Author: orthodoxaustralia

Your Grace, Dear Vladika Nektary,

Bless us!

On your visit to us in April you informed us that you had been assigned, by the Sobor of Bishops and Archbishop Anthony, the duty of raising with us a question regarding our St. Herman Calendar, namely the commemorations (in italics) of recent hierarchs, ascetics, and martyrs, in accordance with the decree of the Synod of Bishops of Sept. 29/Oct. 12, 1976 (no. 873), that “in the Calendar they should note the dates of death of various hierarchs and ascetics not by their own judgment alone, but in agreement with the general ecclesiastical attitude of our Church.”

We were very glad in reading the decree of the Synod, to see that the Hierarchs have noticed and valued our labors in the compiling and printing of the St. Herman Calendar, and in particular our inclusion of the dates of death of various hierarchs and ascetics. This latter feature, incidentally, has been one of the most popular features of the Calendar, there have been very many comments on it, and we know that our priests serve pannikhidas for a number of the hierarchs and ascetics mentioned there, and in some places every single one of these names is commemorated at every Liturgy. Further, there has never been a single unfavorable comment from anyone regarding our inclusion of these names, which has persuaded us that the idea itself of including these names is indeed “in agreement with the general ecclesiastical attitude of our Church.” This idea is not original with us but was taken from the Diocesan Bulletin of the Diocese of Shanghai when our Archbishop John was there. In the Calendar of this Bulletin such names were included (after the listing of the saints of the day) as the Royal Martyrs (July 4), Archbishop Meletius of Kharkov (Feb. 12), St. Herman of Alaska (Dec. 13— this was long before his canonization), and Metropolitan Peter Mogila (Dec. 31).

In the selection of names to be commemorated, we have also tried to act not “by our own judgment alone,” but have asked counsel of bishops, priests, and theologically educated laymen of our Church. In general we have followed the principles laid down by Bishop Nikodim of Belgorod in his 14-volume standard pre-Revolutionary work on “uncanonized saints,” Ascetics of Piety of 18th and 19th Century Russia·, in fact, almost all of the names we have included from before the 20th century come from this book. As for the names of 20th century hierarchs and ascetics, we have included only a few of those renowned for ascetic life or missionary labors, as well as obvious miracle-workers. We have made a deliberate attempt to avoid “prejudice,” and thus we did not include the name even of Archbishop Tikhon of San Francisco, despite our love for him and respect for his ascetic life, for fear of being thought partial to “local bishops,” and we have not included the names of any recendy- deceased bishops with whom we had close personal relations.

With one exception (to be discussed below), we have never received a single complaint about our selection of 20th-century hierarchs and ascetics, and this has been a sign to us that our listing of these was also in accord with “the general ecclesiastical attitude of our Church.” Indeed, many people have told us that the most impressive and inspiring part of the Calendar is precisely this list of 20th- century hierarchs and ascetics of holy life—something which, especially to non-Russians (for whom the Calendar is chiefly intended) provides an impressive proof that the Russian Church is still alive and not simple a dead “fossil” that lives only in its past grandeur, with no spiritual vitality in our own times or in the Diaspora.

The one “complaint” we have received concerns the name of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky. After our first St. Herman Calendar came out in 1972, Fr. George Grabbe wrote us a letter expressing his satisfaction with the Calendar, and especially with our listing of recent hierarchs and ascetics; however, he noted that the name of Metropolitan Anthony was missing. Later our own Archbishop Anthony made the same observation to us. We corrected this omission in the next Calendar, but since we were a little uncertain whether Metropolitan Anthony belonged in the category of “ascetics of piety” or would have been included in the volumes of Bishop Nikodim (if he had lived and continued them), we placed his name separately (together with several other names) in the Introduction to the Calendar, as “ecclesiastical figures of great historical importance” for whom panikhidas also should be served, and we distinguished them there from the “uncanonized saints” (that is, “ascetics of piety”) whose names were included under their days of repose. This distinction, together with the phrase “uncanonized saints,” has perhaps caused some of the bishops to think that we are “canonizing saints” or acting solely under our own personal judgment. To avoid such a misunderstanding we will avoid in future the phrase “uncanonized saints” and state in the Introduction to the Calendar simply that the names in italics are those of church figures of holy life or historical significance for whom it is appropriate to serve requiem or memorial services. If the bishops believe it to be appropriate, we can add the name of Metropolitan Anthony to the Calendar under the date of his repose (July 28).

On your visit to us you told us that Vladika Anthony had suggested that we simply exclude all post-1920 hierarchs (except for Vladika John) so as to avoid controversy over those who have been “left out.” But we should repeat here that, apart from Metropolitan Anthony (and a few requests to put in the name of Archbishop Tikhon) we have not received a single comment about any name that has been left out of the Calendar. This to us is a clear sign that this listing is in accordance with the “general ecclesiastical attitude of our Church.”

Further, such an act (omitting all post-1920 hierarchs) would be something immediately noticeable and would cause numerous comments, criticisms, and perplexity: “Why, after six years, are these names now left out? Is there perhaps some suspicion of their Orthodoxy? Or perhaps the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are of dubious canonicity?” etc. etc. At the present time we have no problem with those who have been “left out”; but if we were to delete these names now, there would be much comment, especially among Americans and Greeks, unfavorable to our Synod of Bishops.

This brings me to a final and very important point with regard to this question; this concerns, not what “others” might think of us, but a problem within our own Russian Church Outside of Russia.

Of the young people in our Church, especially those who take active part in church life, Americans and Greeks, together with Russians who speak English as their first language, are now coming to be the majority. It is to them that our publications are chiefly directed. More and more these young people—and now even some of the young Russian priests—are coming under the influence of Father Panteleimon of Boston, and more and more they are coming under a certain impression that everything “Greek” is something good and Orthodox, whereas “Russian” things are not as good or Orthodox, or are even un-Orthodox. Some of these people write and speak to us, and we know how they are thinking: “The Greeks are strict, while the Russians are lax; the Greeks are zealous, the Russians are lukewarm; everyone is talking about how the Russians are not strong enough about ecumenism,” etc. We try to answer these people and make them understand things in a less one-sided manner, and in our publications, especially The Orthodox Word, we make a special effort to present Russian Orthodoxy at its best and to defend the position of our Metropolitan and Bishops. Perhaps you do not know that before our introductory article to Metropolitan Philarets epistle on the “Thyateira Confession” (Jan-Feb. 1976), many Greeks and Americans, even priests, believed that our Synod regarded the other Orthodox jurisdictions as without grace. And now our Brotherhood has become known among the Greeks and Americans for “defending the Russian bishops” and speaking against the fanaticism into which some of the followers of Fr. Panteleimon have fallen.

We ourselves have friendly relations with Fr. Panteleimon and we believe that the “fanatical” movement in our Church can be overcome; but to do this, it is essential that the prestige of Russian Orthodoxy be as high as possible—and in particular that everything holy and sound and truly Orthodox that is Russian should be made known to counteract the unbalanced “Grecophilism” that is dominant among so many young people. In these circumstances, if we hide our Russian hierarchs and ascetics of the recent past, it will only encourage those who believe that the “Russians” have nothing good; but worse, if we were to remove their names from the Calendar, it would amount to a totally unnecessary attack against what should be the boast of our Russian Orthodoxy in the 20th century; in the minds of the young Americans, Greeks, and Russians who read our Calendar, this would be a definite blow against the prestige of Russian Orthodoxy and our Russian Church Outside of Russia. These hierarchs, ascetics, and martyrs are a proof that our Russian Orthodoxy is still in the ancient tradition of Orthodoxy and still produces spiritual fruits. And after all, there is no question whatever of our “canonizing” them—we are only supplying these names so that Orthodox Christians might pray for the repose of the souls of those who have labored for Christ and His Church in our times, following the counsel of the Apostle: “Remember your instructors, who have spoken unto you the word of God.” (Hebrews 13:7).

One final point: lest it be thought that the inclusion of such names in Orthodox calendars is something rare, we would direct the attention of our bishops to the more complete calendars of the non-Russian Churches, In particular, the complete Calendar of the Greek Church edited by monks of Mt. Athos includes the names of very many righteous men who are not in the calendar of saints; these are included at the end of each day’s listing, just like our list; these names are within parentheses, while ours are in italics. Thus our listing, while not being an “innovation” even among Russian calendars, is fully in accord with the existing practice in other Orthodox calendars today.

From all that has been said above, we firmly believe that our practice of listing Orthodox hierarchs, ascetics, and martyrs of recent times in our St. Herman Calendar, clearly separating them from the calendar of saints by means of italic letters, and listing them solely for the purpose of encouraging prayer for the repose of their souls, is not only “in agreement with the general ecclesiastical attitude of our Church,” as our bishops wish, but is also a part of our duty in obedience to the full Sobor of our Bishops who declared in their “Epistle to the God-Beloved Flock of the Diaspora” in 1976 that the “one thing needful” for us today is “the direction of the whole life of our flock according to a strictly churchly, strictly Orthodox path—in other words, making the Church the center of life.” To increase the prayer of the faithful far our reposed instructors and exemplars in the Faith we regard as an important part of “making the Church the center of life,” and we believe that our bishops will not think differently.

;;;;;;;;

Since writing the draft of this letter, you visited us and brought us further information that Vladika Seraphim of Chicago had raised at the Synod the question of Peter the Aleut Martyr, who is mentioned in our Calendar together with St. Herman, and whose icon has now been painted and reproduced by Holy Transfiguration Monastery and widely distributed. Concerning this we would like to say the following:

1. It is true that the only historical notice of the Aleut Martyr Peter is in the Life of St. Herman of Alaska. But we should note that the person who brought St. Herman the information concerning his martyrs death was himself a man of the highest integrity, first as Governor of Alaska, and later as a monk of righteous life who influenced almost his whole family to follow him into monasticism (Simeon Yanovsky, Schema-monk Sergius), and the person who proclaimed him Saint was none other than St. Herman himself: It should be noted that very often in the past this much has already been sufficient for the acknowledgement of sanctity in the Orthodox Church; among many saints canonized on as little information as this we may mention St. Mary of Egypt, whose life is known to us only from the account of the Monk Zossimas, and whose name was entered among the saints owing to the trust of St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, for Zossimas’ words. The reform spirit in recent Roman Catholicism, which has begun to “throw out of the Calendar” such saints, because supposedly “we don’t know whether they ever existed”—is totally foreign to our Orthodoxy, which is characterized rather by faith and trust in those who hand down the lives of saints, especially if they be of righteous and holy life themselves, as is certainly true in the case of the Aleut Martyr Peter and the one who “canonized” him, St. Herman.

2. In blessing the publication of The Orthodox Word, Archbishop John wrote the following words for publication·. “By the prayers of the Aleut Martyr Peter, who suffered martyrdom in San Francisco.” By doing this he certainly gave his blessing for the veneration of the Aleut Martyr Peter, at least in the Western American Diocese where he suffered martyrdom.

3. In the service to St. Herman of Alaska, which was given its final form by Bishop (then Hegoumen) Alypy and officially approved by the Synod of Bishops in 1970, the following troparion occurs in the Canon (Canticle 6): “Aleut Peter’s confession and martyrs blood, О Saint, have sanctified and crowned thine and thy co-evangelizers’ labors, and at his strong faith and patience thou wert amazed. Wherefore, following thee, let us cry out: Holy New Martyr Peter, pray to God for us.” Thus, the Synod of Bishops of our Russian Church Outside of Russia has officially approved the invocation of the Aleut Martyr Peter as a saint.

4. In the Service to St. Herman of Alaska composed by the Liturgical Commission of the “Orthodox Church in America” (American Metropolia) under the chairmanship of Father Alexander Schmemann and officially approved by the “Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America,” a troparion of similar content occurs in the Canon (Canticle 6), also ending with St. Herman’s words: “Holy New Martyr Peter, pray to God for us.” This Service was published at about the same time as our Service to St. Herman, and it does not seem that there was any copying from our Service; rather, the idea seems to have occurred naturally and independently to the Liturgical Commission of the Metropolia. Thus, the Synod of a second Orthodox Church (with which our Synod is not in communion, but the grace of whose Mysteries we do not deny) has given official approval to the invocation of Aleut Martyr Peter as a saint.

5. On the foundation of all this, a popular veneration of the Aleut Martyr Peter has grown up especially among our young Americans and Greeks (but also Russians). We know of at least five icons that have been painted of him, and there is scarcely a convert to our Church who does not have veneration for him. Never have we heard of any argument or dispute regarding this.

In view of all this: that the Aleut Martyr Peter was invoked as a saint by St. Herman of Alaska; that Archbishop John Maximovitch called publicly on his prayers; that our Synod of. Bishops gave official approval to a Service containing an invocation of St. Peter as a saint; and that the Synod of the American Metropolia did likewise; and that he is popularly venerated as a saint, with no dispute arising because of this; and finally, in yiew of the fact that the veneration of martyrs has always been accepted in the Orthodox Church with a minimum of official investigation, the very fact of their martyrdom already testifying to their sanctity—we did not believe that there was any controversy or dispute whatever involving the placing of the name of the Aleut Martyr Peter in the Orthodox Calendar. But even so, we were careful to place of the name of the Aleut Martyr Peter in our St. Herman Calendar only with the qualifying words: “who is mentioned in the Service to St. Herman,” thus showing that we were trusting not our own judgment, but were relying on the judgment of the Church Authority (the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Outside of Russia) which officially approved the Service.

;;;;;;;;

And now, after giving our “defense” of ourselves, we would like to add a word, based on what we feel to be the reason why some of our hierarchs have raised these questions.

Evidently, these hierarchs feel that there is danger of “zeal not according to knowledge” and relying on one’s own judgment, especially among the younger clergy, and that it should be kept in mind by those who labor for the Church that it is the bishops who are the ultimate authority with regard to such questions as the placing of the names of saints in the Calendar. We would like our bishops to know that we agree entirely with them in this·, and in fact, in the past we have had several arguments with some of our younger clergy on precisely this point. I will give only one example, one that concerns precisely our St. Herman Calendar.

After our first St. Herman Calendar-was published in 1971, one of the younger Greek priests in our Church protested to us that the names of Blessed Augustine (June 16) and Blessed Constantine XII, last of the Byzantine Emperors (May 30), should be deleted from our Calendar because “they are not saints and were only placed in the Russian Calendar owing to Western influence.” We replied to this priest that it was not within our authority to delete names from the Calendar, nor to add names on our own authority, but that such a thing required the approval of the bishops; and since the names of Blessed Augustine and Blessed Emperor Constantine were in the standard Russian Calendars which were our primary sources, they would have to remain in the Calendar until the Russian bishops should order them deleted.

Then, for our own information, we conducted research on this question. Concerning Blessed Augustine, we discovered that his name is included in all Russian and Greek Calendars, that our Synod approved the Service to him, and that throughout the history of the Orthodox Church he has always been regarded as a Holy Father and a Saint in West and East alike, even though his errors have been criticized. Therefore, there can be no question of his right to be in the Calendar, and this young priests objection was based on his own ignorance.

Concerning the second name, that of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, we did not have at hand the materials necessary for an investigation of our own, and therefore we appealed to Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, both to Hieromonk Ioannikios, who would have the time to make such an investigation, and to Archbishop Averky for an authoritative judgement on the question. Fr. Ioannikios found that the name of Blessed Constantine does indeed appear in the best Russian Calendar sources (such as the Calendar of Bishop Sergius), and Archbishop Averky gave as his judgement that his name should by all means remain in the Calendar.

I give this information in order to show on what principles we have acted in compiling our St. Herman Calendar and in settling any disputed questions with regard to it. We can assure you that we have always tried to act in accordance with the “general ecclesiastical attitude” of our Church and not “by our own judgment alone.” Even in our listing of commemorations in italics, where we have made our own selection (since this is not a part of the official calendar of saints, but a separate listing), we have made a deliberate attempt (as we have noted above) not to choose names solely out of our own “zeal,” but on the basis of the principles set forth in the Ascetics of Piety of Bishop Nikodim, and on the common church opinion.

We ourselves have had several disagreements with Fr. Panteleimon and some of this followers over the “zeal not according to knowledge” which they have occasionally shown. Sometimes this “zeal” can be dangerous, indeed, especially when it introduces general discord into the Church over such questions of church discipline as “rebaptism,” etc. But we have found, from our experience among young Americans, Greeks, and Russians, that their zeal for glorifying saints, even if it sometimes goes beyond what our Synod of Bishops has officially approved or what we ourselves would print, still is not a cause of controversy or dispute; those who disapprove this “zeal” simply can dismiss it as the “personal opinion of the Greeks” which is not obligatory for anyone else. This “zeal” is pursued out of love for saints and righteous ones, and therefore even when it might seem a little excessive, it can surely be forgiven, and we ourselves would fear to criticize or restrain it for fear of arousing totally unnecessary disputes in the Church, and above all for fear of sinning against these righteous ones themselves. When the general level of church piety is so low, and ordinary Orthodox people give so little veneration or heed even to canonized saints, would not our discouragement of any genuine piety toward saints and righteous ones be indeed a sin?

I only hope that these explanations have been sufficient to clear up any questions that may have arisen in regard to our St. Herman Calendar, and in particular with regard to our listing in italics of the ascetics of piety of recent centuries.

Asking your blessing and prayers,

With love and respect in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim
By assignment from the Superior,
Hieromonk Herman

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear Brother in Christ, Christopher,

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Yes, I was ordained priest on Sunday, and I begin to feel the weight of the cross. Please pray for me harder than ever, that I may truly be able to help souls to salvation. The priesthood is not for me alone—I am supposed to pull those around me to heaven! But such a calling and responsibility!

We had about 30 pilgrims for the Liturgy, and all went with exceptional fervor and oneness of soul. Everybody received Holy Communion. Alexey Young was tonsured reader the same day. Grace still is being poured out on us for the difficult days ahead. Prepare yourself!

Yes, write about your thoughts and problems. Don’t be alarmed when the Paschal joy fades and passions start to invade—stand firm and pray to God. God expects our struggle, and He will send His grace as we need it.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Priest-monk Seraphim

Dear Alexey,
Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I’m sorry to be so long in writing. It really seems that these last weeks and months have been our busiest ever. I haven’t forgotten the last installment for the Sederholm series (by the way, did I mention that we have received a Xerox copy of Fr. Clement’s translation of St. Theodore the Studite, the Optina edition of 1872?)—I will try my best to have it done before the beginning of Lent.

If you plan to come on one of the next two weekends, could you bring with you all the tapes of our summer course (both Fr. Herman’s and my lectures)? If you aren’t coming that soon, could you mail them? We have a use for them.

The Orthodox Word for July-August is almost finished! We feel as though we are dragging a heavy load through a swamp—but there is hope that the new issues will follow very quickly thereafter.

David finally left on Tuesday. All his efforts to repair our truck were to no avail, and he finally towed me in the truck to Redding, where a mechanic had it running in two hours! David now begins his mechanical course in Willits, but whether he has what it takes even to finish it, I don’t know. He has “fits” of wanting to carry something through to the end, but they don’t last long; inside there seems to be some kind of vacuum. We’ve given him all we can until he himself shows some signs of walking on his own feet.

The consecration of the Cathedral in S. F. seems to have been quite triumphant. As it turns out, our truck wasn’t running and we were a little sick—and so we fortunately remained in our wilderness—and apparently had the only Liturgy in the whole Diocese outside of San Francisco! Yesterday Bishop Nikander of Brazil paid us a surprise visit before his departure for home, and he impressed us very favorably—simple and humble, and totally without pretense or politics. Father Herman had a good talk with him.

Concerning preparation for Holy Communion: the standard preparation is to read the Three Canons and Akathist, as stated in the Jordanville Prayer Book, usually the night before (in monasteries these are often read at Compline for the whole community, after the Creed), and in the morning the Canon before Communion and the Pre-Communion Prayers. If for some reason one can’t read this whole rule, one repents and reproaches oneself and does as much as one can; if need be, the Akathist and/or canons could be read in the afternoon or evening after receiving Communion. As for fasting, the general Russian custom is to fast for three days beforehand, but this is actually a custom which arose with the practice of infrequent communion, and Vladika John once told a woman who wanted to receive Holy Communion but hadn’t fasted the day before: “But it wasn’t a fast day. If you are keeping the Church’s regular fast days, it is sufficient to guard against over-eating, or eating especially tasty foods, for several days before receiving Holy Communion, and especially the day before, but without making a special point of avoiding all non-fast foods, unless you feel the need for it. As for frequency of communion: in your case you should receive as frequendy as you can, i.e., just about every time you attend Liturgy. The pre-communion prayers are read aloud in our skete, as in many Russian churches, during the priest s communion.

Our life here has more or less returned to normal, and of course we now have the special consolation of the Divine Liturgy, which is truly a heaven on earth. On the days when Barbara has visited us, I have been able to serve as deacon instead of just being on the kliros; and then indeed one forgets everything else.

How would you like to start a series on Bishop Theophan the Recluse and his message for today?

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hierodeacon Seraphim

Dear Father Cyprian,

Evlogeite!

Please forgive our long delay in answering your letters. We have been even more overwhelmed with work than usual in these several months, and besides all that, just about a month ago Father Herman was ordained to the priesthood and I to the diaconate, so that now we have also the regular celebration of the Divine Liturgy, as well as the care of the few Orthodox Christians in this part of California. (We have the only church within 200 miles.)

We have finished the translation from Russian of the Life of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, and have just given it to a typesetter in the city 40 miles from us (our own typesetting equipment being just now in poor condition, and there being little time anyway for us to do it). Unfortunately, our work conditions are so pressed that there was simply no opportunity for us to send you a copy of the text before it was set up. However, I have read your comments on the Life in The Old Calendarist and can tell you that the confusions that seem to exist in the Greek Life are absent in the Russian—apparently any confusions were taken care of by research before the printing of the Synodal version of the Lives of Saints at the beginning of this century. The Life we have translated is very similar to yours except in small details, and there is no confusion at all with St. Cyprian of Carthage (even though the Life states that this St. Cyprian was born in Carthage). In any case, we will state clearly at the beginning that this Life has been translated from the Russian text.

However, it now turns out that since we first intended to print this Life, our subscribers have increased by many hundreds, and we are now about 500 short of the colored icons of Sts. Cyprian and Justina which you so kindly sent us some time ago. Is it possible for you to send them to us (i.e., 500 extra icons?), We will have just about enough to send out to our immediate subscribers, but we always make about 500 extra copies, and will need icons for those. We now print about 2700 copies.

We received safely the photographs of your monastery and plan to print also an article on it together with the Life. The article will be taken chiefly from your words—with, of course, the personal or controversial references removed. We have heard little from Father Panteleimon of late, but there have been several indications that perhaps he will step back from a too-“fanatical” position. Several of the Greek priests in our Church were upset with our article on Metropolitan Philaret, but I think they may be beginning to realize at last that this is how our bishops really think. We pray that God will grant peace to his small flock, and that small differences of opinion will not destroy the unity of all who should be fighting against the real apostasy of our times—that represented by the frightful “Eighth Ecumenical Council,” which seems to be drawing closer. In a way, we welcome this robber-council, for it will perhaps be so obviously anti-Orthodox that some will see it and withdraw from that ruinous path. That is another reason for the True Orthodox Christians to be not fanatical but moderate, holding a path of true Orthodoxy and not sectarianism in the face of such temptations.

We ask your blessing and prayers for us, and look forward to continued contact with you.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Unworthy Hierodeacon Seraphim

Dear Alexey,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ. Enclosed are the articles for Nikodemos. Both are very good and lively. I’ve made some comments in the text. We look forward to the next installments on Christianity in Britain—it looks to be a very interesting series.

Many thanks for the offer of the jeep—were expecting David today or tomorrow. Also for the printing job which you sent with Hudanish. How much did Susan write the check for?

We’ve had so many visitors this past week that we’re still dizzy. We had a good visit with John Hudanish, who is quite capable of understanding the finer points of today’s Orthodox “problems”; but he needs his feet a little more firmly on the earth if he is to withstand some of his temptations. Barbara McCarthy visited us for a week (her first visit for several months) and took an active part in helping with our visitors, especially the two young ladies, with whom she stayed up all night in the guest house talking! She had a long talk with Hudanish also, but wouldn’t tell him where she’s living now, and I think she even asked him not to mention that he had seen her here, so perhaps he didn’t mention her to you on his return. (By the way, because Barbara doesn’t seem to “have an address,” you may get some mail there addressed to her—if so, please just forward it to us in an envelope with our name on the outside.)

But the brightest part of the week was Mary Mansur and her friend Solomonia (a converted Jewess). We had more or less accepted Nina’s diagnosis that she was already virtually “lost to the Protestants,” and so we were totally unprepared for the reality. She’s wonderful! She’s very much in Barbara McCarthy’s spirit, brimming with life, not satisfied with “correctness,” wanting to give herself entirely to serving God—but not capable of fitting into the “ordinary” Orthodox situations of today. She became involved with a Protestant group partly out of youthful confusion, partly out of dissatisfaction with the luke-warm Orthodoxy she has seen. She visited Seattle (where she was told she would find a real and vital Orthodoxy community)—and she found Fr. Neketas just as dissatisfying with his “letter of the law.” Outwardly she has much to learn, but her heart is deeply Orthodox—it’s just a matter of her finding her place to bear fruit. She and her friend have been more and more troubled by their involvement with Protestants, and now after visiting Vladika Andrew they are preparing to leave for New Diveyevo, where they will live outside the convent under Vladika. That’s probably not the final answer for them, but hopefully they can get there a firmer grounding in Orthodoxy before their next step. (Salomonia had only two weeks’ exposure to Orthodoxy before being baptized at Jordanville, just two months ago I believe.)

They may be visiting you before they leave in the next few weeks—and by all means you should encourage them to do so if they contact you. To us they seem another proof that a “new generation” of Orthodox is springing up—the Sergei Kourdakov generation (she is much inspired by him). She is already one step beyond Kourdakov in that she has seemingly overcome the fascination with Protestant “activity” and is aware that there is something deeper in Orthodoxy if only she can get into it. Pray for them.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Father Ioannikios,

Bless! We send you our heartfelt congratulations on your namesday. May God grant you many years of fruitful labors, and the salvation of your soul. Save, О Christ God!

We were glad to receive your communication of some weeks ago, and pray that many such frank communications will be exchanged between us. Yes, we realize that our Greeks are dissatisfied with some of the things we have written, and in our letters to them we deliberately said some of the things which perhaps too long already have been left unspoken. I think in the end this will be better both for them and for us. In general our church atmosphere seems to have been suffering from a certain lack of objectivity, sometimes even amounting to a “double standard,” and it really seems that if some attempt is not made to “speak out” the unspoken differences, this may end up as two distinct camps instead of a mere double standard. If this is not to happen, then our Greeks will just have to begin to face the reality of how things seem to others, even things which to them are absolutely simple and unambiguous. We ourselves were a little shocked to see how Mathewitely “simple” the whole question of ecumenism and the New Calendar is for several of our Greek priests—certainly the soundest representatives of the Old Calendarists in Greece (Dr. Kalomiros, Archimandrite Cyprian, Father Theodoritos, etc.) do not agree with them here and are much closer to the position of our bishops. This narrowness prevents our Greeks from seeing some rather obvious things and making some elementary distinctions which are rather important for us all now and in the days ahead. Anyway, we stuck our heads out and told them some of these things, and perhaps when their displeasure dies down this will help the development of the more “objective” atmosphere in our Church which seems to us so necessary. Despite our differences, we are by no means “against” Father Panteleimon, and it would be a tragedy if two artificial “camps” were created in our Church. Fr. Panteleimon has some good and fresh emphases which could enrich our Church; but the attitude that “we are right and every other view must be crushed” which some of his followers are projecting, can only lead to trouble and disaster. The real differences in our Church today are not based on “liberal” vs. “strict” attitudes to ecumenism—that is an artificial distinction. The real difference is between an anti-ecumenism with humility, love and discretion (which also means “flexibility” without compromise), and anti-ecumenism which is narrow and rigid and in real danger of falling into fanaticism. One really does get the idea that those who come from the Greek Archdiocese are “protesting too much”—their positions often seem based more on the need to protest their own past than to face the present and future soberly and with balance.

May God be our help. We recently exchanged friendly communications with Fr. Panteleimon and pray that our relations will never become hardened. We see many signs of late that the missionary movement of true Orthodoxy in America is growing and deepening, and we would like to think that some of the recent shocks and conflicts are perhaps “growing pains” rather than signs of deep disagreements. May God grant us all the humility and love to grow and not to fight!

We have been struggling with winter firewood and such things, and our Calendar is still not ready—God willing we will start to send it out around Thanksgiving. Please pray for us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Mr. Graves,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

We were glad indeed to hear from you and were encouraged by your interest in something so dear to us as the Orthodox saints of the West, as well as by your offer to help us with translations from Latin.

About the phenomenon of Orthodox saints of the West in general, it is primarily the zeal and interest of Archbishop John Maximovitch which has inspired us and many others to do what we can to speak of and glorify them. I think this is of value not only to Orthodox of Western background, but to all Orthodox, for Russians and Greeks in the full “Eastern” tradition find many of the lives of the early Western saints to be entirely authentic and in the full Orthodox tradition, and thus an unexpected wealth is added to the already rich Eastern tradition.

Of course, there are grounds for your “mixed feelings” about entering the sphere of “Latin” Orthodoxy, for the Latin West did indeed fall away into a spiritual outlook quite foreign to Orthodoxy. I would not blame the language for this, however—such pillars of Eastern Orthodoxy in our own times as Archbishop Averky of Jordanville have found Latin to be a very rich and expressive language for Orthodox use. The limitation of the Latin West is probably best described as the Russian philosopher Kireyevsky described it over a century ago, as an intellectual narrowness which, being no more than a tendency as long as it had the whole Orthodox atmosphere to correct it, became the predominant modern-Western trait of rationalism when Orthodoxy was lost through the pretensions of the later Roman popes.

