke condescendingly even of these Greek authorities, saying that St. Nectarios was known “more for this piety than this theology” (St. Nectarios was also against evolution, which is another reason why his theological authority has been discredited).

Another example: Fr. P. spreads the rumor that Bishop Theophan the Recluse is “scholastic” and thus not to be trusted. I have seen no proof for this assertion; it is only another rumor which helps to discredit a major theological authority in the Russian Church. (And what if it were true? Is “scholasticism”—whatever that means for our Greeks”—a heresy? Is Fr. P. not “scholastic” himself in some ways?) In one of his “open letters” which Fr. Neketas published in his Witness, Fr. Alexis of Boston went so far as to say that Unseen Warfare should not be read (!) because it comes originally from a Roman Catholic source and “just does not sit right.” What presumption! A major spiritual text for Orthodox Christians, which has the authority of two major theologians (St. Nikodemus and Bishop Theophan) behind it—is dismissed and regarded as of no value; a little group of basically American converts think they are more sensitive and authoritative than these great Church authorities! Later Fr. Ephraim (I believe) explained that St. Nikodemus also was under “Western influence” and there [fore] is really not to be trusted.

Another example: the authority of Archbishop Averky was undermined by Fr. P., who spread rumors that he was “Western” and “scholastic” and the like. Followers of Fr. P. spread the tale that Archbishop Averky was “one of the worst” of our theologians who are under “Western influence.”

For years Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov was not subject to this criticism, probably because his writings are so anti-Roman-Catholic. But now also the attack against him is beginning: in the latest Tlinget Herald Fr. Lev states that Bishop Ignatius believed in the “toll-houses” because he was under “Western influence” and went to a “Latinized” seminary (he doesn’t know that Bp. Ignatius didn’t go to a seminary at all!). Fr. Levs whole recent attack against our Orthodox doctrine of life after death is a direct result of Fr. P’s influence. Fr. P., it is true, is not directly responsible for each statement Fr. Lev makes, but it was Fr. P. who has put into the air the whole idea of discrediting Russian theological authorities, and Fr. Lev only adds a few of his own ideas in order to make himself seem to be a “theological authority” in his own right. It was Fr. P. who produced Fr. Lev as a “theological authority, ” and Fr. P. could stop Fr. Lev’s publications in an instant if he wanted to (through Fr. Neketas who publishes them). Why does he allow him to continue? Fr. N. told Fr. Alexey Young recently: “We all know Fr. Lev is unbalanced, but he is one of us.” That is, he follows the “party line, ” and therefore we won’t stop him! God only knows how many innocent people Fr. Lev has already confused with his fantasies of the “sleep” of the soul and with his attitude of open disrespect for the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church.

This undermining of the theological and spiritual authority of the teachers of the Russian Church which took him in with such open arms when he was in need of a Church home—is surely one of the most serious and disastrous of Fr. P’s wrong steps. I really do not know how he can amend this mistake, now that so many unsuspecting converts have caught the “disease” of distrusting our Russian theologians. His work in accepting and translating Metr. Anthony’s “Dogma” (which he promised us several years ago that would never print, after we had explained to him Bishop Nektary’s objections to it) is already an indication of how far he and his followers are from being “theological authorities.” It does not bother us that he is wrong on this point; we all make mistakes, and in a healthy church atmosphere we can easily forgive each other and not hold such mistakes against each other. What bothers us, rather, is that Fr. P. insists that his group of “theologians” are the experts for our Church, and anyone (living or dead) of whom this group does not approve must be dismissed and discredited, often in a crude way. Thus he helps to poison the Church atmosphere, spreading distrust and suspicion.

(3) Fr. P. has established around himself a very unhealthy “authority complex,” built upon the insecurity of so many of our American converts (which includes our “Greek-Americans” also). Because of his “charismatic” talents for charming people he has made himself an “authority” which for many people overshadows all the theologians and spiritual giants of the Orthodox Church, living and dead. Whatever he says is true, even if all the theologians of the past century teach otherwise. It is because of this inflated “authority” that the undermining of our theological authorities has been so successful: no one can be right if Fr. P. disagrees with him! It is because of Fr. P.’s “authority” that so many converts will not listen to reasoned theological arguments on any subject; “Fr. P. has spoken, the subject is closed!” This is papalism, not Orthodoxy! With people who accept Fr. P’s “authority” in this way it is impossible to argue; their minds are closed on all subjects where Fr. P. or someone in his clique has spoken. This is why the arguments of Fr. Lev Puhalo, which if subjected to close examination can be seen to be very flimsy, are widely accepted by converts: he is one of Fr. P’s “anti-Western” “theologians,” and thus his words can be accepted with almost blind authority and do not need to be discussed.

Whenever the opinion of Fr. P. on any subject is challenged, he (or more often, one of his monks) gives a reply in the form of a more or less “open letter” which “proves” that he is always “correct” (except sometimes in small details). This constant attitude of self-justification is made easier for him in that all his opinions are “group opinions” and there is usually no one responsible person who must answer for them.

I have already mentioned above what we think of these “open letters”; but most shocking of all to us were the two letters which Fr. P. himself wrote in 1975 to Archbp. Averky and our own Archbp. Anthony, in connection with Fr. P’s refusal to serve wherever Bishop Peter of Astoria was allowed to serve. (We have heard all manner of arguments from Fr. P. and his followers about Bishop Peter, but in the end it became quite evident that the one and only cause for the “problem” with Bishop Peter was personal and factional jealousy: Fr. P. will not allow the existence in America of any Greek clergy who are not in his own “party.” Dr. Kalomiros has told us that the whole problem was that Bishop Peter was a real Greek who had rapport with Greeks, and Fr. P. is an American who has rapport only with Americans and Greek-Americans.) In these letters Fr. P., instead of apologizing as simply and humbly as possible for his mistake, did his utmost to prove that he was “right” and the bishops were “wrong,” and then he threw in a number of accusations against these bishops themselves: that Archbishop Averky never visits Boston, that Metr. Philaret does not like to visit Jordanville, that Archbishop Anthony has had a fight with our Brotherhood, etc. These letters were a final proof for us that Fr. P. in his Church activities is inspired first of all by political calculations, and that the “files” he keeps on everyone are weapons for his own justification and for making accusations against anyone who disagrees with him.

Fr. P. has been with our Church now for almost 14 years. In that time he has done many positive things. He has given money to worthy causes in the Church, has an impressive monastery and dedicated priest-followers, has in many ways helped the spirit of zealousness which is notably lacking among so many of our Russians. But by his political maneuvering, his undermining of our Orthodox theological authorities, and his promotion of an unquestioning “papal” obedience to the opinions of himself and his “theological party”—he has done so much harm that I wonder whether all of his good deeds can make up for it.

For some time now we have been aware that Fr. P. has been dissatisfied with our Orthodox Word, where we have expressed ideas in accordance with our Orthodox tradition but contrary to his opinions: that our bishops have not denied the grace of the other Orthodox jurisdictions, that Unseen Warfare, Metr. Philaret’s Catechism, and other books of which he disapproves are quite Orthodox, that Blessed Augustine is actually a saint in the Orthodox Calendar, that those who criticize our recent theological authorities are going on dangerous ground, etc. Fr. P., has not written us directly criticizing these articles, but we do know that he has spoken publicly in sermons against our articles, has encouraged the spread of disdainful rumors about us (Fr. Mamas, for example, told one new convert that Fr. Herman was “Protestant” because of his enthusiastic sermons), and in general has let his followers know that our publications are not to be trusted. We have been very grieved at all this, because from the beginning we thought we were working together with Fr. P. for the cause of true Orthodoxy; and now it turns out that he has formed his own special mission and does not need our cooperation any more.

The most recent incident—the exchange of letters with Fr. Mamas—is only a small sign of the great disharmony described above, which has now come to exist, not merely between our two monasteries, but between two wings of our Church: that which accepts Fr. P. as the one authority over all others living and dead; and that which tries humbly to follow in the age-old tradition of Russian Orthodoxy and accepts as its first authorities such recent teachers as Bishop Theophan the Recluse, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, Archbishop Averky, Archbishop John Maximovitch, Fr. Michael Pomazansky, etc.

Briefly, the story of this most recent correspondence is this: Fr. Herman wrote a brief note to Fr. P., asking if his monastery could help as it did some years ago with some translations from Greek for The Orthodox Word. Fr. Mamas answered this letter and told us that they had no time to help us, but that he could help us by correcting the text of translations of Greek Fathers which we were making from the Russian (specifically, St. Symeon the New Theologian). In itself, of course, we have nothing against such an offer; if Fr. Mamas really knows ancient Greek well, he could probably help to make our translations of St. Symeon more precise. But the tone of his letter was so self-centered and disdainful (he spoke of the “horrible translation” that Jordanville had published, told how he was studying Syriac to translate St. Isaac the Syrian, and wrote in general as though he and his clique were really the greatest “experts” in sight) that I wrote only a very short note in reply, telling him in general that one could go astray by “correctness”: also, that grasping the “savor of Orthodoxy” was more important, and that I sensed a danger in his becoming such an “expert” on St. Isaac—perhaps it would be better for his simplicity to translate this book humbly from the Greek or even the Russian, and perhaps to suffer another 20 years before daring to undertake anything so high. When I wrote this I thought: perhaps this will cause another “Boston open letter” teaching us about the importance of “correct translations”; but my note was so obviously personal that I put this thought out of my mind, and Fr. Herman blessed me to send the note.

But sure enough, Fr. Mamas wrote a whole “epistle” in reply, accusing us of being against accurate translations from the originals, of promoting “pious fables,” of “a taint of Old Believerism,” of teaching the “baptism of the dead” (because of a quote in The Orthodox Word which he read in an overly-literal way and gave a meaning totally out of context), showing a disdainful lack of respect for both Bishop Theophan the Recluse and Archbishop Andrew of Novo-Diveyevo, and informing us that he could not go astray because he has an “elder” and “obedience.” The “tone” of this letter was cold, superior, “expert”—very different from the normal warm, unassuming letters we receive from Orthodox clergy and monks, even when they may be critical of something we have published. He also took the opportunity to translate long passages from a letter of Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky on his translations from Greek, saying that “it is a great pity that you did not translate this letter in full to include in your book—when in fact we had translated the passages, and our very publication of the book on Blessed Paisius shows how much we value his careful attitude towards Patristic translations. We were very offended by the letter, which went to great pains to “correct” us on points we had never held, and we felt that the main purpose of the letter was to show to others how “wrong” we are and how “right” Holy Transfiguration Monastery is (all these letters they show to a number of people, whether or not they are “open”—that is how we ourselves received copies of their letters to Archbishop Averky, Archbp. Anthony, Metr. Philaret, and others which we never asked for and which should never had been made so “open”). In addition, he took the opportunity of criticizing Eastern Orthodox Books, thinking we have some connection with them, for publishing a book he disapproved of.

My reply to Fr. Mamas was rather indignant, and perhaps a little too “warm” for the Boston mentality. I told him his letter was so unnecessary, an “over-reaction”; that I wished him a good dose of “warmheartedness and simplicity”; that he is wrong if he thinks his “elder” and his “community” will infallibly preserve him from mistakes (since group passions can be worse than individual passions); that his criticisms are unfair and we don’t teach what he claims we teach at all; and that he should be more charitable to Eastern Orthodox Books and tell positive things about them—for example, p. xvii of their new edition of the Ladder deliberately omits mention of the Eastern Orthodox Books reprint which was still available then (this we took as an intentional indication that Eastern Orthodox Books is “non-existent” because it doesn’t follow the Boston “party line”). Fr. Mamas did not reply to this letter, but Fr. Ephraim replied for him, saying that I had tried to “psycho-analyze” Fr. Mamas, that no one there has even heard of the Eastern Orthodox Books reprint of the Ladder; and that they don’t want to receive any of our books in exchange for their books and incense which they send us. (I had asked Fr. P. in a note “how many” of our books he wanted for the Monastery, since he had never asked for any). This letter, while not disdainful and “expert” like Fr. Mamas’, indicates how far the gulf is becoming between them, who want to be the “experts” of the Church, and the rest of us, who value a humbler attitude towards church activity. How Fr. P. and his monks could have “forgotten” about the Eastern Orthodox Books Ladder is a wonder—Vladimir Anderson himself told Fr. P. years ago he was going to print it, Fr. Herman discussed it with Fr. P. later, and Nina Seco and other followers of Fr. P. knew all about it and were opposed to it, thinking it was “competition” with the Boston edition. (It wasn’t “competition” at all, since Vladimir kept this book in print for a good five years before the Boston edition was ready.) I suppose we’ll have to accept that Fr. P. “forgot” about it, but it still seems strange. And that they don’t want our books makes us sad—we have freely distributed their books and had hoped that they would want to give our books to monks and pilgrims. Years ago, when the monastery was friendly to us, it was Fr. Ephraim himself who had suggested that we “exchange” publications and handicrafts, but now our publications are out of favor. (Fr. Ephraim politely suggested that we “exchange” with St. Mark’s bookstore, but that would be a purely commercial exchange which isn’t what we asked about; they just don’t want our books.)

From this correspondence it has only become more obvious that Fr. P. does not much approve of our publications, and is somehow going on a different path. I think it is simply the “party line” that is to blame—we do not follow it and do not intend to follow it, and this is why Fr. P. is dissatisfied with us.

What this means for the future, I don’t know. May God preserve us! We wish to be friends with everyone who is struggling for true Orthodoxy, but the “spirit” coming from Fr. P. seems to be different from that of the humble strugglers we know, both in the Russian and Greek Churches. We’ve tried gently to communicate some of this to Fr. P. and Fr. N.—but up to now they have only replied with their “correctness,” and have indicated no desire to be more humble about their pretensions.

Please pray for us. We sense that the problem with Fr. P., is part of the much larger problem of church politics which has such disastrous results nowadays. We pray for Fr. P. and sincerely hope that he can have a humbler approach to church affairs, but we have little hope, since things have already gone so far. We have recently written a letter to Fr. Neketas also, complaining about Fr. Lev’s latest Tlinget Herald, which was outrageous. This kind of thing cannot go on for long!

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. Please do not show this letter to Fr. P.—we know it would go in our “file” and would only be used against us. Sad—but true, I fear.

Nov 8/21, 1979

Nov. 8/21, 1979

Archangel Michael

Dear Andrew,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

We were glad to hear from you, and we welcome your new publication News (or is it Orthodox News? It could be an important and encouraging publication, which is much needed in our days of gloom and negative thinking. Something better than the “Grabbe newsletter” is much needed! May God bless your labors!

The letter from Lazarus Kelly is indeed a sad reflection on the wrong spirit of so much of our church life. But actually—it isn’t so sad after all. He found that the “fanatic” spirit isn’t right, and he’s just a newcomer; so the “Boston spirit” isn’t grabbing everybody after all, is it?

You may not realize it there, but a full reaction is setting in in our Church against this narrow spirit of fanaticism. For the time being it may still look as though fanaticism is still in fashion, but things are changing. The whole attitude towards Fr. Dimitry Dudko in our Church is one sign of it— all the Russians receive him with open arms, and there is no talk about his “grace” at all—anyone who can talk like that is Orthodox, period. The problem of his bishops, intercommunion, etc., still remain—but all the time it becomes more obvious that these questions, in the Russian Church at least, are temporary and superficial and do not hinder the deeper unity between us and true sons of the Russian Church like Fr. Dimitry. Incidentally, his “rebellious” attitude towards his “correct” and “bureaucratic” bishops is also instructive for us.

Even your Fr. Alexis is changing a little. Of late he has made a point of entering into closer contacts with some of us here in America who are obviously “anti-Boston.” In his last letter to us he even began to speak positively about the new Greek Archbishop in London—he obviously begins to realize that fanaticism is out, our Church hasn’t accepted it, although he is still somewhat bound to the “Boston line.” But even the latter may be changing. We’ve had a rather blunt exchange with Boston and Seattle in recent weeks, and perhaps at last they will see that the rest of us are simply not going to follow the “party line.”

I’ve been invited to speak at Jordanville on St. Herman’s day (Dec 12/25) when there will be a youth pilgrimage. The people in back of it are of the anti-Boston clergy, and this pilgrimage, God willing, will be part of the call to spiritual life and awareness not in the framework of narrowness and fanaticism. Please pray that I will be able to say a fruitful word there. Fr. Herman spoke at the pilgrimage there in 1973 and gave a flaming word, but people weren’t as prepared for it then as they are beginning to be now. Only I’m a dull speaker compared to Fr. Herman, so please pray that I will be able to get some “punch” over.

The Fathers at St. Gregory’s have sent a copy of a letter for publication in The Old Calendarist, thinking that perhaps we would be against it. On the contrary, we welcome such letters, which throw light on a subject which is still almost unknown in our Church, or else clouded over by the political maneuvering of our Greeks. We will be publishing some things of Fr. Chrysostomos ourselves in upcoming issues of The Orthodox Word.

I’m sending separately an air mail copy of the 1980 Calendar—we sent you 40 copies by sea mail last week, hoping they will arrive at least by the first of the year (that gives them two months travelling time).

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

MCMLXXX

Jan 24/Feb 6, 1980

Jan. 24/Feb. 6, 1980

Blessed Xenia of Petersburg

Dear Father Ambrose,

Christ is in our midst!

Father Herman has asked me to answer your inquiry about Fr. John Lewis. We have known him by correspondence for a number of years, and I know several people in the parishes where he served before becoming a monk (including my godfather, who was his chief help in his parishes and helped him establish them).

To our knowledge, he is a typical “American convert”—very fervent, but with a certain instability or imbalance which can be healed (if then) only after many years of struggles and sufferings. He came to our Church from the American Metropolia with perhaps a little too much “zeal” and rather too much talk about how wrong everyone in the Metropolia is (of course, he was mostly correct, but the tone of “criticism” was a little too present in him). I think he was sobered somewhat by the difficulties he experienced in starting a parish, but then his “criticism” began again, this time directed against members of the parish. He began to set up “Russians” against “Americans,” and finally chased all the Russians out of the parish and “excommunicated” my godfather in a very bad letter (which I have seen) that shows him to have illusions about himself as a “spiritual guide”; he made what seems to have been a conflict of personalities into a case of “righteousness vs. unrighteousness.”

Then Fr. John began to dream about monasticism. He visited Archbishop Andrew of Novo- Diveyevo, who wanted him to become a monk and open an old-folks’ home (he had been a celibate priest until then). He wrote us then about this, and we encouraged him, knowing that Vladika Andrew was very realistic about spiritual life, and that Fr. John seemed to understand the need for sufferings in spiritual life. But this monastic desire took a very strange form: Fr. John and his deacon were tonsured (by Fr. Panteleimon in Boston, who I believe was against the idea, but followed Vladika Andrews desire), and then told his parishioners that the church was now a monastery and that they should not come and bother the “monastic calm.” Finally he had the parish sign over the church property to the monastery, he sold it and moved away. He tried to make his second parish in Pennsylvania also sign their property over to him, but they refused. He changed the location of his monastery several times, and then about a year or more ago moved to Florida.

On my recent visit to the Eastern U.S. I visited my godfather and met people from both of Fr. Johns former parishes. I found that he left a very bad impression behind him. His first parish was completely destroyed and the people scattered; the second parish remains but has bad feelings about him. The impression was strong that Fr. John has acted in a very unbalanced and irresponsible way.

I do not know the nature of Fr. Johns present troubles with Bishop Gregory; very possibly (knowing this bishop) there are some injustices there. I spoke with Bishop Laurus about the matter in Jordanville, and his impression is that Fr. John is moving around simply to escape supervision from any higher church authorities. I myself think that he is a restless, somewhat unbalanced person whose only hope for spiritual survival is to “stick it out” where he already is. I have written this to him myself, but have received no answer. I really don’t know what his state of soul has been in this past year, and why he is moving around so much.

Of course, for your Church to receive him without a canonical release would place a very big obstacle in the way of peace between our jurisdictions. But even with a canonical release I think you will have trouble with him, and I think you should get to know him rather well before accepting him even canonically. Because of Vladika Andrews blessing, I still have hopes that he will survive spiritually—but only on condition that he stay put in one place and not go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Vladika Andrew told him that he would learn through sufferings and would not be considered a “real monk” by others because of his “non-monastic” work in taking care of old people. How your bishops would accept such an idea I don’t know; I think Fr. John could get along with our bishops if he really wants to (our bishops are really quite tolerant and lenient on the whole). From my talk with Bishop Laurus, I doubt very much that he will be able to get a canonical release to your jurisdiction. I think your bishops should emphasize to him the necessity for such a canonical release, and of getting to know him better if he does obtain it.

On my trip to Jordanville last month I visited the fathers at Hayesville and had a very nice visit. I think such quiet visits are the best we can hope for at the present time; our bishops are still “reacting against” all their bad experiences with “Greeks” in recent years. However, I noted that Vladika Laurus was very well disposed to what Fr. Chrysostomos wrote in his recent article on the Old Calendar situation—a balanced, objective view of it; and such things will help much in the long run, I think.

Please give our heartfelt greetings to Bishop Kyprianos and ask his blessing for us.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Mar 13/26, 1980

March 13/26, 1980

St. Nicephorus of Constantinople

Dear John,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

I have received your letter with its news and its various accusations against Father Herman and myself. It is rather an insulting letter —something I don’t think you understand; you probably think you were just being “honest,” without seeing that an Orthodox Christian expresses his honest in an entirely different tone. This Christian tone is what you are lacking in your life in general, as I see it.

There would be little point in attempting to answer all your accusations, except to say that in some points you are mistaken, in others you don’t “get the point,” and in even in those cases where you may be “perfectly right” you do not show the basic forgiveness and compassion which Christ our God expects of us Orthodox Christians, if we are to attain His forgiveness.

What can I say? Obviously I have failed you as a spiritual father, not communicating to you even the basic ABC’s of Christian spiritual life. In this past year you have gone from bad to worse, alienating even more than before, through your un-Christian behavior, the Old Believers, the Orthodox community, visiting priests, and even your own son—who is surely to a large extent what you have made him, apparently more unconsciously than consciously. The blame for all of this rests squarely upon your shoulders. You are not behaving in a Christian way to any of these people, and you seem totally unaware of the fact. (Judging from your past misinterpretations of words like this, I must add: of course, you may sometimes act in a Christian way towards them, and may God grant you more such occasions; but the sum total or your behavior, and the reason why you are driving people away from yourself, is precisely your un-Christian behavior.) You act like a spoiled child who has no intention of growing up.

If you wish to be an Orthodox Christian you must begin now\ from this very day and hour and minute, to love God and your fellow men. This means: not to act in an arbitrary or whimsical way with people, not just saying the first thing that enters your head, not picking fights or quarrels with people over anything, big or small, being constantly ready to ask forgiveness of them (and to ask it more than you think is necessary), to have compassion for them and fervently pray for them.

If you still accept my authority as a spiritual father, I am giving you a different prayer rule: instead of the Jesus Prayer, say every night 100 prayers by the prayer-rope, with words something like this (or the equivalent in your own words): Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on my brother (name)… going by name through all the people close to you, starting with your immediate family. With each petition make a bow (prostrations for members of your immediate family). Stop at 100 (repeating names if necessary), and let the last petition be for everyone. By this I want you to wake up and start loving your brothers and sisters, both of the household of faith and those without. You are building on your property an immense project which makes absolutely no sense if at the same time you are chasing away the people for whom, supposedly, it is being built. Build first on love and compassion for your fellow men, and then the building of earthly materials will make sense and be completed safely.

I am sad to see that you have “missed the point” on so much that Fr. Herman has tried to tell you, so much so that you have used his benefactions to you, which you don’t understand, into slanders against him. People like Father Herman who try to help others to see their own shortcomings and overcome them literally turn gray when their good words are returned to them as a slap in the face. That is very crude of you. When Fr. Herman tells you that you act out of pride in your good deeds (which is so obvious I shouldn’t think it would need proof), only a totally insensitive person could draw the conclusion that it is the good deeds that should be abandoned and not the pride. But let me repeat it for you in simpler language: Many of your good deeds, indeed probably all of them to some extent, are spoiled because they are mixed with pride; continue to do good deeds, but pray God to make you humble so you will not spoil them. The effect of a good deed done with humility is 100 times greater than the effect of a good deed done with pride—first of all inwardly, but then outwardly also. It is just a slander, caused by spiritual insensitivity, to say or imply that Fr. Herman told you not to do good deeds; you are probably thinking this just to justify your anger against him, which is caused by the feet that he tells you the truth about yourself.

About David, I will repeat the advice which you have misunderstood: no one has said he is a parasite, but only that he very easily falls into this pattern (as he has in the past) if those around him do not act wisely. He needs to be constantly pushed in the direction of being independent and responsible, and not babied, or else there will be disaster, first and foremost for himself. You probably do not realize that one big reason for his positive behavior at this moment is that he is “scared”-*» scared at being in a new place, scared of failing at work, scared of Father Herman.

This is a very good thing for him, and Fr. Herman has helped him with this far more than you can understand. When and if David ceases to be “scared,” there will be trouble. Father Herman and I both know him much better than you do. If I lose “credibility” (such a heartless expression!) with you for saying this, so let it be.

From the tone and content of your letter, I would judge that you are tired of me as a spiritual father. If you do not change this attitude there is nothing I can do for you, and I will certainly not press you. It is not a question of seeking for a “starets” in your case, but of an honest attempt to understand the most elementary principles of Christian spiritual life. You are doing very poorly at this understanding, and I grieve that I have failed you so much by not giving you this understanding in a way you could receive it. Your failure is not because you are incapable. You have the mind to understand, and I think you have the heart also; but you are ruining this golden chance (with a church right in your back yard and more than one priest who is willing to help you) which you have to learn what Christian spiritual life is, by your stubborn self-love and by just not caring for those around you. Start caring and being sensitive to those around you, and you will see how your life will change (you may think that it is the others who have changed, but first of all it will be yourself).

I make a prostration before you and beg your forgiveness for my many sins and failings towards you. May God forgive and have mercy on us all. I send you heartfelt greetings for the approaching Pascha—may it be a time of spiritual renewal for us all! And I assure you that, whatever your attitude may be towards me, mine towards you has not changed in the least.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. Are you reading any spiritual book? You should read Unseen Warfare. Do you have a copy?

P.p.s. May God reward you for your deed of compassion to the poor Mexican. But how could you think that Fr. Herman would want you not to do such things? You must listen more when he speaks to you of love and compassion; if you had had such compassion for your own son, on a regular basis, he would not have left you. He loves you, in case you don’t know it.

The Slavonic Gospel was sent to you last week, and you should have it by now. We don’t have an extra prosphora seal, after all, and you will receive one sooner from Boston than we could get you one.

Mar 26/Apr 8, 1980

The Orthodox Word

Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood

Platina, California 96076 U.SA.

March 26/April 8, 1980

Dear Maria,

CHRIST IS RISEN! May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

We have received your letter, and Gleb has received one also, informing us of your wish that Gleb leave us immediately.

Already several weeks before this, two representatives of the Redding Social Welfare Department had visited us and told us that you wished Gleb to leave. After talking to him and to us at length, they told us they were satisfied with his-situation and would not help you in your attempt to make him leave us as long as he himself did not desire this; and Gleb was very firm in telling them that he desired to stay. Legally, a boy of 15 (almost 16) has a right to decide with whom he wishes to live.

None of us know your motives in wishing him to leave. I only wish to tell you something from the bottom of my heart: Gleb has found a home, a spiritual maturity, and a deep psychological security with us. To uproot him from this security now and force him to live with someone else would be a most cruel thing to do. You would have to do this very much against his will, and this could only alienate him from you, perhaps for good; and such a compulsory move could have disastrous results for him both spiritually and psychologically. Please do not try to uproot him from the home he has found with us for five years now. In two years he will be already 18 and ready to make his own further decisions about his future, and nothing he has gained here will hinder such a free and mature decision.

We are prepared to support Gleb’s decision (which does not involve any disrespect for you) to the utmost, and according to the law it is up to his free decision where he wishes to live. Please respect his decision.

As far as we are concerned, you need not send any money at all for his upkeep.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Mar 31/Apr 13, 1980

Bright Saturday

March 31 /April 13, 1980

Dear Fr. Neketas,

CHRIST IS RISEN!

We haven’t received any answer as yet to my letter to you of last October, but we have received several new issues of the Tlingit Herald, still published and distributed by you, and the insulting, arrogant series of attacks on what we have been defending as the Orthodox teaching on life after death continues unabated. You must regard it as very important to “demolish” thoroughly what we have said (and what Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, Bp. Theophan the Recluse, Archbishop John Maximovitch, the publications of Holy Trinity Monastery, and many others have taught) in order to continue sponsoring discussions of such a quality.

Father, what would be the point of Father Herman appearing at the Seattle conference in July? You’ve already (through Deacon Lev’s works) tried to discredit his labors for Orthodoxy, sharing in Deacon Lev’s deliberate attempt to “embarrass” him (I take this word from one of Deacon Lev’s letters where he described what he was going to do). Father Herman’s appearance in Seattle would obviously provoke unpleasant scenes, if not from you or Deacon Lev, then from some of your readers who have now learned to regard our Orthodoxy as quite dubious, indeed “heresy-filled” (to quote Deacon Lev’s description of one of the Orthodox texts which we continue to regard as Orthodox).

Some people have tried to explain your position to us. One person (a Russian priest) thinks that we just have to accept that this is the way “Greeks” behave—that if they disagree with you or want to fight with you, they call you every name in the book, try to thoroughly discredit you by honest or dishonest means, and think they are proving their “Orthodoxy” by this. I sincerely hope that this is not the basis on which you act.

Another person, one of your own parishioners, says that you are an “innocent victim” of Deacon Lev—that you have such blind trust in him that you aren’t even aware of the insulting tone and intent of his writings on life after death (as well as on some other subjects).

It’s not for us to guess what you have in mind, but you are certainly succeeding in alienating us and many others from you, including your own bishop.

Let this brief letter be another cry of our anguish over what you are doing. You have made us feel most unwelcome in Seattle. If Fr. Herman did come, it would be a most strained occasion, and who knows what seemingly innocent opinion, shared (like the teaching on life after death which we have printed) by numerous Orthodox theological authorities in the present and past centuries, might be picked out for another discrediting attack by Deacon Lev or someone under his influence?

With heartfelt grief, but still loving you in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

May 14/27, 1980

May 14/27, 1980

St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

Dear Fr. Michael [Azkoul],

Christ is in our midst!

Thank you for your letter and its attempt to bring peace in the midst of the “debate” over the toll-houses, the “sleep” of the soul, and so forth. I very much appreciate your concern and kind words.

I must say that for my part, although I realize Deacon Levs articles were occasioned by my own articles (they will bear my signature in the book form), I do not regard this “debate” as primarily a personal one at all. For one thing, it hasn’t really been a “debate” at all, since all the attacking is coming from his side; and for another, the attack is not really against me, since the basic part of my articles is simply a retelling of the teaching of Archbishop John Maximovitch, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, Bishop Theophan the Recluse, etc.—but rather an attack against this teaching itself, which he has tried to demolish entirely, for whatever reasons of his own. If he wishes to apologize for his rather crude attacks, I hope the apology will be to all the good Orthodox teachers, living and dead, whom he has maligned, and not just to me personally; but I see no need for a personal meeting with him over this.

I suspect that Deacon Lev’s articles are only a small part of a larger attitude in our Church of distrust for the recent theological authorities of the Russian Church. If people like Fr. Panteleimon of Boston had not first suggested that many of our recent Russian bishops and theologians are not really to be trusted, I doubt that Deacon Lev would ever have written such a series of attacks. This is a bigger problem for which I fear there is no easy answer. For our part, we intend to continue presenting the teaching of these bishops and theologians (on various subjects) as authoritative and Orthodox, unless it can really be shown to us that they are not. Deacon Lev’s articles on life after death have not shown us this at all.

I would disagree with only one point in your letter: I do not believe that I have presented the toll-houses as a dogma in my articles. I don’t think they really are a theologoumenon either, because they don’t belong properly to the sphere of dogma at all (except as they touch on the doctrine of the Particular Judgment), but rather belong to the Orthodox ascetic teaching and Orthodox piety. It would never occur to me to make belief in or even awareness of the toll-houses into a condition for baptism; but I would certainly expect that as a person goes deeper in the faith and reads the ascetic texts and Lives of Saints he would become acquainted with them and accept them as a matter of course. My articles have been meant as an attempt to facilitate this, whereas Deacon Lev’s articles, it seems to me, are an attempt to persuade people not to read this Orthodox literature as somehow harmful to a person’s Orthodoxy or state of soul.

By the way, in the several years we have been printing the “soul after death” series, I don’t recall that we’ve received a single comment criticizing the teaching set forth there, whereas we have received many letters expressing interest and approval. The only real criticism we have received is that the series has taken up too much space in The Orthodox Word. I rather agree with this comment, but unfortunately our circumstances, physical and financial, are such that we could not print this book except by first publishing it in serial form.

It is not I, but Father Herman, who has been invited to the Seattle Conference. He is at present very disinclined to go, not out of any personal offense (the “soul after death” series is all my work), but for the same reason our Archbishop Anthony and Bishop Nektary have told us they will not be attending: the atmosphere in Seattle has become rather tense and unfriendly to those of us who do not share the particular views of Fr. Neketas and Fr. Panteleimon on various church subjects. Deacon Lev’s attacks are the most recent and the biggest sign of this tenseness (Fr. Neketas continues to publish them despite our strong protests), but even before then I am afraid that we and our bishops have been regarded as “scholastic,” not really “correct” in our Orthodoxy, too “Russian,” and what have you. I think that Fr. Neketas, in particular, wants to place us in some kind of “categories” that will reduce our influence (and thereby undermine whatever Fr. Herman might say at Seattle—“he’s only a Russian, or a scholastic,” etc). Just last week Fr. Herman personally went to see Fr. Neketas to minimize any “personal” differences between us—but just now we’ve received a copy of Fr. Neketas’ letter to our Archbishop Anthony protesting Fr. Herman’s supposed desire to change his talk to one on the toll-houses at Seattle—a thought that never entered his mind and which he would certainly never do of his own free will! Apparently Fr. Neketas thinks that Fr. Herman wants to force the tollhouses on everyone, and therefore he interpreted his words to produce this result, which is quite far from the truth.

I believe the Synod will be meeting soon to discuss some of these questions, and Fr. Herman’s final decision on Seattle will be made probably after that, and after a last consultation with our two bishops.

Thank you again for you concern, and please pray for us.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

May 23/June 5, 1980

May 23/June 5, 1980

St. Leontius of Rostov

Dear Father Demetrios,

Christ is in our midst!

Thank you very much for your letter with its concern over church harmony in connection with Fr. Herman’s going (or not going) to the Seattle conference next month. Several priests have contacted us in this same connection—some saying about the same thing you said, but others, on the contrary, telling us to stay away from Seattle because the Orthodox “tone” there is wrong.

We ourselves, though we have been aware of the tension between some of our Greek clergy and the rest of the Church, resolved, from the moment that Fr. Herman was invited to speak, to accept the invitation and go through with it, for the sake of the ordinary believers who know little or nothing of the tension in the Church and would only be scandalized. This resolve continued firm even after Deacon Lev began his insulting articles (about which we complained to Fr. Neketas, as the publisher of them). As Deacon Lev’s attacks continued, and Fr. Neketas indicated his agreement with them, we began to waver in this resolve. It is not that we feel personally insulted—for Deacon Levs attacks are more against the authorities (Archbishop John, Bishop Ignatius, Theophan the Recluse, etc.) from whom we have taken the teaching we have printed. But the nature and tone of Deacon Levs attacks would place us in an awkward position in Seattle: if we go and take part without saying anything, we give silent approval to his errors and insults; if we protest publicly, it creates a disturbance among the people which would only confuse many (because, after all, the question is a rather subtle one, and Deacon Lev has erred more in the tone of his writings and in attacking the Orthodox spirit of piety than in doctrine—though he is off there also), making a normal part of Orthodox teaching and piety into something that is controversial and somehow dubious. As a last resort, to preserve some degree of harmony for the sake of the people, we thought of asking Fr. Neketas to allow us to have a table to distribute our literature, including an “answer” to Deacon Lev, so that those who wish can see that we don’t agree with his teaching; and then there wouldn’t need to be anything said and there would be no “fight” at the conference.

The latest Orthodox Christian Witness, however (which Fr. Neketas did not send to us, but which we received from a horrified subscriber of his), contains a new attack against us which shows that the tension in the Church is not caused by Deacon Lev at all; that has been only one aspect of it. Now the attack is against Fr. Dimitry Dudko, and we (and Father Alexey Young) who have defended him are publicly accused of “telling outright fibs” and of being “unprincipled and irresponsible.” Again, we are not primarily concerned with the attack against us personally. But this is an attack against one of the best representatives of living Orthodox, the Orthodoxy of the heart! The author of * this article is most unfair (omitting Fr. Dimitry’s other statements on the Catacomb Church and on the Ecumenical Movement, after he had been told something of what “ecumenism” actually means in the free world), uncharitable (extracting the maximum of “error” from Fr. Dimitry’s words, without understanding the point of his words), and filled with a jesuitical logic that is most un-Orthodox.

Evidently (as someone has suggested to us), Fr. Neketas really doesn’t want us at his conference, and this is his way of saying “Stay away!” Well, we certainly don’t want to be identified with this kind of cranky “Orthodoxy,” and it looks indeed as if Fr. Herman will have to stay away. He will be talking to our bishops this weekend and make his final decision then. (Both Archbishop Anthony and Bishop Nektary have already told us that they don’t want to come anywhere near the conference.)

We have just heard that Deacon Lev, at the request of the Synod of Bishops, has been forbidden to publish or give lectures; but I’m afraid the problem will not stop there. Already several of the “super-zealous” and “super-correct” converts in our Church have decided that our Church has “betrayed Orthodoxy” by not cutting off all the Orthodox Churches and declaring them to be without grace, and they have joined the Mathewite Old Calendarists, who are the only “consistent” group that declares itself to be the only remaining Orthodox Church (except for the Catacomb Church of Russia—which, however, is also probably too “liberal” for the Mathewites, if they only knew its real opinions, which are evidently about the same as those of our bishops). There must be more heart in our Orthodoxy and less “canonical logic,” which leads to discord and schism. May God preserve us from this jesuitical imitation of Orthodoxy!

We have received Volume II of Vladika Averky’s works, and rejoice to see his words receive wider circulation. Please remember us in your prayers.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

May 30/June 12, 1980

May 30/June 12, 1980

St. Isaac of the Dalmatian Monastery

Dear Father Hilarion,

Christ is in our midst!

I’ve wanted to write you so many times, but I seem to be constantly distracted, and now that I have a specific occasion to do so I cant remember the other things I wanted to talk to you about! Anyway, please remember us poor distracted ones in your prayers.

The specific cause of my letter is this: Fr. Alexey Young is expanding his Nikodemos into a monthly “newspaper” (if God will only give him the strength!), and for his children’s page I have proposed to translate parts of the Zakon Bozhy of Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy. Since it is copyrighted by Holy Trinity Monastery and the author is reposed, we evidently need the permission of the Monastery to use it. Could you ask Vladika Laurus about this and tell us if there are any complications? Our idea right now is simply to supply some pages for a children’s section, beginning with Part One of the book (perhaps with a few of the illustrations), and only later (if then) to think of printing all or part of the book separately. I would be very grateful for a word on this as soon as possible, as the first issue is due to come out about the end of the month.

Vladika Anthony has blessed this new venture, which will be quite modest (probably 8 pages a little less than the size of Orthodox Russia at first), but I think it could be very important for our American Orthodox flock and for English-speaking Orthodox in general. Out here we have noticed a whole new “tone” in the converts of recent years: much less of the “know it all” spirit, emphasis on “canons” and “Typicon,” etc., and much more just basic Orthodox Christianity. This is the flock Fr. Alexey hopes to supply with good Orthodox material and significant news (without controversy!).

Thanks to God, the first 150 pages of Fr. Michael’s Dogmatic Theology is now being set up at last, and “publication date” of the whole book is set for all (pray for this!). Mary Mansur mentioned something about a revision of the “Baptism” chapter—do you have the text? I will be correcting that part within the next month or so.

Mary also mentioned you would like to come out west and visit us again—you are always welcome! We have had more brothers and pilgrims this year than ever, but our life remains basically the same. Fr. Peter is having his difficulties and grows faint-hearted very easily; please pray for him. He doesn’t seem to be entirely “present” yet; and our unseasonable cold weather has gotten him down also. He is helping well in the printshop, however.

One of your seminarians from Russia wrote me some months ago about translating Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future into Russian. I think I didn’t answer him—but if you know who it is, please tell him yes, he has our permission (he wasn’t there when I visited in December).

Please pray for us. We remember you with much love.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

June 2/15, 1980

St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood

Platina, California 96076

June 2/15,1980

New Martyrs of the Turkish Yoke

AN OPEN LETTER TO FATHER NEKETAS PALASSIS

Dear Father Neketas,

Christ is in our midst!

I wish to speak a word to you from the heart, and at the same time to explain to you and others why I feel unable to come to your Seattle conference next month.

Of late, it seems, you have published some words against our publications and other similar publications in our Russian Church Abroad. First it was the insulting, offensive series of articles on life after death, which ended so badly for the author, who is now forbidden by our bishops to publish and give lectures; in these articles all of us who have tried to present the Orthodox teaching on this subject have been assigned to the ranks of heretics, blasphemers, and the like. You will have to excuse me if, seeing these articles, I (together with quite a few others) had serious misgivings about coming and speaking at your conference. I want no fight with anyone, but I hope you can understand that it is not a pleasant thing to go where one is distrusted, liable to be insulted, and where certain ordinary topics (like life after death) have suddenly become “controversial” because of such immature attacks on them.

For the sake of church harmony and peace, I myself went to visit you in Seattle a few weeks ago. On this visit, among other things, I told you how deeply Father Dimitry Dudko speaks to Orthodox Russians—and Americans too, for that matter; I have really met no Orthodox person who has read him seriously and sympathetically who has not been deeply moved by his Orthodox message for all of us today. And now, just a week or two after my visit, you have published a new attack, consigning Father Dimitry in effect to the ranks of the heretics and calling us who have printed about and defended him “unprincipled and irresponsible” and tellers of “outright fibs” (that is, lies) about him (p. 14, Orthodox Christian Witness, May 12/25). The specific quotations that are attacked in this article are from The Orthodox Word and Nikodemos, but Orthodox Russia and other periodicals in our Church have made similar defenses of Father Dimitry. These are serious accusations against members of one and the same Russian Church Abroad, and the anonymous author should certainly be identified and made responsible for his words.

This new attack is uncharitable in the extreme, both to Father Dimitry and to us who have supported him. And how unfair and inaccurate it is! The author of the article has selected a few statements made by Father Dimitry, but has passed over other statements which show him in a much more favorable light with regard to the question of ecumenism and the Russian jurisdictions (after he was better informed about these things by sympathetic people living abroad); he does not mention that, concerning the Catacomb Church, Father Dimitry has said nothing different from what some members of that Church themselves have said in recent years, and his words do not at all have the evil intent the author reads into them: he has not tried to understand what Father Dimitry is really trying to say in the statements that are criticized (they are not statements about “ecclesiology” at all, but warnings to his listeners not to make Orthodoxy into a “sect”—a warning which I believe you yourself should take to heart); he has not covered such shortcomings as Father Dimitry does have with love and sympathy, he has entirely missed the point of Father Dimitry’s message in his haste to “catch” him in an error and discredit him as an Orthodox spokesman, and thereby also to brand us who defend him as unprincipled and irresponsible liars and opportunists, as though the reason we speak about Father Dimitry is in order to gain glory from this “celebrity,” as the article calls him.

I deeply feel that it is terribly wrong, that it is a crime against Orthodoxy, for you to print such attacks, for you to grieve and insult your fellow Orthodox Christians so needlessly and without foundation!

You are not the only one to rise up against Father Dimitry; the Russian press also has its detractors of him, some going so far as to suspect him of being a KGB agent. Father Dimitry himself suffers immeasurably from these slanders and criticisms. Let me quote for you what he has written about his critics abroad, in a recent letter which describes his “sleepless nights”:

“You are bold to criticize us without seeing what is what, and not knowing our circumstances… Is it not time to learn to understand each other, to help each other, to rejoice for each other?… Russia is perishing, the whole world is perishing, protecting itself behind a false prosperity; and we hinder each other from doing the work of God… The people for whom I have decided to give over my whole life have suddenly begun to poison me. О Lord, forgive them!… Help me to bear this very heavy cross!”

With all my heart I hope that you will learn from courageous Orthodox pastors like Father Dimitry and cease trying to “catch” them for phrases which may (or may not) be in error. Surely in your own heart—if you have read his writings with any kind of sympathy—you know that he is not an “ecumenist,” and any errors he may make in his writings come solely from his simplicity.

It is true that, at the present time, we clergy of the Russian Church Abroad could not concelebrate with Father Dimitry, but our unity with him in the faith is much deeper than this. As Father Dimitry himself has well said, our deeper unity is best expressed today (owing to the enslavement of the Moscow Patriarchate) by our external disunity, but this does not prevent us from being true brothers in the Orthodox faith and learning from and supporting each other. This is why our bishops have decreed that Father Dimitry and other imprisoned for the Orthodox faith in the USSR should be remembered by name at the Proskomedia.

I myself would love to speak to the Orthodox faithful on the message of Father Dimitry Dudko, which is so needed now by us all. But I could not do this now in Seattle, because this subject too has become “controversial,” the air has been “poisoned,” and whatever I say will be discounted and undermined. Anyone who trusts your publications will surely suspect me of being an “ecumenist” myself if I dared to defend him. Forgive me, but I just cannot take part in your conference. The struggle for salvation and preaching the Orthodox Gospel in today’s world is difficult enough without having to suffer obstacles from one’s own brothers in Christ.

We are living in a time of world-wide spiritual crisis, when the best people in the West are beginning to wake up to the truth of Orthodoxy and are coming to drink of its living waters. We have the common task of feeding the Orthodox flocks, not attacking the shepherds who really care for the flock, as Father Dimitry does. In such a time, you should not be occupying yourself with needless and unfair accusations, nor with uncharitable deductions about the views of others or with legalistic “inescapable conclusions” about the Russian jurisdictions, such as you have published in your latest attack (p. 17); any of the bishops or theologians of our Church could have told you how over-simplified and false these “conclusions” are. I think that in your haste to prove how “correct” you yourself are, you are losing sight of the bigger picture of Orthodoxy in today’s world and are pushing yourself into a deadend, cut off from some of the most positive and genuine manifestations of Orthodoxy today.

May you be able to open your heart to what our bishops and the suffering Orthodox people in Russia and abroad can teach you. Then we will all rejoice and be one with you.

With love in Christ,

[signed] Unworthy Hieromonk Herman,

Hieromonk Herman,

Superior, St. Herman of Alaska Monastery

June 9/22, 1980

June 9/22, 1980

St. Cyril of Alexandria

Dear Fr. Demetrios,

Christ is in our midst!

We were glad to hear of your conference next summer; these conferences could be valuable supports for our difficult task of standing in the truth in these evil times.

I hope you don’t mind if I have a suggestion or two for this conference:

First, I think a good number of English-speaking Russian priests should be invited to speak. Father Herman was the only Russian invited to speak at Seattle, and this creates the impression that the conference is for an “American clique” in the Church, and not for the Russian Church Abroad as a whole; even if this wasn’t the intent, the result is that this group of priests is more and more cutting itself off from the rest of the Church. There are many Russian priests who could give excellent talks in English (and probably on a less “intellectual” and more down-to-earth level than we Americans usually give)—for example, Fr. Valery Lukianov, Fr. Roman Lukianov (especially on the new martyrs of Russia), etc.

Second, I think the theme of the conference should be expressed in positive terms. “Modernism and ecumenism” are good to talk about as dangers facing us, but I think they shouldn’t set the tone for a conference. If they’re mentioned in the title, perhaps it could be something like: “Preaching the Orthodox Gospel in the midst of 20th-century modernism and ecumenism,” or something similar. The evils of our time are so great that sometimes we lose sight of the greater power of what we have to oppose them with—I think this is the mistake of those who are attacking Fr. Dimitry Dudko, who almost more than anyone else today is preaching the positive Orthodox Gospel, even though he is overwhelmed with the evils of contemporary society.

We’ve sent you a copy of Father Herman’s open letter to Fr. Neketas. I don’t know what else he could have said or done. To pretend the problem doesn’t exist (when it’s already gone so for that honest love and sympathy can be called “unprincipled and irresponsible”) is foolish, and to wait longer to begin protesting will have worse results. Archbishop Anthony and Bishop Nektary (who are both literally crushed by the attack on Fr. Dimitry Dudko) have said they themselves will be as far away from Seattle as possible during the conference. I only hope that Fr. Neketas and others, when they see how they are pushing away the best part of our Church from themselves, will make an earnest effort to come back and join the rest of us in a positive witness of Orthodoxy. If not, I fear they will go into schism, still thinking themselves “correct” and everyone else wrong.

Thank you for the name of the young couple in Oakland; I will write to them if we don’t see them here (or with Fr. Alexey in Etna) before long.

Since writing the above, we’ve heard of Fr. Dimitry Dudko’s “confession” on Soviet television. May God help this poor man in his hour of trial; one can only imagine the pressures and tortures placed upon him to extract this (chiefly, I would think, threats against his family and spiritual children). I hope there will be no gloating over this on the part of his enemies. For my part, I think the lesson in this for us is to go deeper within ourselves. It can be very consoling to know that someone there is a “hero” and is saying boldly what even we in freedom seldom have the courage or strength to say; but now we can appreciate a little better the suffering vte must all go through to be true Orthodox Christians in these terrible times. This “confession” does not invalidate a single word he said before, as I see it; but now it is others who will have to continue this work. We must all pray for each other more, and have more love and sympathy for each other. May God help us all! I sense the clouds becoming ever darker over America too. Please pray for us here, that we may put out some more essential books while we still have time and freedom.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

June 25/July 8, 1980

June 25/July 8, 1980

Martyr Febronia

Dear Father Michael,

Christ is in our midst!

I have read your letter to Father Herman, expressing your grief over the division which seems to be occurring in our Russian Church Abroad. You are certainly correct that the issue at stake is not the teaching of Deacon Lev Puhalo, nor is it the attitude towards Fr. Dimitry Dudko. These are only the forms this apparently deepening division has taken in recent months.

If Fr. Alexey Young has sent you a copy of his own letter to Fr. Neketas telling of his withdrawal from the Seattle Conference, you will see a little more how this problem seems from our side. Frankly, a number of us for some time have felt ourselves to be considered “second-class citizens” in the Church by Fr. Neketas and Fr. Panteleimon, expressed by their private (and some not so private) “warnings” that we are not really Orthodox, are really “scholastic,” shouldn’t be supported or mentioned, etc. The recent escalation of these “warnings” by Fr. Neketas, which has caused the present scandal, seems to indicate that our views (which generally only reflect the views of our bishops) are really quite “dangerous,” and a kind of public “war” has to be declared against them. This we all regard as exceedingly sad and unnecessary, but as long as this attitude exists I don’t know what other response can be given than the one given by Fr. Herman and Fr. Alexey. The form of an “open letter” was used so as not to drag the matter into the church press, where it does not belong (the open letter was sent mainly to our English-speaking priests for their information). Several of our bishops have expressed their gratitude and approval to Father Herman for his letter, which seems to indicate the deepness of what is occurring.

Since you do not seem to be partisan in this conflict, you could perhaps help towards an eventual restoration of peace. Therefore, I would like you to know that none of us (as far as I know) who are on the “black list” of Fr. Neketas regards any one of the differences which he has raised with us to be an insuperable barrier to the unity which should exist between us; we are on excellent terms with other people who differ with us no less on certain questions. The cause of disunity, rather, is in the attitude of Fr. Neketas (and those who think as he does) towards these difference, towards our bishops and their authority, towards the theological authorities of our Russian Church, etc. As long as Fr. Neketas regards his opinions as the only permissible or Orthodox ones in the Church, and regards with suspicion (which he spreads to others) all those who disagree with these opinions, there will be conflict. Fr. Herman’s letter (and Fr. Alexey’s) is a challenge to Fr. Neketas to change his attitude and accept the rest of us (including the bishops with whom he disagrees) as equally Orthodox. It goes without saying that he will also have to accept and live with the decisions of our bishops on church matters. If they are no authority for him, he will not long remain in our Church.

Until such time as Fr. Neketas reveals a basic change in his attitude, the rest of us will continue to grieve over the kind of Orthodoxy he is preaching, which drives some people away from the Church and makes others into something near a kind of sect. None of us wish to be identified with this kind of Orthodoxy.

In your letter you mention the “disaster” which could occur because of this division in the Church. We ourselves have felt for some time that Fr. Neketas and others who share his attitude are heading straight for a schism, which now seems almost inevitable if he does not change his direction. Such a schism nobody needs; there are so many groups of “correct” Orthodox in Greece now (none in communion with the others) that a new group will only prove the devil’s power to divide Orthodox Christians. There is something terribly wrong in this attitude, but we ourselves are powerless to change it (Fr. Neketas simply won’t listen to what we and others have tried to tell him). I would wish Fr. Neketas and others would take to heart the humble confession of Bishop Kallistos of Corinth (whom Fr. Neketas praised to the skies in his bulletin some years back, when he was still a Mathewite); when asked recently why he has left the Mathewites and joined the “moderate” group of Old Calendarists (together with Bishop Kyprian of Athens and others), he replied simply: “I used to be a fanatic, but by the prayers of my elder I was delivered from this.” If you ask Fr. Neketas about him now, I suspect you will hear that he has become “senile.” If so, that is another part of an attitude which cries out for correction. When there is evidence of this correction, there will be peace in our Church.

Asking your prayers,

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

July 19/Aug 1, 1980

July 19/Aug. 1, 1980

St. Seraphim of Sarov

Dear John,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you.

It was good to hear from you at such length. I will answer your questions as well as I can in the little time I have:

Regarding Dr. [Stephen] Reynolds: no, we had not invited him to speak at our Pilgrimage nor did we put him on the program. Our talks are on practical Orthodoxy rather than on an academic level and he would be out of place as a speaker.

The One Thing Needful was printed privately (and rather expensively)—I think its $8 per small volume), but we will be reprinting it soon at a more accessible price.

I was glad to hear of your reconciliation with Fr. George and your receiving of the Holy Gifts. It goes without saying that to lead a fruitful Christian life you should be reconciled with everyone for whom you may have any bad feelings.

However, in connection with the recent “open letters” I would caution you not to accept all that Frs. George and Neketas tell you about the Church situation. The present tension between us is indeed a deep one and is over the basic point (as Bishop Nektary explained it to us two days ago): These and other Greek priests have come to our Russian Church Abroad thinking they will teach our bishops and people what Orthodoxy is. On a number of points their interpretations are not in harmony with those of our bishops and theologians; this is bad enough, but they further insist that the views of our Russian Church Abroad are wrong and must be corrected. This is arrogant, proud, and can have no possible outcome but schism, for which Fr. Neketas has been preparing his people for some years now (“When the crunch comes and we have to separate from the Russians”). If you trust their interpretations of the Orthodox Church situation today, you will be cut off from the rest of us in the Russian Church Abroad and will end in an Orthodox “sect” with them. If you will ask Vladika Nektary’s frank opinion about this subject, I think you will get the same answer (if he will speak frankly to you).

Regarding your more specific questions:

1. Has Deacon Lev been forbidden to preach and publish? This is what we were informed by our two bishops by word of mouth. Both bishops thanked Fr. Herman for his “open letter” without mentioning that it was inaccurate (although now Bishop Nektary says he isn’t sure of the details, since he wasn’t at the Synod himself), and Bishop Laurus of Jordanville, in his own letter of thanks to Fr. Herman, said that “your open letter is correct, both in content and tone? Whether the original decision of the bishops was toned down, or whether the prohibition concerns only the subject of life after death, I cannot say. I do know that the bishops were extremely upset with Fr. Lev’s articles and laid a prohibition of some kind on him because of them. Fr. George Macris has written Fr. Herman that the letter from the Synod to Fr. Lev accused Fr. Lev of “heresy” in his articles and took “our side” entirely, for which Fr. George blames us. We have not seen this letter from the Synod, but the petition to the Synod to discuss this question came not from us but from another priest quite independently, and the hostility of the bishops to Fr. Lev’s articles has nothing to do with us. These articles, by the way, were really quite outrageous, both in content and tone, and scandalized many (one bishop travelled to San Francisco and told our Archbishop Anthony that he has a “heretic” publishing in his diocese), and it was certainly quite right for the Synod to prohibit their continuation. I have sent you separately our new book, The Soul After Death, where the last appendix constitutes my own “Answer” to Deacon Lev on the issues involved there. That Fr. Neketas offers not one word of apology for printing these articles (at least for their crude and disrespectful tone if not for their content) seems to indicate the depth of the hostility he has for what he regards as the “Russian” teaching on these questions (a teaching which, however, is actually almost entirely derived from Greek sources).

2. Is Fr. Dimitry Dudko an ecumenist or not? This is a “red herring” if there ever was one. Call someone an “ecumenist,” and say it loud enough, and you will frighten people away for sure! I’m enclosing Fr. Roman Lukianov’s answer to Fr. Neketas and Fr. George on this question. Read Fr. Dimitry’s books and articles yourself and surely you won’t be able to accuse him of this.

But the real source of disagreement between Seattle-Boston and the rest of us (“Platina” is only a small part of the other side) is not particular opinions on whether Fr. Dimitry is an ecumenist—it is the tone with which they push their opinions, spreading distrust and suspicion of everyone but their own group, indulging in name-calling and innuendo, cleverly telling only half the truth to make themselves look better. For example, Fr. Neketas’ “open letter” clings to a technical point: was Deacon Lev forbidden to speak on all subjects or not? But he does not tell the truth that he was indeed forbidden to speak at least on life after death. This is dishonesty, not telling the truth; but in their eyes it is justified because the purpose of the letter is not to tell the whole truth, but to discredit Fr. Herman. Fr. Neketas’ letter asks the question: does Fr. Herman perhaps believe that Roman Catholics have grace? He has nothing to base this on (the evidence against it in numerous statements in The Orthodox Word is clear enough)— but his purpose is not to tell the truth, but to place doubts in his readers about Fr. Herman. Again, in Fr. Neketas’ letter one cannot but note the glee with which he reports Fr. Dimitry’s “retraction.” Simple decency would have dictated a refusal to take advantage of this unfortunate event, which should cause us to pray for and sympathize with this poor man, apparently broken in his sense of mission (but not in his Christianity). But not only does he gloat over it, he deliberately rubs it in by quoting some Western news services (which at times can be so notoriously insensitive and inaccurate, as Fr. Neketas surely knows) who said Fr. Dimitry was “cheerful” and the like. This is playing dirty; and when one considers that Fr. Neketas omitted quoting other Western news reports which said just the opposite—that Fr. Dimitry was obviously “nervous and ill at ease”— it again adds up to dishonesty: the aim is not to tell the truth, but to discredit Fr. Dimitry. Such innuendo and half-truth should have no part in the Church, in polemics and otherwise.

As for name-calling, Fr. Neketas in his open letter defends his statement that the editors of The Orthodox Word and Nikodemos are “unprincipled an irresponsible” for stating that Fr. Dimitry is well-disposed to the Catacomb Church and that he is not an ecumenist. Honest people do not use words like “unprincipled and irresponsible” with regard to differences of opinion like this; their intent is only to discredit, not to speak the truth.

Fr. George Macris, in his recent letter to Fr. Herman, has now called him an “ecumenist” also (or rather, someone with the “venom of ecumenism” in him). This would be ludicrous if it were not so tragic. These people are forming a sect which is far from the spirit of Orthodoxy which brought me, you, and many others to the Church. It is the “political expediency” of this sect which blinds them to the dishonesty and unfairness of their accusations and condemnations of others.

Both of our bishops blessed Fr. Herman’s decision not to attend the Seattle conference. Two days ago, in a long talk with Vladika Nektary, we asked him again: was this right? He answered: it was right, and he himself would not have attended save out of obedience for the sake of “peace.” Bishop Laurus also withdrew the Jordanville speaker from the conference, although without any statement about it. Our purpose is simply to let it be known that we separate ourselves from this kind of wrong Orthodox spirit. When Fr. Neketas and others change their attitude and cease their unfair criticisms, judgments, innuendos, slanders, and this whole so-unorthodox technique which they use to spread their views—then there will be peace between us. Frankly, we have given up; they don’t want peace, and they won’t stop their technique. They have become too politically involved in it. I hope I’m wrong.

To touch on another point: those who regard Fr. Dimitry Dudko simply as an “enemy of the regime have certainly missed the point about him. His words on the spiritual crisis of our times, and the need to start being Orthodox Christians right here and now, no matter what the circumstances, are a message we all need. His writings are most inspiring and helpful for us poor strugglers today, and it is tragic that many who could benefit from him may now turn away from his writings because of the “red herring” about him. As for his relation to the Moscow Patriarchate: if you don’t understand it with your heart (as all our Russian clergy have indeed done), then I suppose it will have to be explained in detail. Give us time and we will try. Unfortunately, there is so much calculation and so little heart in so much of our “correct” Orthodoxy today. May God preserve us all!

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. This is a private letter. Please do not show it to Fr. George, Fr. Neketas, or anyone close to them, or else it will be sent all over the world as some kind of evidence against me and added to the “file” on their enemies. I have obviously spoken very frankly to you in trust, and I would certainly not use this kind of language when talking to them or to a wide audience.

Aug 5/18, 1980

August 5/18, 1980

St. Eusignius

Dear Rev. [Marion J. (Symeon)] Cardoza,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you.

I have received your second letter and am very touched by the urgency of your appeal to find the true roots of Christianity. Please forgive my delay in answering your first letter; we have been very busy these past few weeks with a pilgrimage here to our monastery.

May God reward your search for true Orthodoxy. I myself found it twenty years ago after a fruitless wandering in oriental religions, and I have never doubted that this is the true Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ.

The pitfalls in the way of finding and becoming one with Christ s Church are many, as you yourself have already realized. I myself believe that if one is absolutely sincere and truthful, and will beware of trusting his own opinions and feelings, God will grant him to find His Church.

I will be in Santa Cruz over the Labor Day weekend to give a talk at a Russian-language religious conference there, and I would be very happy to meet with you then, and with members of your community if you wish. I do not yet know my schedule that weekend, but if you can tell me when you might be free, I am sure we can arrange a meeting.

We are sending you separately a few more Orthodox publications. Please pray to God that he might make our meeting fruitful.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Aug 5/18, 1980

Aug. 5/18, 1980B

Hieromartyr Fabian of Rome

Dear Michael,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

Thank you for your long and informative letter on the Seattle conference and your own ideas on Fr. Dimitry Dudko. We were not at all offended by anything you wrote there; in our opinion it is quite possible to have differences of opinion on such subjects and still be of basically one mind in the Orthodox Faith which we share.

Our difference with Fr. Neketas, therefore, is not primarily on such particular points as whether Fr. Dimitry Dudko is a “ecumenist” or what our precise attitude should be with regard to the Moscow Patriarchate. The basic problem, I think, is that Fr. Neketas (and whoever else thinks as he does) thinks and publicly states that only his opinion is acceptable and Orthodox, and if you disagree with him you are not quite Orthodox or (even more strongly) you are “unprincipled and irresponsible” (a charge which, in his open letter to Fr. Herman, he not only does not apologize for, but even repeats more strongly). Where this attitude prevails, there can hardly be peace in the Church, and the unity in confession of the Orthodox Faith beings to crumble. This attitude we cannot help but protest against; I believe it can only end in some form of sectarianism, dividing one from one’s brothers in the faith who in all sincerity disagree over such matters of personal opinion.

The whole question of the Moscow Patriarchate is, I think, a little more subtle’ and complex than the position you have set forth (either the Patriarchate or the Catacomb Church). We will be publishing in The Orthodox Word some texts from and about the Catacomb Church which I hope will make this a little clearer. In the meantime, we are sending you Fr. Roman Lukianovs open letter to Frs. Neketas Palassis and George Macris, which sets forth rather well the thinking of our bishops and clergy of the Russian Church Abroad on this subject (although, of course, it is not a complete view of the subject). We ourselves do pray at the Liturgy for Metropolitan Theodosius (assuming he is still alive), but I can understand why our bishops would rather not make an official proclamation about this. It is also possible to make a false idealization of the Catacomb Church; they also have their weaknesses underground, and the “answer” to this question will hardly come before the fall of the Communist regime and the restoration of some kind of normality to [the] Russian Church situation.

Another point: on Fr. Dimitry Dudko, on Blessed Augustine, and on numerous other subjects, a disturbing thing to us (and to many) is that Fr. Neketas and those with him are not very traditional in their thinking—i.e., their opinions are formed not as handed down by their fathers in the Faith (whom they consider hopelessly deformed by “Western” or “Catholic influence”), but by a group of them thinking it out, researching it, looking it up in ancient books, etc. This isn’t the way the Faith has been handed down in the past. To take an example: the place to look for the Church’s opinion on Blessed Augustine, I think, is not the official calendars of saints (which have always been very incomplete, and still are), but the actual opinions of Orthodox Fathers. This is what I tried to do in my article on Blessed Augustine, and I think the opinion set forth there will stand no matter how many “ancient calendars” Bl. Augustine fails to appear on. Similarly, the Church’s teaching should not have to be “looked up” in theological dictionaries, as Fr. Neketas states he did, and the concept of “toll-houses” is not discredited merely because this word appears only a few times in such dictionaries; if one is going to discuss this issue, he should surely have its basic outlines in mind before he looks up any specific references to it, and should be able to recall some of the numerous references in the Philokalia and other such books, which often discuss the reality without mentioning the word. I hate to think that our rich Orthodox theological tradition is now going to have to pass through the spectacles of such abstract “scholars,” whose “research” only proves they aren’t too much at home in the subject to begin with.

A final point: what Fr. Neketas is doing, I think, is not so much “fanaticism” as what should be called “correctness disease”: basing his Orthodoxy on formally “correct” statements without taking into consideration the whole context of these statements. I personally think that one of the aspects of Antichrist’s rule will be such formal “correctness” (probably even his “icons” will be in good Byzantine style!) but without the heart of Orthodoxy—love, compassion, self-distrust, humility, Christ Himself. All these “definitions” Fr. Neketas would like to make about the church situation today and the people in it are not what we need in the face of the frightful worldliness and indifference to Christ which is so strong in our midst. Our bishops do give us basic direction (don’t participate in the WCC, no direct communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, etc.), but placing so many dots over is and crossing so many t’s—I think does more harm than good. In the present case, it has certainly stirred up a lot of disturbance in the Church (our own two bishops and Vladika Laurus approved Fr. Herman’s letter to Fr. Neketas and thanked him for it, as did a number of priests, and Vladika Laurus also withdrew his monastery’s lecturer at the conference).

We just finished a very successful Pilgrimage and courses, with seven baptisms of adult catechumens and much interest shown in the lectures and courses. The atmosphere in favor of Orthodoxy has changed greatly in recent years. May God grant us to be able to give what these seekers need!

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. Enclosed is a petition drawn up after one of the talks at our Pilgrimage. You can gather signatures yourself if you want, and send them to the Synod (75 East 93rd St., N.Y.C., 10029).

P.p.s. Another difference we have with Fr. Neketas: we think issues like the “Shroud of Turin” should be freely discussed in the Church press, with pro’s and con’s weighed and individual Orthodox Christians free to think and act about it as they wish. But Fr. Neketas wants to suppress any discussion of it, since it’s “obviously a demonic fraud,” and anyone who discusses it openly or sympathetically is considered “Roman Catholic.” I think this is hopelessly narrow and unnecessary and smells a little of “papalism.”

P.p.s.s. We haven’t seen the latest Orthodox Monitor, but of course do not sympathize with concelebrations with the Metropolia, etc. Sadly, there is a “reaction to the left” going on among such of our clergy owing to the “over-rightness” of Fr. Neketas and a few others. Neither bodes well for the future. How difficult it is to stay on the “middle, royal path.”

Sept 3/16, 1980

Sept. 3/16, 1980

Hieromartyr Anthimus

Dear John [Hudanish],

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

A few words on a point or two of your recent letter; I was rather disappointed that you didn’t appreciate Fr. Roman’s letter. I read it again after reading your letter, and it’s obvious to me that his letter comes from the heart and was written with suffering and compassion, and certainly with no bad feelings (he is known to be probably the closest of our Russian priests to Fr. Panteleimon, and certainly has no “anti-Greek” feelings). If there are one or two phrases you may have interpreted as “sarcastic,” they are certainly outweighed by the heartfelt sincerity of the letter as a whole. In any case, you should certainly not be judging Fr. Roman for “pride,” especially on the basis of a single word (and that from a person who is obviously not at home in the English language!). This temptation to make too-quick judgments of others is one into which we all fall, but that’s where we have to fight our first impulses and try to correct ourselves. In actual fact Fr. Roman is a very humble, simple man, and he would never even have spoken out on such an issue if he did not feel something very wrong in the Witness attack on Fr. Dimitry Dudko. If even he speaks out, you can be sure that many of our silent bishops and priests are also disturbed (as indeed we know).

Fr. Roman uses a very good phrase in his letter (which I don’t interpret as sarcastic at all): “theological microscope.” That is what you are using in your reflections on Fr. Dimitry Dudko. To make him into an “ecumenist” because his Patriarch gives communion to Roman Catholics is certainly theological nit-picking.

Firstly, to give communion to Roman Catholics is surely an anti-canonical act, but in itself it does not constitute a “heresy” that deprives a whole Church of the grace of God and makes everyone in the Church a “heretic”—that is Jesuit thinking, not Orthodox. You can ask your own bishop what he things about that. Because we defend Fr. Dimitry does not in the least mean we defend this anti- canonical practice or approve of his Patriarchate; those are not the issues at all. Here we are in agreement with Fr. Neketas.

Secondly, this anti-canonical act is only one of many disorders in the Moscow Patriarchate, the worst of which is its acceptance of the dictation of the atheist authorities as a matter of principle (this is “Sergianism”). It is for this reason that our Church has no communion with Moscow. But our Church recognizes this as a temporary situation which will end when the Communist regime comes to an end. Until that time we refrain from judging the Church situation there; we simply stay clear of the Moscow Patriarchate and have no communion with it.

Thirdly, our attitude towards Fr. Dimitry does not mean the acceptance of any views of his which may be mistaken, nor does it mean that we are in formal communion with him. We simply recognize him as a voice of the true Orthodox spirit which is so lacking in our world today, and even in most of our own church circles; his voice is a pledge that our lack of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate is only a temporary thing, because the Orthodoxy of someone like Fr. Dimitry is one with our own.

Fourthly, there is the question: Why does Fr. Dimitry not leave the Patriarchate and join the Catacomb Church? He has been criticized for saying he must stick with the Patriarchate because “that is what has been given us.” But did you ever think, realistically, about his alternatives?

(a) The Catacomb Church by its very nature is hidden and never reveals itself to outsiders, especially to such famous ones as Fr. Dimitry. It not only does not seek converts, it positively runs away from them, knowing the chances of being found out by KGB agents.

(b) To “join the Catacomb Church” Fr. Dimitry would surely want to meet some of its bishops and clergy and find out their real position on Church matters as opposed to hearsay opinions (would you join a Church or jurisdiction you knew only by hearsay?). This is virtually impossible under Soviet conditions. And there are many questions one would want to ask the Catacomb hierarchs before actually placing oneself under obedience to them: are the rumors that there are “sectarian” elements in their outlook true or false? Are the rumors true that they place “Russia” above “Orthodoxy”? etc. Wouldn’t you want these things cleared up before you joined such a Church? The point here is: the matter is by no means simple.

(c) Even if he could find the Catacomb Church and talk to its bishops, the decision to join it immediately puts an end to his activity, since this Church is totally illegal and all known members are instantly arrested. If you say that he should be ready to suffer this, then you should say the same thing about the clergy and laymen of the Catacomb Church—why don’t they “confess” their faith and be arrested instead of hiding in the catacombs and not making their faith available to all?

For these and other reasons it is totally unrealistic to expect Fr. Dimitry to “join the Catacomb Church” (if he did, glory to God, it would be a big message for all; but we can’t expect or demand it). This is not to say that we “recognize” the Moscow Patriarchate or deny the witness of the Catacomb Church; it is only to look at church matters in Russia realistically and compassionately. The Orthodox picture of the Russian Church situation today does not exactly correspond to the jurisdictional picture. Fr. Neketas and others, by trying to limit our view to the jurisdictional picture, and prove everyone a “heretic” who doesn’t belong to our jurisdiction, in my opinion are doing a disservice to the Orthodox Church and leading people in the direction of a sectarian outlook, away from the Orthodox outlook.

There are other aspects I could discuss, but no time for now. I will be seeing you soon.

With love in Christ,

P.s. I have just learned, from a seemingly reliable source, that one of the chief reasons Metr. Nikodim was “demoted” in the hierarchy of the Soviet Church in the early 1970’s (the official reason was his health), was precisely because he had given communion to Roman Catholics in Rome at the Russicum, and the conservative hierarchs of the Patriarchate had enough courage to protest against it. This “proves” nothing, of course, but it certainly shows that church life in Russia is by no means simple and our judgments about it should take into consideration the many facets of it and not just the narrow letter of the law.

Another thought: all these arguments pro and con Fr. Dimitry would be so unnecessary if only people would read his books with an open heart. His words are such a breath of fresh air for people today, especially (I think) people like you who find it difficult to read other basic books like Unseen Warfare—he speaks right to the heart of today’s people, both in Russia and outside. We had hoped to be able to print a translation of his Sunday Talks (printed in Russian by Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal), but Vladika tells us that he is having a translation printed in Washington. You should get it and read it.

Oct 14/27, 1980

Oct. 14/27, 1980

Elder Nazarius of Sarov

Dear Father Photios,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

Thank you very much for the invitation of the Orthodox Conference to be a speaker at the 1981 Conference in Pennsylvania. I am honored and grateful.

However, next summer will be a very busy one for me. At just about the same time as the Pennsylvania Conference, I will be giving a talk at the Russian-language Conference of our Church in San Francisco, and right after that will be the preparations for our local St. Herman Pilgrimage, for which I have to prepare both a talk and a whole course.

Therefore, please forgive me, but I must respectfully decline the invitation to speak at the Pennsylvania Conference.

You mentioned in your letter the “misunderstandings” which have arisen within our Russian Church Abroad. I have been watching the development of this process for a good eight years now, and I regret to say that, in my opinion, the divergence has now become so deep that no mere meeting at a summer conference is going to change things a bit. Representatives of both “sides” (or those who might be identified as such) could meet and be polite to each other, but the actual differences are too deep and subtle to be discussed” with any profit. The underlying issue, I think, is one of trust vs. distrust of our Russian Orthodox Church and tradition. But to name only one specific difference: Since Fr. Panteleimon will be present at the Conference, it is obvious that no public prayers will be offered for Fr. Dimitry Dudko, Fr. Gleb Yakunin, and other suffering and imprisoned clergy who, while officially in the Moscow Patriarchate, by their statements and actions are (as Bishop Gregory has written) “our brothers in one and the same Church.” To be frank, I would be very uneasy and troubled to participate in services at which I knew that such prayer could not be offered and warm defense and support of these clergy could not be given without making one a cause of “controversy” and even disrupting the “peace and harmony” of the Conference. This is in spite of the fact that the English-speaking people in our Synod, in my experience, are very well disposed to give such prayer and support—until they are told by someone in an apparently responsible position that such persons are “heretics” and can’t be prayed for. I don’t see any easy answer to this problem, but I do see how the lack of prayers offered for our suffering brothers cripples us.

But that is between us. I really will be very busy this summer and will barely be able to keep up with the obligations I already have.

We will be glad to send you information and photos of our monastery, as well as samples of our publications, for your display; please tell us what is needed and we will send it.

Asking for your prayers,

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Oct 14/27, 1980

Oct. 14/27, 1980B

Elder Nazarius of Sarov

Dear Father Demetrios,

Christ is in our midst!

I have just written Fr. Photios, declining the invitation to speak at the 1981 Conference, I know that this will be a disappointment to you, but I hope that you will be able to understand my feelings and will not judge me.

Officially, I am declining because I will be too busy next summer. This is certainly true, because I have been committed for a long time to give a talk at the Russian Conference of our Church in San Francisco in July, and the preparations for my talk and course at our own summer St. Herman Pilgrimage always take me much time also.

But just between us, I would like to say something more: I believe you had hopes that the Pennsylvania Conference could be an opportunity for reconciling the differences between our Greek- Americans and those of us who are increasingly disturbed and offended by their actions and statements. I would love to be able to help in such a reconciliation, but I am powerless: I could go to the Conference, be polite to Fr. Panteleimon and his followers (or even express my opinion frankly to him in private—it would make no difference), and leave with absolutely nothing changed. Whatever the present “disagreement” might be (for example, the question of Fr. Dimitry Dudko), the underlying causes are much deeper.

These causes, as I see it, are two (or rather, one cause with two sides): (1) A deep distrust on the part of our Greek-Americans in the Orthodoxy of our Russian Church Abroad—both the Orthodoxy of our present-day bishops and theologians, and the whole Orthodox tradition of which they are the inheritors; and (2) the formation of a clique, centering around Fr. Panteleimon, of Greeks and Americans (and a very few Russians under their influence) who think they “know better” than our Russian Church what Orthodoxy is, and are determined to make their “superior knowledge” prevail in our Church or else leave it as “apostate.”

The answer to this situation, I believe, can only be one: Fr. Panteleimon and his followers must really and deeply begin to trust themselves less and the Russian Church more. If and when they can do this, the disagreements in the Church which have been caused by their attitude will disappear almost by themselves.

I personally feel that one of the present disagreements which has been caused by their attitude (the disagreement over Fr. Dimitry Dudko) is of such a magnitude that my participating in the Conference, knowing that public prayer for Fr. Dimitry and his fellow sufferers in the Moscow Patriarchate (whom Bishop Gregory calls “our brothers in one and the same Church”) could not be offered publicly, and open support for and defense of them could not be given (as long as Fr. Panteleimon is there)—would be a betrayal of Orthodoxy on my part. I would be turning my back on my suffering Orthodox brothers and telling others not to pray for them, while justifying the pharisaic “correctness” that is spreading like a disease among us. And this is only one of the many disagreements that will be occurring in the months ahead as Fr. Panteleimon and his followers try to impose their idea of Orthodoxy on the rest of us.

The presence of Deacon Lev Puhalo as a speaker at the Conference would be another reason why I would wish not to attend, so as not to support in any way either his publicly-proclaimed errors, his attempt to “modernize” and “renovate” our Orthodoxy, or his crude disrespect towards the Orthodox tradition which has come down to us—all with the approval of Fr. Panteleimon and other Greek- Americans.

Theoretically, some of the present “disagreements” in the Church could be removed by a public apology and disavowal of their statements by Deacon Lev, Fr. Neketas Palassis, and Fr. Panteleimon. I would be very surprised but encouraged to see such statements, but I wonder if even this would touch the underlying problem? Nevertheless, let us see such disavowals and then we can hope for reconciliation. Until then, I hope you will be patient and understanding if some of us stay far away from what is happening.

I look with pain and sadness on this whole situation, which I have tried to describe as I see it; but as I have said, I am powerless to do anything about it. I could be persuaded to be as friendly as you like with Fr. Panteleimon or anyone else, but it would not change anything. Our Brotherhood was extremely friendly to Fr. Panteleimon and all our Greek-Americans even from before the day they entered our Church, and when we saw the emerging “disagreements” eight years ago we tried our best to make them see the “other side.” The result was only, at first, a total silence and evident unwillingness to listen, and finally, a “stab in the back” for a reward of our long support of them. The inevitable schism which they are now preparing (if they don’t change soon) will be the last step in a process which only they can change.

Please forgive me if I seem discouraging or pessimistic, and also please don’t think that I judge you in your own position, especially with regard to the Conference, where of course you must take into consideration all different points of view and not go “against the current.” I certainly believe you are one of those who will be faithful to our Russian Church Abroad when and if (God forbid!) our Greek-Americans create their schism, and I also believe that there will be more priests faithful to our Church than some may think would be the case. May God preserve us all in these difficult times! (But really, it was no better in ancient times!)

To return to the Conference: I see with sadness that it was unrealistic of me to hope that it could be “above parties and politics” and would be representative of the whole of our Church and not just the loudest English-language clique. But still, do you really have to be silent about the suffering Russian Church, of which, after all, we are a part? The struggle of Fr. Dimitry, Fr. Gleb Yakunin, and their fellow-strugglers, strikes such a responsive chord in all of us who are not being “jammed” by Fr. Panteleimon’s opinions, that the 1981 Conference will seem pale and academic without active interest and support shown for it. Fr. Victor Potapov, I am sure, would be glad to speak on this subject—but if Fr. Panteleimon is going to criticize and “correct” and neutralize his talk, then of course it would be pointless. Must so much of our Church be under the dictatorship of one man and his clique, who are becoming more and more out of contact with the best of living Orthodoxy today?;

The starving, suffering Orthodox in Uganda (see the next Orthodox Word and Orthodox America) would be another natural subject for the Conference to be concerned about, if it is to be more than academic. But I somehow think even this would be a “forbidden” subject, since they are “new calendarists.” One of our priests under Fr. Panteleimon’s influence wrote us after one of our appeals for them, doubting that he should send they money for clothes, because their Orthodoxy might not be “pure.” How can we combat this cold-hearted elitism?

Please forgive me if I have been too frank or too pessimistic. Actually, deep down I do hope that we will “suffer through” this whole problem and that the deeper heart of our Church will make itself known in the end.

Please continue to remember our Brotherhood in your prayers, as we remember you. I will be glad to hear your comments. I told Fr. Photios that we would be glad to send information and photos of our monastery for a display, and also our publications—just tell us what to send.

With love in Christ,

P.s. I am trusting you that a copy of this letter will not go into Fr. Panteleimon’s “files”! These “files” smell like “KGB” to many of us!

Nov 14/27, 1980

Nov. 14/27, 1980

Apostle Philip—Thanksgiving Day

Dear Anna, Catechumen,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

I was happy to receive your letter—happy not because you are confused about the question that troubles you, but because your attitude reveals that in the truth of Orthodoxy to which you are drawn you wish to find room also for a loving, compassionate attitude to those outside the Orthodox faith.

I firmly believe that this is indeed what Orthodoxy teaches.

I agree with you that the Greeks in our Synod (who are only a small, but a noisy minority in our Church) express themselves sometimes with unnecessary harshness towards the non-Orthodox, and even (in some cases) towards the Orthodox! The article on Father Dimitry Dudko in our latest Orthodox Word is an attempt to give an Orthodox answer to this harsh attitude—especially the section “Is Fr. Dimitry an Ecumenist and a Heretic?”

I will set forth briefly what I believe to be the Orthodox attitude towards non-Orthodox Christians.

[1.] Orthodoxy is the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of mankind, and therefore we should guard with our life the purity of its teaching and our own faithfulness to it. In the Orthodox Church alone is grace given through the sacraments (most other churches don’t even claim [to] have sacraments in any serious sense). The Orthodox Church alone is the Body of Christ, and if salvation is difficult enough within the Orthodox Church, how much more difficult must it be outside the Church!

[2.] However, it is not for us to define the state of those who are outside the Orthodox Church. If God wishes to grant salvation to some who are Christians in the best way they know, but without ever knowing the Orthodox Church—that is up to Him, not us. But when He does this, it is outside the normal way that He established for salvation—which is in the Church, as a part of the Body of Christ. I myself can accept the experience of Protestants being “born again” in Christ; I have met people who have changed their lives entirely through meeting Christ, and I cannot deny their experience just because they are not Orthodox. I call these people “subjective” or “beginning” Christians. But until they are united to the Orthodox Church they cannot have the fullness of Christianity, they cannot be objectively Christian as belonging to the Body of Christ and receiving the grace of the sacraments. I think this is why there are so many sects among them—they begin the Christian life with a genuine experience of conversion to Christ, but they cannot continue the Christian life in the right way until they are united to the Orthodox Church, and they therefore substitute their own opinions and subjective experiences for the Church’s teaching and sacraments.

About those Christians who are outside the Orthodox Church, therefore, I would say: they do not yet have the full truth—perhaps it just hasn’t been revealed to them yet, or perhaps it is our fault for not living and teaching the Orthodox Faith in a way they can understand. With such people we cannot be one in the faith, but there is no reason why we should regard them as totally estranged or as equal to pagans (although we should not be hostile to pagans either—they also haven’t yet seen the truth!). It is true that many of the non-Orthodox hymns contain a teaching or at least an emphasis that is wrong—especially the idea that when one is “saved” he does not need to do anything more because Christ has done it all. This idea prevents people from seeing the truth of Orthodoxy which emphasizes the idea of struggling for one’s salvation even after Christ has given it to us, as St. Paul says: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” But almost all of the religious Christmas carols are all right, and they are sung by Orthodox Christians in America (some of them even in the strictest monasteries!).

The word “heretic” (as we say in our article on Father Dimitry Dudko) is indeed used too frequently nowadays. It has a definite meaning and function, to distinguish new teachings from the Orthodox teaching; but few of the non-Orthodox Christians today are consciously “heretics,” and it really does no good to call them that.

In the end, I think, Fr. Dimitry Dudko’s attitude is the correct one: We should view the non- Orthodox as people to whom Orthodoxy has not yet been revealed, as people who are potentially Orthodox (if only we ourselves would give them a better example!). There is no reason why we cannot call them Christians and be on good terms with them, recognize that we have at least our faith in Christ in common, and live in peace especially with our own families. St. Innocent’s attitude to the Roman Catholics in California is a good example for us. A harsh, polemical attitude is called for only when the non-Orthodox are trying to take away our flocks or change our teaching—as the Roman Catholics tried to do in western Russia in past centuries. This explains why some people even today continue this harsh tone.

As for prejudices—these belong to people, not the Church. Orthodoxy does not require you to accept any prejudices or opinions about other races, nations, etc.

As for your future spouse: the Church does allow marriage to non-Orthodox Christians who keep the basic Orthodox teachings (Catholics, Anglicans, etc.); but as a practical question, you should convert him! Otherwise there are inevitably conflicts, even under the best circumstances; but when both parents are Orthodox and the children see their parents agreed on the Faith, it is the best possible atmosphere for raising good Christian children.

I hope this has answer your questions; if you have any more, or need more explanation of these questions, please write. I think Fr. Dimitry Dudko s book Our Hope sets forth these questions very well, and perhaps even your family and friends would benefit by reading it.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. Will we be seeing you at our winter Pilgrimage in Redding (Feb. 14-15?).

Nov 22/Dec 5, 1980

Nov. 22/Dec. 5, 1980

Apostle Philemon

Your Grace, Dear Vladika Gregory,

Blagoslovite!

Thank you very much for your letter of Nov. 9/22. Please be assured that I have no intention of replying to Deacon Levs “Open Letter,” which I regard more as a “provocation” than as a serious attempt to deal with theological issues. To the few priests who have inquired, I have replied that my “answer” is already contained in Appendix 4 of The Soul After Death, and I intend to say nothing further on the subject.

In my opinion, the intention of Deacon Lev is not really to show how “scholastic,” “origenistic,” etc. is the teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church on life after death; that seems incidental to a larger attempt to discredit the authority of the Russian Church in general and to establish himself (and his circle of fellow “theologians”) as the authorities on all aspects of Orthodox teaching. His teaching on life after death goes hand in hand with his declaration that Blessed Augustine is a “heretic,” that the catechism of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow must by thrown out or “revised” by todays “experts,” etc. I think it is rather unimportant to refute individual details of Fr. Levs teaching (where truths, half-truths, and falsities are all mixed up together), but that it is sufficient to point out his un-Orthodox tone and intent. Unfortunately, this same tone and intent are being promoted in our Church (although not usually so brazenly) by Fr. Panteleimon of Boston, Fr. Neketas Palassis, and a few others of our “Greek wing,” who form almost an independent “jurisdiction” within our Russian Church Abroad and do not seem to accept the authority of the Russian Church. Some of the followers of this group have been talking as if they wished to create a schism from our Church, telling unsuspecting people that our bishops are “betraying” them by being “ecumenists,” “Augustinians,” etc. It is among people of this over-simplified, primitive mentality that Fr. Lev finds support for his own new teachings.

Despite the loud noise and disturbance made by these people, I believe their influence is much less than it might seem, and it is decreasing with each loud statement they make (such as Fr. Levs “open letter,” Fr. Neketas’ attack on Fr. Dimitry Dudko, etc.). If there is a schism, I am sure it will involve only a few of our clergy, mostly Greeks. The “silent majority” of the clergy of our Church, both Russians and converts, will certainly not follow them. And all of us, I am sure, with the exception of a few of the Greeks, will be most grateful and relieved if the bishops put an end to Fr. Levs outrageous “theologizing.”

If I may be permitted another comment, I would like to remark on the English-language Conferences of our Church, held every summer. The “tone” of these Conferences seems to be set by Fr. Panteleimon and his circle, with the result that, while there do seem to be some good lectures at them, there is present in general a spirit of criticism of our Russian theological tradition, of theological “expertness” and “revisionism” which does not at all reflect the spirit of our Russian Church Abroad but seems to be an intrusion from outside—another reflection of the “jurisdiction within a jurisdiction” that is causing such problems now and which, I think, is what really produced Fr. Levs “theology.” From several who attended the Seattle Conference last year, for example, I heard that in the discussions there the “Augustine is a heretic” theme was quite emphasized, and this is only one of the subjects which helps to undermine the authority of our own bishops and our theological tradition.

In the 1981 Conference in Pennsylvania I notice that Dr. Kalomiros will be speaking on “The Creation of Man and the World,” and I greatly fear that his talk and his very presence will only promote the spirit of “criticism” which is poisoning our Church so much. I myself had a lengthy correspondence with Dr. Kalomiros some years ago on the subject of “creation and evolution,” and I discovered to my astonishment that he is an adherent of the most naive kind of evolutionism (he wrote that Adam could well have had the face of an ape, because he was at first an ape-like creature to whom God gave His Spirit!), and that he is most doctrinaire and arrogant in upholding his opinions (he refused to discuss any scientific evidence with me because I have no doctor’s degree in science, and when I criticized some of his opinions and showed that some of his scientific “evidence” is outdated and is no longer accepted even by evolutionary textbooks in the West, he broke off the correspondence with me.) Dr. Kalomiros’ opinions on creation have been greatly criticized by conservative clergy in Greece, and theologically, in his correspondence with me, he had very shaky and superficial grounds for upholding his scientific evolutionism. In addition, Dr. Kalomiros has now made himself notorious in Greece for starting his own schism from the Old Calendarists over the issue of the Icon of the Trinity showing God the Father as an old man—he insists the icon is heretical and justifies the breaking of communion with those who venerate or even tolerate it. Will not his presence at a Conference of our Church further promote the spirit of criticism and even schism in our midst? Can’t we somehow begin to shake off this foreign influence in our Church and get back to our organic ties with the Russian theological past and with the suffering Russia of today? I assure you that I am not the only one to be concerned over this matter; the majority of our young American clergy, I am sure, will be glad to return to the solid roots of our Church and shake off the Western spirit of criticism which Fr. Panteleimon, Fr. Neketas, Fr. Lev, and a few others are trying to pass off as Orthodox.

Asking your prayers and blessing,

With love and respect in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Nov 23/Dec 6, 1980

Nov. 23/Dec. 6, 1980

St. Alexander Nevsky

Dear Father Demetrios,

Christ is in our midst!

Many, many thanks for your letter of concern over the latest outbreak of hostile feelings in our Church (Deacon Levs Open Letter). I certainly have no intention to reply to such a letter, which seems more like some kind of deliberate “provocation” than a serious or well-meaning approach to matters he disputes. To the few priests who have inquired about this, I have replied that I mean to say nothing more than I have already said in Appendix 4 of The Soul After Death. I wrote the same to Bishop Gregory, who wrote me recently thanking me for a copy of The Soul After Death and saying that he found it interesting.

I am sad to say that I think such attacks will probably get worse before they get better; the cause for attack seems to be incidental—our Greeks seem determined to prove at any cost that the rest of us are not really Orthodox, and Fr. Lev has eagerly joined their camp. This group is simply so narrow that they will not be satisfied until everyone agrees with their opinions or ar least is silent and allows their narrow views to prevail. If they get their way, the spirit of freedom and brotherly joy will disappear from our Church and be replaced by their narrow “party line,” and if anyone disagrees with it he will be squashed. How Western and rationalistic this is—and such a “Western captivity” is surely much worse than the one they accuse our whole Church of being in! I really don’t see how our Greeks will be able to avoid a schism in the end.

I sense a danger in one of the speakers at your summer conference also—Dr. Kalomiros. He has written many good things, but he is also very narrow. The last we heard he had created a schism (with a few of his followers) from the Old Calendarists of Greece over the question of the icon of the Holy Trinity showing the Father as an old man (the kind that Bishop Alypy and Fr. Kyprian paint): anyone who venerates or even tolerates it is apparently a “heretic”! (That’s also about what Fr. Lev says.) Dr. Kalomiros is also very immoderate in his pro-evolutionism, and in a talk on “creation” (or in a discussion afterwards) he is very likely to express some of his strange opinions, such as: Adam may well have looked like an ape, since he was born as an ape-like creature and only became “man” when God breathed His Spirit into this ape-like creature! (Conservative theologians in Greece regard him as a radical evolutionist.) Such opinions, like Fr. Lev’s ideas on life after death, only confuse people. The polemical tone with which they present their opinions is perhaps the most disturbing thing of all—it means that no discussion is possible with them.

I think you are right to address the Synod of Bishops directly with your appeal about Fr. Levs Open Letter. Some other priests have done this too. May our bishops give a clear and God-inspired word for the guidance of all!

Two weeks ago we opened up a small mission in Willits, Calif, (at Deacon Vladimir Anderson’s house). Glory be to God, we are able to do something in missionary work.

I hope that you do not find the disorders in the Church too discouraging. This is what we are to expect for our sins, and in the end God will draw good for us out of all this sad experience.

Please pray for us.

With low in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Nov 23/Dec. 6,1980

Nov. 23/Dec. 6, 1980B

St. Alexander Nevsky

Dear Brother in Christ, Constantine,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

Many thanks for your letter and the check for $50. Your renewal for The Orthodox Word has been recorded, and The Soul After Death and 1981 Calendar will be sent shortly. I am replying for Father Herman, who has had a short stay in the hospital—which, thanks to God, revealed nothing as seriously wrong as we had feared.

I was especially pleased with the copy of your letter to Fr. Neketas, which made the same attempt to speak from the heart more than the head that prompted our own “defense” of Fr. Dimitry Dudko. I don’t see how we can do anything else in our days, and I fear the future of the “Greek wing” of our Russian Church Abroad if they can’t see this. Sadly, our own attempts to communicate with Fr. Neketas have broken down completely; he simply will not listen to us, and his fellow priest in Portland is speaking openly of the “betrayal” of our bishops through their “ecumenism”; he wrote Fr. Herman that he has “ecumenical venom” in him also. They must surely change, or they will end in schism.

I appreciate especially your arguments on pp. 11-12 about Sergianism and about the possibility of passing from the enslaved part to the free part of the Russian Church—a point which seems impossible for the legalism of Fr. Neketas to understand, but which nicely expresses an undoubted fact. Thank you also for standing up for Holy Russia, which is so maligned nowadays!

My only criticism of the letter is your use of the term “materially heretical”: even if you can justify its use somehow defining this matter, it is still an unfortunate phrase to apply to one’s fellow Orthodox, and bur “heresy hunters” will not let it slip by them!

Regarding your remark as to how we can be not in communion with someone whom we commemorate at Proskomedia, I think the perplexity is more seeming than real. If we are in communion with Fr. Dimitry at the present time, it is only in a spiritual or even abstract sense that could not be realized in practice without a change in his own status. We could not concelebrate with him in Russia because of his commemoration of Pimen, and he could not concelebrate with us here (if he should come to the West) until he ceased commemorating Pimen (which I suppose is what he would indeed do—i.e., join our Church). Fr. Dimitry’s own remarks on “unity within division,” as baffling as they are to the legalistic mind, are the closest attempt I’ve seen to express this perplexity of the church situation of our times.

We had a very good visit with Fr. Roman at our Pilgrimage last summer, and his talk (which appears in our new Calendar and Orthodox Word) was inspiring to many. May God grant him many years, and give us more of such pastors!

Please remember us in your prayers.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. When you read The Soul After Death, Appendix 4 contains all my answer to Deacon Lev; I do not intend to enter into the polemics of his newest “open letter.”

Dec 7/20, 1980

St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood

Platina, California 96076

Dec. 7/20, 1980

St. Ambrose of Milan

Mrs. Irina Hay

Russian Research Center

Harvard University

1737 Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Dear Mrs. Hay,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

Thank you for your “open letter” of November 3 and your personal letter of November 4. I assure you that I found no reason for offense in either of them, and for me they are only the occasion for a friendly discussion of the teaching (at least one aspect of it) and the importance of two great hierarchs and theologians of 19th-century Russia—Theophan the Recluse and Ignatius Brianchaninov.

My comment on page 3 of The Soul After Death that Bishop Theophan was perhaps the “only rival” to Bishop Ignatius as a defender of Orthodoxy against modern errors was not meant to imply in any way that Bishop Theophan was inferior as a theologian or a patristic scholar; I merely had Bishop Ignatius as the center of my attention there, and Bishop Theophan thereby looks a little “smaller” in that context, which of course he was not in reality. In saying, in the same place, that Bishop Theophans defense of Orthodoxy was on a less “sophisticated” level than Bishop Ignatius’, I was also not implying any inferiority to Bishop Theophan, but only expressing what I believe to be the case: that Bishop Ignatius in general paid more attention to Western views and to combatting them in detail, whereas Bishop Theophan emphasizes more single-mindedly the handing down of the Orthodox tradition and only incidentally touched on the Western errors regarding it. I had in mind, for example, the contrast between Bishop Ignatius’ long defense and explanation of the toll-houses (which I cite on pp. 73ff of The Soul After Death), and Bishop Theophans laconic statement (the only one I know of where he criticized the Western skepticism with regard to this teaching) that “no matter how absurd the idea of the toll-houses may seem to our ‘wise men,’ they will not escape passing through them” (Psalm 118, p. 289). By speaking of the “sophisticated” level on which Bishop Ignatius wrote, I only meant to say that he was more concerned than Bishop Theophan to argue with the Western views on their own ground, while Bishop Theophan seemed more inclined to dismiss the Western views without much discussion. But perhaps this was not true in all cases.

Thus, I think that on the relative greatness of these two hierarchs there is no real disagreement between us. I certainly acknowledge Bishop Theophans greatness as a theologian and a patristic scholar, and my only reason for emphasizing Bishop Ignatius in The Soul After Death is that it was he and not Bishop Theophan who spoke in such detail against the Western errors with regard to the Orthodox teaching on life after death. I very much welcome your research on Bishop Theophan, whom I greatly respect and admire, and who unfortunately is not as appreciated as he should be today owing to the inclination of some people nowadays to view him rather naively as “scholastic” just because he translated some Western books or perhaps used some Western theological phrases.

Regarding the specific point of Bishop Theophans disagreement with Bishop Ignatius’ teaching: You are correct in the supposition expressed in your private letter to me that when I wrote of this disagreement on page 36 of The Soul After Death I had not read Bishop Theophans booklet Soul and Angel, which criticizes Bishop Ignatius’ teaching, and that my comments there were indeed based solely on Fr. Florovsky’s small reference to it. Having since been able to obtain and read Bishop Theophans booklet, I see that my comments there are not precise. You are, of course, correct that there was no “dispute” between the two, but only Bishop Theophans disagreement, expressed after the death of Bishop Ignatius. The point of disagreement was also not expressed precisely (as I will discuss below). The main question you raise, however, is whether indeed this disagreement was a “minor” one, as I have stated; this question I would like to address here briefly.

Perhaps this question is only a semantic one, based on a difference of perspective in viewing the disagreement between these two theologians. Anyone reading Bishop Theophans Soul and Angel, with its 200 (albeit small) pages criticizing Bishop Ignatius’ teaching, and seeing the emphasis with which Bishop Theophan accused what he regarded as Bishop Ignatius’ error, might be inclined to call the disagreement a “major” one. But in looking at the whole context of Bishop Ignatius’ teaching on life after death, I still cannot help seeing this disagreement as a “minor” one, for the following reasons:

[1.] Bishop Theophan, in the whole course of his criticism in Soul and Angel, accuses only one and the same error (or supposed error) of Bishop Ignatius: the idea that the soul and angels are bodily and only bodily in nature. Bishop Theophan himself writes: “If the new teaching had only said that angels have bodies, one would not have needed to argue with it; for in this case the chief, dominating side in angels would still be a rationally free spirit. But when it is said that an angel is a body, one must deny in it rational freedom and consciousness; for these qualities cannot belong to a body” (Soul and Angel, Second Edition, Moscow, 1902, p. 103). If Bishop Ignatius had indeed held such an opinion, with all the emphasis and consequences which Bishop Theophan ascribes to it, it would surely have been a serious error on his part. But even so, it would not have directly affected the rest of his teaching on life after death: angels and souls would still act in the same way and in the same “places” whether they are bodies or have bodies (or even assume bodies, as Bishop Theophan himself seems more inclined to believe). Bishop Theophans criticism, thus, does not at all affect the whole system of Bishop Ignatius’ teaching, but only one technical aspect of it. And even here their agreement is greater than their disagreement: both agree that there is a bodily aspect to the activities of angels, whether in this world or in the other world, and that therefore the accounts of their activities in the Lives of Saints and other Orthodox sources are to be accepted as true accounts and not as “metaphors” or “fantasies,” as Western critics believe. Therefore, in the whole context of Bishop Ignatius’ (and Bishop Theophan’s) teaching on life after death, I cannot but see this disagreement as “minor.”

[2.] I seriously question whether Bishop Ignatius actually taught the teaching which Bishop Theophan ascribes to him; certainly, at any rate, he did not place on it the emphasis or draw the consequences from it which Bishop Theophan was most concerned to oppose. Thus, in the quotation from Bishop Theophan above, where he states that “when it is said that an angel is a body, one must deny in it rational freedom and consciousness”—it is clear that Bishop Theophan is only drawing the logical conclusion from what he thinks Bishop Ignatius believes, but nowhere can he find a quotation from Bishop Ignatius himself that he actually believes angels to be deprived of rational freedom and consciousness; certainly Bishop Ignatius did not believe this. In my own reading of Bishop Ignatius’ “Homily on Death” I did not find such a teaching. I have not read his “Supplement” to this work, but I am sure that there also there will not be found the whole emphasis and consequences of the teaching which Bishop Theophan accuses. Without entering into the full details of the disagreement between them (which might be a major study in itself and would have, I think, no particular value for Orthodox theology or the Orthodox teaching on life after death), I suspect that the error on Bishop Ignatius’ part was not in holding the precise teaching which Bishop Theophan criticizes, but (perhaps) in overemphasizing the bodily side of the angelic nature and activity (rather easy to do in combatting the overly “spiritual” emphasis of Western teachers to the extent that he may sometimes have seemed to be saying that angels (and souls) are bodies rather than (as I think he actually meant to say) that angels and souls have (ethereal) bodies, or that a bodily aspect is part of their nature. As Bishop Theophan has said, there would be no argument between them if such was indeed his teaching, for he regards this (for example, in Soul and Angel, p. 139) as a permissible opinion on this complex question which has not been dogmatically defined by the Church.

All the more, then, if Bishop Theophan was even slightly mistaken as to the emphasis of Bishop Ignatius’ teaching, should this disagreement be regarded as “minor,” in my opinion.

[3.] Bishop Theophan was once specifically asked whether in the teaching of Bishop Ignatius he had found any other error, apart from the supposed teaching of the “materiality” of the soul. He replied: “No. In Bishop Ignatius there is only this error—his opinion on the nature of the soul and angels, that they are material. In all that I have read in his books, I have noticed nothing un-Ortho- dox. What I have read is good” (Letter of Dec. 15, 1893, in The Russian Monk, Pochaev Monastery, No, 17, Sept., 1912). Thus, in the context of the whole Orthodoxy teaching of Bishops Ignatius and Theophan, this disagreement is truly a “minor” one.

Now to pass to a final point, concerning the aerial toll-houses encountered by the soul after death. In your open letter you quote a letter of Bishop Theophan in which he states that life after death “is a land closed to us. What happens there is not defined with precision…. As to what shall be there—we shall see when we get there.” From this, as well as from the fact that Bishop Theophan does not mention the toll-houses often in his writings, you conclude that “the teaching as such, in all of its symbolism, was…at most peripheral to his thinking,” and you think I am mistaken at least in my emphasis that Bishop Theophan was a staunch defender of the Orthodox teaching of the toll-houses. To this I would reply with several points:

[1.] I also can recall only these two direct references in the writings of Bishop Theophan to the teaching of the toll-houses. However, these two references are sufficient to show that he did indeed hold this teaching and taught it to others, and that he was quite critical, even scornful, of those who denied it (“No matter how absurd the idea of the toll-houses may seem to our wise men,” they will not escape passing through them”).

[2.] The fact that in some of his letters when the subject of life after death is touched on, he does not mention the toll-houses, does not seem to me a necessary indication that this subject is “peripheral” to his teaching, but only that he speaks in each case to the need of his listener, and some people do not need (or are unable) to hear of the toll-houses. I have found this same thing in my own experience as a priest: With those who are ready for it, the teaching of the toll-houses is a powerful incentive to repentance and a life lived in the fear of God; but there are those for whom the teaching would be so frightening that I would not even speak of it to them until they were better prepared to accept it. A priest sometimes encounters dying people so little prepared for the other world that it would be pointless to speak to them even of hell, let alone the toll-houses, for fear of removing in them the little hope and awareness they might have of the Kingdom of Heaven; but this does not mean that hell has no part in the teaching of such a priest, or that he would not defend its reality decisively if it were attacked. Especially in our “enlightened” 20th century, many Orthodox Christians are so immature spiritually, or have been so misled by modern ideas, that they are simply incapable of accepting the idea of encounters with demons after death. Any Orthodox priest in his pastoral approach to such people must, of course, condescend to their weakness and give them the “baby food” they require until they are more prepared to accept the strong food of some of the Orthodox ascetical texts; but the Orthodox teaching on the toll-houses, handed down from the early Christian centuries, remains always the same and cannot be denied no matter how many people are incapable of understanding it.

[3.] Moreover, in actual fact the teaching of the toll-houses does appear in other works of Bishop Theophan—in his translations if not in his original works. There are numerous references to this teaching in his five-volume translation of the Philokalia, several of which I have cited in the text of The Soul After Death (pp. 80-81, 258-9, 262). In Unseen Warfare also (Part Two, ch. 9), there is an exposition of the Orthodox teaching on the “examination by the prince of this age” given to everyone on his departure from the body; the word “toll-houses” does not appear there, but the text says clearly that “the most decisive battle awaits us in the hour of death,” and it is obvious that the reality is the same as that which Bishop Ignatius is so concerned to defend, and which in other places Bishop Theophan does call by the name of “toll-houses.”

[4.] The text of Bishop Theophans Soul and Angel contains not one word critical of Bishop Ignatius’ teaching on the toll-houses. Now, in Bishop Ignatius’ “Homily on Death” he states unequivocally that “the teaching of the toll-houses is the teaching of the Church” (Vol III of his Works, p. 138), and he goes on to justify this statement in great detail. And Bishop Theophan, in his criticism of Bishop Ignatius’ teaching, states that “in the present article the new teaching of the above-mentioned brochures (“Homily on Death” and the “Supplement” to it) is examined in full detail, without leaving uncensured a single thought in them which should be censured” (Soul and Angel, p. 4). It is quite clear, then, since Bishop Theophan found nothing whatever to censure in Bishop Ignatius’ ideas on the toll-houses, that he is in full agreement with Bishop Ignatius that “the teaching of the toll-houses is the teaching of the Church.”

[5.] In the very text of Soul and Angel, Bishop Theophan sets forth the conditions of the soul after its departure from the body in terms identical to those of Bishop Ignatius’ exposition. These are precisely the conditions required for the occurrence of the encounter of the soul with demons at the toll-houses, so this quote, even though it does not directly mention the toll-houses, may be taken as an indication of Bishop Theophans agreement with Bishop Ignatius on the nature of after-death reality, his sole difference with Bishop Ignatius being on the question whether the nature of angels is only body (which, as I stated above, I do not believe Bishop Ignatius actually taught). Here is the quote from Bishop Theophan:

“The soul, after its departure from the body, enters into the realm of spirits where both it and the spirits are active in the same forms as are visible on earth among men: they see each other, they speak, travel, argue, act. The difference is only that there the realm is an ethereal one of subtle matter, and in them therefore everything is subtly material and ethereal. What is the direct conclusion from this? That in the world of spirits the outward form of being and of mutual relations is the same as among men on earth. But this fact does not speak of the bodiliness of the nature of angels, or say that their essence is only body” (Soul and Angel, pp. 88-89).

[6.] You do not disagree with me on the main point: that Bishop Theophan, like Bishop Ignatius, did hold the Orthodox teaching of the toll-houses; your only disagreement with me is on the emphasis the two teachers placed on it (Bishop Ignatius spoke of it more, Bishop Theophan less). I think there is a very simple explanation for this seeming difference of emphasis: It was Bishop Ignatius who felt it necessary to write a whole treatise on the subject of life after death, where the subject of the toll-houses, being an important part of the Orthodox teaching, of necessity occupies a conspicuous place; while Bishop Theophan, not having written such a treatise, mentions this subject only in passing. I would imagine (without looking through all his works to verify it) that in his other writings Bishop Ignatius mentions the toll-houses no more often than Bishop Theophan. The few references in Bishop Theophans writings, however, do indicated that he held the teaching as firmly as Bishop Ignatius. The difference between them, then, I would say, is not in what they believed or even in the force with which they expressed their belief, but in the point I mentioned at the beginning of this letter: that Bishop Ignatius was more concerned than Bishop Theophan to do close battle with the rationalistic views of the West, while Bishop Theophan handed down the Orthodox tradition with less attention to fighting specific Western errors regarding it.

In view of all this, I believe that my statement in the preface of The Soul After Death, that Bishop Theophan “taught the same teaching” as Bishop Ignatius, is justified: in view of the whole Orthodox teaching on life after death which they had in common, the difference between them on the one point of the “bodiliness” of the nature of the soul and angels (a difference caused, I believe, more by the apparent overemphasis of Bishop Ignatius on the “bodies” of angels than by his actually holding the teaching ascribed to him by Bishop Theophan)—is indeed “minor.” With regard to the points of the teaching on life after death set forth in The Soul After Death (since I did not defend or even mention Bishop Ignatius’ supposed teaching that souls and angels are only bodies), their points of agreement are close to complete. The agreement of their teaching on life after death is all the more striking when one compares it with the views of the rationalistic critics of the West who, even up to our day, deny not only the reality of the toll-houses but also the whole after-death reality which Bishops Theophan and Ignatius described in virtually identical terms, the efficacy of prayers for the dead, and so forth. Against such false views the united witness of Bishops Theophan and Ignatius to the Orthodox teaching handed down from antiquity is indeed impressive.

I should be very interested in hearing further of your research on Bishop Theophan, for whom, as I have said, I have the greatest respect. Will you be publishing an article or book on him, or any translations of his works? I myself have translated the first part of The Path to Salvation, which is now appearing serially in the newspaper Orthodox America.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. I do not know how “open” your letter to me was, or to whom it was sent. I am sending copies of my reply only to a few people who are closely interested in this subject.

Dec 9/22, 1980

Dec. 9/22, 1980

Conception of St. Anna

Right Rev. Bishop Gregory

75 E. 93rd St.

New York, N.Y. 10028

Your Grace, Dear Vladika Gregory,

Blagoslovite!

Thank you for your kind letter and the Synod document regarding the “controversy” on life after death. While I find this document quite satisfactory as far as it goes, I was rather sorry to see that it omitted some of the errors of Deacon Lev which have caused disturbance among the faithful: in particular, his insistence that prayers for the dead can bring no benefit to them and cannot change their condition, and his idea that the Orthodox texts in which the Church’s teaching on life after death is expressed can be subjected to “criticism” and dismissed for any of the various reasons he has used in his writings (because they are “forgeries,” “later additions,” “allegories,” “scholastic texts,” etc.). I understand that you have deliberately understated his errors in order to make it easier for him to express his “repentance,” so that the controversy can be quieted; but I very much fear that such a document is far from sufficient either to stop Fr. Levs false “theologizing” or to lessen the confusion of some of the faithful.

Just recently we received a copy of a letter from one of our Russian priests to Fr. Lev in answer to his “open letter” to our Brotherhood. This Russian priest wrote Fr. Lev that he had read neither my book nor his, but that he felt it necessary to warn Fr. Lev against pride, giving as an example Fr. Lev’s statement that he knows better than the Apostle Paul that the latter’s experience was not and could not have been “out of the body.” There was not one comment made in this letter in favor> of any of Fr. Lev’s teachings; and yet, in his long reply to the few lines of this priest’s letter, Fr. Lev expresses his joy that he “agrees” with his teaching; and now he is undoubtedly telling his followers that “another Russian priest has joined us against the scholastic teaching” and the faithful who listen to him are further confused.

In a word, Fr. Lev is constantly misinterpreting letters and documents addressed to him, making it seem as if they are in his favor even when the truth is quite the opposite. I am sure he will try to do the same thing with the present Synod document, making it somehow appear that the Synod actually agrees with his teaching. To put a stop to this tactic of his, I believe, will require something much more decisive than this document.

I was also a little sorry to see, in the English translation of the Synod document, that it was I who “initiated a controversy” on the question of life after death. I believe the fact is quite the contrary: it was Deacon Lev who initiated a controversy, even before the publication of my articles, by his own letters and articles against the teaching on life after death in an article in Orthodox Life·, his attention was directed towards me only when he saw that I was continuing (though without any polemical tone) to support the same Orthodox teaching even after his criticism. Since that time the “controversy” has been his doing and not mine: with the exception of Appendix 4 of The Soul After Death, my articles have not responded to his attacks, whereas his have been harshly polemical and have been directed not specifically against me, but against all of those who defend the Church’s teaching on life after death.

Despite Fr. Lev’s exaggerated claims that many agree with him and are against the teaching contained in The Soul After Death, we have yet to see evidence that this whole controversy involves anyone but Fr. Lev himself and a few of his followers (and, incidentally, the innocent newcomers to the faith whom he has now confused). From the time we began printing the articles on life after death in The Orthodox Word, we have received virtually 100% favorable comments on it; the only “protests” have come from Fr. Lev and a few of his followers. The “controversy” on life after death, as far as I can see, is solely the work of Fr. Lev and his small circle.

I sincerely hope that the Synod document will be sufficient to stop Fr. Levs polemics, but I really believe that only something much more decisive will have any lasting effect on him. One problem, of course, is that the subject of life after death is only one of many subjects on which Deacon Lev regards himself as an “expert” and as able to teach the rest of the Church and correct the “errors” of Orthodox tradition. In his private statements he goes even further than in his lectures and printed works. A few years ago, for example, he was one of those instrumental in inspiring the schism of the Guildford parish in England, when he wrote to the people there that Archbishop Anthony of Geneva is indeed a “heretic,” and that there are also other “heretics” in our Synod of Bishops. I cannot help but regard Deacon Lev as a trouble-maker who will not bring good to our Church.

Please be assured that we ourselves will not enter into public debate with him. His whole polemical approach to Church questions is profoundly distasteful to us—as, I am sure, it is to almost all the clergy of our Church.

I am enclosing a copy of a letter I have written in answer to an “open letter” to me on the question of the teaching on life after death of Bishops Theophan the Recluse and Ignatius Brianchaninov. I believe that it is possible to discuss such questions without polemics, even while defending one’s own opinion, and I have tried to do this in my letter. Unfortunately, Deacon Lev has tried to exaggerate the disagreement between Bishops Theophan and Ignatius, in order to justify his own rejection of so much of Bishop Ignatius’ (and the Church’s) teaching on life after death.

I very much agree with you that in our preaching of Orthodoxy we should emphasize the positive teachings of the Church and engage less in controversy.

Asking your prayers,

With love and respect in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. The new issue of Fr. Lev’s Tlingit Herald (nos. 8-9, renamed for some reason Orthodox Missionary) contains another example of his polemical approach on questions which no one but him is interested in arguing about. In his life of St. John Cassian he states: “In his time, the two great false teachings in the West were those of Pelagius of Britain and Augustin of Hippo,” and in his footnote to this passage he writes: “Augustin of Hippo and his followers wrote several works against the Orthodox faith. They called the Orthodox faithful, who were led by St. John Cassian and St. Vincent of Lerins, “semi-Pelagians,” and tried to have them condemned.”

Besides the obvious errors in these statements (Blessed Augustine, while he had errors in his teachings, certainly never wrote any “works against the Orthodox faith”; the term “semi-Pelagians” is of much later origin; and Blessed Augustine never tried to have St. Cassian “condemned,” but wrote in a most loving and uncontroversial spirit regarding what he thought were his errors)—the belligerent and polemical tone of his mistaken accusations against Blessed Augustine, an Orthodox Father whose name is included in our Calendar of Saints, is most unfitting for one who claims to be transmitting the Orthodox tradition. All the more in an article written for children are such comments out of place, having as their aim to raise up “fanatics” of his own distorted views—some of whom later, like himself, will probably be challenging the Church’s teaching and attitudes. Such statements appear many times in his writings, together with numerous errors of fact and distortions meant to prove his own sometimes strange opinions. In view of this, his writings on the subject of life after death are only a small part of the unpleasant polemics in which he has been indulging for years. Could he not be notified that an end should be put to all of these unnecessary and harmful polemics?

MCMLXXXI

Dec 28/Jan 10, 1981

Dec. 28/Jan. 10, 1981

Dear Brother and Sister in Christ, George and Margaret,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

Thank you for your letter, which we appreciate for its sincerity. While perhaps there are differences in our views, if we can express them sincerely, and with mutual love and forgiveness, these differences will not constitute an obstacle to our unity in Christs Church. You have expressed your disturbance over some statements we have published in The Orthodox Word, and I would like here to explain these statements a little more fully, so as to avoid any possible misunderstandings about them.

First of all, I believe it is not accurate to say that we have been making “attacks” in The Orthodox Word against Holy Transfiguration Monastery, St. Nectarios Church in Seattle, or any Synod clergy. While we have made warnings about what we regard as unhealthy attitudes which may (or may not) be shared by the individuals you mention, we have been very careful not to phrase these in the form of accusations or “attacks” on individuals—both because we regard such personal disputes as unfruitful and unedifying for the faithful, and because we simply don’t have in mind to “attack” anyone at all: we are only warning about attitudes which have already had disastrous results in our Church and are hoping to prevent the increase of these disasters. If you will read again the passage you interpret as our “attack” on some priests of our Church (on p. 121 of issue no. 92), you will see that we stated there “if someone can find his place in this jurisdiction without falling into the pitfall…” This is not an “attack,” but only a warning, based on the bitter experience of people who have come to our jurisdiction and left it precisely because they fell into this pitfall and are now (in the spirit of some of the fanatical Old Calendarists in Greece) accusing our own bishops of “heresy” and “apostasy.” The bitter spirit of dispute and factionalism which is being spread by some of these people is sufficient cause, I think, to issue a warning about this spirit.

Secondly, I think you should be aware (as perhaps you are not) that, whereas we ourselves have made no attacks against anyone in our Church in The Orthodox Word, the publications of St. Nectarios Church in Seattle have made such attacks. Specifically, in the article in Orthodox Christian Witness directed against Fr. Dimitry Dudko, the editors of The Orthodox Word and Nikodemos are called “unprincipled” and “irresponsible” for their defense of Fr. Dimitry (these editors are not called by name, but their words are quoted); to me, this is a stepping beyond the bounds of a legitimate difference of opinion, and an attempt to begin a “war” on this question. In our “Defense of Fr. Dimitry” we did not answer this accusation, nor did we make accusations of our own, believing that such things are not for the good of the Church. Incidentally, a number of our bishops have expressed their agreement with our position and their grief over the article in Orthodox Christian Witness.

Further, the St. Nectarios Church in Seattle has been responsible for publishing the very crude attacks made by Deacon Lev Puhalo against the traditional Orthodox teaching on life after death and against all of us who uphold it. These attacks have culminated in Deacon Levs proclaiming me (in an open letter) a literal “heretic” because I have defended the traditional teaching in my book, The Soul After Death. These attacks have caused so much disturbance in the Church that the Synod of Bishops has had to issue a decree exposing a few of Deacon Levs errors, exonerating me of the false charge of heresy, and ordering Deacon Lev to cease these attacks; in the Western American Diocese (and perhaps others now) Deacon Lev has been suspended from clerical functions and forbidden to publish or lecture until he admits his errors. Such attacks as his, I am sure you will agree, should have no place in the Church, and I and many others are only grieved to see the part that the St. Nectarios Church has had in disseminating them.

Thirdly, I think you should be very careful when you draw conclusions from the statements of the Bishops of our Russian Church Outside of Russia. When our bishops in 1971 condemned the decision of the Moscow Patriarchate to give communion to Roman Catholics, they used strong language, calling it a “heretical” act; but they did not proclaim the Moscow Patriarchate to be deprived of grace, or to be totally fallen away from the Church. The bishops, on various occasions, have specifically refused to make such a proclamation; and in their statement at the 1976 Sobor they specifically addressed the sincere and struggling priests of the Moscow Patriarchate in terms reserved only for priests who possess and dispense the grace of God (as noted in our article on Fr. Dimitry). This statement was enough to cause some ex-members of our Church in England to proclaim our bishops as “heretical.”

I think the whole question of the Moscow Patriarchate is much more subtle and complex than you seem to think. When you quote our own article on the “Catacomb Tikhonite Church,” I find no contradiction between it and our article on Fr. Dimitry: in the former article, we stated only that “if normal Orthodox Church life is not restored to Russia, the Moscow Patriarchate will eventually wither and die in apostasy, and the innocent people who follow it will find themselves beyond any doubt outside the Church of Christ.” I still believe this to be true; but it does not follow that we must regard the Moscow Patriarchate today as being without the grace of God (this very question was discussed in that same article), nor does the article deny that normal Orthodox Church life could be restored to Russia—and I think the phenomenon of Fr. Dimitry and the other confessing priests of the Moscow Patriarchate gives us good hope that such will eventually be the case (after the fall of Communism).

I myself find it painful that there are differences between some of us in the Russian Church Abroad. However, I think that a sincere expression of these differences is not sufficient cause for a loss of unity between us. Something else, however, is the spirit of accusation and attack which a few members of our Church have been indulging in; this is already a violation of unity, and I very much fear the end result of it. A number of people, as I have said, have already left our Church in anger, and I see others evidently preparing to go the same way. Our warnings on this subject in The Orthodox Word are meant to save as many people as possible from this suicidal step. Some dangerous signs: Just recently the priest of the St. Nectarios Church in Portland told two of my spiritual children whom I had sent there, that our Russian bishops are “betraying” him by their “ecumenism”; another Greek priest has told his flock that soon they will again be without bishops because they will have to leave the Russian Church Abroad; another clergyman openly calls some of our bishops “heretics.” The perils about which we are warning are not imaginary, not at all.

I deeply wish that you will understand that we are by no means against you and other “refugees” to our Church. From the time they joined our Church, we were among the most ardent supporters both of Holy Transfiguration Monastery and St. Nectarios Parish, and we are not “against” them now. Even while we are warning about attitudes which may be held in these places, it is always with the hope that they have not yet taken “possession” of these places, and if we express the warning in general and not personal terms, perhaps these attitudes can still be changed before it is too late and a tragic schism has resulted.

We will be glad to discuss any of these questions further with you in the same spirit of friendly interchange. May God send you His abundant grace in the new year, and forgive all of us our many shortcomings.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. The article by Bishop Kyprian in our new Orthodox Word (no. 93) gives the view [letter ends]

Jan 17/30, 1981

Jan. 17/30, 1981

St. Anthony the Great

Dear John,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

I received your letter with its clear message: either we do things your way, or you kick us out! Of course, you view it differently: that you are standing up for correctness, Orthodoxy, etc., and this is your duty since the clergy don’t seem able to do it. This is a pitfall into which very many, especially among converts, have fallen.

In your case, I have seen this coming for a long time, and your letter was not a surprise to me. The devil often attacks in this way: because the singing at the last Liturgy in Woodburn was quite prayerful, the devil chose precisely this point to destroy the services in Woodburn, picking as his instrument someone who allows himself to become excited over matters which he does not fully understand. In place of the prayerful singing which is of the same sort that is sung in virtually all the churches of our Russian Church Abroad (including Jordanville in the time of Archbishop Averky— which should at least make you pause and think that perhaps you haven’t fully understood what he was saying about church singing)—you would force everyone to obey the dictates of an inexperienced, spiritually immature layman.

It is a real catastrophe, both for the parish and for you personally. But perhaps you can use this opportunity to examine and criticize your own conduct in the past year or two. You have alienated and offended so many in Woodburn, as well as three priests who have travelled from far to serve there. Can it really be that you alone are righteous and Orthodox, and everyone else stands in need of correction by you? Some months ago, when I hinted to you on the phone that Fr. Herman had the distinct impression from you that you didn’t want him to come back, you seemed surprised that you could have given such an impression; but the fact that now you’ve kicked us both out does indeed confirm that you do not consider us welcome (except under terms of your dictation).

Read pages 81-84 of Unseen Warfare, and any other passages there on the perils of trusting oneself, in order to see the pit you have dug for yourself.

To answer your ultimatum specifically: No, neither Father Herman nor I will serve in your chapel under your conditions or under any other conditions you may set, because: (1) the order of church services, singing, and everything else having to do with the conduct of worship is the sphere of the priest who serves, not laymen (a point about which Archbishop Averky was very emphatic); and (2) the particular conditions you wish to impose who chase out the Russians for whose sake the services have been organized, and not least of all because of the disrespect for legitimate church authority which you are displaying. I am deeply sorry that you do not seem to realize this or to care whether it be so or not.

Please forgive me for all in which I have failed you as a spiritual father. Seeing your immature state and your resistance to what I have tried to teach you, I have given you little; your ultimatum is a clear revelation of a lack of Christian awareness, sensitivity, and struggle. May God grant that you can still come to your senses and change! Do you remember a phrase which, some years ago, I thought you understood?— “He may be Orthodox, all right, but is he a Christian?” Take it to heart and finally begin to work on yourself—you will be surprised then to see how others seem to change also!

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

p.s. The article in the latest Orthodox Word on “Super-Correctness” should also help you, if your heart is open. Bishop Laurus of Jordanville (a faithful disciple of Archbishop Averky) just wrote to thank us for this article, which he considers just what’s needed today. You aren’t the only one with this problem!

Jan 24/Feb 6, 1981

Jan. 24/Feb. 6, 1981

Hieromartyr Clement of Ancyra

Dear James,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

It was good to hear from you and of your reflections; although your situation may seem confusing to you right now, the thinking and evaluating you are forced to do are all for the good and will be profitable in the long run.

I think the jurisdictional problem is not really as big as it may seem to you right now. While there are some in our Russian Church Abroad (most notably the Greeks you have come to us from the Greek Archdiocese and “overreacted” to the whole situation) who want to make the Synod the exclusive and only Orthodox body left in the world, the prevailing opinion in our Church is not at all so exclusivistic. I think the realization is increasing among us that we must speak for and to all Orthodox who want to preserve their Orthodoxy, and that we should be slow in drawing absolute lines between jurisdictions. There is still a measure of partial communion between us and the other jurisdictions: for the most part there is no clergy concelebration (although even this does exist to some degree in a few places), but there is a good amount of communion on the lay level, usually left up to the discretion of the local priest. This whole attitude presupposes that there is indeed grace in the Mysteries of the “canonical” jurisdictions, and that the heresies of a few hierarchs have not yet completely infected their Churches. Our refusal to have full communion with the other jurisdictions comes from the need to make a basic distinction between the disastrous, even suicidal path they are following, and our own attempt to stand in the truth and keep the tradition.

Regarding the Moscow Patriarchate, I think our article on Father Dimitry Dudko in a recent Orthodox Word (sent to you together with Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future) explains this rather clearly.

As an example of our own attitude to other jurisdictions: your idea for us to have a “retreat” for students at the University presents no real problem for us. We could have Vigil and Liturgy and a series of talks under only one condition: that we not have to concelebrate with clergy of any other jurisdiction. We could give confession and communion to any Orthodox person, although here at the monastery we would be more restrictive and would treat each case separately. Our talks at such a “retreat” (actually we should have a better name for it!) would not concern jurisdictions (although we could answer any questions people might have about them). Actually, we would love to have such a weekend there, and I am sure our Archbishop would bless it. If it is really possible, please give us some idea of the facilities available, the amount of time people might be willing to devote to it, (the whole of Saturday and Sunday, or less?), the level of the participants (mostly non-Orthodox?), etc. It would be most convenient if the weekend be not the first or second of the month, when we have mission services in our parishes here. I am sure Fr. Alexey Young of Orthodox America would also like to participate.

Regarding the OCA and our Russian Church Abroad: I think it is frankly impossible for you to hope to change the OCA; it is only individuals and small groups there that can really hope to escape the main current of modernism, ecumenism, etc. But I can’t tell you: “Come to the Synod and all your problems will be solved.” You should be aware that we have our own problems and politics too, before you make this decision. Actually, our main problem is not “fanaticism” (regarding other jurisdictions as heretical, or without grace, etc.)—this is a minority view which most of us don’t accept, and it only hinders the preaching of the Orthodox Gospel in America. The main problem I think you would find is the un-missionary attitude of many of our parishes, which are satisfied just to keep their Russians and don’t reach out to others. But this is changing; the younger priests are almost all at least somewhat mission-oriented, and I myself as a convert have never really had a problem with this. Any convert who is willing to struggle for it can find an outlet for his missionary zeal. If you wish to be a priest in the world, you will not find an English-language parish ready to support you, but the very struggle involved in establishing yourself could be very fruitful for the deeper Orthodoxy that is so needed today.

From what I hear, St. Vladimir’s Seminary is not very conducive to keeping or developing any kind of traditional Orthodoxy. Our seminary at Jordanville requires some Russian (although less with each passing year—many of the graduates now do not have a fluent command of the language and write papers and tests in English). If you already knew some Russian, you could finish the course there in three years (it gives a BTh). It is conceivable that a semi-correspondence course could be worked out for theological courses in English, but for this they would want to know you personally.

Pray to God (and to our Archbishop John) and He will show you the way. We would be glad to talk with you more about these questions. Please let us know about the possibilities for a weekend at the University. (The second or third Sunday of Lent would be a good time.)

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Meatfare Saturday, 1981

Meat-fare Saturday, 1981

Dear Father Alexey,

Christ is in our midst!

I’ve had a bad cold this week and have kept to my cell, and therefore have had time for a few reflections on our mission, church life, etc.

First of all, I’ve looked at some of the recent Orthodox periodicals—and on the whole, what a dreary collection of texts. There is very little life anywhere, and so much emphasis on externals, bishops, splendid services, etc. The OCA’s Orthodox Church, it is true, talks a lot about mission, stewardship, responsibility, etc., and I began to wonder why I didn’t like it (maybe I’m just prejudiced or jealous?). But then I looked at the latest Orthodox America—and what a difference! Every page has something for the soul, something to learn and be inspired by; but the Orth. Church only talks about things that might be inspiring (if they were genuine), while giving nothing whatever for the soul. It’s like a two-dimensional facade with nothing at all behind it.

Therefore, not to be proud, but to see things the way they are—what you and we all are trying to do is extremely important in the real missionary sense, no matter how little support some may give it.

I say this having also in mind Fr. Panagiotes’ letter. Perhaps it is uncharitable of me, but my first thought on hearing of it was: if they wish to think that way, I would rather have them as enemies than as “friends” who speak well but are ready to stab you in the back. The whole course of the last years’ events with our Greeks has been positive, I think, in that it has brought concealed attitudes to light and removed the sugary “friendship” which is so frustrating. Recently Fr. Isaac wrote from Boston that we send them “too many” Orthodox Words—five is plenty, and they sent back most of the Calendars we sent them. The year before Fr. Ephraim had already said they didn’t need any of our books (although we sent some since then to individual monks), and now they can give us Psalters and Ladders only with 20% discount. The message is clear: They have their view of Orthodoxy and don’t want anything to do with ours.

But they, it is now obvious, are a small minority. Our subscriptions constantly increase, and almost no one has cancelled over our “controversial” articles. (One person in Boston threatened to do so over our seeming “attacks” on Boston, but after my letter did renew.) Most people in the Church who read English publications are either with us or at least are not against us; only a small, narrow group is opposed. We’ll just have to leave this group to itself and speak to everyone else. We have already broken the ice on “forbidden” topics, and should continue to pay no heed to what the Greeks think about the Shroud, evolution, etc. Public opinion in our Church was almost paralyzed for a while by these “forbidden” subjects, but I think if we lead the way the air will be made healthier for everyone.

Thinking about my Genesis course this summer, I was rereading part of Dr. Kalomiros’ letters. How discouraging! One loses all inspiration to get tangled up in this subject, seeing how he handles it. And really, the tone is just like Deacon Lev’s. I wondered why, and Fr. Herman answered me: They’re trying to keep up with the “advanced” fashions of the universities; and I think that’s probably the answer. Especially Kalomiros’ repeated insistence (Deacon Lev says the same thing) over how many have “lost their souls” because of literal interpretations of Genesis—that is, we have to give them Genesis on their level, changing the truth if need be so as not to offend them or give them more than they can chew. But anyone who is really converted to Christianity will surely begin to rethink this whole intellectual outlook, won’t he? Isn’t the real problem that Dr. Kalomiros, Deacon Lev, and others are intellectuals who haven’t been fully converted, or have brought their intellectual baggage with them into Orthodoxy—the same thing they accuse others of? This was the disease of the Russian intellectual converts earlier in this century, and I think our Greeks fall into the same category.

Therefore, I am plowing ahead with Genesis according to the Holy Fathers, realizing that it may cause more waves among the Greeks (and name-calling—but I’m already a “theosophist” and can’t get much worse than that!), especially since it will be “competition” to Dr. Kalomiros’ talk in Pennsylvania.

Speaking of Genesis, I see no reason why this course on Genesis couldn’t be turned into the main portion of our long-lost “evolution” book. The whole outline of it now becomes clear to me. It should be called something positive (no evolution in the title), such as “Genesis, Creation and Early Man: An Orthodox View,” and the first and main part should be simply an Orthodox interpretation (according to St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim, etc) of the first chapters of Genesis, discussing “problems” raised by modern men in the course of the discussion. Then, as the secondary thought (less than half the book), a discussion of the whole question of evolution, something like this:

[1.] Evolution as a scientific theory: the “proofs” of evolution. This would be a brief discussion of everything people think proves evolution—just enough to show that these aren’t really proofs at all, and evolution can neither be proved nor disproved. The chapter you’ve already written should take care of most of this already, perhaps even shortened to make our contact with the scientific side of the question as brief as possible, since this is the most debatable part of it.

[2.] Evolution as popular science—basically your chapter on “Early Man” to show how textbooks fill in the “gaps” of scientific knowledge and present a picture much more solid than any facts warrant. Eugene Zavarin will be satisfied to see we aren’t using a highschool textbook as a scientific treatise, but only showing how evolution filters down to this level.

[3.] Evolution as mythology and cosmic speculation, —some remarks on Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” television series and book. I add this here because one of our subscribers just sent a dipping about this, which seems to be much in the air now, and it seems typical of the way evolution is preached today as dogma and almost religion. What do yo think of this? Are you familiar with this series?

[4.] Where did the idea of evolution come from?—to explain how it got in the air. I’ve written about half of this already.

[5.] “Christian” evolution and T. de Chardin—your article. (Or maybe ch.s 4 and 5 should be reversed.)

[6.] The new reaction against evolution: towards a Christian-inspired scientific approach to origins, with citations from the Creationist literature.

I think this basically takes in the work we’ve done over the past eight years. If we can carry it through, it should be a pioneering work which will make this question at least discussable among Orthodox Christians, many of whom are concerned but just don’t know where to begin to think it through. What do you think? Any ideas or discussions? I will be working on the whole first part for the summer course, and maybe you and I could look over and organize the rest of it sometime this summer. Then it will be timely to print it, especially since the subject will be somewhat in the air with my and Kalomiros’ talks.

Rereading Kalomiros’ letters, I see that there is something quite basic at stake in our differences with the Greeks. In this particular case, it is obvious that Kalomiros has no intention whatever to humble himself before the mind of the Fathers. He “knows better” than they, and therefore he easily categorizes as “absurd” opinions which they held because he himself has thought it out better, with the aid of modern science. In this case he is broader than the Fathers; in most cases, perhaps, our Greeks are narrower—but it is their own wisdom that they trust and which they wish to impose on others. Our key is—sticking to the wisdom of the Church, trusting our own Fathers and the Holy Fathers who lived before. People are ready to hear this.

Please pray for Catechumen Genevieve (Timothy Shell’s Mimi), whom, God willing, we will baptize this Pascha, and Catechumen Andrew (Robert Kencis), who will probably be baptized sooner. Before Lent begins, please forgive me and us all for our sins against you in thought, word, and deed. May God forgive and have mercy on us all, and grant us all a profitable Lent!

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Apr 1/14, 1981

April 1/14, 1981

St. Mary of Egypt

Dear Vanya [Danz, John D’Anci?],

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

To be frank, it was a great relief for us to receive your two letters and hear that you had left the monastery in Boston, despite the difficult spiritual experience this may be for you. Just a few days before receiving your first letter I was expressing regret that I had helped get you into that situation, and if I were able to get a message through to you it would be: leave that monastery.

I say this not because of our “political” differences with Fr. Panteleimon and his ‘monks—that is a secondary matter (but it is, of course, serious enough, since it is probably going to cause them to leave our Church). But Misha’s letter to Fr. Herman was so spiritually wrong (for its presumption, criticism, “knowing better,” “being spiritual while looking in a mirror,” etc.) that we have finally been forced to a sad conclusion: there is something wrong with Fr. Panteleimon himself (it must be him, because all the letters from there breathe the same spirit, as if written by the same person—even though some of the writers we know personally to be not like that at all). We were afraid that out of simplicity and trust you would be molded by this atmosphere and end up sounding the same way.

Our acquaintance with Fr. Panteleimon and some of his monks (and some who have left him) has given us food for some sobering thoughts about Orthodox monasticism in the American atmosphere. I think one general conclusion is this: the idea of “super-strictness” in monastic training is really not workable in our times; it produces too much fakery and posing. It is much better to emphasize simple faith and love and the basic Christian virtues, and work on the monastic life a little at a time, even though this is accompanied by a certain looseness in discipline. This is basically what Jordanville is about, although it is not much emphasized or talked about there, which results in the fact that many there seem to be unaware of it and don’t work much on it.

Fr. Gregory of Denver spent two days with us last year, enough to see his spiritual profile and warn you: STAY AWAY FROM HIM! He has disagreements with Fr. Panteleimon, but he has been completely formed by him, and there’s something wrong: super-strictness without the loving flexibility our Russian monks have, even without a strict monastic “training.”

Don’t give up on monasticism. You stuck it out a year in Boston, and that was a valuable experience in spite of the problems. Don’t be in a rush to decide, but see how you like the life in Jordanville. If you’re able to fit in all right, then probably you should stay there (if only to avoid the temptation to “run” again). If not, you’re welcome to come to us (we’d love to have you)—but if you do, it should be with the resolve to spend a year here and then see what the next step might be. We have a little “monastic corpus” now with three cells, away from the main monastery buildings (where our younger boys and short-term residents stay). Our two ryassophore monks are living now in this “corpus,” but one of them will be leaving soon: Fr. Peter from Jordanville came last Pascha to spend a year, and he’s decided to return (he’s a little too “smart” for our conditions and he thinks we’re really not “monastic” enough for him). If you stay in Jordanville, Fr. Hilarion will cause you the fewest complications as a spiritual father, and Fr. Theodosius (a simply monk who teaches in the seminary) is a sober person to talk to.

Pray for us, and let us know how you are. Please remember us especially at Pascha, as we will remember you. God is with us!

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Apr 14/27, 1981

Pascha Monday, 1981

April 14/27

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear Brother in Christ, George,

IN TRUTH HE IS RISEN!

Enclosed is the first copy of “The Light of Orthodoxy” which you sent us. I looked through it and have pointed out in pencil in the text two or three places which I thought might cause you some trouble. However, I simply have no time (and Father Herman has less) to really “censor” the whole text, let alone all the issues you will be putting out.

We really can’t think of anyone who might have the time and opportunity to serve as your advisor in this project. However, even such an advisor will be no guarantee that you won’t get into trouble by publishing something unfitting. The recent publications scandal to which you refer was caused not by failure to consult with others (his advisors apparently share his errors), but by the extremely arrogant and pompous tone with which he tried to instruct others, even those who are much more rooted in Orthodoxy than he. In glancing through your publication I did not notice such a tone, and I doubt that you would cause much controversy, save perhaps in the points I have noted in the text.

In general I would have only one word of advice for you: be very humble in your confession of Orthodoxy, and avoid “dogmatizing” on points that might be controversial among Orthodox Christians.

May God be your help in your efforts.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

June 13/26, 1981

June 13/26, 1981

St. Tryphillius of Cyprus

Dear Father Michael [Azkoul],

Christ is in our midst!

Thank you for your letter. I am frankly happy to see someone with your views on Blessed Augustine willing to do something besides hit him (and all of us who have any respect for him) over the head.

You ask for cooperation on what seems to be a “thorough study” of Bl. Augustine. I really wonder about the value of such a study—for someone who wishes to expose the source of “Western influence” in Orthodox theology, this detailed analysis itself seems so terribly Western!

If your attempt is to find our Augustine’s real place in the Orthodox Church, I think your approach is all wrong. It assumes that “we moderns” are the ones who can do this—that we can “know better” than anyone in the Orthodox past. I don’t think so. I have a deep distrust of all of us who are writing on theological subjects today—we are more under “Western influence” than anyone before, and the less we are aware of it, the more obnoxious our “Westernism” becomes. Our whole cold, academic, and often disdainfiil approach to theology is so remote from the Fathers, so foreign to them. Let us admit this and try not to be so presumptuous (I speak for myself also).

I have no time (and probably not the sources) to find out how much St. Photios.or St. Mark read of Bl. Augustine. I would suspect that St. Photios had read rather little apart from the texts under dispute, and St. Mark probably more (in fact, St. Mark can probably be shown to be under Augustine’s “influence” in some way if you search hard enough!—his disciple Gennadius, after all, was the translator of Thomas Aquinas into Greek). Undoubtedly their respect for Augustine was based on the general respect for him in the Church, especially in the West from the very beginning.

And this brings up the only real question I think you might fruitfully research: what did the Western Church think of Blessed Augustine in the centuries when it was Orthodox? The West knew him as one of their own Fathers; it knew his writings well, including the disputes over them. What did the Western Fathers who were linked with the East think of him? We know St. Cassian’s opinion—he challenged (politely) Augustine’s teaching on grace while accepting his authority on other questions. St. Vincent of Lerins’ argument is more with the immoderate followers of Augustine. In neither case was there talk of “heresy,” or of someone who was totally un-Orthodox. St. Faustus of Lerins—if anyone, he should be an enemy of Augustine, but the evidence seems to the contrary. St. Caesarius of Arles, St. Gregory the Great—admirers of Augustine, while not following his exaggerations on grace. I don’t mention some of the enthusiastic followers of Augustine.

There is room for research here in Latin sources, but no research can overthrow the obvious fact (it seems to me)—the Orthodox West accepted him as a Father. If he’s really a “heretic,” then doesn’t the whole West go down the drain with him? I’m sure you can find enough signs of “Western mentality” in Gregory the Great, for example, to disqualify him as a Father and Saint in the eyes of many of today’s Orthodox scholars—he also is accepted in the East on the basis of his general reputation in the West, and on the basis of his Dialogues (which I’m sure a few would now question as having a right to be called an Orthodox book).

I think the “heresy hunt” over Augustine reveals at least two major faults in todays Orthodox scholars who are pursuing it:

[1.] A profound insecurity over their own Orthodoxy, born of the uncertainties of our times, the betrayal of ecumenism, and their own purely Western education. Here Augustine is a “scapegoat”—hit him hard enough and it proves how Orthodox you yourself really are!

[2.] An incipient sectarian consciousness—in attacking Augustine so bitterly, one not only attacks the whole Orthodox West of the early centuries, but also a great many Orthodox thinkers of recent centuries and today. I could name you bishops in our Church who think like Augustine on a number of points—are they, then, “heretics” too? I think some of our anti-Augustinians are coming close to this conclusion, and thus close to schism and the formation of an “Orthodox” sect that prides itself on the correctness of its intellectual views. A number of people have already left our Russian Church Abroad for the Mathewites after being infected with this consciousness (not just over the issue of Augustine—the Mathewites are more pro-Augustine than anyone in our Church—but over the whole idea of “intellectual correctness” as an ideal).

I myself am no great admirer of Augustine’s doctrines. He does indeed have that Western “super-logicalness” which the Eastern Fathers don’t have (the same “super-logicalness” which the critics of Augustine today display so abundantly!). The one main lovable and Orthodox thing about him is his Orthodox feeling, piety, love for Christ, which comes out so strongly in his non-dogmatic works like the Confessions (the Russian Fathers also love the Soliloquies). To destroy Augustine, as today’s critics are trying to do, is to help destroy also this piety and love for Christ—these are too “simple” for today’s intellectuals (even though they also claim to be “pious” in their own way). Today it is Augustine; tomorrow (and it’s already begun) the attack will be on the “simple” bishops and priests of our Church. The anti-Augustine movement is a step towards schism and further disorders in the Orthodox Church.

Let us assume that one’s exegesis of Romans 5:12 is incorrect; that one believes like Augustine on the transmission of original sin; that one knows little of the difference between the “transcendent” and the “economic” Trinity and sometimes confuses them. Can’t one still be Orthodox? Does one have to shout so loudly one’s “correctness” on such matters, and one’s disdain (and this disdain is strongly felt!) for those who believe thus? In the history of the Church, opinions such as these which disagree with the consensus of the Church have not been a cause for heresy hunts. Recognizing our fallible human nature, the Fathers of the past have kept the best Orthodox views and left in silence such private views which have not tried to proclaim themselves the only Orthodox views.

I myself fear the cold hearts of the “intellectually correct” much more than any errors you might find in Augustine. I sense in these cold hearts a preparation for the work of Antichrist (whose imitation of Christ must also extend to “correct theology”!); I feel in Augustine the love of Christ.

Forgive me for my frankness, but I think you probably welcome it. I have spoken from the heart, and I hope you will not pass this letter around so it can be put in various “files” and picked apart for its undoubted shortcomings.

May God preserve us all in His grace! Please pray for us.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. An important point I didn’t specify in the letter above—the extreme criticism of Augustine show such a lack of trust in the Orthodox Fathers and bishops of the past who accepted him as a Father (including the whole Orthodox West before the Schism). This lack of trust is a symptom of the coldness of heart of our times.

Aug 13/26, 1981

August 13/26, 1981

Apodosis of Transfiguration

Dear Dr. Johnstone.

May the blessing of the Lord by with you!

Thank you for your letter of August 10/23 and the copy of your letter to Metropolitan Philaret. We do appreciate your sending it.

I am sad to hear that you find The Orthodox Word, no. 96 so greatly disturbing. I honestly think the content of the issue does not warrant such a strong reaction. The real issue involved is surely no more than the propriety of presenting as an Orthodox model a priest who was, after all, a member of the Soviet Church, with which we have no communion (and with which, as our issue 96 states quite clearly, we should have no communion).

Articles on Archimandrite Tavrion, Fr. Dimitry Dudko, and other courageous priests of the Soviet Church have appeared for several years in the Russian-language church periodicals published in Jordanville, and there has been on outcry in our Church; it is generally understood that this is a matter of personal choice, and those who would prefer to keep the “strict line” and not even mention such priests have not shown any particular disturbance when others (such as ourselves) have considered the words and actions of these priests as having a posidve value for us in the West. Our readers, judging from our mail, have generally agreed with us in this. The reason there has been no outcry, I think, is quite simply because our disagreement over the small question of propriety is outweighed by our much greater agreement on the nature of the Church, the stand of our Russian Church Outside of Russia, etc.

The outcry and the disturbance come, rather, from converts to our Church like yourself who, it would seem, find their disagreement to be much deeper. This disagreement may be seen in some of the value judgments you make in your letter to the Metropolitan: a bishop in the Soviet Church is a “pseudo-bishop,” “Soviet bishops are no bishops.” Your disagreement with us, therefore, is a deep one over ecclesiology; evidently you agree with Fr. Michael Azkoul who recently stated (Orthodox Christian Witness, Aug, 10/23) that “heresy has negated these ancient Sees. There is no ‘church,’ hence no Mysteries” in the Churches of Moscow and Constantinople.

I hope you are aware that our Russian Church Outside of Russia has never taught and does not now teach this; this is an opinion which has been introduced into our midst by some converts who think themselves wiser than our bishops. I am sorry that you seem not to see the obvious meaning of our Church’s not having communion with the Soviet Church: that way we stay free of politics and do not bind ourselves to bishops who are not free and who are often forced to betray the truth. But to state that this Church has no grace is a presumption our bishops have never dared to make. This view, in my opinion, is not at all the result of a sound or strict ecclesiology, but is the result of a too-strict logic (a typical disease of our Western mentality) being applied where it does not fit. I do think that the comfortableness of our Western life (in particular, the absence of the agonizing choices that sometimes present themselves to clergy in Russia) only helps one to be “strictly logical” without seeing the whole context of church life in Soviet Russia. I believe the statement on the church situation in the “Catacomb Epistle” printed in our same issue no. 96 says nicely what needs to be said on this subject, and I would encourage you to study it more closely, without hastening to think that it contradicts itself; it sets forth the very position of our Russian Church Abroad: no communion with the Soviet Patriarchate, but no statement about “lack of grace,” and compassion for those who have no other source of church life. This is surely the position of our Metropolitan Philaret, who in sending us the material on Archimandrite Tavrion for publication was not in the least inconsistent with his strict stand against the Soviet bishops.

Can’t we agree on this much and let our disagreements be over small points? If not, I fear the schism that is brewing in our midst on the part of those who really think they “know better” than our bishops. I can already see in Fr. Michael’s sermon in Orthodox Christian Witness the beginnings of exaggerations which can serve to accelerate a schism: certainly none of us who admire Fr. Tavrion think that he attempted, or that one can, “join the Moscow church in order to save it”; we have no “enthusiasm for the Moscow church” (I regard that as simple slander); we are not engaging in any kind of “muddled thinking,” “twaddle,” or “sophistry”—but the use of such language certainly shows that he is not well disposed to understand the position of Metropolitan Philaret and the rest of us.

I pray that, since you are so interested in this question, you will not be satisfied with a superficial answer, and will not press “logical deductions” that take the place of real ecclesiology, but will study the question more deeply in the statements of our Russian bishops (both of the Catacomb Church and the Russian Church Abroad—see, for example, our bishops’ statements in The Orthodox Word, 1976, no. 5, pp. 160-166). I think you will find that the position of our bishops has not changed at all; rather, what has been uncovered is that you (and those who think like you) were not of one mind with our bishops in the past, and you are only now finding this out. I pray that you will find that you can be of one mind with our bishops; their attitude is really just about the only sound one in the Orthodox world today, even if it is not always easy to “define” it to our very Western, modern minds.

Please forgive me if anything I have said here has in any way offended you; I have certainly not intended to do so, and hope that there will be continued peace between us all in the Russian Church Abroad. Please pray for us all.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Aug 18/31, 1981

August 18/31, 1981

Martyrs Florus and Laurus

Your Grace, dear Vladika Laurus,

Blagoslovite!

First of all, Father Herman and all the brethren send you heartfelt congratulations on your namesday. Spasi, Christe Bozhe! Thank you very much also for your recent visit to us, which was very much appreciated by our pilgrims. Our pilgrimage seems to have been a great success, with much interest aroused in gaining a deeper knowledge of Orthodoxy.

This past Saturday and Sunday we were visited by Basil Voytan and his parents and had a long discussion with them over his future. He does not want to do anything else but prepare himself for service in the Church, but he is also very much afraid of the depression which came over, him last year in Jordanville (and lasted for months), based upon idleness, inability to apply what he reads in spiritual books to the reality of his life, etc. He is presently in a “bored” state, and without close supervision he is afraid (and we agree) that he will lose all interest in serving the Church.

Therefore, we informed him of what you had told us about the correspondence courses that will soon be set up, and of the possibility of receiving a Jordanville degree without being present at the seminary for all five years of courses. We proposed (in the presence of his parents) that he spend the next school year here with us doing all the Jordanville course work he can do, under our guidance. After praying and receiving Holy communion the next day, he accepted this proposal and is preparing to come here in a few weeks.

With your blessing, we would like to give him as much of the second and third year course materials as he can handle (this will depend on his facility in Russian, which we haven’t tested yet). We have the list of books for the third-year course; is there a similar list for the second year? If you approve of this plan, what would be required to do for him to be enrolled in the seminary?—write papers, take examinations, etc.?

From what we know of him over the past several years, Basil seems to be a highly gifted and motivated boy who could easily perform the necessary work; and under close supervision we believe his emotional problem (which seems to be bound up with immaturity) can also be handled.

Please let us know your opinion of all this, so that we will know what to give him when he comes. We plan to give him a strict regime, with certain hours every day for study, and personal help as needed.

Asking your holy prayers,

With love and respect in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. We hear that our Greeks have risen up in protest against our article on Elder Tavrion, and that the Synod is going to discuss it. I hope the bishops will have in mind that those who are protesting are doing so because they think, as Father Michael Azkoul wrote in the Orthodox Christian Witness of August 10/23, that “heresy has negated these ancient Sees. There is no ‘church,’ hence no Mysteries” in the Churches of Moscow and Constantinople. I think our Greeks must be about to leave us because of our “apostasy”!

Aug 21/Sept 3, 1981

August 21/September 3, 1981

Martyr Bassa

Your Grace, dear Vladika Gregory,

Blagoslovite!

We have heard from several sources that the Greek clergy in our Church are making a rather loud protest against our recent articles on Archimandrite Tavrion (The Orthodox Word #96). The main article was sent us by Metropolitan Philaret specifically for publication, and we printed also his short letter which stated this fact. We thought that the Metropolitans statement would prevent any adverse comment and would cause our Greek clergy to begin to rethink their own fanatical position with regard to the church situation in Russia.

Unfortunately, the result was something quite different, and the past two issues of Orthodox Christian Witness have contained articles by Father Michael Azkoul and by Holy Transfiguration Monastery which not only make statements very disrespectful towards the Metropolitans statement, but also set forth an ecclesiology which I believe is totally foreign to our Russian Church Outside of Russia: that the Orthodox Churches of Moscow and Constantinople (and presumably all the other Local Orthodox Churches, which are in communion with them) are without grace, that their “bishops are no bishops,” etc.

These are statements of such a serious kind that if they are allowed to go uncorrected they will create the strong impression that our Church has indeed become what our enemies would like to think it is: a sect.

Our Greeks would very much like everyone to think that all the converts and non-Russians in our Church, and many of the Russians also, share their fanatical views. We have just heard from one of our parishioners in the Portland area (where someone from our monastery goes occasionally to serve the Liturgy in Slavonic) that Father George Macris is insisting that the Russians there (who attend the English-language parish when there is no Slavonic service) write or sign letters of protest to ^ the Metropolitan against our articles; this has caused much confusion among the Russians, who cannot understand what this is all about.

We ourselves have received only two letters of protest against our issue #96, both of them from persons thoroughly under the influence of our Greeks; all other responses have been favorable— in fact, those who have responded have found the image of Father Tavrion to be a very inspiring one. I am enclosing my reply to Dr. John Johnstone concerning his letter of protest to the Metropolitan, which perhaps you have seen.

I think I mentioned once before in a letter to you that the “silent majority” of the members of our Church, both clergy and laymen, both Russians and converts—does not follow the fanatical party-line of our Greeks. We (and very many with us) certainly hope that the loudness of the outcry of our Greeks will not cause any statement on the part of our Church leadership that could be interpreted as favorable in any way to the cause of fanaticism such as our Greeks are now preaching so loudly. Our Russian Church Outside of Russia can continue to be a beacon-light to the other Orthodox Churchs—but it will not be so if we become a sect such as our Greeks would make us out to be (and a sect which would only be warring with other small “sects” in Greece—for our Greeks have no oneness at all with the Old Calendar movement in Greece).

Please forgive my boldness in speaking so frankly. I have done so knowing that the non-fanatics in our Church (the vast majority, I am sure) are not organized and do not think it their business to make loud (and sometimes coerced) statements in the manner of our Greeks.

Asking your prayers and blessing,

With love and respect in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. We recently concluded a very successful week of lectures and courses in our summer St. Herman Pilgrimage. About 150 people attended the first day, and nearly 200 were present at some time during the week (most of them converts). We noted that in virtually none of them was there the “super-correct,” “know-it-all” attitude which is promoted by our Greeks; all, on the contrary, were eager to learn and most respectful of the authority of our bishops, two of whom (Bishops Alypy and Lauras) were present at some time.

Aug 21/Sept 3, 1981

August 21 /Sept. 3, 1981B

Apostle Thaddeus

Dear Father Gregory,

Christ is in our midst!

Many thanks for your letter. We have heard from several others also of the “party” spirit at the Pennsylvania conference, which is sad but is now what we have come to expect. We plan no public disputes over anything, and I pray that God will keep us out of being dragged into any; there will be no peace in the Church until we are all able to stand a little above the issues of the day and have a little tolerance for differing opinions. Easier said than done! Just now we hear of the big outcry our Greeks have raised against our article on Elder Tavrion, the “final straw” being that the Metropolitan himself sent and endorsed it for publication. Father George Macris in Portland is trying to force our old Russian parishioners there (who attend his English services when we can’t come for a Slavonic service) to write letters of protest to the Metropolitan, and the poor old ladies don’t understand what it’s all about! What a narrow strait-jacket of logic they want to force us into, and how little it suits the real needs of the Orthodox mission today! We plan no answer tjo this outcry, but presume the bishops will sooner or later have to make a statement that we do not regard the Moscow and other Churches as “without grace,” even if it might cause the schism of our Greeks. We plan nothing further on Blessed Augustine either, apart from re-issuance of our earlier articles on him; those who hate him do so for personal reasons and won’t be convinced by anything we could say.

We had a very successful Pilgrimage here, with many more pilgrims than expected (150 the first day, and nearly 200 people altogether during the week). There were no “super-correct” zealots noticeable, no protests against the frequent mention of suffering believers in Russia (including a talk on a courageous priest [Fr. George Calciu] of the Romanian Patriarchate)—just normal people awaking to the need for a deeper Orthodoxy (or to the need for Orthodoxy at all—there were several converts made during the Pilgrimage, and two baptisms of older converts). I think there are big things just beginning to happen in the soul of America (parallel to the awakening in Russia), and we should be there to guide all those we can into Orthodoxy. There is also a beginning of awakening in Orthodox of other jurisdictions through contact with our Church, and this should certainly be encouraged by not pushing them away with statements that they have no grace, etc. In view of all this, our Greeks are just not “where it’s at”—they’re fighting windmills with their jesuitical logic and justifying their own “purity,” while what is needed is loving and aware hearts to help the suffering and searching and bring them to Christ.

Why don’t you come out for next year’s Pilgrimage? I think it will expand your horizons about the missionary field.

We haven’t heard from David Pirkle. I would be interested to hear how he was confused by the Pennsylvania conference, since we occasionally have to encounter such cases.

I’m sorry to hear of your experience with Arsenius; things like that can be humbling! But God is stronger than our weakness! I hope you aren’t being tempted to move to the big city—? Stay where you are, and you will see it bear fruit.

Many thanks for The Sacramental Life. I read it and liked it, with only two questions: As far as I know, our Russian Church has never heard of the “re-chrismation” the Greeks practice (probably picked up by them under the Turkish Yoke), and I wonder if it might not become a temptation for our “super-correct” ones. Also, on p. 72, I wonder if the phrase “even in some sense of becoming God” might not better read: “even in some sense of becoming divine.” Could you send us 20 copies against a supply of something you need? (Our money situation right now is probably as bad as yours; we are still many thousands short of what we need to print Dogmatic Theology, but are starting anyway.)

May God preserve you strong in your trials, and thanking Him for them. Please pray for us all. My greetings to Matushka and the children.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Aug 21/Sept 3, 1981

August 21/Sept. 3, 1981C

Martyr Bassa

Dear Father Photios,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

I have heard from several people who were present at the recent Orthodox conference in Pennsylvania that you are planning to print a book by Dr. Kalomiros on creation and evolution. From one of these persons I heard that this book is to include excerpts from my correspondence with Dr. Kalomiros on these subjects in 1973. On the chance that this rumor might be true, please let me tell you the following:

This correspondence was strictly a private one between Dr. Kalomiros and myself. I specifically asked him not to send copies of it to anyone, so that we might work out our seeming differences on this subject and come to some fruitful agreement about it—something which simply cannot be done if outsiders are reading it, spreading rumors about a “dispute,” and in general putting this subject into the gossip route. I was very sad to find out at that time that, despite my plea, he had indeed sent out copies, and “xeroxes of xeroxes” were being read by a number of people who were interested in it precisely as a “dispute.” I was further saddened by the fact that Dr. Kalomiros, despite my several pleas to him to do so, has absolutely refused to have any contact with me since that time, evidently regarding my letter (which was quite frank and outspoken, and was intended for his eyes alone) as some kind of “insult” to him. I myself benefitted from the correspondence, changed several of my own opinions, and believed at that time that if only we could have continued the correspondence then we might have come up with something worth giving to the larger Orthodox reading public.

Given these circumstances, I think you can understand why I am absolutely opposed to the publication of any part of my correspondence with Dr. Kalomiros on this subject. I can only see it as an attempt to cause more dispute among Orthodox Christians and to sow discord among the small flock of Christ. There is enough of that already without adding more fuel to the fire. If Dr. Kalomiros wishes to publish something on this subject, let him do so in a spirit of peace, and with no reference to the disagreements which I once had with him on the subject. For my part, all I can do is categorically forbid any quotation from my letter. And if I am to be referred to in any way in this proposed book (since this would undoubtedly be for a disputatious purpose), I would ask you to send me a copy of the material for approval before publication, so that there will not be another of those senseless disputes that are dividing our flocks.

If all this is a groundless rumor, of course, please disregard this letter. My only concern is to avoid an unnecessary public “fight” between members of one and the same Orthodox Church. In essence these questions can be discussed without any “fight,” calmly and with respect for differing opinions; but the correspondence between Dr. Kalomiros and myself contains expressions (on both sides) that can too easily be interpreted as a “fight” by outsiders. This is why I wished, and still wish, it to be a private matter.

Asking your prayers,

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Sept 4/17, 1981

Sept. 4/17, 1981

Holy Prophet and God-seer Moses

Dear Father Demetrios,

CHRIST IS IN OUR MIDST!

Just a note to ask you to return the display about our monastery and missions, if you haven’t already sent it back to Etna. We haven’t even seen it ourselves, so please send it here.

I’m sorry you have to return so many of our books, but even more sorry to see the prejudice against them in that part of the country. Even the Russian Conference in San Francisco bought many times more than that, because they haven’t been told that we are “apostates,” “betrayers,” and all the rest. Fr. Panteleimon must be behind it, since he has told us not to send any more books of any kind to the monastery and has canceled The Orthodox Word (besides demanding that we pay for Psalters, incense and everything else—save for a few supplies—that he use to give so abundantly).

Can’t you and some like-minded priests do anything about this drying up of Christian love? The latest scandal over Elder Tavrion is a disgrace—the hate campaign in the Greek parishes (even extending to some of our innocent Russian ladies in Portland, who are supposed to sign ready-made letters against us!) simply cannot be reconciled with any kind of Orthodoxy. Fortunately, our bishops have again come out with an appropriate statement that sets things straight, and it is significant that, besides warning clergy and laymen who uncharitably judge their own Metropolitan, they warn over the danger of a “schism” if this “know-better” mentality continues.

I have no hope whatever that our Greek clergy will take this warning to heart; they seem determined to push our whole Church into the soulless, heartless, pharisaical dead-end into which they have already pushed themselves. Undoubtedly they are calculating that priests like you will unthinkingly follow them into schism, leaving only a lot of “stupid Russians” in the Synod.

Can’t you and other priests like you who still have not been totally alienated by the Greeks, speak up before the fatal step is made? Tell them they have to humble themselves, cease thinking they know so much more than the whole of Church tradition, start being truly obedient to bishops and the church authority, and cease their Gestapo-GPU tactics against sincere priests and bishops who may happen to disagree with their party line. Judging from this last outburst, the schism is close, and I’m afraid the “silent majority” of our priests and laymen will only heave a sigh of relief when the troublemakers are gone—leaving behind them a bad harvest of ill will, and continuing their name-calling and hatred in a louder tone from their new “jurisdiction.”

May God preserve us from all of this! Please forgive my frankness, but I feel the time is very late, and anyone who can do anything had better do it now. I know God will continue to preserve His Church and I believe He will prosper the true Orthodox mission which is just beginning in our Church; the 150-200 souls who attended our pilgrimage and courses this year are eager to learn more, and not at all caught up in the artificial fanaticism that the Greeks propagate. But the tragedy of souls caught in a self-willed schism will be incalculable.

Please pray for us, as we do for you with love. May God grant true love and peace to His much-suffering Church, both here and in the atheist lands!

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Sept 25/Oct 8, 1981

Sept. 25/Oct. 8, 1981

St. Sergius of Radonezh

Dear Father Michael,

Christ is in our midst! He is and shall be!

Thank you for your letter. May God forgive you—and please forgive me if I have offended you in any way.

With you personally I have never felt any animosity on either side; some disagreements, perhaps, but not ill will. I do think your sermon printed recently in Orthodox Christian Witness went too far in its inferences about those who sympathize with certain priests in the Moscow Patriarchate— none of us condone the Patriarchate itself, but we share the position so well set out by our Synod in its recent decree on the “Elder Tavrion” uproar.

But his same decree does indeed use the word “schism” to refer to those over-quick to criticize others, even their own Metropolitan, and I think the danger, now becoming more obvious, has indeed long been present in our midst. I really think that this problem is now so deep that no personal forgiveness can uproot it. What is really required, I think, is the total eradication of the clique in our Church, centered around the person of Fr. Panteleimon in Boston, that thinks it knows better than our bishops and our whole Church tradition what the teaching of the Church is. Every major disturbance in our Church in recent years has come from the clash between the opinions of Fr. Panteleimon and the teaching of the Church, which are often two different things. We and many others are quite willing to live in peace with those who have different opinions on various church matters; but if they insist that the opinions are the teaching of the Church, a clash and eventual schism is inevitable. (By “eradication,” of course, I don’t mean that its members should be “executed,” but only that they cease to operate as a “pressure group” in the Church and learn to humble themselves before the teaching of the bishops and the Russian Church in general.)

I sincerely hope the recent statement of our bishops on the “Elder Tavrion” article will serve to meeken the critics of our Church teachings and policies. If so, there is hope for peace.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Sept 25/Oct 8, 1981

Sept. 25/Oct. 8, 1981B

St. Sergius of Radonezh

Dear Father Demetrios,

CHRIST IS IN OUR MIDST!

I send you greetings on the feast of St. Sergius. We had Liturgy today and a procession outdoors to bless two new crosses erected in our wilderness. Glory be to God that we still have such freedom!

I presume by now you’ve received the decree of the Synod on the “Elder Tavrion” dispute. We agree 100% with it and only rejoice that the bishops have finally made clear some things which our Church has always believed, but because they weren’t necessarily written down somewhere a few people have disputed them. Please note that it is the Metropolitan and bishops themselves who raise the question of the danger of “schism” with regard to those who are criticizing their Metropolitan. This is by no means a product of imagination on our part, but indeed a very real danger that faces us, and now that the bishops have dared use the word I hope there will be an awakening and sobering up on the part of those who are overly critical.

In general, I think you underestimate the gravity of what is happening: it is by ;; means a matter of jealousy between priests or monasteries (such things, it is true, exist, but they are secondary). The first question is one of a difference in the whole approach to the Orthodox Church, our witness today, our compassion for those striving to regain a lost or damaged Orthodoxy, etc. One group in our Church (mostly Greeks and converts) wants to define this question so narrowly that our Orthodoxy becomes almost a sect, and “we are the only pure ones left”; the other group, led by our Metropolitan and bishops, wants to keep the same open and loving approach we have had for sixty years and does not want to change it. This is why there are such bitter reactions on the part of those who do want to change and narrow our conception of Orthodoxy.

You think that our Orthodox Word has become more “controversial” in recent years? But really, try to look objectively (leaving aside the opinions of some people on the East Coast) at our issues of past years and our issues of today: don’t you see that our tone has in fact become more rather than less meek than it used to be? This is the only difference, and it is a difference that has come about because our bishops have told us that they prefer this approach.

In actual fact, our articles on Elder Tavrion were not in themselves controversial at all—we simply presented the material which Metropolitan Philaret deliberately sent us with instructions to translate and print it. Our own editorial comments were intended to show how it is possible to have a strict attitude towards the Soviet Church and still be sympathetic to a real struggler like Elder Tavrion. The “controversy” erupted only when some people insisted on imposing their legalistic definitions of the church situation upon this phenomenon. Bishop Gregory has just written us and told how tired he is trying to combat the very Western idea of the Church which the critics of the Metropolitan are expressing—this is our problem.

And do you really think that we have changed in recent years over The Orthodox Word of old? Except for the meekening of our tone, at the request of our bishops, we have not changed at all. Read The Orthodox Word for 1971: we called Boris Talantov an “Orthodox Confessor” (a name we have not applied to Fr. Dimitry Dudko or Elder Tavrion), despite the fact that Talantov called the Catacomb Church a “sect”—we saw that the latter was a secondary aspect of his teaching, and the primary one was his oneness with our Church in his anti-Sergianism. And all those who are now calling us names welcomed this article on Talantov; Fr. Neketas in Seattle even reprinted part of it. Read our Orthodox Word even in 1965: there we presented the monks of Pochaev and various other members of the Soviet Church in the most sympathetic light, and no one protested.

Do you want to know where the difference actually is, in my opinion? Those who are now criticizing us so strongly have themselves changed: now they wish to declare the Moscow Patriarchate as without grace (the recent articles by Fr. Michael Azkoul and Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Orthodox Christian Witness are the first that I know of in the past 13 years where this position is set forth so clearly), and they wish to cut off all active sympathy for the Moscow Patriarchate priests and laymen, thus contradicting their own position of ten years ago.

I pray that you will be able to look at this whole situation objectively, and resist the pressures which the “pressure group” on the East Coast is trying to apply. Our bishops need the active support of us priests in defending their wise and sober approach. The only “crime” of our Brotherhood is that we have openly defended this approach. Read the Synods decree (it is in the new issue of Orthodox America, is supposed to be printed in all of our periodicals) and I think you will agree.

If you do have influence with Holy Transfiguration Monastery, tell them we would like to send them (as before) 30 or more copies of Orthodox Word, which should be freely given to all brothers who want it—we are being censured there!

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Sept 26/Oct 9, 1981

Sept. 26/Oct. 9, 1981

St. John the Theologian

Dear Father Johnikios,

CHRIST IS IN OUR MIDST!

Enclosed is a Social Security form which Basil Voytans father gave to us to fill out, and which is required by the Social Security authorities in order to give money for Basils education. Can you simply fill out the bottom part (Section С)? If so, please do so and send it in the enclosed envelope before November 1, or his family will have complications in receiving the money.

Vladika Laurus sent his blessing for Basil to stay here this year, but we still have no information on how he is to be tested, and also as to whether there are any specific textbooks for his second year classes. We have him reading Smirnov’s Church History (in Russian, with translation exercises from it), a lot of Russian literature in translation (in preparation for the third-year course), Andreyev’s Apologetics (in English), practice in Slavonic (both on kliros and outside). If there is no set textbook for Russian history, we will give him one of our English-language texts that covers the period from Peter I for the second year course. He also writes one composition a week (on literature, apologetics, etc.) and attends a class for all our brothers in world history from the Orthodox perspective, Is there anything else he will need this year? His knowledge of Russian is not yet at the advanced textbook level, but he is spending several hours daily at reading and translation, and is advancing steadily.

Mrs. Voytan asked where to send the tuition money, and we told her to send it to you at the seminary. Is anything else required for him to be enrolled at the seminary? Basil spends about 10 hours per week in formal classes, the rest in homework; if necessary, we could give him 20 hours per week in supervised attendance.

Please let us know what else we need to do. So far Basil is flourishing in his studies, is very interested and self-motivated, with no serious problems. He is especially interested in Russian literature and thinks that part of his problem last year was trying to plunge too much into “dukhovnost” without a better preparation in “dushevnost’”.

Please pray for us. We have a good group for the winter (ten of us right now), and it should be a fruitful season.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Oct 17/30, 1981

Oct, 17/30. 1981

Prophet Hosea

Dear Father George,

Christ is in our midst! He is and shall be!

Thank you for your letter and your proposal to meet me on my next visit to the Portland area. I would be glad to arrange a meeting with you, although my next visit will not be too soon. Father Herman visits the Russian parish there more often than I, and since I made the last two visits the next one will undoubtedly be his. I won’t be there until after the first of the year.

I’m sorry you found The Orthodox Word no. 96 disturbing, but I can assure you there was nothing in it “implied” about any change in our attitude towards the Moscow Patriarchate. The recent “Decision” of the Synod of Bishops says it very well, I think, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

I think perhaps a part of the disturbance comes from the fact that the attitude of our Church Outside of Russia to the Moscow Patriarchate has never been “defined” in so many words, and some people have read into the strictness of our attitude an ecclesiological statement about the Patriarchate that simply isn’t there. Among most of the Russian clergy articles on Archimandrite Tavrion (which have appeared in Orthodox Russia over the past several years), as well as others like Fr. Dimitry Dudko, Boris Talantov, etc., cause no problem because, while their position is recognized as one of “compromise” to some degree, the church situation in Russia is recognized as not yet “final” and therefore as not yet requiring any absolute judgment on our part. Therefore, our non-communion with Moscow is strict, but it is in no way compromised or threatened by our sympathy and support for courageous priests and laymen of the Patriarchate. This is not at all a “new” attitude in our Russian Church Abroad; it has always been like this, but only recently have there appeared any very public instances in which it has been expressed.

If you want a theological statement on this whole question, I think the closest you will get to it is in the writings of Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan (The Orthodox Word, 1977, no. 75).

Given the non-finality of the Russian church situation, I myself find no problem in co-existing in the same Church with people who have different approaches and even different opinions on this situation, as long as they do not try to force their opinions upon the whole Church. Some seem to want to proclaim the Moscow Patriarchate as without grace and no better than Roman Catholicism; others (among the clergy) allow their spiritual children to receive communion (when travelling in Russia) from clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate. These are both matters of private opinion which can co-exist in the Church as long as no attempt is made to make them the Church’s official position; I myself think the correct position is somewhere between these two extremes. If you have any difficulty accepting such “broadness,” I think your difficulty is not with any of us who have expressed various opinions, but with our bishops who for fifty years have not taken any more definite position.

Asking your prayers, and assuring yours [stet] of mine,

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Nov 25/Dec 8, 1981

Nov. 25/Dec. 8, 1981

Hieromartyr Clement of Rome

Dear Father Demetrios,

CHRIST IS IN OUR MIDST!

Just a note to remind you that we haven’t yet received the display concerning our monastery, and also the unsold books—we really need the latter, as we are running short of almost all of our books now and won’t be able to reprint them for a while.

The impression I got from your last letter was that we should have refused to print the material Metropolitan Philaret sent us on Archimandrite Tavrion. I disagree—if we go that way we will begin to separate ourselves from our own bishops, our fathers and guides in the faith. I truly believe that they know what they are talking about and that we should listen to them. I have heard several of our priests speaking as though the recent “Decision” of the Synod on the Elder Tavrion controversy can be simply ignored (just as the earlier decision on Deacon Lev’s errors on life after death can be ignored)—and this seems to me the beginning of the spiritual suicide of some of our clergy.

Now Fr. Lev is gone (and to a jurisdiction that is really considered graceless by our bishops!), and Fr. Gleb Jensen too—already fighting each other in different jurisdictions. The schism of which many of us have been warning is already real, and where will it stop? How tragic and unnecessary! Fr. Gleb accuses our bishops of changing their position and betraying the faith—but if he would have been in closer contact with the real heart of our Church in past years, he would know that none of us have changed in our attitude towards Moscow or other basic church issues. He and others read statements of our bishops, and statements in The Orthodox Word, in past years and read into them their own extreme opinions; and now when it becomes clear that none of us ever held these extreme opinions, we are accused of betrayal. This is “Alice in Wonderland” Orthodoxy! How tragic that some are now leading their flocks (albeit still very small flocks) out of communion with the only people who can still teach them what Orthodoxy is and help them to wake up from their fantasies of a “super-correct” Orthodoxy that exists nowhere in the world.

Please pray for these people, and where possible let them know that they are “off.” Try to save those who will try to make the leap next. I am in contact with Fr. George Macris and still hope he can see the way things really are.

Please pray for us all.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

MCMLXXXII

Jan 15/28, 1982

Jan. 15/28, 1982

St. Paul of Thebes

Dear Father George,

CHRIST IS IN OUR MIDST! I trust you had a good Christmas season. Ours was very festive and joyous, with tremendous Christmas weather—two feet of snow and crystal-cold weather.

This is an attempt to reply briefly to your letter of Nov. 10/Oct. 29 and keep open our correspondence.

Perhaps our new Orthodox Word (no. 98), together with the “Decision” of the Synod there printed, have made clear enough our position. Personally, I continue to regard the article on Archimandrite Tavrion as beneficial and especially needed and timely today. The increase of defections of priests from our Synod who think they are “more Orthodox” than our bishops points up the need more than ever to make known our bishops’ sober and moderate stand towards the Moscow Patriarchate and some other jurisdictions; Fr. Gleb and others are leaving because they were misinformed about our bishops’ stand in the first place, and because they lack precisely that Orthodox spirit and heart which Elder Tavrion exemplifies.

I think a basic problem is that some, perhaps you also, are reading into our bishops’ statements positions which simply aren’t there—dotting the I’s, so to speak, which our bishops haven’t dotted. The statement against Moscow’s giving communion to Roman Catholics, for example, despite its mention of “heresy,” is by no means a statement that the Moscow Patriarchate is now a heretical organization, without grace, etc. (ask our bishops, they should tell you). Nor is the recent statement of the Sobor that the Moscow Patriarchate with all its acts is “uncanonical and null and void” a statement that goes any further than Metr. Cyril’s statement years ago (see OW, p. 126)—yes, we accept no acts of the Moscow Patriarchate as binding on us (leaving a final decision on them to the future free All- Russian Council); but that says nothing against the grace which (I think you will find our bishops agreeing, though not officially) believers receive in the Sacraments in Russia, nor against the continued support which we show for the “dissident” priests in Russia (see our own Archbishop Anthony’s Christmas Epistle this year).

The very fact that the church situation in Russia is not final and awaits a final definition only in a free Russia (which let us pray for) renders the quoting of canons about “schism” and “heresy” unconvincing to us and many others. If and when our bishops themselves quote these canons and make the final proclamation about the Moscow Patriarchate which up to now they have deliberately avoided—then we will be convinced. Until then, this quoting of canons will only encourage more of our “super-correct” people to go into schism. The fact that you are so certain about some of these issues, while others of us think there is much matter for opinion and interpretation in them, is probably one of the chief causes of our disagreement.

It was Fr. Herman’s turn to go to Oregon last weekend, and my next trip is still some time off, but I do hope to meet you. Asking your prayers,

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

No Date

Spiritual Seeker

[OW 187-188, p. 117; written “towards the end of his life”, possibly a hand-written letter to Fr. Damascene]

…It so happens that Ren; Gu;non was the chief influence in the formation of my own intellectual outlook (quite apart from the question of Orthodox Christianity). I read and studied with eagerness all his books that I could get ahold of; through his influence I studied the ancient Chinese language and resolved to do for the Chinese tradition what he had done for the Hindu; I was even able to meet and study with a genuine representative of the Chinese tradition and understood full well what he means by the difference between such authentic teachers and the mere “professors” who teach in the universities.

It was Ren; Gu;non who taught me to seek and love Truth above all else, and to be unsatisfied with anything else; this is what finally brought me to the Orthodox Church. Perhaps a word of my experience will be of help for you to know.

For years in my studies I was satisfied with being “above all traditions” but somehow faithful to them; I only went deeper into the Chinese tradition because no one had presented it in the West from a fully traditional point of view. When I visited an Orthodox Church, it was only in order to view another “tradition”—knowing that Gu;non (and one of his disciples) had described Orthodoxy as the most authentic of the Christian traditions.

However, when I entered an Orthodox Church for the first time (a Russian Church in San Francisco), something happened to me that I had not experienced in any Buddhist or other Eastern temple; something in my heart said that this is “home,” that all my search was over. I didn’t really know what this meant, because the service was quite strange to me, and in a foreign language. I began to attend Orthodox services more frequently, gradually learning its language and customs, but still keeping all my basic Gu;nonian ideas about all the authentic spiritual traditions.

With my exposure to Orthodoxy and to Orthodox people, however, a new idea began to enter my awareness: that truth was not just an abstract idea, sought and known by the mind, but was something personal—-even a Person—sought and loved by the heart. And that is how I met Christ. I am now grateful that my approach to Orthodoxy took several years and had nothing of emotional excitement about it—that was Gu;non’ѕ influence again, and it helped me to go deeper into Orthodoxy without the ups and downs that some converts encounter when they are not too ready for something as deep as Orthodoxy. My entrance into the Orthodox Church occurred at the very time I left the academic world and gave up the attempt to communicate the Chinese tradition to the Western world. My Chinese teacher also left San Francisco shortly before this—my only real contact with the Chinese tradition—and in Gu;nonіап fashion he disappeared utterly, leaving no address. I remember him fondly, but after becoming Orthodox I saw how limited was his teaching: the Chinese spiritual teaching, he said, would disappear entirely from the world if Communism endures another ten or twenty years in China. So fragile was this tradition—but the Orthodox Christianity I had found would survive everything and endure to the end of the world—because it was not merely handed down from generation to generation, as all traditions are; but was at the same time given from God to man.

I look back fondly on Ren; Gu;non as my first real instructor in Truth, and I only pray that you will take what is good from him and not let his limitations chain you. Even psychologically, “Eastern wisdom” is not for us who are flesh and blood of the West; Orthodox Christianity is clearly the tradition that was given us—and it can be clearly seen in the Western Europe of the first ten centuries, before the falling away of Rome from Orthodoxy. But it also happens that Orthodoxy is not merely a “tradition” like any other, a “handing down” of spiritual wisdom from the past; it is Gods Truth here and now—it gives us immediate contact with God such as no other tradition can do. There are many truths in the other traditions, both those handed down from a past when men were closer to God, and those discovered by gifted men in the reaches of the mind; but the full Truth is only in Christianity, God s revelation of Himself to mankind. I will take only one example: there are teachings on spiritual deception in other traditions, but none so thoroughly refined as those taught by the Orthodox Holy Fathers; and more importantly, these deceptions of the evil one and our fallen nature are so omnipresent and so thorough that no one could escape them unless the loving God revealed by Christianity were close at hand to deliver us from them. Similarly: Hindu tradition teaches many true things about the end of the Kali Yuga; but one who merely knows these truths in the mind will be helpless to resist the temptations of those times, and many who recognize the Antichrist (Chalmakubi) when he comes will nonetheless worship him—only the power of Christ given to the heart will have strength to resist him.

It is my prayer for you that God will open your heart, and you yourself will do what you can do to meet Him. You will find there happiness you never dreamed possible before; your heart will join your head in recognizing the true God, and no real truth you have ever known will be lost. May God grant it!

Feel free to write whatever is in your mind or heart.

With love,

Fr. Seraphim

Mar 26/Apr 8, 1982

March 26/April 8, 1982

Archangel Gabriel

Dear Father Vladimir,

Christ is in our midst!

Archbishop Laurus has written Father Herman, enclosing Nina Berchier’s letter to you requesting you to perform her marriage with Andrew Kencis, and asking Father Herman to discuss with Archbishop Anthony her freedom for marriage (since she was for a time a ryassophore nun). Father Herman has not yet talked with Vladika Anthony about this, but in the meantime I would like to tell you our view of the matter, since Father Herman and myself have had Nina and Andrew as our spiritual children for some time—in fact, ever since I baptized them both (Nina in 1978, and Andrew in 1981).

The main problem, as I see it, is not that Nina was a ryassophore nun. She did not take vows and so could be free to marry. We are very disappointed that she allowed herself to be tempted away from the monastic life, but that is something she has to decide for herself.

The main problem, however, is this (which she did not mention in her letter to you): In her younger years, when she was living a rather loose life, she had an operation performed on her (I forget what it’s called) to make her sterile. She therefore wishes to enter into marriage with no possibility of bearing children. For her to marry Andrew, who is just at the age to begin raising a family, would be a sin and a mockery of the very rite and meaning of marriage. This is all the more true in that Andrew is so young and immature (at least seven years younger than she, and immature for his age). We can only see that she is taking advantage of his immaturity to draw him into a fruitless union that cannot have God’s blessing and will not bring them happiness—certainly not Andrew, who needs precisely the responsibilities and difficulties of raising children for his own salvation.

A further consideration is the fact that they wish to be married so soon, when before January of this year they knew each other only from a few meetings after Ninas return from Chile last summer (and at that, the romance developed while Nina was still wearing the ryassa and klobuk!). This only confirms the fact that their attachment for each other is a result of a “rebound” from Nina’s disappointment over her monastic failure, and not something which has been deeply felt and thought through.

I sympathize with Nina’s search for happiness after her failure at monasticism—but this isn’t the way! It’s a passing temptation, and although they undoubtedly see it all as God’s plan for them, to us it has been too clearly a typical trick of the devil, working on human feelings, to get two people out of monasteries (Andrew was no more than a monastery laborer, but he did return to us last fall with the idea of monasticism in mind, and during his stay with us he was noticeably maturing; if he had stayed longer he would have been better prepared for a fruitful life in the world).

I hope things are going well for you in the parish there. Please pray for our struggling communities and missions—there are many trials, but also many joys. GOD IS WITH US!

Wishing you a joyous Pascha,

With love in Christ,

May 1/14, 1982

May 1/14, 1982

Prophet Jeremiah

Dear Brother in Christ, Vladimir,

IN TRUTH CHRIST IS RISEN!

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

In answer to your letter, I had better say first of all that you probably have a mistaken view as to the nature and extent of our theological courses. We have nothing at all like a “seminary,” and the few courses we do have arose solely in answer to our local need to expand the theological awareness of the brothers in our monastery. (We do have summer courses in conjunction with our Sr. Herman Pilgrimage, but that is only for a week.)

Therefore, if you are looking for a regular seminary course, with officially recognized courses and a BTh degree at the end of it, you would do better to apply to the Holy Trinity Seminary at Jordanville. It is true that the orientation there is very Russian, and the upper-division courses are still mostly in the Russian language, but the first two years are now chiefly in English and with some effort at studying Russian you could get through the whole course.

Having said this, I will add that we have had some non-monastic brothers participate in our courses, and it is conceivable that you might want to join them. However, our approach in these courses is less directed to formal education than to forming an Orthodox mentality—putting off some of the wrong attitudes that are picked up from the air of our contemporary society, developing a sound attitude to culture, art, literature, music, etc., which will enable one to approach theology not in a vacuum, as is so often the case. Our non-monastic brothers participate fully in the daily round of monastic life and are under strict discipline (no “weekends off to go to the city”). Our courses for next fall are not definite yet, and will depend on who will be here to take them.

If you are interested in something like this, we might be able to help you, but the only way to tell for sure is to come and visit us for a while, when it would become evident whether you could fit in with our life and benefit from it. You are quite welcome to visit us this summer. (I should add that our living conditions are a little primitive, with little in the way of modern conveniences like plumbing, electricity, etc.)

Please feel free to write anything further about your hopes, plans, etc.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

June (early), 1982

Letter estimated to be from early June 1982

Handwriting transcribed:

Dear Fr. A—,

Christ is —!

Gleb will be in Redding Sunday to go with you to Chico, as he says you agreed on with him.

I hope you will have some serious talks with him on his future, both this week and later this summer. From me or Fr. Herman, of course, he takes everything with a grain of salt, since we are so close and he is at the “rebel” stage (mildly, but still clearly).

Just a few days ago he decided that he wants to go to Jordanville this fall. I saw right away that this is no seriously thought-through decision, but is simply a way to keep from staying with us, where he is “bored;” and it was inspired not by any desire for real benefit to be gained in Jordanville, but simply “to see how things are there,” brought about by seeing the worldly attitude of Basil Anderson (who is “successful” in Jordanville because he is the only one who can run their big offset machine, and will be graduated solely on that basis and not on course work, or so he says).

Of course, I am glad that he did take seriously my warning that he has to get a seminary education if he wants to be a priest; but seeing his light-minded attitude to the whole matter, I gave him a heavy going-over and told him I could never bless him to go to Jordanville so immature and light- minded (all the American boys we’ve sent there in recent years have had disasters in the first year, and they were more mature than Gleb). He responded with rebellious insistence that he would go even without our blessing, even if it meant not being admitted to the seminary and just “auditing” or floating around.

In one sense, it was good that he got all this out, because he usually hides his deeper feelings, and I was even glad to see him becoming a “man” and sticking to his opinion. The next day (after a sleepless night for me) we were reconciled; I told him I respected his freedom, that no matter what (even if he went wild or became a Jordanville weirdo, which I told him were the 2 alternatives in front of him) he should always consider our monastery as his home, etc.—which caused him to weep (a rare thing with him). But I asked him, whatever he does, let it make sense, let it be part of a plan for his whole future, and not some whim of the moment, which is what his Jordanville thoughts are right now (in fact, the day before our fight, he had told me, very self-confidently, that I was “duped” if I thought anything good could come out of Jordanville graduates!)

As things stand now, he is still fixed on the idea of going in the fall, without even asking what courses are offered in Jordanville to 1st-year students, or what courses I had planned to give him here. Today I told him he’d better get started with application requirements; he was surprised that he had to make a formal application, have a medical exam, affix photos, highschool transcript (or equivalent(?), and even more surprised that he had to do something about it, not me. He did understand that the money for all this should come from his summer earnings, which is something positive (so please don’t tell him where the money comes from—there won’t be much of it in any case).

At the present time my main effort is to get him to see certain things as they really are and not as his emotions color them. For example: last week he was speaking eloquently to several of us about how easy it is to survive as a Orthodox Christian today even with all the temptations around us: you just have the guts to take a humbling “due” that Fr. Herman gives you and trust your spiritual father, and you will survive. I reminded him that when I absolutely forbade him to go to Jordanville so young, and that it was “spiritual suicide” for him, he rebelled and absolutely refused to obey; but until I pointed it out to him, it hadn’t even occurred to him that he had shown lack of trust in me, thereby removing from himself the very thing which he had recently boasted would save him! When the contradiction was brought home to him, he smiled in recognition and promised to write it down; but it still hasn’t sunk in. Likewise, he recognizes that his reasons for going to Jordanville are worldly, and that there is in fact a danger of his losing the churchly attitude of his boyhood and becoming worldly (Basil Anderson is bad in that respect—one senses the influence of Fr. Peter and other floaters, not the pious spirit of the old monks); but all this is seen through the filter of his youthful passions, which now are headed very strongly towards “worldly experience.”

In the end I see all this as a necessary part of his growth and an unavoidable temptation. My main hope is that he will put some sense into what he does and not operate solely on his passions. Any input you can give him in this direction will be good, and will probably have more weight now than what we say. (Unfortunately, Bobby Arden and other “counsellors” like that may have more weight that any of us.)

The strongest thing going to preserve him right now is his desire for priesthood, which he still sees as a calling from God and not a paying job. The more we can remind him of that and of the necessity to act in a way consistent with it, the better. It may be that his 1st year in Jordanville (if he goes as planned) will be a big testing of this desire.

This weekend he will be boating on Shasta Lake with Bobby; he will be conducting vigil and Typica in the Redding church (already a test for him!) After his week with you, I told him I expect him to be at Liturgy, whether in Etna (where I will be) or Platina—another test, because he wants to go boating again, and would have to get Bobby to take him to Liturgy.

I will be in Etna, God willing, on Sat. June 26, and hope to have an “evolution” conference with you (I hope to have my Genesis commentary typed by then).

Pray for us.

June, 1982

To Br. Gleb 6/82

[1.] What do you want to do in life?

To be a fervent priest, not living for yourself but for others, not allowing yourself to become a lukewarm hireling, being faithful to all you received in childhood, not just giving sacraments to a parish, but actively spreading the true word of Orthodoxy to them and others, being one in mind with us and all others who have this same goal.

[2.] How can or should you prepare myself [stet] for this?

By going through a systematic course of theological study (not just on your own), which should also include literature and art (including some negative manifestations to see what is “in the air” and attracting people); and becoming acquainted with worldly life (both secular and church) in a practical way, not entirely on your own until you are 21 or so (that is, accepting guidance on how much you should expose yourself, and being under guidance while you are doing so).

[3.] What are the main obstacles to this?

[a.] In myself. Self-trust, wanting to guide yourself without wholehearted trust in your spiritual father; combined with a very passionate nature which has not yet gone astray because it hasn’t faced any great temptations. These two characteristics together mean an almost certain disaster ahead, or at best, an abnormal development, missing out on the opportunities that really lie before you to be a fruitful pastor.

[b.] In the world outside. The sensual tone of modern life, which will pull on your passionate nature; the temptation to be like everyone else—cold, withdrawn into yourself, not giving yourself to others, not caring enough for Christs truth and suffering souls. In church life: the temptation to be outwardly correct, but inwardly indifferent and lukewarm.

[4.] How should I fight these obstacles?

Through real trust in your spiritual fathers—working your future out together with them, honestly facing your own nature and problems and their advice; and through having the guts to subject yourself to a real discipline of preparing for priesthood, and not playing games with yourself.

Oct 1, 1982

“William H. deVlaming, M.D.

Internal Medicine

1760 Gold Street

Redding, California 96001

916-243-1552

October 1, 1982

Father Herman

The Orthodox Word

St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood

Platina, CA 96076

RE: Fr. Seraphim

As requested, I am enclosing a brief description of the problems experienced by Father Seraphim leading to his illness and complications recently resulting in his death.

Any vital organ of the body has a blood supply in which arteries lead blood into the organ and veins take the blood away. If there is a blockage of blood flow in either side of the circulation, the organ is not able to receive enough oxygen or nutrients to continue [to] function. In Father Seraphim, we believe that the blockage of the vein leading away from the intestines occurred several days prior to his admission to the hospital. This eventually resulted in death of the tissues of the intestine which in turn lead to a leakage of toxins from inside the bowel into the abdominal cavity, and from there into the general circulation. The results of the toxic product entering the circulation lead to a decline in other vital organ functions including the lungs and eventually the kidneys, brain, and heart. Even by the time the initial surgery was completed, damage had already been done to several important organs. Most likely is a complication of a general decline in total body function, other intestine began to be involved in the same process leading to the initial bowel damage resulting in a progressive reduction in blood flow to an extensive area of a bowel. The cycle of toxic material escaping from inside the bowel into the general circulation repeated itself and eventually depressed the lung and heart function to the point that life could no longer [be] maintained. Pulmonary edema simply means damage to the lung resulting in fluid collecting between the tiny air sacks and preventing normal function. Respiratory acidosis again relates to inadequate ventilation by the lungs resulting in an accumulation of carbon dioxide in the body. I hope that this information will be helpful.

Warmest regards,

William H. deVlaming, M.D.

Internal Medicine

—

Respiratory failure

Due to: Bowel Necrosis

Due to: Ischaemic Bowel

other conditions

renal failure

[signed] Gary B. Dandy