Author: orthodoxaustralia

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

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.

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.”

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

Dear John [Hudanish],

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.

Dear Father Michael [Azkoul?],

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 Cyprian 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

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

St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood
Platina, California 96076

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

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

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