Blessed Augustine shares in this “Western” limitation by his over-logicalness (I will enclose Kireyevsky’s quote on this if I can find the issue of Nikodemos in which it was translated), which led him into several mistakes which the East did not fall into, most notably regarding predestination. In general, Augustine was not much read in the East, but there was never any doubt whatever that he was regarded as one of the great teachers of the Orthodox Church, although not without his flaws. (In the East we have St. Gregory of Nyssa, who taught a doctrine rather worse than any of Augustine’s errors!) St. Photios the Great in the 9th century was extremely insistent that Augustine, despite his errors, was “not to be cast out of the rank of the Fathers”; St. Mark of Ephesus did not question his status as a Father, calling him “Blessed”; St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain put him in the Eastern Calendar (together with many other saints of East and West), and the Orthodox tradition since then, both Greek and Russian, has been universal in accepting him as an Orthodox teacher, albeit of lesser authority than the great Eastern Fathers and also several other Western Fathers, especially St. Ambrose. Our own Archbp. John Maximovitch greatly venerated him and had a church service composed in his honor. Our recent and contemporary Fathers seem to see his greatest value not in his dogmatic writings but in his writings on piety, such as the Confessions, which do indeed have a warmth and love which we can certainly learn from today.

The term “Blessed” in the Orthodox Church is rather a comprehensive term which takes in many classes of holy men, some “canonized” and some not. In the case of Augustine, it is used because of his theological flaws which give him a rank something less than that of St. Ambrose, for example.

With Blessed Jerome the case is a little different, since he does not have the theological flaws of Augustine. Apparently his one-time contact with Origenism has given him a slight “taint” in Eastern eyes, which would account for the “Blessed” by which he is usually called—but not always, for he is sometimes called by the term appropriate for all monastic saints. THe Orthodox attitude to these two saints is perhaps best indicated by a Western Father who was fully in the Eastern tradition and was contemporary with both saints—St. John Cassian (who taught the Orthodox doctrine of grace as against Augustine’s overemphases), in his book against Nestorius, quotes as authorities in the West both “Jerome, the teacher of the Catholics, whose writings shine like divine lamps throughout the whole world,” and “Augustine, bishop of Hippo.” That is, Jerome is highly praised, and Augustine is not—but Augustine is still quoted as an Orthodox authority, as sharply contrasted with someone like Pelagius, whom St. Cassian calls a “wicked heretic.”

Well, this is enough on a subject not very important in itself. I am afraid that some of our Orthodox people, in their anxiety to protect themselves against “Western influences,” are going a little overboard on “throwing our Augustine”—that is not the attitude of the Orthodox Fathers throughout history, who never called him heretic or denied him the rank of Father; to this day he is in all Orthodox Calendars (including those of the Old Calendar jurisdictions of Greece) under the date of June 16—actually, he would more appropriately be placed under the day of his repose, Aug. 28, but perhaps St. Nikodemos wished simply to place him together with Jerome.

It is also an unnecessary exaggeration to blame him for the errors of Calvinism. The Reformers took some “seeds” from Augustine, but their full-blown doctrine of predestination and “salvation by faith alone” was not taught by Augustine. It should also be noted that the Orthodox West itself corrected Augustine in his chief error—the Council of Orange in 529 anathematized (but without mentioning Augustine, the rest of whose teaching on grace it approved) the doctrine of predestination to damnation, which Augustine had indeed expressed several times.

Concerning your offer of help with translations: we have the translation of St. Gregory’s Life of the Fathers. It was done basically from a rather literal French translation of the 19th century, with comparison of the Latin for consistency in monastic and technical vocabulary. However, there are some translations which we would like done. First of all, the “Praise of the Desert” (“Laus eremi” I believe, in Latin) of St. Eucherius of Lyons (a contemporary of St. Cassian and a disciple of the “Eastern” monastery of Lerins). We have heard of no translation at all of this work, except for a 17th-century French translation which is unavailable to us. I think this work is short, no more than 30 or 40 pages and probably less. I have seen a few excerpts from it in French and it is of interest to us especially for its joining of the ideas of the “desert” with the forest (of Gaul—as in later Russian “deserts”), and also as an early document of the monastic movement in the West. If you would be able to translate this work (perhaps we could include it as an appendix to The Life of the Fathers), I could make a Xerox copy of whatever Latin text is available at the University of California in Berkeley.

We are also interested in some of the works of St. Faustus of Rhegium (Riez), a 5th-century defender of St. Cassian who seems to be also something of an “Eastern” Father in the West, and who seems to be totally untranslated as yet. But about this we could write later.

We would be very glad if Constantine Desrosiers would join you in this project. We have known him since before his conversion to Orthodoxy.

Please let us know when you might be able to work on the text of St. Eucherius, which would be of great value to us. (One of the Lives of St. Gregory’s work is of a monk who was in a monastery in Lyons at about the time St. Eucherius was bishop there.) Please remember us in your prayers.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

P.s. The 1977 Calendar is only being printed now, and will be sent our around the end of the month.

Dear Christopher,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Please forgive our long silence. We have had a quiet summer as far as people is concerned (no one has come for more than a few weeks, and we’ve been mostly alone for the past month), but several outward events have caused us trouble. First there was our forest fire (have I written since then?), which came within two miles and forced us to pack up all our rare manuscripts and books in preparation for evacuation (by Vladika John’s prayers the fire was turned back by a strong wind at the last minute); then two weeks of the most unseasonable rain, beginning precisely on the feast of St. Elias, with thunder and lightning, and which laid both Fr. Herman and myself low with colds or flu. The tenth anniversary of Vladika Johns repose (described in the latest OW) gave us a new bit of inspiration; and last week Vladikas Anthony and Nektary visited us and served Liturgy, together with the new Deacon Andrew of the S.F. Cathedral. All the time the “Greeks” are rumbling in the background, and already there are strong hints that we (and our bishops) aren’t Orthodox enough for them. More than ever we need to keep in view the ABCs of Orthodox survival, which more and more seems to us less a matter of doctrinal purity than of a basically sober and other-worldly attitude and orientation.

Your futile excursions into “worldliness” are not at all unusual or untypical in our days. Orthodox, by remaining unchanged, has become so out of harmony with the world, and the world itself has become so “glamorous” and “magical” (a symptom of chiliasm!)—that those who wish to be true Orthodox Christians today must suffer in their own souls the power of this disharmony between true and false life before emerging into a relatively stable Orthodox way of life. Be patient—your suffering-through of this painful state, without losing the deep-down desire to be Orthodox in spite of everything, will do you much good. By the way, your experience is not really so different from that of Blessed Augustine especially in the last months of his conversion when he saw clearly the truth of Christianity but just couldn’t commit himself to it. You should read his Confessions—a good book for our days. (There’s a readable translation in the Penguin Classics.)

The other graduates of our “Academy” are going through experiences analogous to your own. Paul Bartlett has already gone through a period of “renouncing Christianity” and thinking of raking up Buddhism, then returning to Orthodoxy, and now (from his last letter) seems again to be in some strange “mood.” Simeon has already been ordained priest, has spent over half a year in Boston and Jordanville picking up the outward aspect of Orthodox life, and is preparing soon to begin his “missionary parish” in Los Angeles—with what seems to us from here to be very little inward preparation. Paul Bassett has gotten married (to Barbara Rogers of Rochester) and continues to dream of an ideal Orthodox family life, missionary labors in Ireland, etc.—and perhaps his basic “foolishness” and lack of contact with ordinary life will give him the best chance of all not to get knocked off the Orthodox path. But it really is a miracle of God if any survive at all.

Thomas Reszke wrote us briefly of his “personality conflict” with you—probably more a product of his own inner conflict than anything else. (He seems very disappointed at not “finding his place” in life and doesn’t seem to realize that he must first change himself.) You shouldn’t let it disturb you—let this also be for your experience in “survival.”

We have much to do before what seems like an early winter. Pray for us, and let us hear more of your struggles, such as they are. God is with us!

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Father Neketas,

Evlogeite!

Alexey Young has passed on your message to us. I would like to assure you that we were not offended or disturbed by your letter to us; we saw there nothing but a sincere and concerned expression of your opinion. But perhaps you thought that my letter to you was written in anger or disturbance? I assure you that it was not—it was merely an attempt to reply just as frankly as you had written to us. I really think that such frank exchanges are worth more than any number of merely polite and correct letters.

What to do?—there is a “disagreement” between us! Really, this “disagreement” is deeper than both of us, and it will not go away with just a pleasant or even a frank talk between us. It can be lived through and surmounted in time, but it will take a good dose of basic humility on all sides, which in practical terms means a willingness to admit that not one of us, or any group of us, has “all the answers” or is some kind of “infallible expert.” The big questions facing Orthodoxy today, from ecumenism on down, are often complex and with subtle overtones or ramifications for which sledgehammer tactics don’t give sufficient answers. I suspect the basic problem among us today is less one of specific disagreements than it is one of different “psychologies” and approaches to the questions of the day.

Let us all try to be a little “aloof” and not quite so passionately involved in defining the details of the big disputes of the day. Who precisely is a heretic? (Demetrios—that’s one question. Patriarch German of Serbia—another question. Fr. Justin Popovich—still another question.) When precisely does responsibility for the heresy of a chief hierarch spread to the whole church body? Where are the precise lines between simply not having communion with a hierarch or jurisdiction, regarding them as schismatics, and recognizing that they have no grace? Must we take a “definite stand” on all these questions, even if Orthodox zealots themselves disagree on them? If we do, it will mean schisms and church disturbances without end.

We welcome a further frank exchange of views and concerns, and ask your prayers for us.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Brother in Christ, Seraphim,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

We rejoice to hear of your baptism and of your desire for monasticism and the desert. May God bring this desire to fruition in your life!

As for our skete—since you know of our poverty and labors, I won’t mention them. However, you should also be aware that we are by no means idyllic “desert dwellers” either. We have fairly frequent contact with the world, particularly in connection with our printing activities, and we live a life which would not be regarded as very strict at all by the ancient Fathers, but which in our weakness is the best we can manage.

We accept novices, but since we do not know you we would ask you to share our way of life for a while first before being accepted as a novice and given the cassock. (After that, the period of novitiate before being tonsured is normally at least three years.) There are two basic attitudes which are essential if you wish to join us: obedience, which means more than mere outward submission or asking a blessing before undertaking anything, but is bound up with a willingness to distrust your own judgment and trust your elders; and openness as to your spiritual state and struggle. Neither of these is acquired overnight, particularly for our cold and hard American temperament, but involve a growth in mutual trust between you and your elder.

If all this doesn’t discourage you, then write us again and tell us your plans. If you have no worldly obligations, you could join us at any time. We would have to pick you up at the Redding Greyhound Depot 40 miles away.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk