Author: orthodoxaustralia

Dear Andrew,

May the blessing of the Lord by with you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

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

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

Dear Father Chrysostomos,

Christ is in our midst!

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

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

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

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

Please remember us in your prayers.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear Father Akakios,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With love in Christ,

Dear Mrs. Prokopchuk,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear John [Hudanish],

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

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

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

Dear Father Yves [Dubois],

Christ is in our midst!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear Father Theodore,

Christ is in our midst!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With love in Christ,

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

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

Dear Barry,

May the blessing of our Lord be with you!

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

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

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

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

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

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

(St. Hermogenes of Moscow)

Dear Father Laurence,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear Brother [Fr. Herman],

Christ is Risen!

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

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

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

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

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

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

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim