Author: orthodoxaustralia

Dear Christopher [Amerling],

Dear Alexey,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ, and congratulations on the namesday of Vladika Averky! We just asked Fr. Michael Pomazansky: who is an authentic Orthodox theological guide for today, and his reply: Archbishop Averky. Fr. Michael told us some other important things which we’ll share with you when we see you. (When?)

Concerning the Old Believers: your observations (and Nina’s) seem sober, and give about the picture of them that we expected. Certainly there’s no harm in continued personal contact with them—but as you correctly see, don’t even think of being any kind of intermediary between them and the Synod. If they want to become Orthodox, it will come up in due time; if they want you to adopt Old Believer customs, they should know it’s a waste of time. John Hudanish seems to be the convert enthusiast type—who will easily fall into disillusionment when his dreams are punctured! With him it’s best to be as open as possible, and not to let him keep illusions that will be exploded by everyday reality.

Br. Laurence returned safely and, after thinking it over, wants to “try again” to stay. What can we say? By now it’s obvious that he just isn’t after what we’re striving for, but is just tagging along, and is emotionally attached to us; we hate simply to tell him to find someplace else where he can be of one mind and soul (knowing he will never find such a place), and we also hate just to “drag him along” with us, requiring him to act in a way which must be voluntary in order to work. His “fits” sometimes (as for example, this time) make an immense drain on me, and Fr. Herman also, for actually what he does is call into question our whole way of life, not seeing or valuing it; and this way of life is already so difficult, requiring great struggle and sensitivity, that it can be destroyed. He wants an “idiorhythmic” way—i.e., old-maidism—and he just can’t see that this is ridiculous and tragic when we have someone like Fr. Herman who can lead us in oneness of soul and mind (something we poor Americans can’t do, as long as Orthodoxy is so frail in us). All the other brothers who have stayed here for any length of time have seen this, at least to some extent; but Br. L. seems to remain closed to it. Probably he will stay for a while longer on “probation,” to see if he can grasp at least a little of what we are after. I only pray that our “softness” does not bring harm to anyone. We especially regret that you have to be dragged into it, with all your problems already. Br. L. feels the warmth of your community, but again, would never be able to sacrifice himself enough to be a real part of such a community. If he ever wants to come and live with you—watch out, and don’t make any “special conditions” for him. In general, you are going to have problems enough with people who “think they can fit in” but are not willing to do the hard work necessary for this.

We get the impression that Nina is upset with us for our “harsh words’ about Fr. P. Does she really think this is some kind of “personal feud”? There seems little point in trying to “persuade” her that Fr. P. is “wrong” about anything. Your best insurance against any uneasiness she may cause you is your calm awareness that Fr. P. & Co. are no authority for you; you have your own work to do and he has nothing whatever to do with it. If she tries to get you involved in thinking about Fr. P. at all—just get across this idea, calmly and firmly. I don’t think she knows what I mean when I say she had better “break” with him—I don’t mean “personal ties,” of course; I mean emotional dependence, the “convert fear” that if you aren’t with him you might be “wrong.”

Vladika Averky, by the way, replied to us, thanking us for our “moral support” in a very difficult time for him. [letter ends]

Dear Fr. Michael [Azkoul],

Bless! Enclosed is the text of Bulgakov and Florensky; I have pencilled in a few comments. You show quite clearly their gnostic tradition. May God grant the work to be printed. We look forward to seeing the summary.

Enclosed also are the two quotes you wanted; I hope they are what you needed.

We hear that you have written a short article on Orthodox Monarchy, which Fr. Neketas Palassis doesn’t care to print; could we see a copy of it? This is a subject little understood among American Orthodox—and an “American” presentation might be more comprehensible than our own “Russian” one.

We ask your prayers for us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

1. Quote from Nikita Struve in his lead editorial in the Messenger of the Russian Christian Movement, 1974, II-III, pp. 5-6 (with reference to Metr. Philaret’s reply to Solzhenitsyn’s Letter to the Third All-Diaspora Council, 1974):

“And how proud sounds the completely incorrect assertion that without ‘the Russian Church Outside of Russia’ nothing Russian would have remained in the West! However paradoxical it might be, it is precisely that part of the Russian Church in the Diaspora which went to the Greeks’ or ‘became American’—precisely it that has continued in the West the great Russian spiritual culture, that has not buried its talent in the ground but has multiplied it. It is to the creativity of this Church that the religious movement now being reborn in Russia now turns, for there has been no other religious-spiritual creativity in the Diaspora.”

(Another part of the same editorial, p. 4:)

“Paris was the place of the blossoming of the Russian religious-philosophical renaissance, and up to now it remains a significant center. To New York was transferred the more dynamic wing of Parisian Orthodoxy, and in the new conditions of a young, no longer Russian but American, Church, it actively applies to life the testament of Russian theology….

“The Messenger, in answer to the desires from Russia, at one and the same time broadens and defines its direction: leaning upon the glorious Parisian traditions, upon the dynamism of the American Church, it will reflect the spiritual rebirth in Russia, and, as far as it is able, will help it.”

2. Quote from Archbishop John Maximovitch, “The Veneration of the Theotokos and John the Baptist and the New Direction of Russian Religio-philosophical Thought,” in Church Life, 1936, no, 6, pp. 94-96: After refuting Bulgakovs quotes on the “sinlessness” of the Mother of God from the Holy Fathers, he goes on to refute his quotes from Orthodox Divine services (I take this citation because it is doubtless impressive to the riot-completely-informed to hear: Bulgakov cites 50 passages from Divine services to prove his point—how deep into the Fathers and Divine services he is:)

“Archpriest Bulgakov says that the Holy Orthodox Church firmly and clearly teaches the sinlessness of Mary in her innumerable Divine services which are devoted to the Mother of God. As a proof he cites about fifty excerpts from hymns in honor of Her. However, not in a single one of these is She named either sinless or any other equivalent term. In them She is called holy; but, even though in the full sense only “One is holy, One is God, Jesus Christ,” all the pleasers of God can also be called holy, relatively. In their ranks is such a number of great sinners who repented that there is no need to prove that the word ‘holy does not signify ‘sinless.’

“The Theotokos is called blameless, [as Bulgakov notes]. Blame is a growing hard in sin, devotion to sin, sinful habit. A man is called blameless if he leads a God-pleasing life without being enslaved to any passion. ‘Go before Me and be blameless,’ said God to Abraham (Gen. 17:1). In sacred Scripture Job is called blameless and considered himself such (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3, 9:21). Concerning the righteous Zachary and Elizabeth it is said that they ‘walked in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord blameless’ (Luke 1:6). Using the word ‘blameless’ many times in the Psalms, David understands by it a fulfiller of God’s law. ‘Blessed are the blameless in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord’ (Ps. 118:5). This expression is applied also to certain saints in the Church services.* (*For example, Dec. 6, Canticle 6; Dec. 12, Canticle 7; the canon to Martyrs Juliana and Eugenia.) Nevertheless, none of the Old or New Testament righteous ones are considered sinless, and in the accounts of the lives of those who are called blameless, their sins and temptations are not concealed. Thus, in calling the Theotokos Blameless, and even All-Blameless, Most Blameless, the Church indicates Her devotion to the law of the Lord and the absence in Her of any blame of any kind, but not at all the absence of sins in Her.

“Like wise, one cannot see indications of the sinless [ness] of the Theotokos in the words ‘undefiled’ (which is used of the Three Youths*) (*Irmos of the 8th Canticle of Great Monday.), ‘Pure,’ ‘Incorrupt,’ ‘Faultless,’ since here only Her exalted moral character is referred to, but not the absence of any sin whatever. The expression, ‘the body did not receive the course of sin speaks of the chastity and inviolate virginity of Mary.

“The remaining expressions cited by Archpriest Bulgakov from church hymns have even less relation to the question of sinlessness. ‘Sanctified’ (Jer. 1:5), the One Foretold,’ ‘Full of Grace,’ ‘Blessed,’ ‘Dwelling of God,’ ‘Most Glorious’—all these are exalted names of the Mother of God, but they nevertheless give no answer to the present question. And it is totally incomprehensible why there are quoted various figurative expressions such as ‘New Heaven,’ ‘Book sealed by the Divine Spirit,’ ‘Divine Ladder,’ ‘Great Throne,’ and the like, which clearly depict the great dignity of the Mother of God without touching at all on the present question, not to mention the fact that expressions which must be understood in a metaphorical sense cannot be set against those in which the Church’s teaching is expressed clearly and definitely.

“By his proofs’ taken from the Divine services, Archpriest Bulgakov demonstrates only that he could find nothing which confirms his view in the Orthodox Divine services and prayers, in which it is only to God that it is said: ‘There is no man who shall live and not sin; for Thou alone art without sin (Prayer after the Ectene for the Reposed); and ‘Thou alone art sinless’ (Prayer for the Rite of Confession and many other prayers). The doctrine of the sinlessness of the Theotokos is not only foreign to Orthodox doctrine, but is contrary to it. Having many testimonies against itself, it has none for itself. Therefore, in order to prove its Orthodoxy, Archpriest Bulgakov has to resort to a selection of fragmentary expressions which either prove nothing at all, to else give the impression that his teaching is really confirmed by them if only one does not [consider] as a whole the work from which the expression is taken.”

CONCERNING BULGAKOV

(My comments always in parenthesis, outside quotes.)

I. From the article “Tri Obraza” (Three Images”) by Archpriest Alexander Schmemann, in the Vestnik (Messenger) of the Russian Student Christian Movement, Paris, No. 101-102, III-IV, 1971, pp. 9-24.

“Let us even allow that his teaching is ‘heretical’ and worthy of condemnation. But men have written and continue to write about heretics also, and not one of them was condemned without a real and conscientious analysis of his teaching.” (p. 10)

(Thus, your study of him should be welcome! Long overdue! Let’s give him his due!)

“Of him (Bulgakov) men have written and said that he is a ‘heretic.’ But despite this, following after him, or, in the phrase of V. V. Weidle, ‘delighting’ in him, I felt with all my being: no, this man is not heretic, but on the contrary, he is shining with the most important, most authentic thing which is contained in Orthodoxy.” (p. 12)

After describing Fr. Sergius Bulgakov serving at the All-night Vigil of Palm Sunday: “I will never forget his eyes, shining with some kind of quiet ecstasy, and his tears, and all this striving forwards and upwards, precisely to that ‘upper room’ where Christ is preparing the last Pascha with His disciples.

“Why do I remember this minute so well? Because, I think, the remembrance of it involuntarily returns to me every time I have read and heard accusations against Fr. Sergius of‘pantheism’ and gnosticism,’ of obliterating the boundary between God and creature, of the divinization of the world, and so forth. I do not know to what extent one might objectively draw this out of the texts of Fr. Sergius; for, I repeat, a real, serious analysis of his writings has not yet been begun; but he himself rejected these accusations with disgust. I know, however, that this remembrance returned because these accusations so evidently contradicted that which, in all probability, then struck me and has always struck me most of all in Fr. Sergius: his ‘eschatologism,’ his constant, joyful, bright orientation towards the end. Of all the people whom I have happened to meet, only Fr. Sergius was ‘eschatological’ in the direct, simple, early-Christian sense of this word, meaning not only a teaching about the end, but also an expectation of the end.” (pp. 16-17).

“I do not know of such an eschatological orientation as compatible with ‘pantheism.’ But with my whole being I feel that it is impossible without a personal, all-embracing love for Christ…. It was precisely this love for Christ that streamed from the image of Fr. Sergius and it, of course, struck me at that Palm Sunday Vigil…. Without understanding this, without feeling this penetration of the whole creative work of Fr. Sergius by eschatological expectation, it is impossible, I think, either to understand rightly or value rightly his theological thought.” (p. 18)

(Schmemann sees in Bulgakov system of Sophiology a “fall”; his experience and ideas, he thinks, are richer than Bulgakov’s system.)

“He himself, I do not doubt, will remain in the Church’s memory what he actually was: a prophet and seer of mysteries, a leader into some exalted and splendid land, into which he has called us all by his countenance, his burning, his spiritual authenticity.” (p. 22)

(Comments:)

(1. An interesting thought for a “theologian”: that we are to understand someone’s theology by how he felt (or how we feel). It may be Schmemann is right: Bulgakov is better than his theology; but then the answer is clear—see the end of our quote from Archbishop John below: “Then let him renounce what he has written….”)

(2. A footnote on Schmemann: his whole defense of Bulgakov here is typical of his writings in Russian—he uses an emotionalism that plays on the feelings of Russians about certain Church customs or words, which allows him to be quite vague intellectually.)

(3. A deeper point: Bulgakov is probably worse and more dangerous than the icy-cold Berdyaev because he attracts to his heresies not only by logic and words, but also by his personality and “spirituality.” So what if Bulgakov is “eschatological,” is oriented toward the end—he was oriented toward the end in a chiliastic sense, was he not—and therefore not only his words, but his very feelings are heretical. He not only thinks, he also lives and feels his heresy!)

CONCERNING BULGAKOV
(Archbishop John)

II. Archbishop John Maximovitch: from his article “The Veneration of the Mother of God and John the Baptist and the New Current of Russian Religio-Philosophical Thought,” (actually a review of two of Bulgakov’s books: The Unburnt Bush, 1926; and Friend of the Bridegroom, 1927), in Church Life (Tserkovnaya Zhizri), Yugoslavia, 1936, nos. 6, 7, 8-9, 10-11, and 1937, no. 1. (This was written by Archbp. John when he was Hieromonk in Yugoslavia, and was first printed in Golos Vernopoddannago (Voice of the Loyal Subject, the newspaper of Count (later Protopresbyter George Grabbe, in 1928.)

(In the issue of 1937, no. 1, p. 134, after criticizing in detail Bulgakovs teaching and showing his many blunders in church knowledge—this fact by the way is proof that at least part of Bulgakovs teaching has certainly been subjected to close analysis, Schmemann notwithstanding—[Archbp. John] writes:)

“The teaching of Archpriest Bulgakov on the veneration of the Mother of God and John the Forerunner, which, as has been explained, can in no way be considered Orthodox, is dangerous not so much in itself as because, in the present case as in many others, the author appears as the mouthpiece of ideas which have taken possession of certain circles of Russian intellectual society. These ideas are bound up with the teaching of Sophia the Wisdom of God.” (Here follows a brief discussion of Sophia, created vs. uncreated, which I omit because it is rather general and without quotes from Bulgakov, and you probably have something more specific—but if you want I can translated this paragraph also.)

p. 14: “One recalls the first centuries of Christianity, when as a result of a striving to obtain a precise knowledge of God, and the world there appeared the new, harmonious system of Valentinus, which presented fifteen pairs of Aeons, proceeding one from the other, where likewise in each pair there are sharply distinguished a masculine and feminine principle. The new philosophers (i.e. of today) have not gone as far as the conclusions of Valentinus; there are no grounds as yet, likewise, to affirm that they have borrowed their teaching from him. However, the same foundations have been placed both there and here—human reasoning being adjusted to oneself and not yielding before Divinely revealed truths. This is an effort to analyze and confuse what God has revealed and what man has found himself. Both before an now, similar results are obtained from this. Our philosophers as it were feel their closeness to the ancient heretics, not concealing their sympathies toward then and seeing in them preachers of the truth. (Thus, Karsavin, “The Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church.”) The pridefid mind cannot be reconciled with the humble falling down before God. It is more pleasant to pluck the fruit oneself than to receive it from the Creator. This is what Vladimir Soloviev expressed in his speech in honor of Auguste Comte when he cried out that religion must become Divine-human, that more of the human should be fused into it, because now it is too Divine.

“Without concealing it, the partisans of the new philosophical current are striving to reform Orthodoxy. ‘The Orthodox order of things must be remade. A new style is arising in Orthodoxy,” writes Berdyaev. From the editor of their organ Put’ is proclaimed: A new order of the Orthodox soul is being formed, one more active, creative, more manful, fearless.’ (Put’, Sept. 1925). Thus it is declared outright that Orthodoxy up until now has been unsatisfactory on all sides. The Fathers of the Church did not sufficiently understand Christian teaching, the holy Martyrs were not sufficiently fearless and manful, and probably Sts. Peter, Alexis, Jonah, Philip, and Hermogenes of Moscow, Sabbas of Serbia, and Peter Tsetinsky (d. 1830) were totally inactive, even though these enlighteners, while being spiritual shepherds, were also outstanding men of active life in public life. They wish to create a new Orthodoxy’ with a new teaching, a new order of life, even a ‘new soul.’

“But will this be Orthodoxy, or even Christianity at all? It is incomprehensible how this is not noticed by some people who are evidently sincerely devoted to Orthodoxy. It is incomprehensible how Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, while zealously performing the Divine services, studying with love the Church hymns, can preach what is contrary to them. Perhaps in the depths of his soul he feels his incorrectness, and this explains the wavering in his conclusions, the blunders which do not suit his calling and position (note: Archbp. John had pointed these out in detail in the earlier part of this article), things which one can fail to see only by closing ones eyes. But if so, then let him renounce what he has written and not lead into error those who read his works. Let those who desire to remake the Church, which is ‘the pillar and ground of truth’ (I Tim. 3:15), stop their work. Let us hope that they will hear, if not our voice, then the voice of the Apostle Paul: Ό Timothy, keep the tradition, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge false so-called, which some professing have erred concerning the Faith’ (I Tim. 6:20-21). But if, all the same, the seeking for a new faith and a new wisdom should continue, let the true sons of the Church remain unwavering in Orthodoxy, singing with one heart and one mouth: ‘Not in wisdom and power and wealth shall we>boast, but in Thee, the Hypostatic Wisdom of the Father, О Christ; for there is none holy but Thee, О Lover of mankind,”’ (end of article; this last quote is a 4th-tone Irmos; I can look up the exact reference if you need it.)

III. Archbishop John Maximovitch: summary and excerpts from the rest of the same article as above (If you need any of these specific points, I can translate them for you.)

1. Bulgakovs teaching on the perfect sinlessness of the Most Holy Theotokos. Archbishop John shows how Bulgakov’s teaching is against the Holy Fathers, that all his patristic quotes are unconvincing, and quotes B. who ways that one of his sources is “the testimony of immediate feeling,” which, Archbp. John notes, “without the testing of it by the positive Church teaching, has often led to heresy.” Archbp. John refutes one by one Bulgakov’s “sources” for this new teaching—several Holy Fathers whom he misunderstands, and fifty quotations from the Divine services. Archbp. John concludes: “The teaching of the sinlessness of the Mother of God is not only foreign to Orthodox teaching, it is contrary to it. Having many testimonies against itself, it has none for itself. Therefore, in order to prove its Orthodoxy, Archpriest Bulgakov has to resort to a selection of fragmentary expressions which either prove nothing at all, or else give the impression that his teaching is really confirmed by them if only one does not read as a whole the work from which the expression is taken.” (Church Life, 1936, No. 6, pp. 95-96.) This whole passage takes up 5 pages in Archbishop John’s Russian text.

2. Bulgakov identifies the Theotokos with Sophia and makes a parallel between Christ and the Theotokos. Here Archbp. John notes: “Making use of many Orthodox expressions, the author puts into them an entirely different meaning.” (1936, no, 7, no page numbers visible in my Xerox copy.) Bulgakov declares that the nature of the Theotokos is no longer human nature, but a “creaturely revelation of the Holy Spirit”: the Holy Spirit acts in the world through Mary. Here Archbp. John remarks: “According to him it turns out that the Holy Spirit cannot appear in the world without the intermediary of the Virgin Mary. From where did Archpriest Bulgakov take his teaching? In this part of his teaching he does not cite any works of the Holy Fathers or any Church prayers at all. Here he is philosophizing, reasoning, but he is not in the least setting forth or seeking for the teaching of the Church.” (no. 7, no page no.) Again Archbp. John says: “Archpriest Bulgakov wished to depict the Virgin Mary as a link binding together the Deity and humanity. Finding it insufficient that ‘there is one God and one Intermediary between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself as a redemption for all,’ he wishes to find yet another intermediary, uniting the feminine principles in the Deity and in humanity. It need not be said that in these searchings he no longer even tries to base his teaching on the Holy Fathers and Church prayers…” Here Archbp. John thoroughly sets forth the Church teaching on these subjects. (5 pages altogether on these subjects.)

3. St. John the Baptist. Archbp. John points out how Bulgakov exaggerates his importance, make him something “special” (as he has done to the Theotokos). B. teaches that in His Baptism Christ became perfect God-man, to which Archbp. John replies: “This thought is completely un- Orthodox and is a deviation toward the ancient Gnostic teaching that Jesus precisely in the Baptism became Christ.” (1936, no. 8-9, p. 144) Archbp. John sets forth Bulgakovs and the Church’s teaching thoroughly. Then Bulgakov’s ideas of the “sinlessness” of the Forerunner etc. To emphasize specialness of the Forerunner, B. cites his “Synaxis” (“Sobor” in Russian) in service books, Jan. 7—to which Archbp. John answers in detail how “this view of the author testifies only of his complete ignorance of the Church books and the Typicon.” (1936, no, 10-11, p. 167). Bulgakov then cites the Proskomedia to emphasize special position of the Forerunner—but Archbp. John shows he is mistaken in his facts and interpretations. This whole part is 6 pages long.

4. After all this Archbp. John remarks: “Perhaps it will seem that all these are such insignificant mistakes of Archpriest Bulgakov, that it would not be worthwhile to touch on them; but they show upon what fantastical and theologically unfounded proofs he builds his theories.” (1937, no. 1, p. 10)

5. Next Archbishop John refutes, with some humor, Bulgakov’s demonstration that the Forerunner has the nature of an angel, was an “angelman,” and gives the Church’s true teaching on the Forerunner. This part is 3 pages long. Then comes the conclusion which I have already translated in Part II above. )

(Comments: Bulgakov’s many quotations from Holy Fathers and Divine services apparently create the impression in many readers that he is quite an “expert’ in them, and our Brotherhood has been accused by Schmemann and Archbp. Silvester of base “slanders” against him by printing in Russian that he knew the Fathers very poorly. Against this common belief it might not be bad to quote one whole section from Archbp. John, where he refutes Bulgakovs quotations point by point and shows what a rank amateur he was in the study of the Church’s sources; Archbp. John himself quotes many other sources with obvious broad and deep knowledge of them. If you want, I could translate any of the passages I have here summarized.)

Dear Nina,

We were glad to get your letter. Thanks also for the letters which give the “Boston version” of recent events. We didn’t like the tone at all— “oily,” self-justifying, and rumor-mongering. To spread to California rumors about the personal life of Fr. Augustine Whitfield is not very noble, to say the least—and yet the constant accusation that it is everybody else who is spreading rumors. (Are they really unaware that it’s not proper to send out letters with such rumors in them? Do they really not see that they’re doing exactly what they accuse others—often falsely—of doing? If so, things are bad.) We also don’t like the “elitist” philosophy set forth— “only we and the bishops can discuss these things.” Bishops we have known have always been very straightforward in telling what they thought of church events, without flattering us that we are part of some inner sanctum of the organization. And yet the “elitist” explanation is obviously a cover-up, for Fr. Alexis says (p. la, para. 2) that the purpose of Fr. Panteleimon’s act was “IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE FAITHFUL UNDER SYNOD AND TO THE OLD CALENDARISTS IN GREECE some consistency, and the fact that we do not accept Bp. Peter….” Of course this is hidden now only because it backfired and gave much adverse publicity to Fr. P.

The attack on Alexey is also very low—of course they have been spreading rumors all the time about Alexey, just as much after as before the “friendship was sealed” with him. We have been astonished and grieved to hear these things—and we let the rumors stop with us, not telling you or Alexey or anyone else about them. Evidently, again, the “Greeks” do not consider that these are “rumors” or “slanders” that they are spreading—everyone else does that, but they are only “warning the faithful,” “telling the truth,” etc. Because they have a double standard, they cannot understand the opposition that is mounting against them. Out of self-importance, they do not see what they are doing, and so any warnings or advice to them will only be answered by another oily, self-justifying letter (or worse, an open letter).

We are frankly glad of the stink that was raised over the last episode. You cannot “explain” things to Fr. P., you cannot “persuade” him—he is a politician and listens only to a manifestation of power, even if it’s just a big noise in our “Russian tradition.”

It is our “Greeks” who have now introduced into our Church the spirit of party politics, false zealotry, and suspicion. If they can’t see this, it’s pointless to talk to them.

There is a certain down-to-earth basic honesty and straightforwardness that is lacking now in our Greeks, and that is what makes us despair for the future. They are blinding themselves. And this is not manifest just in their “controversial” acts and words. They sent us recently a copy of a letter to someone in Australia (obviously written with the idea of sending us a copy!), which includes these words: “It might be to your profit and edification to write to the Fathers at Platina…. We are sure that they would be rejoiced to have occasion to make confession of our true faith and instruct you so that you may come to a better understanding.” This is spiritual fakery. We want out of this phoney atmosphere of “know-it-all,” of “humble instruction” of the lower classes, of pretending to make a “confession” when all we are doing is giving our opinion. As Fr. Dimitry Dudko so well says (and for all his mistakes, he is more Orthodox than the Boston “Party”), this is the religion of the West: “Spirituality with comfort.” Alas, this is what America is offering to Orthodoxy! But how many can see through this subtle trap?

Well, were going to forget all this (if they’ll let us) and get on with our business; may God grant you all to do the same. Alexey will have to “forget the Greeks” completely if he’s going to stay sane; the more you can do the same, the better, so as to avoid worse temptations later. It’s futile for you to defend Alexey—or us, when the time comes—before Fr. Panteleimon; his views are not based on facts, but on political realities. You’ve been warned! No need to “take sides”—but be sober.

By the way, a sure sign that Fr. P., whatever his outward arguments, is spiritually wrong in this case: he terribly grieved one hierarch (Vladika Averky’s letter to us is one of despondency, and if Fr. P. will say in self-justification that Vlad. A. “misunderstood” him, then it is Fr. P.’s fault for not communicating to him in a decent and understandable way), and he terribly upset at least two others; and yet not one word that Fr. P. is “sorry” or in any way is anything but “right.” There is spiritual disaster ahead for this man; he has gone off the Orthodox track in so many ways of feeling and sensitivity that I once thought he understood.

By the way, the fact that we refuse to enter into the campaign of distrust of Vlad. Laurus or of any of those accused of “Western influence” (and those who use this accusation are clearly under Schmemann’s influence), does not mean that we agree entirely with them on any given issue. We suspect, for example, that the most sober position with regard to the Old Calendarists lies somewhere between Vlad. Laurus’ position and that of Dr. Kalomiros. But we continue on the best of relations with both, because we all realize that we are human and do not have all the answers, unlike Fr. P., who (like all “party men”) sees plots against him everywhere.

With Fr. Panteleimon we would like to remain on the best of terms also, but I doubt that he will allow this. Dr. Kalomiros says that he “cuts off” anyone who disagrees with him, and we have already seen what this means in the case of Alexey, a fellow struggler in his own Church and for the same Orthodox zealot cause. Also, Fr. P., playing “Synod politics” for so long, has himself become part of the boring, stifling “organization mentality,” covered with a sticky layer of unctions “love” for everyone which is not borne out by his actions. In the end this will submerge his many qualities, in which we don’t doubt, which could have been such an asset to our Church if he hadn’t come to think himself so important.

There are, by the way, many undercurrent factors in Fr. P’s whole position in the Church which I don’t think he understands at all; these make any defense or attack of him of little value, if it is based only on what seems superficially to be involved. If I get the chance and time, I will try to sort these out some day and write about them to Dr. Kalomiros, who seems to be the most level-headed Greek we know. I don’t think any Greek, for example, is aware of how the whole Old-Calendarist situation seems to Russians—their demands to “take sides” just don’t make any sense to Russians. No one, least of all Fr. P. himself, has ever thought that our Synod is obliged to follow whatever the Synod of Auxentios decrees, particularly when the decree is based on a position which our Synod refuses to accept (declaring lack of grace of the New-Cal. Church). Therefore, it would have been absurd for Vlad. Averky to break off communion with Bp. Peter—it would have been simply a bowing to a political demand of some brazen young clergyman. Now that our Synod has done so, of course, the situation is at least superficially clearer—but the problems actually remain.

Again, Fr. P. doesn’t seem to understand that his position in our Synod is a special one, something granted as a great favor to him. Vlad. John told us in the beginning that the logical place for the “Greeks” when they came over was under Bp. Peter. The decision to bring them under our Russian jurisdiction, thus creating two groups of Greek Old Calendarists in this country, was a risky one and was owing to the love and kindness and naivete of our bishops. But Fr. P. seems to think that this special favor is his right, and he thereby involves our Church directly in Greek disputes, which he thinks is normal, but our bishops certainly don’t. I’m afraid the logical conclusion of all this, which will probably now be more and more impressed on our bishops, is that Fr. P. belongs in some Greek jurisdiction where he can do what he thinks is right without dragging Russians into it. If he doesn’t want this, Fr. P. had better start being more quiet and meek, just like the rest of us.

Enough of all this. Symeon replied to you? We haven’t heard from him since we warned him (and Fr. Alexander) about going too fast. He’s not ready yet to be a deacon, as far as we can see, but probably he’s already been ordained.

Glory be to God for all things! Alexey will just have to learn more about rejoicing in sorrows. All this will be good for him, if he survives—by God’s grace and Vladika John’s prayers, he will. May God preserve us all. Be prepared for really difficult trials ahead when you will have to defend the Faith. But don’t think you can do it by “being right”—that’s Fr. P’s fata! mistake. You must be in the spirit and tradition of the Church, and then you will survive even if you might be “wrong” about something or other (even “ecclesiology”—we have so many “ecclesiological experts” nowadays!). This message has not yet sunk into Fr. P, even though he talks about it.

Seraphim, monk

On September 2nd and 3rd of 2016 a Conference was held in Thessaloniki, Greece. It was entitled “ Integral Ecology as the new road to reconciliation” and was held “under the High Patronage of His Holiness the Pope Francis, His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and the Archbishop of Canterbury…”

On the official program for this event it states: “The Meeting intends to build on the Encyclical letter Laudato Si (2015) of Pope Francis as well as on ‘The Witness of the Church in Today’s World’ (aka the ‘Missions’ document) adopted by the Pan-Orthodox Synod in June 2016, to explore their meaning and potential contribution to the contemporary world.”

Here are (but a few) disturbing excerpts from Orthodox participants of this Conference:

1) “On the basis of “the economy of the Holy Spirit” God uses not only the Church, but many other powers of the world for God’s mission (missio dei) for the salvation of humankind and the entire creation. God in God’s own self is a life of communion and God’s involvement in history (and consequently our religious responsibility) aims not at transmitting doctrinal statements (dogmas) or ethical commands, but at drawing humanity and creation in general into this communion with God’s very life.” – Dr. Petros Vassiliadis

2) “The times in which we live may prove to be unforgettable and historically significant, as for the first time, since the beginning of the inter-Christian relations during the previous century, it appears that a stunning ecumenical agreement of all Evangelical, Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches actually exists, both in the way ‘the signs of the times’ are interpreted and the interdependence of social, political, economic, environmental and spiritual challenges is acknowledged, and in the way the sense of responsibility in regard to the current obligation emerges and the decisiveness for common action in order to fight the causes and also, to avert any destructive consequences of the present situation in the ‘common house’ is demonstrated.” – Stylianos Tsompanidis

3) “The Orthodox conciliar document, is a short exposition in a Dorian style of the main views expressed in the various speeches of Patriarch Bartholomew. In short, all Christian traditions slowly, but steadily, started being concerned about two interrelated aspects of globalization: ecology and economy, both stemming from the Greek word oikos (household), and both carrying inherently the notion of communion (koinonia).” – Dr. Petros Vassiliadis

4) “The current ecumenical acceptance of the urgency of environmental protection and the integral approach of ecology at a great extent the fruit of the participation of the Orthodox Churches in the consultations and the activities of the Ecumenical Movement appears as a great opportunity for worldwide Christianity of every tradition and at all levels to co-participate in an struggle in favor of the whole world, and to put its proclamations into practice, all in the spirit of becoming an effective player and an ambassador for necessary radical changes. This common Christian ecumenical effort, when incited by the love of God for the whole creation and determined by the principles of His Kingdom, can prove to be a true ecumenical school and a dynamic way to achieve reconciliation and unity for the Church and the world.” – Stylianos Tsompanidis

More information concerning this may be found here: http://www.aiesc.net/thessalonique/…

Well, for what Orthodox Australia is concerned, we do not share the same view on ‘the signs of the time’ interpretation as they do.

Dear Alexey,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ. This is to accompany the enclosed tape on Kireyevsky, out of which I hope you can make a coherent conclusion. Also enclosed is your article on Patriarch Tikhon—good, but remember, in case it should ever come up, that he had his weak points, both in America and as Patriarch (he approved the new Calendar for a time, until Metropolitan Anastassy and others showed how dangerous this was); his greatness is in his confession and martyrdom, suffering with and for the people.

Nina sent us the letters from Boston—“oily” and repulsive to us. This is entirely the wrong spiritual tone, and is besides rumor-mongering under the guise of virtue. The bishops to whom we have been close have never taught us this foreign, papalist idea that they and an “inner circle” of initiates are an elite who can freely discuss church matters, and the masses must not be allowed to do so. When it came to important events in the Church they were always free to communicate their views, without flattering us that we were part of the “elite” who can know about them. But quite apart from that, note the glaring contradiction: only the bishops and the elite, not the faithful, were supposed to know what Fr. P. did—but in the letter to Nina it says that the reason Fr. P. did it was “to demonstrate to the faithful under Synod and among the Old Calendarists in Greece some consistency, and that we have no contact with Bp. Peter” (I’m quoting from memory)—yes, to demonstrate to the faithful; the only reason this is now covered up by an elitist philosophy is because the demonstration didn’t come off as planned—it had side effects! Fr. P. and his followers know better—this is the fatal convert syndrome. They obviously want to remain in our Church, because it is politically most beneficial to be “foreigners” and have maximum freedom, such as our Russian clergy don’t have; but the reason we think they won’t stay with us too long is—precisely that they don’t correctly calculate the whole church atmosphere; that is, they think they know what the “Russians” are thinking, but really the Russians just aren’t telling them. Enough on this boring subject.

About your trials: most of them are natural parts of life, and God allows several of them to pile up because you are capable of bearing them. The numbness, which comes chiefly from exposure to politics in a sacred place where it does belong, will pass. You must learn to suffer and bear—but do not view this as something “endless and dreary,” here you are wrong: God also sends many consolations, and you will know them again. You must learn to find joy in the midst of increasing doses of sorrow; thus you can save your soul and help others.

There is so much for you and us to do yet, so let’s not give up. Yes, learn how to work the press, but don’t take a “leave” from publishing—just keep plugging away at it. There’s so much that’s inspiring to print, after first absorbing it in your own soul and helping chew it for our converts. We also are anxious to get ready some of our bigger projects this winter.

Brother Paul returned to the world on Saturday, after finishing his project. Pray that we will be able to present it well in the new Calendar.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Fr. Valery,

Blagoslovite!

We rejoice in the recovery of Sergei, for whom we prayed fervently. May God preserve him for many years of true Christian life unto salvation!

Your article on Jeane Dixon did not disturb us, but we agree with you that the “polemical” nature of the response is disturbing. This is something which we have seen in our Greeks in the Synod, and often in Americans. It seems to come from some kind of inner lack of balance and discretion, requiring the need to tell everyone: “Look, I am right, and he is wrong.” But it is most disturbing to find this quality now in young Russian priests, revealing that they have lost the oneness of mind and soul which should be uniting true zealots of Orthodoxy, and no longer have the calmness in Orthodoxy that characterizes those who carry the true tradition of Orthodoxy within them. This summer we received a letter from Fr. Alexander Lebed, criticizing our use of the term “True-Orthodox,” which seems to have something of this self-righteous agitation in it.

Of late we have been very disturbed by precisely this quality in our “converts,” led by rather Panteleimon and his Greeks. More and more our “Greeks” give a feeling of sectarianism combined with a kind of academic conceit, as if telling us all: “We are the only ones who really are Orthodox, we are experts and you know nothing. The Russians are really secret Catholics, are under ‘Western influence’; only we are “pure.” But in feet they are not at all pure—at every step they reveal how much they are (evidently quite unconsciously) under very Western, modern influences—even to belief in evolution. Fr. Neketas Palassis’ latest attack against Blessed Augustine (where he says that only the “theologically uneducated” or “Latin-leaning” accept him as a Saint or a Holy Father) is simply childish—but these “children” think they are leading the Church of Christ! For years Fr. Panteleimon has been spreading distrust among the converts—toward Bishop Petros, toward Bishop Laurus, toward any convert priest who doesn’t become his “follower,” and lately toward us also, apparently because we are “Russians” who are under “Latin influence”— and at the same time he himself keeps a “file” with copies of private letters (at least two of them outright forgeries) proving that there is a “plot” against him, and that it is the others who are spreading distrust of him. Well, it is about time somebody started distrusting him—he is involved in precisely that “political” church atmosphere which so grieves Vladika Averky, and we begin to see him now as a “classic case” of prelest, brought about by self-esteem and vainglory.

We feel that our “Greeks” will not be with us much longer—you and others have felt this for a long time, sensing their foreign spirit; but we supported them for a long time, thinking they were really helping our converts to receive true Orthodoxy. Fr. Panteleimon in his self-deception does not realize how far out of harmony he is with our Church—he thinks that the bishops also think what the Greek-Americans and many converts tell him, that he is the only real voice of Orthodoxy in English. Dr. Kalomiros in Greece writes us that in his opinion Fr. Panteleimon and his followers have fallen into “group pride,” thinking that they alone are the standard of Orthodoxy. Fr. P. has done much harm in Greece also, but siding against the majority of Old Calendarists and supporting the “Mathewites”—who are real fanatics and legalists. We feel that disaster is coming upon our poor- English-speaking mission, and the converts who trusted the “Greeks” too much will have a tragic fate.

But we are peaceful about all this, seeing that it only makes us more sober. We must simply struggle all the harder to give the real feeling for Orthodoxy. The number of True Orthodox Christians seems to diminish rather than increase, and the devil attacks always from some unexpected direction! Our own experience with converts (we had four new ones with us this summer) teaches us how difficult it is for them to absorb true Orthodoxy, and how easy it is for them (because of their self-opinion and soft life) to fall for some “faker.”

By the way, we are very impressed by the book by Fr. Dimitry Dudko. We should not call him a “confessor” (as one of your critics does!) so as not to confuse people into thinking he is “the real thing” 100%, and also some of his ideas are a little off—but his voice comes through as very genuine, as spoken through suffering—which seems to be the dimension lacking in our poor “convert-Ortho- doxy.” Have you read it?

I would like to write more—but no time. We think about the Psalter from time to time—but technically it seems an immense project; and we have just finished the May-June issue of the Orthodox Word!

We ask your prayers.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Ever noticed the altar doors being left open in your Orthodox Church for the whole liturgical service? Do you remember the times when the doors used to only be opened at certain times during the liturgy? Have you noticed this change and is this change important? The answer may surprise you!

If you are familiar with the service and have some basic understanding of the Orthodox liturgy, then you will know that the altar doors do not stay open all the time. In fact they are closed for most of the time. There are good reasons for this. It is all explained in the following article from pravoslavie.ru

Mainly, the closed doors represent the idea that the heavenly realm is not yet fully open to us while still here on earth in this fallen state and is something we need to lament over. We are constantly reminded of this throughout the service.

The catholics have long renounced the separation of the altar and the rest of the church. Mystically this means that there is no real separation anymore between the earthly church and the heavenly realm. And it is no wonder. For too long has the chiliastic idea of “heaven on earth” taken over in the west.

There are many Orthodox churches today that are just going along with this modernistic idea and adopt the very same layout. But for the more traditional Churches, where there is still an Iconostasis and altar doors and curtains, is it of no significance that the altar doors are now being left fully open during the whole service?

St Basil the Great also extended the use of the Iconostasis in order to prevent people staring at the clergy who were in deep prayer, often sweating. And for acolytes and others in the Sanctuary from distraction by eye roaming at the people, especially attractive ladies.

Next time you go to your Church maybe you may ask yourselves … why the change?

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/96581.htm

Dear Alexey,

Rejoice in the Lord, and again I say, rejoice! You are being taught humility and not trusting you own corrupt mind!

The fact that you are having quoted against you letters that don’t exist—should make you sober and realize that against that kind of attack you can’t fight, if you are an honest man. Therefore, don’t. Let them do and say what they will. They have their rope, and alas, they are now going to hang themselves with it, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. But you stay clear of it and have no contact whatever with them.

We are witnessing a classic case of prelest, brought about by vainglory and self-esteem. The end will be disastrous, but many will fall into the pit because they trusted this man more than God.

We are not surprised at the forged letters—if they exist anywhere except in Fr. P’s mind. Do you remember what Dr. Kalomiros wrote us about the supposed letter of Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago— “translated” by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, and including a whole page vilifying certain Greek bishops which was not written by Archbishop Seraphim and horrified him?

Fr. Panteleimon told me in Seattle two years ago: for the sake of the “Church” anything is permissible—lying, stealing, anything; the end justifies the means. The meaning of this didn’t really register on me then, for I did realize that sometimes, to avert a greater evil, it is necessary to commit a smaller sin, such as lying. But always one does this only under absolute necessity and with self- reproach and repentance before God for having to do something which is not right. But with Fr. Panteleimon this Jesuit principle becomes a basic principle of church life which the politically astute ones can put into practice with impunity. His idea of the Church is all wrong, which explains also why he built his monastery in the middle of a city (to give the thirsting people the maximum benefit of his “holiness”) and immediately began interesting himself in the political affairs of the Church everywhere.

Even if you had written such a letter to Fr. Ischie—what business is it of Fr. P’s, that he should keep it on file and use it to blacken you later? And actually, even if the letter existed there is nothing whatever wrong about it—your guilt lies only in the mind of Fr. P., for whom alone association with Fr. Ischie is some crime! But on top of this, the letter doesn’t even exist! Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! (A handy poet, Pope!) This is all politics of the lowest sort, Communist Party style. Our Greeks are just a bunch of “birchers” after all! (I don’t mean to the judge the well-meaning people in the Birch Society, but I don’t like their political approach!)

There is a spiritual law: a feeling of heaviness and desperation should not come from leaders in the Church; that cannot be the effect of grace. If this feeling does come from them, they are in deep trouble—something is wrong with them. It is easier for those who have to suffer it, for it does refine them spiritually.

All this will pass, like some horrible nightmare. Just remember that that is not the reality. Try to avoid entirely any thought of “who is right, who is wrong.” Pray for Fr. Panteleimon, who is in deep trouble spiritually, but cut yourself off entirely from him. There is sickness, petty politics, and demonic activity coming from that direction. Deep down we are peaceful about all this, for we know the Church us stronger than any of those who have been deceived into thinking they are the Church, and they always fall away, making those who remain in the Church more sober thereby.

Today, God willing, the new OW goes out. Pray for us.

With love in Christ,
S.M.

Dear Alexey,

Rejoice in the Lord!

We received your letter only today (Wednesday) Have you been suffering like that all the time since Friday?! Your state is very familiar to us—we’ve been going through attacks of the same “disease” for some time now! Fortunately, when I get the “rash,” Fr. Herman is usually over his, and vice versa, and we are able to come out of the depths of despair and get on with the necessary work.

I think the cause of the “disease” is very simple: you, like us, are very trusting and always looking on the good side of people, no matter what they might do; and then, when their acts or words reveal that they have no such trust in return, but rather are spreading distrust everywhere, and then on top of it all accuse you of spreading distrust—it is truly enough to plunge one into discouragement.

The remedy is simple, and consists of exactly the same thing we told you several years ago when you were last attacked by the “Greeks”: JUST PAY NO ATTENTION WHATEVER TO THEM. Don’t answer them, don’t justify yourself or anyone else before them, but also: don’t trust a single word they say, and don’t do anything they might demand.

We ourselves feel badly betrayed by our “Greeks.” All these years we trusted that they were of one mind and soul with us, giving everything they had for the cause of the English-speaking mission. But really, it seems that all this time they were only building for their own glory, cruelly abusing the trust of our simple Russian bishops, priests, and laymen, in order finally to “take over” and proclaim themselves the sole Orthodox authorities and experts.

We still pray that we are mistaken in this, but let them prove it now by their acts and words— not by their long-winded self-justifications.

For years we have “excused” their excesses and mistakes, and in fact we have defended Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Neketas on numerous occasions—to you also, as you may recall. But now, in order to retain our sanity and continue fruitful in the Orthodox mission, we must face the truth squarely

THESE ARE COLLEGE BOYS PLAYING AT ORTHODOXY!

The last Witness of Fr. Neketas (On Blessed Augustine) is an outrage. He calls “untrained theologically” and “Latin-leaning” the following:

1. Fr. Theodoritos and other Greek zealots who say of course Blessed Augustine is a Saint, if St. Nikodemos thought so.

2. Archbishop John, who had a service written to him and had great devotion for him.

3. St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, who put him in the Calendar.

4. The Greek and Russian theological tradition of the 19th and 20th centuries, which accepted St. Nikodemos’ judgment.

5. The Fifth Ecumenical Council, who ranked Augustine as a theological authority on the same level as Sts. Basil, Gregory, and John Chrysostom.

6. All the Holy Fathers contemporary with Augustine, not one (so far as we know) called him a heretic or denied him a place with the great teachers of the Church, even when they opposed his false teaching on grace.

The universal tradition of the Orthodox Church accepts Blessed Augustine as a Holy Father, albeit with a flaw—very much like St. Gregory of Nyssa in the East. Fr. Neketas’ self-assured, authoritative proclamation is un-Orthodox and positively childish.

This is only one of many examples that reveal that our “Greeks” are, after all, incompetent to discuss theology—not because they are not smart or well-read enough—but because they are too passionately involved in showing how right they always are. This is not the spirit of Orthodox theology.

Concerning Nina: I had just written you a letter (superseded by this one) saying that “if Nina is being defensive about Fr. Panteleimon, it may well be that she has not quite cut the ties’ after all. If she doesn’t, she’s going to have trouble ahead!” Well, the trouble seems to be here, and Nina will have no peace until she either does make a complete cut with Fr. P., or else joins his sect.

His sect. because the way they are going, our “Greeks” will not be long with us, and it is hardly conceivable that they will stay long with the Mathewites either, unless there is much politics (or money) involved behind the scenes.

We just received a long letter from Vladika Laurus. (By the way, talk about “sowing sinful dissension and mistrust in the Church”—what does one call what the “Greeks” have been doing about Vladika Laurus? Ask anyone under Fr. P.’s influence about Vladika Laurus—oh, him, we can’t trust him, etc…) VI. Laurus wrote us a long letter on the Greek Old Calendar situation, and it corresponds very much to what Dr. Kalomiros has written us. Reading between the lines, it seems that the Synod’s decision temporarily to have no communion with Bp. Petros (until he regularizes his relation to his own Synod) is only a means of “humoring” Fr. P. and keeping him from jumping jurisdictions right away. But if the Synod were now to treat Fr. Panteleimon equally, and ask him to have no communion with the Mathewites until they rejoin the Auxentios group, and not to do anything in Greece without the knowledge and blessing of his bishop—what do you think Fr. P. would say and do?

The end of our “Greek adventure” seems near! We only grieve for the scandal and divisions which the vainglory of our “Greeks” is causing. Our poor “American mission”! How the Metropolia and Greek Archdiocese will laugh!

But therefore: we who are left must continue exactly in the same sober path, without great dreams of being anybody: just saving our souls and trying to share the riches of Orthodoxy with others.

Do not even think of abandoning Nikodemos. It is more. valuable than you can imagine—not because you are a “great theologian” or “expert” of any kind (God preserve us from any more of those!), but because you are naive and provincial enough to believe that Orthodoxy is really the Truth which brings freshness and inspiration into life, not something to be subjected to petty politics and passions.

Enclosed at last is the new OW—complete after very frustrating delays, culminating in the conking out of our generator. Fortunately we were able, but only after two full weeks, to obtain a good new one, and today we demonstrated its worth by printing both sides of the cover almost simultaneously on our two presses!

We had planned for a year, by the way, to have Vladika Averky on the cover—but the final push came just now! Let them think what they will—this is a real Orthodox archpastor and theologian without any fakery or politics whatever, and he has suffered greatly himself from “politics” in the Church. We find the cover very comforting—we’ve done our duty by this righteous man!

A quote from the Ancient Patericon, used by Archbishop Theophanes of Poltava to encourage us poor strugglers of the latter times:

The Holy Fathers of the Skete (of Egypt) prophesied about the last generation, saying: What did we do? And one of them, great in life, Iskharion by name, said: we fulfilled, the commandments of God. They asked again: Those who come after us, will they do anything? He said: They will achieve half of what we did. And after them, what? And Ishirion said: The men of that generation will have no deeds whatever; but there will come upon them temptation, and those who are worthy in this temptation will be higher than us and our fathers.”

Other Fathers have said: the psychological trials of dwellers in the last times will equal the physical trials of the martyrs.

But in order to face these trials we must be LIVING IN A DIFFERENT WORLD. Do you have a notebook for taking down quotes from Holy Fathers in your reading? Do you always have a book of Holy Fathers that you are reading, and can turn to in a moment of gloom? START NOW— this is essential.

Pray for us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

P.s. John Shaw we know—he visited us with other seminarians at the time of St. Herman’s canonization. He is a convert, an orphan brought up by Fr. Dimitry Alexandrov, and rather “touched” on the subject of Old Believers. He thinks they are “right” and the Orthodox “wrong,” he crosses himself demonstratively with two fingers, etc.—which makes him a good match for Fr. Panteleimon and his followers, for whom he long ago developed some kind of distaste. He is Archbishop Nikon’s secretary. Let them fight it out together, and we who have more important things to do can peacefully do them!

P.p.s. We are reading the book of talks of Fr. Dimitry Dudko, given last year in his parish (before he was arrested) in Moscow. Very inspiring! He’s in the Moscow Patriarchate, and his philosophy is sometimes imprecise—but how boldly he speaks against hypocrisy, atheism, church politics! The people he speaks to (he answers their questions) are on a very primitive level—and the thought keeps coming back to us (as Mrs. Kontzevitch has told us)—the Shroud of Turin is for them! It is precisely the “scientific” answer to a whole generation of people stupefied by “scientific atheism.” But we would still like to see a better investigation into the evidence of it in Orthodox history and iconography. Fr. Panteleimon is so concerned about having a “right opinion” about the Shroud (for which he gives no evidence whatever), that he is, of course, totally insensitive to the needs of such believers.

p.p.p.s. Do you have any plans for getting Vladimir’s press to you?