Author: orthodoxaustralia

Dear Alexey,

Thank you for the “message” from Fr. Neketas. We are rather puzzled as to why he should be so agitated. Perhaps there is a personal element in it, but it seems to have more to do with fears and suspicions on a general church level, which would also explain why the fathers at Boston were so upset with his letter. (The letter, by the way, didn’t really disturb us at all, since we were expecting it, and in our exchange with him we were able to express things which had been until then tensely covered up.) Perhaps they suspect that we are “joining the Russian bishops” and are about to betray the Old-Calendar cause, join the ecumenist bandwagon, etc. (If they do think this, I wish they would say so!) Or perhaps the real root is, once more, the old question of “authority”—we’ve made it pretty clear that we don’t accept the authority of Fr. Panteleimon, and to some people that seems to be a terrible blow. Well, we will write Fr. N. in a few days and try to allay some of his possible fears.

I trust Barbara and David arrived safely. Vladika Anthony stayed overnight with us for the first time, and in general had his best visit with us. We talked at length with him on questions of “rebaptism” etc., and found ourselves in complete agreement with him. We translated for him all the “controversial” passages in our Metr. Philaret article, after hearing which he crossed himself and thanked us for writing it. It is obvious that the “zeal not according to knowledge” is becoming a matter of some concern for him and many of our bishops, and I’m afraid the solution to it, if any, will not be easy. As long as Fr. Panteleimon has his own “psychological diocese” within our Church, there will be a constant source of friction and misunderstanding. “Two or three days” with Fr. Panteleimon will not resolve it, either! I think probably the basic quality needed is a certain deep humility of mind that enables one to accept other ways of looking at things, other emphases—as equally Orthodox with one’s own. On their side, that would involve ceasing to protest against catechisms, accept Blessed Augustine for his good side, ceasing to be terribly upset about the Shroud, etc. If they could do this, I think the tension on our side would cease to exist. On the whole, it is probably good that they have gotten upset, because this might give them a better chance to see things as others see them, and rethink things a little for themselves. But we shall see.

As for the rest of us—we should just keep on the same independent path, with no particular thought of being “for or against” Fr. Panteleimon. He has much to offer himself, and there is much others can give that he can’t.

We send you greetings for the Dormition. I’ll try to get you the new chapter on Sederholm before long. Also a new sermon of Vladika John.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Brother in Christ, Nicholas,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you for your letter. I appreciate the seriousness of what you have written, and I will reply with the same seriousness.

I must tell you first of all that, to the best of our knowledge, there are no startsi today—that is, truly God-bearing elders (in the spirit of the Optina Elders) who could guide you not by their own wisdom and understanding of the Holy Fathers, but by the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. This kind of guidance is not given to our times—and frankly, we in our weakness and corruption and sins do not deserve it.

To our times is given a more humble kind of spiritual life, which Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov in his excellent book The Arena (do you have it?) calls “life by counsel” that is, life according to the commandments of God as learned in the Holy Scriptures and Holy Fathers and helped by those who are elder and more experienced. A “Starets” can give commands; but a “counsellor” gives advice, which you must test in experience.

We do not know of anyone in particular who would be especially able to counsel you in the English language. If this is really needful for you, God will send it to you in His own time, according to your faith and need, and without your making too deliberate a search for it.

Since you have written me, I will venture to give you a word or two of general advice, based on what you have said in your letters, as derived from the experience of our small monastic community and our reading of the Holy Fathers.

(1) Learn first of all to be at peace with the spiritual situation which has been given you, and to make the most of it. If your situation is spiritually barren, do not let that discourage you, but work all the harder at what you yourself can do for your spiritual life. It is already something very important to have access to the Sacraments and regular church services. Beyond this you should have regular morning and evening prayers with your family, and spiritual reading—all according to your strength and the possibilities afforded by your circumstances.

(2) Among spiritual writings you should read especially those addressed to people living in the world, or which give the “ABC’s” of spiritual life—such as St. John of Kronstadt’s My Life in Christ, St. Nikodemos’ Unseen Warfare, the Lives of Saints in general, and Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov’s The Arena (this book, while addressed to novices, is also suitable for laymen in so far as it gives in general the “ABC’s” of spiritual life as applied to modern times.)

(3) To help your spiritual growth and remind you of spiritual truths, it would be good to keep a journal (the hard-bound “record” books sold in stationery stores are good), which would include excerpts from the writings of spiritual books which you find especially valuable or applicable to you, and perhaps comments of your own inspired by your reading and reflection, including brief comments on your own shortcomings which you need to correct. St. John of Kronstadt found this especially valuable, as can be seen in his My Life in Christ.

(4) Don’t criticize or judge other people—regard everyone else as an angel, justify their mistakes and weaknesses, and condemn only yourself as the worst sinner. This is step one in any kind of spiritual life.

I offer this for whatever help it may be to you. I would be glad to try to answer any specific questions you might have, especially on the teaching of the Holy Fathers, almost all of which we have access to in Russian-language editions.

Asking your prayers.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Father Panagiotes,

Evlogeite!

Thank you for your letter of July 6/19, and please forgive this belated reply. About the letter I can only say that we agree with virtually everything you say there. I would only point out that there is an important distinction between (1) identifying apostasy, warning about it, separating oneself from it—something which all Orthodox Christians must be doing; and (2) making formal declarations as to who precisely is a heretic or schismatic, as to when everyone in a given Local Church becomes responsible for the heresy of a church leader or leaders, breaking communion (on the whole-Church level), stating who is without grace, defining the precise relationship of our Synod to other “jurisdictions”—which is the business of bishops and councils (whether on a local or universal level).

In our Church our bishops and many others have made many statements and acts which fall under heading (1); but our bishops have made very few statements or acts regarding heading (2). We are not troubled by this; we do not see that it is necessary for anyone in our Church to become less zealous for true Orthodoxy if he knows that his bishops, while being clearly against the apostasy, prefer not to break off all communion with whole churches and jurisdictions until this becomes absolutely unavoidable. If you understand this, I see that there is no serious disagreement between us; and that is basically what we tried to communicate in our article.

We continue to regard the danger from the “right side”—which is a Patristic dictum and not an expression of party politics—to be quite real and menacing, and this opinion has been reinforced for us by recent communications we have received from respected members of the Old Calendar Church in Greece, who tell us that “correctness” has become a “disease” in Greece second in its spiritual harm only to the apostasy of ecumenism. What they refer to primarily, of course, is the Mathewites, who have now broken all communion with our Synod precisely because our bishops refuse to declare New-Calendar Mysteries to be without grace. But we see this harm also clearly in our own experience with converts, who only with great difficulty come to that loving trust of our bishops which is so necessary for healthy spiritual life. I do not believe our warning about this peril was untimely; but of course, perhaps it could have been better expressed.

We ask your prayers.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Alexey,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

We expect to be here all the time for the next several weeks, and will be expecting you sometime in this period. And Phanourios too. I would not have a difficult time choosing between Reno and Etna, but of course one’s heart has to be in it.

We have heard nothing from Fr. Neketas and frankly have no hope that he will have the slightest willingness to see things differently. He has “group security” of a very powerful kind, and it would take a tremendous shock to jolt him out of it, not just an “apostasy” from people whose Orthodoxy he seems to have been doubting for some time anyway. I suspect that this article gave him just the opportunity he needed to “know for sure” that we are not reliable. We’ve received no “open letter” either, and in fact we never received the one that was promised on the Western Saints—we’re piling so many obligations on their letter-writers! Things are probably further complicated by the fact that in our correspondence with Fr. Alexis of Boston concerning Andrew Bond (which on our side consisted only of a few brief notes which “hinted” rather than said anything controversial, but on their side was a barrage meant to convince us of the absolute rightness of Fr. Panteleimon, including his private letters to Archbishop Averky and Archbishop Anthony—which shocked us and probably did more than anything else to make us see what he is), we inadvertently hit a “sick point” of Fr. Alexis’, and in his hasty reply (in the absence of Fr. P.) he very clearly revealed a deep spiritual insecurity which I don’t think would have passed Fr. Panteleimon’s censorship. Well, we’ll have to wait and see what comes from them. But it is already clear that we have passed “out of fashion” in that circle, and our labors at least for a while will have less visible support than in the past. This is sad, because in these last ten years or so it is obvious that a real interest and desire has been aroused in America in the real Orthodoxy, and this using it for a party line will only do harm to the real Orthodox mission.

By the way, in reading Prosper of Aquitaine’s attack on St. Cassian (which is not really an offensive work, just narrow) I am distinctly reminded of the Boston school and its “open letters”! His objection to Cassian is: “We’ve squashed Pelagius through Augustine, and here you are trying to tell us that things aren’t as simple as Augustine thinks either! Whose side are you on? Isn’t it all perfectly logical and clear? You’re really a crypto-Pelagianist!” Substitute “ecumenism” for “Pelagianism”—and you may have the next “open letter” of Boston!

We’ve received some new talks of Fr. Dimitry Dudko—and he really does have much of what is necessary not only in the Soviet Union, but here also. He speaks to the point against making “popes” out of our bishops and spiritual fathers, of everyone thinking for himself instead of leaving it to others. His is one of the soundest and freshest voices in Orthodoxy today (despite some “theoretical” errors), and gives great hope for the future of Orthodoxy in Russia. With this in mind, we must be “open” rather than “closed” with regard to the Moscow Patriarchate. The whole question of ecumenism and apostasy cannot be placed simply on the canonical-dogmatic-formal level, but must be viewed first spiritually. Fr. Dimitry also speaks forcefully against letting a purely formal approach to the canons bind us spiritually and actually strangle church life—thus allowing the Protestants to take over with their fresher approach. It’s obvious that Fr. Panteleimon’s approach has nothing to say to Russia today.

Barbara is well and is writing a letter to her mother. Of course, it is a little “dangerous” (politically) for her to remain so long close to us. “Officially,” if there is any question, our position in regard to her is: we are moderating her enthusiasm by giving her a little taste of wilderness life while restraining her from just going off to the woods by herself. Fr. Herman has blessed her to be totally by herself for no more than three days at a time, and we knew where she was. God knows what will come of her desire for the desert, but we don’t want to quench it or apply a “formula” to it either. As things have worked out, we are totally alone during this part of the summer, so there are no younger ones to suffer unnecessary temptations by her nearness. Historically (as we know from 19th-century Russian example) those who encourage such “crazy ones” usually end up being persecuted themselves, but that is already nothing new!

Hopefully we will be able to give you at last our new OW (Vladika John issue), which has suffered numerous delays, including a week lost due to generator repairs (not serious, but we have no electrician). Fortunately, with God’s help I became enough of an “electrician” myself so that when the generator began acting up a few days after we got it back I was able to remember that it was the “points” that were replaced this time, and remembering what “points” look like in an automobile, I looked all over the generator until I found them under a special cap—and discovered that the screw holding them to the machine had come loose, thus saving a trip to town. That was rather a consolation!

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Father Ioannikios,

Blagoslovite!

Thank you for the “blunt letter.” For all that we said and did to produce this reaction in you, we sincerely ask your forgiveness. However, I must also say that not all that you wrote is entirely just. But let there be peace between us!

Please do not make any special efforts to send us anyone. We asked to “borrow” Makarios, not first of all because we are short-handed, but as a special case, in answer to the offer he made to us. Since you think this is unwise, the case is closed for us, and we are not looking for “extra hands” anywhere. As it is, you have two of our former “hands” in Br. Laurence, who I trust is showing himself as hard a worker as he was for us. If anyone expresses interest in us, it is enough for you to give them a reasonably objective picture, without emphasizing that we need hands. We are content with whatever God sends us.

About Metropolitan Philaret we have had a moderate response, more pro than con. The “con” response reveals a surprising lack of information as to what our bishops think, which perhaps in itself justifies bringing the matter up. Of course you are right that discretion is called for in this area.

Enclosed is a letter that is self-explanatory. We have replied briefly to him for ourselves.

We ask your prayers.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Fr. Neketas,

Evlogeite!

Thank you for your letter, which we accepted in the spirit of love and concern with which it was written.

Father, for you everything seems simple; but many even of the points you raise in this letter are by no means as simple as you would make them. And this is not our personal opinion, but the opinion of many bishops, priests, monks and laymen with whom we have discussed them, both here and in Greece. The need to speak against the dangerous temptation on the “right side” (which you don’t seem to understand at all) has been impressed upon us above all by highly respected clergy and faithful (respected by you also) in Greece who follow the Old Calendar; I am surprised that you either do not know what they have been saying or choose to take no notice of it. If Father Panteleimon would not be making so many enemies in Greece (which may be the reason why these people no longer speak openly to you), I am sure it would help you and all of us.

We are certainly willing to admit that part of the difficulty here is our inadequate expression of some of the things to which you so strongly object. But the misunderstanding cannot be entirely our fault. It is surely unjust of you, in the context of our past work, of this issue, and of this very article to which you object—to say that this article gives “ecumenical orientation and support.” We will try to express ourselves better in future—but you should also try to see things a little less narrowly, as though it were not possible for your position to be incorrect or imprecise in even the smallest point.

We have not spoken of a “right wing” or a “left wing,” much less of a branch theory. You have read that into the article. Father, we are hurt; in this you are slandering us! We spoke only of the Patristic dictum of the “danger on the right side”—of being too correct and too precise, without the saving medicine of profound humility, which causes discord and division and only helps the work of the devil. Surely you are familiar with what the Mathewites are doing in Greece? And of how they led Fr. Basile Sakkos to his disaster? You must know that you and we are no longer in communion with the Mathewites, since they have broken communion with our Church precisely over the question which we raise in this article—the deliberate refusal of our bishops to declare the new-calendar Mysteries to be without grace?

You ask us: “Are Fr. Neketas and Fr. Panagiotes priests or are they not?” We answer: we believe you are—not because this is our personal opinion or the result of our own logic but because our bishops accept this, and we see no reason to challenge them on this. But if you ask us further, “Does Constantinople then have grace?”—we will give you the same answer: we accept what our bishops tell us, which is—we cannot say that they do not, and there certainly has been no official breach of communion. (Separate hierarchs, as we mention in the article, have warned against and broken communion, but not our whole Church.) If you do not approve of this, you should direct your complaint to our bishops, not to us who are only reporting what they say. We can easily see how this “inconsistency” would make you personally feel uneasy, if you really did not know whether you are “defrocked” or not. I do not know any defense against this feeling (at least until our bishops shall declare an official break with Constantinople) except your own trust of our bishops: if you trust that they are true bishops and know what they are doing (even though your own logic should tell you otherwise for a time)—then you need have no doubts. Certainly, precedents in Orthodox history may be found where the Mysteries of a Church have been recognized and the anathemas of the same Church have not been recognized (as in the troubles between the Churches of Constantinople and Greece in the 19th century). There are often such mitigating circumstances that make the strict application of canons impossible, and likewise strict “consistency”—that we should be very cautious when we think we know better than our bishops how to apply the canons.

Father, we have not become “ecumenical”; this is a slander caused by your insistence on pushing your own (and not our bishops’) point of view on every point. If our words will be interpreted in an “ecumenical” light we will certainly express ourselves more clearly in future, hoping that the church atmosphere will be such that faulty expressions or puzzling statements will not be leaped upon to “prove” we are really ecumaniacs. Unfortunately, the healthy church atmosphere in which even mistakes can be made without causing schisms and charges of heresy—seems to be vanishing, largely under influence from Greece, and you yourself are participating in putting this unnecessary “tenseness” and suspicion into the air. In your well-meaning zeal you are sometimes expressing yourself too strongly; in particular, you are giving your opinions as though they were those of our bishops. I will tell you frankly that a number of our bishops do not like this, and you are in danger of pushing them to a more radical position than they would like solely as a reaction to your “pushing too hard.” (We are reasonably sure that this is a chief reason why Vladika Laurus chose to serve on Mt. Athos.) Be zealous and express yourself strongly—but do not tell everyone what our Church or our bishops think unless you have discussed it thoroughly with them yourself. I realize that communications for non-Russians are a little difficult with our bishops, and that it is very easy to leave some things unsaid on both sides—but this will not excuse you for letting vague general impressions dictate what you think (and even print) about the views of our bishops. We know one high-ranking bishop of our Synod who was very upset when he read in the Witness that (approximately) “Our Church has no communion whatever with the canonical jurisdictions.” The idea had never entered the head of this bishop that we have no communion with any of these jurisdictions—and yet here it is presented as a authoritative fact in the Witness. Do not blame this lack of mutual understanding solely on our bishops—they also suffer from the fact that “one can’t talk with our Greeks—they won’t listen to any other point of view.”

We have always been sure that Fr. Panteleimon knew such elementary facts of life in our Synod and would have told you about them; but he is either misinterpreting things himself, or simply hiding things from you. Please do not judge us too harshly if we are the first to tell you of them. We do not blindly believe anything just because some or most of our bishops believe it; but we treat their opinions with the utmost respect and try to understand why they think that way. Perhaps in future, and especially after the “Thyateira Confession,” our bishops will find it necessary to issue more precise statements and to formally break communion with Constantinople (and perhaps other Patriarchates); but up to now they have not done this.

You may ask, Why are our bishops so slow in doing this, when the progress of apostasy seems so clearly to be destroying these Churches? Without pretending to speak for the bishops, I can give you several reasons which should make you less insistent that they should have broken communion by now: (1) the abnormal, often anarchic conditions of our times, which tend to make the bishops think more in terms of maximum “economy” rather than emphasize “strictness”; (2) the “temporary” nature of the Russian Church Abroad, which makes it disinclined to make sharp or final decisions about Pan-Orthodox questions; (3) problems of language, psychology, etc.—including the presence in Greece of a group which has been identified by other Old Calendarists themselves as “fanatics,” “legalists,” and as giving justification for the comparison of the Old Calendar Churches in Greece with the Russian Old Believers. (These are not our words.) You seem to be constantly preoccupied with “what they will think in Greece” of the words or acts of our Synod or some bishops. But since you are in our Russian Church, you must at least try to realize that our bishops do not act on such a basis, but on the basis of the needs of their own flocks.

Father, it is your and our duty to remain in and hand down the spirit of true Orthodox doctrine and piety; but it is not for either of us to usurp the position of our bishops and speak our opinions in their name. If we think their position should be stronger (and we sometimes think so also), we will bring this about much better by not “pushing” them. We should be tolerant and patient when we think they are not strong enough in their statements, realizing how we also can be guilty of errors in the many complex questions that beset us today. We should be aware of how much more difficult their position is from ours and yours: we are free to have no communion with the “canonical jurisdictions” on our local level; but the bishops must examine the repercussions of such an act on the whole Church, where it is much more difficult to make such “simple” decisions. If you are going to insist that only your position is Orthodox, and everyone who falls short of your logic and preciseness is “ecumenical”—then it seems only a matter of time until you follow Fr. Basile Sakkos in his unfortunate “consistency” (unless, of course, you can force the decrees you need from our bishops, which is highly unlikely). The very fact that you did not follow Fr. Basile is already a sign that you are not totally “consistent” yourself (for our bishops would not give him precisely that which you regard as so necessary: a statement that all new-calendarists are heretics and that we have no communion with them).

Once again, we are not preaching to you “blind obedience to bishops”—but we are asking you to be a little less sure of yourself when you see that no less zealous Orthodox (including some of your own bishops), while in substantial agreement about the state of Orthodoxy today, advocate a humbler path. The position of our bishops, which I believe we have accurately described in the article to which you object, while of course “inconsistent” from the point of view of absolute “strictness,” seems to us to be a good enough starting point, out of which a stricter and more precise position can come later with the minimum of divisiveness which the pressing of yoixr view would cause at the present time. Again, please learn humility from the example of Greece today: does not each one of the bickering parties there believe that it is “correct” and the others wrong? (I speak of the Old Calendar parties). Do you seriously think to impose the views of one group of Old Calendarists on our Church, when this group cannot prevail over the Old Calendarists even in Greece? And surely you know that the question of the grace of new-calendarist Mysteries is still much disputed by Old Calendarists themselves, and that the decision of the Auxentiite Synod in 1974, being prompted by political motives, has not at all brought peace or resolved the question? (Many of the bishops have since changed their mind about it.)

By the way, with regard to Moscow, you should realize that the cause for the break in 1927 was not for any of the reasons you mention, but was a much subtler thing. “Sergianism” in 1927 was not a question of ecumenism, modernism, the new calendar, the acceptance of non-Orthodox Mysteries, violation of canons, or teaching of new dogmas; and it was not of course a question only of politics, either. What then is left?—something very difficult to define and which the Catacomb hierarchs of 1927 in their epistles usually identified as the “loss of inner freedom.” (To be sure, new factors have entered the situation in recent years.) Before such a subtle temptation it is precisely a feeling for the spirit behind the phenomena which is the decisive factor, and not merely “correctness” in canons or dogmas. Several highly-respected Old Calendarists in Greece have written us that it is precisely the “fatal disease of correctness” which has caused such anarchy there now in the church situation—a “disease” which they place second only to ecumenism itself as a destroyer of souls. Do you have any idea what this means? If you don’t, there is something very much lacking in your awareness of the Orthodox situation today, and this should make you all the more humble and cautious and unsure that everything you say and think is right. You must try to see things as other sincere zealots of Orthodoxy see them, or else your godly zeal will only end in causing divisions and strife and you yourself will be helping the devil’s work of destroying Orthodoxy. We all (we as much as you ) must be ready to see that we do not have “all the answers,” that we are sometimes wrong or express ourselves poorly. Let me give you a few examples.

(1) Bishop Petros. You think it is a terrible scandal and inconsistency that he is allowed to serve with us, and in your ignorance you blame this all on Vladika Laurus. Have you even tried to understand what others think of this? Fr. Panteleimon says he presented his “evidence” on Bishop Petros to our bishops; well, our bishops were not convinced by this “evidence,” and frankly they have good reason to believe, as many Old Calendarists in Greece believe and say, that this is primarily a matter of mutual jealousy and power politics. You insist that our bishops choose your side—but why? Bishop Petros was in close contact with our Synod before you and Fr. Panteleimon were, and Vladika John himself told us in 1965 that logically you and Fr. Panteleimon should be under him; you were granted an exception by our Synod—in order to form a second group of “Old Calendar Greeks” in America, a very dangerous thing—and yet you continue to insist that we “get rid” of Bishop Petros. I’m not saying who is right or wrong here—I’m only sayijig that you must view things logically and reasonably and try to understand things as other see them, and if necessary reconcile yourself to the fact that you cannot always have your way.

In 1974 Bishop Petros was cut off from the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios, and our bishops have been given no proof that this was for anything else than his refusal to declare the new-calendarist Mysteries to be without grace. Our bishops likewise refused to do this—are we then to cut him off because of his agreement with us? Does church politics require such stabs in the back? You say that we must be “canonical” and accept the decrees of the Auxentiite Synod—but did Fr. Panteleimon think that in 1971 when he dealt with the Mathewites behind the back of the Auxentiite Synod and thus aroused tremendous anger and resentment in Greece? This turned out to be a bad blow against our Church. Who is being “consistent” here? You blame Bp. Laurus for letting Bp. Petros serve—but we know that many of our bishops are weary of this “Greek fighting” and want no part in “taking sides” in it, and we know for certain that it was Metropolitan Philaret himself who made the final decision to allow Bishop Petros to serve at the funeral of Archbishop Averky.

We ourselves are not “taking sides” in this matter—but since no one else seems to do so, we must tell you that your over-zealousness on such points is giving you many enemies in our Church and among Old Calendarists in Greece. If your objections against Bishop Petros are indeed sound, then we and many others would be much more inclined to believe you if you acted with more sense and moderation. Your very violence and “demonstrations” on this subject make it indeed look like a battle over “who is to rule the Greeks in America”; our bishops don’t want any part of such a battle, and if they sometimes “back down” before your demands, it is solely because they treat you as spoiled children who might get violent if you don’t get your way. Is that the role you want for yourselves? Is that true zeal? Be humbler!

(2) Your comments on “awful catechisms,” the “heretic” Augustine, etc. show very poor taste, great immaturity, an insult to the very bishops under whom you are placed (who think differently, and you did not even think of asking their opinion, did you?), and a work of undermining the authority of the great Fathers of recent and even ancient centuries with whom you are not in agreement. Father, there are usually kernels of truth in your comments—but you take those kernels and blow them up with violent language that totally misses the point. Our Russian theologians of the past two centuries have handled the question of Augustine (with all his errors) very soberly—but you don’t think of asking their opinion, because you regard them all as “polluted” and in “Western captivity.” Be humble enough to see that your zeal is not always godly, but is sometimes the result of your personal prejudices and faulty points of view and a “Western captivity” of your own. If you can’t see this, your Orthodoxy will become narrow fanaticism, with disastrous results; you will destroy many souls.

Believe me, Father, this letter is written with blood. There is time for you to step back from the path of fanaticism, and we will be 100% with you if you do; we ourselves will willingly accept correction from others who are on the same path with us, together with our bishops. But if all this letter tells you is that we are “misguided” and totally off the right path—then may God help our poor American Orthodoxy, for the future is dim!

I don’t know what more to say at this time. We will continue to be outspokenly anti-ecumenist. But we pray that you too will begin to realize some of the more subtle temptations that lie before us. On basic points concerning ecumenism and the apostasy we do not disagree with you; our emphasis and desire not to lose contact with our more cautious bishops is different, but no more. You say: “All the Patriarchates have lapsed into heresy”; we would prefer to say” “Are lapsing and let the bishops decide the moment when the lapse is irremediable.

Please forgive our frankness if it is in any way offensive to you. We know no other way to make you see things more objectively before it is too late.

With love and respect in Christ our God,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Alexey,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Barbara arrived safely with the icon and relics and your /letter, for all of which many thanks. We look forward to the accounts of your pilgrimage, which should be a great inspiration to English- speaking Orthodox—it is indeed an easy thing simply to take for granted even the greatest treasures which are so close at hand. We see this in Russians and Greeks who possess such Patristic treasures which we just dream of seeing in English, and now in the English converts—who hopefully now will be roused to greater fervor for their own Orthodox Saints.

We have not heard anything from England in several weeks. Fr. John Marks wrote us a good letter inquiring if Fr. Panteleimon and fanaticism were really an accurate expression of the Synod outlook (one of the Guildford baptizees is pestering him with “apocalyptic warnings” about his damnation if he dies outside the Synod, etc.); and we replied, telling him no. (Did you meet him?) Andrew sent us a copy of Archbishop Nikodem’s epistle to him asking for his repentance. The hand of Fr. Panteleimon seems evident in this incident, and Archbishop Nikodem seems to have been placed in the unfortunate “political” situation of having to accept as his “defender” someone with whose views I really doubt he is in full accord. However, in that situation nothing further is possible for the good unless Andrew does what the Archbishop wants—ask forgiveness of the clergy whom he has “offended.” We strongly urged Andrew to do this, in written form, emphasizing to him that this does not mean changing his opinions about “rebaptism,” but only apologizing for any crudeness, etc., which he may have shown (which, judging from his letters to us, he probably has shown!) We haven’t heard further from him yet.

As for our Metr. Philaret issue: the little response so far has been mostly favorable. The enclosed letter was written before Archimandrite Cyprian saw the issue, but I think he would approve of our comments—save, perhaps, for the implied fact that to some extent our Church is still in actual communion with Constantinople. Fr. Theodoritos of Mt. Athos (who has never told us himself of his “jurisdictional problems”) wrote in approval of the issue, only adding that he is sorry that we are “still in communion with Demetrios.”

Frs. Panteleimon and Neketas are conspicuously silent, though undoubtedly the phone lines are buzzing! But we did hear from two Greek-American priests, Frs. Anthony Gavalas and Panagiotes Carras—their letters were very sincere and without bad feeling, but they are obviously extremely naive about “what the Synod believes,” and they simply have no idea that there can be any such thing as a “temptation on the right side.” We have tried to prepare them a little for the shock ahead of them when they discover how “liberal” our bishops are in most places. In general there seems to be not much awareness of this problem we are raising, but the letter from Archimandrite Cyprian (you can keep the copy) persuades us more than ever that it is a very deep and important one.

Out of all this we see the necessity for the formulation of a sound “moderate” stand that will emphasize true Orthodoxy, firmly oppose ecumenism and modernism, but not go overboard in “defining” such things as the presence or absence of grace, or practicing “rebaptism” of those already Orthodox. (We accept that in some cases this might be allowable with the bishop’s approval—but beyond a few isolated cases this practice itself introduces a fanatical tone and a spirit of discord and distrust in the Church. This will be extremely difficult to do, especially with the presence among us of a politically-powerful “fanatic”; but with God’s help and the prayers of our patron saints we will try our best to do our little bit. We have little hope that our bishops (in view of the passions it would arouse in some quarters) will give us some “simple solution” to work with—such as, especially in view of the “Thyateira Confession,” announcing that we will have no communion with Constantinople whatever, but will also not rebaptize those who come to us from them. For us personally there is no problem: in view of the ever-increasing apostasy and bearing in mind especially Vladika Averky’s strong words on the subject, we ourselves have no communion with non-Synod jurisdictions, but without any animosity or demonstrations and without judging those bishops who continue to allow such communion. This allows us freedom to be occupied and inspired by non-polemical matters, without which church life becomes intolerably stifling. The more all of us can give spiritual food and inspiration, the better for everyone.

We look forward to seeing you. Our Vladika John issue in English is still far from finished— pray for us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Father Cyprian,

Evolgeite!

We received and read your letter with great joy, feeling in [it] the fragrance of true Orthodoxy which is so much threatened now both on the left side and the right. We hope that there will be frequent contact between us in the future, for we also feel at times somewhat isolated in our position, especially with the fanatical tone which is now spreading among the American members of our Church through the influence of Fr. Panteleimon. This fanatical tone is causing discord and distrust between Greeks and Russians in our Church and is making it much more difficult for our bishops to stay on the royal path, without inclining to left or right. We believe our Russian Church Outside Russia is in an exceptionally good position to stay on this royal path, speaking boldly against the apostasy of the left without making unnecessary “definitions” about the status of their Sacraments, and at the same time not being under pressure of a strong “fanatical” group such as you have in Greece. We fully sympathize with your situation and certainly approve of your decision not to break communion with hierarchs with whom you are in basic accord in questions of faith, apart from this unfortunate “political” decree.

For some time we have intended to write you asking for perhaps a small article about your monastery, and your letter now gives us an occasion to do this. I believe that your experience could be of help to us in America. Would it be possible for someone to write for us a brief account of your monastery, with a special emphasis on the principles and point of view which you try to follow? It would be especially valuable if you could give us a description or some examples of the harmful consequences of the “correctness” disease (which we also call “knowing better”). I realize that this is a very sensitive topic and one would not like to mention names or express oneself in a way that might offend some of our well-meaning zealots who err out of inexperience, more than anything else. But with proper caution I believe that this could be done in a way that would not be offensive and would be a warning to those who are not yet thoroughly infected with the “correctness” disease. So far in America this disease has not struck too deeply, and we do not have any real examples of people who have gone far astray because of it; we would rather warn them now on the basis of your more thorough experience than to simply wait for the catastrophes to happen to us here in America—and we see clearly that they are going to happen.

We would be very grateful to you if you could help us in this way, and also send a few photographs of your monastery and new church, and of you and your monks—and also with account of your Typicon, especially venerated saints, etc.

We were very touched to hear once more of your devotion to our dear Vladika John. Could you write to us briefly of how you celebrated this day?—what kind of services, sermon, etc.—for our records? We also celebrated his memorial with deep feeling, and a few days before it our monastery was saved from a terrible forest fire by his prayers. We have printed a book in Russian for this 10th anniversary, and soon we will be finished with a special issue of The Orthodox Word dedicated to him, which we will send you as soon as it is finished.

We ask for your holy prayers and blessing.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

P.s. Do you have any particular comments on our recent “Metropolitan Philaret” issue of The Orthodox Word—especially our introduction to his epistle?

Dear Brother in Christ, Andrew,

Greetings on our Lord Jesus Christ. We were saddened to hear of the developments in England, and especially distressed to learn that you have been deprived of Holy Communion.

You, of course, are now in a very bad position: both by being identified as a “rebel” against your own Archbishop and clergy, and much more by being cut off from the very Mysteries of the Church. In such a situation, nothing that you can say or do will have any good effect as regards the issues involved; whatever you say, it will be the words of a “rebel,” which may be disregarded. Therefore, it is quite essential for you to remove this label from yourself. This can be done in a very simple way which does not involve the acceptance of opinions repugnant to you. We urge you to put aside, for the present, all thoughts of “right and wrong,” “just and unjust,” and first put right the spiritual side—that is, do what is necessary to be restored to Holy Communion.

We strongly urge you to do what your Archbishop asks of you: namely, to write a letter to each of the clergymen to whom you are accused of being disrespectful, begging their forgiveness for any crudeness, disrespect, or improper words or actions you may have shown to them. This is important both because it is in obedience you your Archbishop (to whose judgment you should be respectful even when you think it is unjust or wrong), and even more because it is a spiritual approach to the question, which in itself does not involve the question of who is right and who wrong regarding the issues. Your Archbishop has asked you to “ask forgiveness and be at peace” and “to have reverence and respect” to clergy—but he does not actually tell you what opinions you are to have. This is the proper course even supposing that you are “right” in every respect, for the unjust suffering of wrongs is of great spiritual benefit; but it should be easy enough in any case to accuse yourself of crudeness, wrong tone, etc., which creep into all of us even when we are defending the truth.

Then you should write to Vladika Nikodem himself, likewise asking his forgiveness in similar words, and adding that you have asked forgiveness (in written form) of all the clergymen as he directed you to do. If you wish you could add here that you are sorry that because of your crudeness you were not able to express adequately your concern over something which not only you, but others also, have been troubled over—but that this can perhaps be done in a more fitting way at some other time.

We suspect that deep down Vladika Nikodem himself is not entirely satisfied With the position in which he finds himself, and that his actions are due more to “political” circumstances than anything else; in which case your expression of humility and forgiveness will help him later when it may be more opportune to change positions.

The attitude which you are against (and rightly so) is such a “sick point” in our Church now that it cannot be approached by a direct “fight,” and it is actually rather unimportant if it seems to gain some local “victories.” The circle of those who are becoming concerned about “zeal not according to knowledge” in our Church, is steadily increasing, and at the proper time this unsound current will be put in its place. But these things take time and patience, and often require a temporary “retreat from battle”; if it comes to that, let us remember Napoleon and Russia in 1812!

As I said, we strongly urge you at this time to make peace as the Archbishop has asked you (no matter what you may have written to him in the meantime), on the spiritual level; this will help not only you but others outside England also. When we talk to our bishops about this, we know well that they will not be inclined to act where it involves someone who has been “excommunicated,” however unjustly. Please help us out in this!

May God be your help and consolation in your difficult trial, which requires of you now an effort of humility and peace—which will have greater results than you might think.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Father Panagiotes [Carras],

Evlogeite!

Thank you for your letter. Your words do not offend us, and in fact we are encouraged by the fact that, while differing so sharply with our article, you expressed yourself in so conciliatory a tone. We pray that, whatever disagreements may lie ahead, this tone will be preserved by all involved.

About the article: yes, part of the difficulty is a matter of expression, and if it is necessary to talk about these things in future we will try to express ourselves in a way less likely to cause unnecessary offense.

But the main problem is much deeper, and we were so bold as to stick our necks out in front of a visible axe, knowing that there would be disagreements and that later we would probably have to at least rephrase what we said there, solely because we see a frightful thing in front of us, of which very few seem to be aware: we see the formation of two distinct wings in our Church—our bishops, who are saying and thinking one thing (mostly in Russian), and a “Greek party,” which is saying and thinking something completely different (in English and Greek). Your words only confirm this for us. Whoever is doing the “translation” between you and other Greek priests, and our Russian bishops, is certainly leaving much unsaid, to say the least. Apparently each party is interpreting the things unsaid in its own way.

I believe that the words in our article which you find so shocking express fairly well what most if not all of our Russian bishops think. Our Synod has not, nor ever said that it has, broken communion with any of the main “canonical” churches; only with Moscow is there an official break, and that for reasons which do not involve a question of heresy (it is rather the “dead rat” in Blessed Xenia’s barrel) and which look to the eventual restoration of communion when the political situation changes (it being understood, and expressed by various of our hierarchs, that when the Communist regime falls the betraying hierarchs will be appropriately handled). (The giving of communion to Catholics is a new element in the Moscow situation which our bishops haven’t drawn final conclusions about as yet.) Whether we like it or not our Synod has used precisely the term “avoiding communion” with regard to the Metropolia—meaning, for all intents and purposes, a break in communion, but without any proclamation of them as “schismatics. The thinking behind our Synod’s actions in recent years seems to be in reality quite different from what you have been told, namely: Fr. George Lewis was allowed to be baptized and ordained solely because he was not received in the Metropolia by a bishop, but only by a priest—thus he was not considered ordained or properly received and was received by us like a Catholic (not one of our bishops, I am sure, would dream of ordaining anyone already correctly ordained by the Metropolia); the establishment of multi-national parishes is a missionary answer, in the midst of a chaos of jurisdictions, to an urgent demand on the part of these groups, with no opinion expressed or implied about the Mysteries of other jurisdictions of the same nationality; the reception of Greek clergy without canonical release from the Greek Archdiocese is a case of economy, because they have been accepted for reasons of conscience but without our bishops officially breaking communion with the hierarchs from whom they have separated (this is the explanation given us directly by an Archbishop who has received two such priests); only very recently (if then) have any of our bishops begun seriously to question the validity of the Mysteries in the “canonical jurisdictions,” and probably all of our bishops still believe that the Mysteries of at least most of the jurisdictions are valid (just recently our bishops refused the request of the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios to agree with it on the non-validity of new-calendarist Mysteries, and it was not until a year or so ago that this Old-Calendarist Synod ceased to believe that the new-calendarist Mysteries are indeed valid); our Church has open communion with the Serbian Church, Jerusalem, and probably others, and leaves separate hierarchs free to serve even with Constantinople if they wish. Indeed, even on the “right” side there is a glaring enough “inconsistency,” in that we continue to have communion (as long as they will allow it) with two groups of Old Calendarists who have no communion with each other.

We ourselves at times have wished to see a little more “consistency” in the positions of the Synod, but for the time being we have to be satisfied with the basic Synod position, which seems to be: individual members and communities of the Russian Church Abroad are free to have no communion with any of the “canonical jurisdictions,” but the bishops themselves are not willing to break communion with these jurisdictions as yet. We spoke just a week ago with one of the leading Archbishops of our Synod, whose views are undoubtedly typical of our Synod, and he made it quiet clear that officially we have broken only with Moscow, and our official responsibility at this time, as far as breaking communion, does not extend beyond the Russian Church situation; about the other jurisdictions we do not yet have to define things so precisely. Like it or not, that seems to be the position of our Church as reflected in the views of individual hierarchs and in the decrees of Sobors and the Synod (and also by the lack of such decrees on some points). In future the Synod or Sobor may change this position; but we must be aware of what their position is now.

Judging from your letter, you will receive these words with unbelief; if nothing else, then, our article will have served to bring into the open something which has been too long covered up. Apparently some people in our Synod prefer not to “upset” people by telling them what the bishops really think; but we cannot see anything but trouble ahead from such a pretense. Better to know the truth in the beginning, even if it is unpleasant, than to be confronted with it later and find that one has been acting on false presumptions for months or years. Judging from the “Open Letters” of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Fr. Panteleimon is well enough aware of what our bishops really think—but apparently one can read those letters with a different set of presuppositions in mind and not see this.

Even the letter of our Metropolitan on the “Thyateira Confession” does not indicate that we have broken communion with Constantinople; the distinct implication, I would say, is that it threatens a final break in communion if the rest of the bishops of Constantinople do not condemn the document.

We ourselves follow the confessing stand of Archbishop Averky, who based his stand, however, much less on canons and dogmas than on discernment of the spiritual substance of the apostasy of the “canonical jurisdictions”; the break of our Church and the Catacomb Church with Sergius in 1927 was also not primarily a question of canons or dogmas, but a rather more subtle question which the Catacomb hierarchs expressed most frequently as the loss of “freedom” (that is, inward freedom). We as much as you wish to be separate from the “canonical jurisdictions”; but we wonder how adequate is the stand that this separateness must be defined on canonical and dogmatic grounds. The Old Believers to this day defend their separation from the Orthodox Church precisely on canonical and dogmatic grounds; and our hierarchs, in what you probably regard as their excessive caution in breaking formally with the “canonical jurisdictions,” have very much in mind our Russian experience with a tragic mistake made on the “right” side out of immoderate zeal. Dr. Kalomiros and others in Greece who follow the Old Calendar have written to us of the “legalism” and “fanaticism” of some of the Old Calendarists; are we supposed only to praise such people even though we see that they are sowing distrust and discord in the name of “correctness”?

It does not seem appropriate to discuss such things in print, and perhaps even what we printed was a little too much, especially it if is interpreted as a condemnation of many zealot fathers, as you say (although Fr. Theodoritos of St. Anne’s Skete did not tell us in his recent letter on this subject that he was at all offended by the article). But you should know that some of the words and actions of those on the “right” side (we don’t know how else to say it!) are indeed causing trouble among us, and in particular there is good reason to suspect that some of the recent actions towards the “left” of a few of our bishops are a direct reaction to what they regard as a dangerous fanaticism. We fear that if our bishops are going to be told (without asking them) that they regard all the “canonical jurisdictions” as “heretical” and “without grace”—that they may regard it necessary to go a little overboard on the other side. Let’s not force them to that! That danger is greater than you might think.

This is enough to give you our reasons for raising such a controversial point in The Orthodox Word. We fear that the future for true Orthodoxy may be indeed as dismal as Dr. Kalomiros paints it, with isolated groups of believers cut off from each other and even anathematizing each other over points of “strictness” and “correctness.” While we have our free Russian Church Outside of Russia we should treasure it, even while we may have disagreements among ourselves over questions such as breaking communion. If some in our Church are going to insist that their opinions on such questions must prevail—there will be discord and possibly schism, which indeed would do more harm than any possible good, for it would prove to “canonical Orthodoxy” that “true Orthodoxy” is only a conglomeration of fighting sects. May God preserve us from this—this is what made us write the article. Our “correctness” must always be accompanied by humility, and with sufficient doubt in our own opinions as to listen to what those who differ may say, without calling them betrayers or heretics. Thus far the circle of betrayers and heretics is fairly clear, and we should not cease to denounce their path and remain separate from them; but with those who sincerely wish to remain in the tradition of Orthodoxy we must have a spirit of conciliation and openness to listen.

Pray for us, and please keep in contact with us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk