Author: orthodoxaustralia

Dear Father Igor [Kapral],

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Forgive me, but we have another request for you, this one a more important one. Could you possibly go to Fr. Michael Pomazansky and obtain for us replies to the questions on the enclosed sheet? We’ve tried for a long time to get a brief biography of him, but to no avail—he’s just too humble! Could you help us? It’s not for his glory, but only to help us poor strugglers to keep contact with our Orthodox theological tradition.

Concerning books—could you tell us if the Vologda Patericon is in the library?

Now, something at last that is not a request, but an expression of our deep concern over our present-day Orthodox mission. Fr. Neketas Palassis in his latest Witness again makes a self-assured and quite unfounded attack on Blessed Augustine. Everyone knows of the erroneous doctrine of Blessed Augustine on grace—but why this “fundamentalist” attempt to destroy entirely someone who has never in Orthodox tradition been denied a place among the Fathers of the Church? Fr. Theodoritos, doubtless speaking for other zealots in Greece and on the Holy Mountain, writes us that of course he accepts Augustine as a Saint, because St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain does. Our Vladika John had a service written to him and had great devotion for him. St. Nikodemos put him in our Eastern Calendar (much as Vladika John put St. Patrick there), and our Russian 19th-century Fathers followed him. The Fifth Ecumenical Council ranks Augustine as a theological authority on the same level as Sts. Basil, Gregory and John Chrysostom, with no qualification. The contemporaries of Augustine who disagreed with him (St. Vincent of Lerins, St. John Cassian) corrected his teaching without mentioning his name out of respect, far less calling him a “heretic.” His other contemporaries, including great Fathers, always addressed him with the utmost respect. The universal Orthodox tradition accepts him as an undoubted Holy Father, although with a flaw in this teaching—rather like St. Gregory of Nyssa in the East. Whence, then, this strangely “Protestant” campaign to declare Blessed Augustine a heretic, and to utterly condemn anyone who disagrees with this? This greatly dis-turbs us, not so much for the sake of Blessed Augustine (who, after all, is a Father of less weight than many others), but because it reveals a very unhealthy “party” spirit which threatens the whole English- speaking Orthodox mission. Fr. Neketas as much as says: If you do not believe exactly as Fr. Panteleimon believes, you are not Orthodox! If you recommend a 19th-century catechism (as Vladika John always did to converts) you are a Larin; if you read Unseen Warfare you are under Latin influence; if you refuse to believe in evolution (!), you are under Western influence!!!

We share our concern with you, because we are really being discouraged by this unhealthy attitude, which is really pobocto pelo pazzny. [?] We and others have tried gently to communicate with Fr. Neketas and Fr. Panteleimon about such things, but the impression is that no communication is possible; on every subject they are “right,” they are the “experts,” and no other opinion is possible. You know how from the beginning we have supported the “Greeks” in our Synod, and it is really out of despair for the future that we tell you of our concern.

We are in correspondence with Dr. Alexander Kalomiros in Greece, who himself writes us despairing letters concerning the actions of Fr. Panteleimon in Greece (without the blessing or knowledge of his own bishop) in favor of the Mathewite schism, which Dr. Kalomiros calls real “fanaticism and legalism.” Fr. Panteleimon has offended and made enemies of Archimandrite Cyprian and other zealots in Greece, and has entirely cut off Dr. Kalomiros who recently wrote us that we are the only ones in America who will even write to him. Dr. Kalomiros believes Fr. Panteleimon and those with him have fallen into “group pride,” and he thinks the recent burning of their church in Boston is God’s mercy to them, sent in order to wake them up for the sake of their good deeds for Orthodoxy in the past. He believes Fr. Panteleimon is very gifted and remarkable, although he does not have a Greek soul, but an American soul, which is why he is not able to have rapport with true Greeks, as opposed to Greek Americans. (I don’t know for sure about all that, but that is what Dr. Kalomiros says, and he is quite sensitive about such things.)

We ourselves know at first hand how several years ago, Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Neketas put very cruel pressure on Alexey Young, evidently trying to stop him altogether from printing Nikodemos, merely because of articles against evolution and for the Shroud of Turin, and also because Alexey resisted their pressures to force him to go through their censorship. Has our Orthodoxy in America become so narrow that we must be under the dictation of a “pope-expert” and we must accept a “party-line” on every conceivable subject? This is against everything Vladika John taught and did in missionary labors.

Already the rumor was spread through the Greek Archdiocese that Fr. Panteleimon is about to “go to some strange Old Calendar jurisdiction,” and it does seem that the false zeal which Fr. Neketas sometimes reveals is already pointing in that direction. Fr. Panteleimon’s recent act regarding Vladika Averky and Bishop Petros has already cost him some supporters of long standing, and we only pray that the stern but loving letter of our own Archbishop Anthony to him has cause him to stop and think where his path is leading. (Vladika Anthony forbade him to come to the San Francisco Archdiocese until he begs forgiveness of Archbishop Averky—not over the question of Bishop Petros, but over the crudeness and untraditional way of “breaking off communion.”)

Please forgive us for burdening you with all this. We would very much like to know your thoughts with regard to any of this. Is there any way that our “Greeks” can be persuaded to be less reckless? There seems to be no one from the “Russians” for whom they have any respect,—everyone is under “Western influence.” (This is Schmemannism!) How can they be made to see, before it is too late, that we should all be humble and not think much of our own “theology,” that we are all perhaps under “Western influences” of various sorts (this is very evident in the case of Fr. Neketas himself), but that this should not exclude us from Orthodoxy, as long as we are struggling to understand the truth.

We ask your prayers for us.

With love in Christ,

P.s. A final request: Is it possible to obtain a copy of part of the Russian manuscript of the book by Butakov on the Shroud of Turin—the one from which the Russian and English booklets were made? We have in mind not the scientific parts, but only the parts containing historical and iconographical evidence, which according to the introduction was much abridged or omitted in the printed version. We are very much interested in a sober and objective investigation of the Shroud according to Orthodox sources—until such a thing is done, we hesitate to give full acceptance to it, despite the impressive scientific argument. The argument of Fr. Neketas that it is “unknown” in Orthodox tradition seems not to be backed up by any investigation at all of even the traditional evidence that has been offered so far. The Shroud, if it is genuine, could have a very powerful influence on faith in the USSR—-precisely because the religious level there is so primitive and in need of some kind of “scientific evidence” to combat the influence of decades of “scientific atheism.” See, for example, the new book [letter ends]

Dear Alexey,

Just a note to go with Daniel tonight. He seems to be in the best state we’ve seen him in two years. We discussed the “Fr. Panteleimon situation” with him, and he had already decided, when he just heard of the breaking of communion, that he himself would not even think of leaving the Synod if Fr. P., should. The “whole mess” which is supposedly cleared up now is, of coursed, 90% a “Fr. Panteleimon mess,” and far from being cleared up, it bodes very ill for the future. About that we shall have to wait and see, remembering that Fr. P. is no authority in our Church and that his next “dramatic move” must be regarded with extreme suspicion. There is a strong smell of politics behind him, and one day he is going to make the fatal political mistake. Let us be sober and prepared.

About the Hudanish-Old Believer visit. Yes, you are blowing it up too much. It is not possible to have a “dialogue” with them. They are sectarians, and their spirit, not just their externals, separates them from Orthodoxy. If God can somehow draw one or many of them to Orthodoxy, very good, but the measures of “penitence” which John Hudanish describes would be simply a flattering of their sectarian pride. Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky was against receiving Old Believers even if they asked nothing but to keep the two-fingered cross—not because of the small act, but because this revealed they still had the sectarian mentality. Of course, since then the Russian Church has allowed Old Believers to retain the two-fingered Cross and their service books, but as a gesture of economy rather than an admission that Patriarch Nikon was wrong. For an Old Believer to become Orthodox there must be an awareness that the externals they preserve are not of the essence of Orthodoxy. Fr. Dimitry Alexandrov, by the way, has visited them, or at least some O.B.’s in Oregon, and saw no hope for “dialogue.”

As for the visit, let it be just a visit. Talk about what interests you and them, but don’t be defensive about not living according to “rules” like theirs. If they want to dispute anything, have an answer, as the Apostle Peter says, to the best of your ability.

John Hudanish, from his letter, is an “idealistic” American full of unrealistic hopes. His talk of repentance and of learning from you does not seem to strike true. Be as simple and unpretentious as possible, and don’t even think of being the representative of a “dialogue.”

Our green truck runs fine. How should we arrange to get it to you for a weekend or more?

With love in Christ,

Seraphim, monk

P.s. The Old Believer Pimen Sofronov (the iconographer), under the persuasion of Fr. Dimitry Alexandrov, received Holy Communion some months before he died, in one of our churches in the Holy Land. But, of course, he was not at all a “strict” Old Believer as the real sectarians are. I don’t know if he was “in communion” with the Oregon “O.B.’s” or not, but if so, they would never believe that he had done such a thing!

Dear Father George,

Bless!

Just a further note on the list of Western Saints I sent you last week. In a Russian pre-Revolutionary theological encyclopedia I discovered the following about St. Callistus: “The name of saint was received by Callistus for the martyrs death he underwent during a popular uprising; his commemoration in the Roman Church is on Oct. 14. In the Orthodox Church his name is mentioned only in Appendix I (of the complete Menologion): ‘Names of Saints which are not under the dates in the Menologion of all saints, but which are in Index I and in the Divine-service books:’ and his commemoration is given as Cheese-Fare Saturday.” Evidently he is mentioned in the Cheese-Fare Saturday Service to all who have labored in fasting, although I don’t know if it’s possible to assume that the one Callistus mentioned in the Canon on that day is he or not.

At any rate, there seems to be no difficulty in including St. Callistus among the Saints of the West. St. Hippolytus (and Tertullian too, in whose writings is contained just about all that is known about the Saint) was evidently exaggerating about his teaching, and in any case his martyrdom numbered him among the Saints.

Please let us know anything more you discover about Western Saints and their relics. Pray for us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Doctor Kalomiros,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

We were very glad to receive your last letter, even with its bad news about the church situation in Greece. It is very important for us to maintain contact with you, because apart from you we have almost no real contact with the True Orthodox Christians of Greece. We have only our friend Fr. Theodoritos of St. Anne’s Skete, but our correspondence with him is brief owing to the language problem. He sent us a manuscript for publication, of 10 or 12 pages, two years ago, and the person to whom we gave it for translation still has not returned it. Our problem with Greeks also is complicated by the presence of Fr. Panteleimon of Boston in our Synod about which I will now speak to you very frankly

From many sources—from Fr. Theodoritos, from you, from people in this country (both Greeks and Americans, and also Russians), and from our own experience—we have how formed a rather complete picture of him, and this picture is a sad one. The man is very talented, very aware of contemporary Orthodox events, has the “right” view on most Orthodox matters, and has in general the correct “feeling” of Orthodoxy. From the beginning we have supported him, and our articles about him and his monastery in our Orthodox Word have undoubtedly helped him to grow and gain influence. It has therefore been with great sorrow that in the past two or three years we have begun to notice very dangerous characteristics in him. You wrote us in a letter two years ago that Fr. Panteleimon seems to want to have all Greek Orthodox in America under him; at about that same time we were noticing that he also wants to have all American Orthodox under him! He tried, for example, to ridicule and destroy our friend Alexey Young, whose small periodical Nikodemos is very helpful in inspiring Orthodox Americans and guiding them in the Faith—Fr. Panteleimon did not like it because it had one or two articles with which he disagreed. Fr. Neketas Palassis even threatened to attack Alexey publicly—a fellow Orthodox Christian and a sister periodical in the same Church!

Soon it became obvious why Fr. Panteleimon was doing this: he and his followers think that he alone is truly Orthodox in our Synod, that almost all the Russians are “backward,” theologically naive, and under “Western influence”—and only Fr. Panteleimon and his followers are true theologians, sophisticated, free of all un-Orthodox influences and able to lead everyone else in true Orthodoxy. He never attacked our Brotherhood directly, but after a while it became apparent that he was waging a campaign against us in private, and now we have the testimony of several people that he “warns” people against us, apparently because we are “Russians,” do not ask him for advice, and do not even have a telephone (so he can call us up and “correct” us whenever he feels like it!).

But with whom does Fr. P. have close contact in our Synod? I tell you this in confidence: from the beginning Fr. P. began playing “politics” with our bishops, and he chose for his patron precisely the one bishop we have who is not Russian in spirit, who does not have the simple piety and faith of most of our Russian bishops and priests, but who prides himself on being better and more “sophisticated” than they, who would like to “reform” the Synod to make it more in harmony with his philosophy, who himself plays “politics” and now is the most powerful figure in the Synod (and who ten years ago was the leader in the persecution of our own Archbishop John Maximovitch, whom he disdained for his lack of “sophistication” and “administrative ability”), and who was educated in a Jesuit seminary and is a Jesuit through and through in spirit, even though outwardly he is very “traditionalist.” This is Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal. We know him personally, and several venerable bishops have warned us about him. It was with some apprehension that we saw how Fr. P. tried to “use” Archbp. Vitaly to make himself important in the Synod, and in turn how Archbp. Vitaly tried to “use” Fr. P. claiming to the Russians that “great Greek theologians” (and not simple Russian priests) were his supporters and followers. By his attitude and actions Fr. P. revealed that he does not have the “feel” for true and simple Orthodox people, or if he once did have it, he has lost it by his indulging in “politics.” Together, Archbp. Vitaly and Fr. P. produced several issues of The True Vine, an “official” Synod periodical, which was a lamentable failure—which we already predicted, knowing the publications of Archbp. Vitaly in Russian. He does not know what is desperately needed today, but only prints what he thinks is “fashionable,” makes him look “sophisticated,” and will give him success with “university graduates,”—but the result is only ridiculous, because the Roman Catholics can do this so much better. Incidentally, Archbp. Vitaly from the very beginning, even though he himself has written many times that Orthodox literature in English is desperately needed, has never once mentioned our Orthodox Word in print, as if our labors did not exist or were not Orthodox. Lately, also, we notice that Fr. Neketas Palassis’ Witness has ceased to mention our publications, even the recent Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, which is mentioned even in Greek in Orthodox Typos\ Why? Have we ceased to be Orthodox? No, I believe the reason is simply that Fr Panteleimon wishes to be the only teacher of Orthodoxy in the Synod, and we are therefore a competition to him. Fr. P. even goes so far as to think that he can teach the Russians, and because he has two or three American monks who have studied Russian, he thinks that he is competent in Russian-language matters also. But in this he has already made several bad mistakes, showing that his followers have no knowledge either of theology or of Russian “psychology,” make themselves ridiculous when they try to write a pamphlet in Russian, and are simply not in contact with the authentic theological tradition of Russia. In-this he and his followers remind us very much of your chapter in Against False Union where you speak of the “converts” who immediately wish to “teach the Orthodox.” Fr. Panteleimon’s “convert translators” only make themselves ridiculous kindergarten children in their unawareness and incapacity in the face of a great and very refined theological tradition. But the fault is with Fr. P. himself, who encourages the idea that he and his followers alone are the real Orthodox and are competent to discuss theology.

From this attitude of Fr. Panteleimon’s, which is very foreign to what our instructors in the Faith have handed down to us, we have great apprehension for the future. It seems already clear what is going to happen: Fr. P. is going to seize upon some situation in which he came show himself to be “correct” in order to break communion with our Synod, then he will have himself made bishop by the Mathewites and will be the “only Orthodox bishop in America,” over Greeks and Americans and even over Russians. His position will not be entirely consistent, but many young Americans and Greek-Americans (and even some Russian-Americans) will follow him. Why? Because Fr. P. has a real “power” over a certain type of Orthodox Americans (not over real Greeks or Russians—I think you are right in this)—over those who are new or inexperienced or uncertain in the Faith, and need an “authority” to tell them what to do. We have long ago noticed that it is not possible to hold a “discussion” with Fr. Panteleimon—he is always “correct” no matter what he says or does, even though is actual fact we have found that he is quite innocent in some areas of knowledge of the Holy Fathers—ignorant not just of facts but of the very tradition of the handing down of the Patristic teaching. This is to be expected, since he went to a modernist Greek seminary and “taught himself the Holy Fathers—i.e., did not receive it in a continuous tradition from the past such as still exists in our Russian Church Abroad, even if our bishops and priests are not “sophisticated.” Fr. P. laughs at the seminary education of Jordan-ville—but even if it might be very simple, still this education continues to breathe spirit of Orthodoxy, which Fr. Panteleimon does not entirely possess.

In view of all this, our contact with you is very precious, for you have come to similar conclusions, like us, through suffering and trials. There are few other people to whom we can speak so openly, because they simply would not understand us. Like you, we do not trust in a “brilliant” and “sophisticated” Orthodoxy, and we see that it will only be in the end another form of the betrayal of Orthodoxy and the deception of souls.

It would be very good if you could write an article for our Orthodox Word on how to keep alive the true savor of Orthodoxy in view of the many temptations besetting us today—without, however, mentioning as yet any names. If the worst does happen, and Fr. Panteleimon goes to the Mathewites, then we will probably have to publish an attack, against the Mathewites as an error “on the right hand,” with True Orthodoxy standing between the modernists on the one hand and the legalist fanatics on the other hand. But if Fr. P. does leave the Synod, it will be very difficult for us zealots who remain, because as you know some of our bishops are trying to maintain communion with “ecumenical Orthodoxy,” which is a disastrous and fatal path. But we trust that God allows all these difficult and bitter trials to come upon us for our salvation and so that we can be of help to others.

We ask your prayers, and look forward to your next letter.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Father Michael [Azkoul],

Evlogeite!

Please forgive, again, my long delay in writing. I have finally finished the chapter on Soloviev and have a number of comments. Some small points and corrections (mostly typographical) I noted in the text, as you said I might. The bigger comments I shall give here.

First of all, I am very impressed with the chapter and the conception of the book as a whole; this is very needed. There just hasn’t been this kind of serious, philosophical study of any of these “Russian Religious thinkers.” The problem, of course, is that there will be few readers precisely because of the depth of the study and the need for some philosophical background to get through it. I’ll say something about publishing ideas at the end of this letter.

Second, it is obvious that you are an “understater.” This is good, because it gives an objective and fair tone to the whole presentation. But in a few places—I noted one or two—a few more words are perhaps needed to emphasize the difference between this anti-Christian philosophy and Orthodoxy.

Now some more specific comments:

I think you have too much underemphasized (just mentioning it only once or twice) Soloviev’s chiliasm. I have a feeling that this is the key to his whole philosophy, being that which he specifi-cally shares with precisely the mainstream of 19th-century European thought (not just the official philosophers). The whole outburst of the Romantic-revolutionary movement at the end of the 18th century (visible even in art, in architectural plans, and in sectarian movements)—is it not precisely an outburst of chiliastic fervor, rather akin to the earlier Anabaptist movement, but now spreading to the whole of society and becoming the mainstream of European thought and life, the “answer” to Christianity, as it were? And I rather think that just about all the currents of 19th-century thought are in one way or another chiliastic currents, which offer different solutions to the one pressing question before the modern mind: how to bring about heaven on earth, make Christianity a thing of this world. The early Socialist “prophets,” St.-Simon, Fourier, Owen, are certainly chiliasts, and Soloviev, in reacting against the later materialist phase of Socialism, seems very kin in basic chiliastic outlook to these “prophets”—to St.-Simon more than the rest, because he was the most “philosophical” of the three. There were other “crazy” 19th-century thinkers who have since been forgotten with whom Soloviev is also probably kin—for example, Fabre-d’Olivet with his theocractical speculations. In a word, I think it would be good to point out how much S. is of his time, is in the mainstream of 19th- century European thought in addition to being in the age-old gnostic tradition; and specifically, how his thought is another answer to the chiliastic problem which 19th century European thought put before all its thinkers.

This savor of chiliasm seems to run through all the thinkers you examine (Berdyaev being only the most explicit and spectacular of the chiliasts), popping up in such concepts (so central to todays “ecumenical” thought) of the “new religious consciousness,” the “divinization of the world” (p. 64 of your MS), etc.

Bound up with chiliasm and the “new age” is the “superman,” which I see that Florevsky explicitly endorses. Soloviev was against Nietzsche—but is not his “Godmanhood” a more “theological” form of the same idea?—as when on p. 25 of your MS he says that man ceases to be “merely human.” (Cf. Dostoyevsky who correctly contrasted the Orthodox God-man with the new revolutionary mangod; thus The Possessed) Perhaps more emphasis could likewise be placed on this idea of man becoming a “god” in a new historical epoch, as opposed to becoming a god by grace in Orthodox.

A final point: on p. 3 you note that S. came under the influence of Kireyevsky. A paragraph or page here on the contrast between these two thinkers would be appropriate—they really represent the two major “paths” of 19th-century Russian religious thought, and both are major figures. Both of them tried to give a religious answer to the Western rationalism-secularism then invading Russia, but Kireyevsky found the answer in the Holy Fathers and a philosophy founded entirely in them; whereas S. rejected such a “narrow Orthodoxy” for the broader pan-Christian gnosticism. Κ., while perfectly Orthodox, was out of harmony with his times, and his philosophy was largely forgotten; S. was precisely in harmony with his times, and that is why his philosophy finds so many disciples.

I.M. Kontzevitch has this to say about Kireyevsky and Soloviev (Optina Monastery and Its Epoch, Jordanville, 1970, p. 218):

“It might seem that V. Soloviev was a continuer of the work of Kireyevsky. And in fact, in his master’s dissertation, ‘The Crisis of Western Philosophy,’ he took his world-outlook entirely from Kireyevsky: the synthesis of philosophy and religion, the view of Western philosophy as a development of rationalism, the idea of the wholeness of life, of metaphysical knowledge…. But to Western thought he opposed not Russian Orthodoxy, but rather the foggy speculations of the (non-Christian) East. And in his further creative work V. Soloviev remains not only outside the “philosophy of the Holy Fathers,” but even outside Orthodoxy…. And Soloviev, thanks to his exceptional influence on his contemporaries, having at first made use of Kireyevsky’s ideology, later led the awakening Russian religious thought from the path which the latter had shown to it.”

You might note also that the tradition to which Kireyevsky joined himself continued right up to the Revolution and beyond—i.e., it is the “traditional” Orthodoxy represented today by the Rus-sian Church Abroad, which stands with its whole philosophy and theology against the gnostic tradition of Soloviev-Florensky-Bulgakov, etc. There are no theses written on this traditionalist Orthodoxy, both because it is out of step with the times, and because its representatives-are almost all clerics (with the exception of a few thinkers like Constantine Leontiev).
Florensky and Bulgakov I am still reading, and by a most providential “accident” we have recently received the long-sought booklet of Archbishop John on Bulgakov’s Sophiology. I haven’t read it yet, but will give comments and quotes together with the MS when I return it, hopefully before too long!

As for a publisher—is it possible Nordland, the publisher of Florovsky and of John Dunlop’s book, might be interested? At any rate, it would be very good to have some kind of synopsis of the whole book, “boiled down” to 50 pp. or less, for a more “popular” readership—any possibility for this? Also, will you have any comments, perhaps as a final chapter, on the Soloviev-gnostic tradition in Russia today? There is a series of articles just beginning in La Pensée Russe (Paris) on “Soloviev as Read in Russia Today,” Could we also see your chapter or pages on Vekhi? Our own proposed book on the Russian Religious Intelligentsia will hopefully be started after the first of the year, and your work will make our labors easier.
Please let us know of progress on the MS, publisher, etc.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Alexey,

Greetings on your patronal feast. May the holy Martyrs be with you and help you in the difficult days ahead!

Your handling of Barbara McC. seems to be just right! In general, for her and for all of you in general: the less you think of “spiritual life” (in the abstract) and the more you are just struggling in the labors of daily life, praying “according to your strength” (i.e., no “vigils every day,” as Barbara once expressed the desire!), the better for you. Orient yourself towards zealous Orthodoxy, and then just struggle from day to day, and God will give you wisdom. I’m glad if our letter gave B. a little “jolt,” but one must be sober and not expect great “spiritual events.” If she can settle down and live a quiet life this winter, not by herself, this is already an accomplishment. If she wants to share Nina’s life later on, she will have to come to this of her own account.

About our trip to Etna: something else came up, and printing on Northern Thebaid still has not been finished, so it will probably be another two weeks. In the meantime, our local mechanic will be starting on our old green truck, for which we have located a cheap motor—if we had known such a motor could have been obtained, we would never have started the long and fruitless adventure with our “old blue,” which still sits idle because it has not a GMC engine, but some rare old Chevrolet one for which parts can’t be obtained.

Last Sunday we visited Phanourios Ingram in Castella. He left a very good impression—very much in our “Northern California Orthodox” spirit, cut off from everybody and trembling over his own salvation. His wife and two small children are all Orthodox. They were baptized in the Greek Archdiocese church in San Jose, but when he saw our S. F. Cathedral and its services for the first time, he felt his home was in “Russian Orthodoxy.” Now, perhaps he has not written you yet?—he moved to Etna two days after our visit! Rather, he will be living 15 miles south on some guest ranch, where he will be a handyman and his wife a waitress. He seems very shy and may delay in making contact (his wife on the other hand, is very out-going!); but doubtless your contact with him will be profitable for both of you.
Gregory Moshnin and Fr. Sergius told us they would be coming here about Sept. 7, so it will be presumably be after their visit to you. (Wait—we just heard from them that they’ll see us Mon. or Tues.)

About Fr. Panteleimon in Boston—alas, alas, alas, the calamity we have been fearing seems near at hand; Vladika Averky writes us a despairing letter about “this brazen young archimandrite” and his latest actions; we are awaiting news from Vladika Laurus before saying more. But be prepared for shocks! Fr. P. seems to be strengthening his “hold” over the “young Orthodox,” based on his “charismatic” presence, from which few seem capable of recovering.
Please pray for the boy Sergius—the son of Fr. Valery Lukianov of N.J. He returned from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land on last Monday—being struck down with Meningitis on the return trip. He is in the hospital and may not live. He was an exceptionally pious boy. His father writes begging for prayers, with tears but saying— “Let Gods will be done.” Please pray for him when you are all together—we sang the supplicatory canon to the Mother of God for him today.
With love in Christ,
S.M.

P.s. Little Gleb begs us not to send him home, and he is so obedient and eager that… velope to us) and giving him schooling mostly in various aspects of English. Could you obtain for us some 6th-grade mathematics book, or something to give an indication of what is expected in math? Anything else for 6th grade? He is very bright, but got all D’s and F’s last year, and they passed him anyway!

Dear Sister in Christ, Barbara,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ on the Feast of His Most Holy Mother!
Please do not think anyone is trying to “push” you, God forbid! It is already clear enough that there is no unity of mind and soul between you and Nina and there never will be. There has to be something closer to it in the beginning or it just never develops! There is no point in trying.

But that, of course, leaves you very much alone, which is spiritually dangerous. It would be far wiser for you to return to Rochester, where at least you have someone with whom you are spiritually close. You have done enough for Nina; now let her get settled in her own way. But you should not remain alone, separated from the Orthodox community for almost the whole week—you are just asking for spiritual trouble! The devil has had 7000 years of experience in spiritual warfare with mankind, and you—just a couple of years. You are a freshman, and he will twist you around his fingers. Even if you do not fall into a spectacular delusion, pride will develop in you, quite unnoticeably to you, until it attains unmanageable proportions, which neither you nor others will then be able to correct. Better to stay now with Barbara Rogers and lead a modest life in the city for a while than to tempt the devil by living by yourself before you are ready—and you aren’t ready for it, even at five days a week!
But this is only advice; take it as you wish.

We ask for your prayers. May God preserve you in His grace—

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Your Grace, dear Vladika Laurus,

Blagoslovite! We send you our heartfelt greetings on the feast of the Transfiguration and of the approaching Dormition of the Theotokos.

We have just heard that Archimandrite Panteleimon of Boston has “broken off communion” with Archbishop Averky because Vladika Averky allowed Bishop Petros of Astoria to serve in the Monastery on Transfiguration. Can you inform us for what reason he did this? Is there any reason why we should not be in communion with Bishop Petros? Dr. Kalomiros in Greece informs us that the Synod of Auxentios has, apparently, excommunicated Bishop Petros? What should be our attitude to Bishop Petros if this is true?

We should tell you frankly that we do not trust Fr. Panteleimon’s “political” acts with regard to the Greek Old Calendarists; since he began interfering with the Greek Church situation (is this with the blessing of the Synod or his own Bishop?), he has only made things much worse. Things were much better when our Russian Bishops were ordaining Old Calendarist Bishops “uncanonically,” but out of love, not for “politics.” We have a long letter (in English) from Dr. Alexander Kalomiros in which he explains what Fr. Panteleimon has been doing in Greece with regard to the Mathewites, whom Dr. Kalomiros calls “fanatics” and “legalists.” Would you like us to send you a copy of this letter? Incidentally, in this letter he says that Fr. Panteleimon is not a Greek in soul, but an American, and that is why he has so much influence on Americans and Greek-Americans, but not on real Greeks (nor on Russians). This confirms what we have thought for some time also.

We would very much like to receive a reply soon from you on the situation of Bishop Petros, and on the bad church situation which has been created by Fr. Panteleimon’s act; this will only cause yet more confusion among our converts. Fr. Panteleimon is planning to visit us later this year, and we would like to know whether we can be in communion with him, since he is cutting himself off from at least one of our Bishops, for whom we hold the greatest respect. Please help us to clarify our thoughts and position on this matter! Up until now, Fr. Panteleimon’s attitude towards Bishop Petros seems to have been based on emotions and jealousy, and if that is why he has “broken communion,” is it not time that a rebuke were given to him in order to humble-him a little? We greatly fear that he will repeat the history of so many of our “crazy converts,” and when he is rebuked for being wrong he will just leave and take much of his flock with him, like Bishop Jacob of the Hague. May God preserve us from such a scandal — our poor American Orthodox converts are not prepared for such a shock!

With love and respect in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Alexey,
Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Enclosed is the article on Kireyevsky — excellent! Just what is needed! We read it last night to the “New Valaam Theological Academy” (the name of our “summer school”) and it came as a fitting conclusion to my own long series of talks (17 hours of tapes!) on the mainstream of Western thought, from Francis to Teilhard. Teilhard, by the way — for which I mostly read our article from “Christian evolutionism” was greeted with real repugnance by everyone, as the arch-villain of Western thought. The most popular talk was probably that on 19th-century conservatism, of which the heroes were Nicholas I, Dostoyevsky, and Constantine Pobedonostsev. The students seemed to have benefited greatly, especially Christopher, for whom this is a kind of substitute for a college education — he is positively inspired right now. It was very good for me to organize all my thoughts, also. Fr. Herman talked mostly on literature, very revealingly, and will give the summing-up lectures the next two days. Paul Bassett will be leaving then for Jordanville (with very vague thoughts about his future; until he came here he was never really told that “floating” isn’t a good thing!), and Christopher also will depart for the Eastern U.S, though very likely he will return later this year. He is very sharp at getting the “feel” of real Orthodoxy, but it remains to be seen whether he will be able to train his will.

We’re glad to hear of the progress on the chapel; don’t worry about Vladika Anthony. He has to know, of course, when you are ready to open a “church,” and if he is informed now he will assume that you are, indeed, opening a “church” — and that will be a trap, because you aren’t ready for that yet. Just don’t start calling your improved shed a “church” or start making big plans. You are just a very small group of Orthodox Christians far off in the sticks, not a “parish,” i.e., something “officially registered” in the “Diocese.” Right now Nina especially needs to be “unnoticed” and to grow slowly and naturally on the new soil. God knows what the future holds for all of you, but let it come as quietly and naturally as possible. This “quiet and “unnoticed” state could be very good for Barbara McCarthy too — if she will have the patience and persistence to build the house of her soul gradually, and not give way to the fatal inclination to “go to the wilds, now.”

The second article, on Freud, has a rather “anti-intellectual” tone which is going to put off some people who might be open to a critical but objective book on Freud. Even if the book itself might have something of the same tome, a little less “zealous” review might have more punch and get more sympathy for it. It would be good to “tone down” the review a little more, especially if you could look at the book yourself — but use your judgment of this. Monk Daniel, by the way is Br. Laurences ex-brother-in-law. He married Br. L’s sister several years ago, both of them were studying to become Jewish converts, then Br. L’s sister did become one, but he gave up, they separated, and somehow he found his way to our Church, without ever having contact with Br. L at all! Americans do find their way to the Truth, with God’s help!

Enclosed is a newsletter from some Catholics who should be told more about Orthodoxy. (They are not far from Jordanville and know about it.) It would be good for you to send some copies of Nikodemos, and perhaps a note.

Br. Paul (Bartlett) will probably be taking the car to SF this weekend to meet a friend of his, and our blue truck is not terribly seaworthy yet (radiator-wise), so most likely we won’t be visiting you on St. Elias’ day — which is just as well, so you won’t think anything “big” has happened just because you’ve added a few boards to your chapel. We’ll have part of the services in our St. Elias’ Skete and will be praying for you.

By the way, don’t become impatient — The Northern Thebaid won’t be ready for another month. The Religion of the Future is being reprinted at Shasta Printing in Redding, which seems to cost only a trifle more than Vladimir’s printer in SF. This will make 1500 copies, of which 800 are already sold or ordered.

Our last letter to the Anglican community in Los Gatos was returned — which probably means they were evicted, as they feared. What this does to the community we don’t know.

Pray for us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk