Author: orthodoxaustralia

Dear James [Paffliausen],

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

Dear John [Hudanish],

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!

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 Cyprian in our new Orthodox Word (no. 93) gives the view [letter ends]

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?

St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood
Platina, California 96076

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.

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.”

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. Cyprian 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

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

(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?).

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. Panteleimons 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. Panteleimons “files”! These “files” smell like “KGB” to many of us!