Author: orthodoxaustralia

[Fragment of letter to Alexey Young, p. 3 only]:

Fr. P. mentioned a little the question of evolution (I didn’t mention your forthcoming article on the subject), enough for me to see his basic attitude and fears, I think. His concern about “fundamentalism” seems to stem from a fear that the Orthodox battle against evolutionism might get bogged down on the same level as the “supposed” scientific arguments for it, and there thus might be endless arguments on fossil evidence, the precise meaning of the “Six Days,” etc. He is of course right that our Orthodox approach to the subject should not be on the scientific but rather on the theological level; but I also gathered that he is not fully aware of the flimsiness of the “scientific” evidence in favor of evolutionism, which makes him perhaps over-cautious and fearful on the whole subject. Yes, we should keep our basic approach high and theological; but we can also blow up that “scientific” evidence which just doesn’t make sense and which is really the result of blind prejudice and false theologizing in the guise of science.

Just as we thought, Fr. P. does not read Deacon Levs mail and has been having difficulties being accused of holding views which Deacon Lev writes from the monastery!

Fr. Neketas announced in a recent bulletin that he was printing a letter on “evolution” — part of Fr. Ephraim’s letter to you! That really wouldn’t be wise, and Fr. P. when he heard of it put a stop to it. In general I found Fr. Panteleimon quite willing to listen on subjects about which he’s not fully informed, and open to changing his mind.

By this time you are probably a father again! May God bless the child’s first days and prosper him (her) all the days of his life. Pray for us.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Sister in Christ, Nina,
Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

From the sound of your letters, you are in need of an “epistle.” I really can’t give it, but being a like-minded American Orthodox dreamer, I must give you at least a paragraph or two.

Yes, the Church situation in San Francisco is gloomy, and you can’t even pretend that you “fit” into it. You can’t help but feel discouraged by this — and so here is where your virtue begins to be tested. You’re not about to relapse into being a “moody, immature convert” — but how strong is your positive attitude? You know that it is not “chance” that you are where you are, even though it may not be so much by deliberate plan, either. Perhaps you begin to think that deep down the whole thing is “crazy” after all? When such ideas arise, my favorite question is: What’s the alternative? Does anything else make sense? It doesn’t seem to. Then endure, and thank God that you are being tested.

In order not to be submerged by the petty “Church” world, YOU MUST BE LIVING IN A WORLD OF YOUR OWN — and that is the real Church world of ascetics, desert-dwellers, and all those “queer birds” who inspire and keep the spark alive inside us. Especially the desert-dwellers speak to us today, when the desert has all but been banished from the Church. Does that mean we think we can be like them? No, it just means that we love them and more than anything else we want to have even the tiniest reflection of their kind of life, if only God will have mercy on us and not destroy us in our sins, our self-opinion, and the rest of our darkness.

Thursday, Feb. 22

Since this letter was started we received your letter of joy on seeing a little light in your seemingly dark situation. Glory be to God for that! But don’t let it make you light-headed, as many trials are yet in store for you! Spiritually rejoice, and use God’s gifts to you for spiritual profit; but be prepared for whatever the devil will send you next. And rejoice also that you have trials, which prove that spiritual life still exists and that there is hope even for the wildest dream, if it is dreamed with real hope in God!

On Tuesday morning VI. A. himself paid us a surprise visit, together with our starets, Fr. Spyridon, and Deacon Nicholas Porshnikov. Glory be to God, we received Holy Communion, for which we are grateful to VI. But afterwards we had a talk — which revealed, despite our almost tearful entreaty, that he does not understand not only us, but any of the young idealistic priests or monks, and talks a totally different language, fitting everything into a set “Synodal” pattern. Alas, he will be presiding over empty parishes without priests in a very short time. How many of the young zealots will survive if such attitudes continue at the top? Nonetheless, precisely because the situation seems so hopeless, let us hope in the Lord and continue on the path God has given us — to love the desert- dwellers and keep the desert in our hearts.

Different subject: so you are a “peacemaker?” Where do you get your license? Don’t you realize that in such a role you will begin to get answers that the other party thinks you “expect”? If there are misunderstandings, it is better not to think you can “patch them up,” but rather just don’t get involved in them yourself. About the “Shroud,” Alexey just plain made a mistake, and he got it pretty hard from us for it too. The “Greeks” also made a mistake, however, in making such a big issue of this and beating people over the head just because they don’t agree with a certain opinion. That hurt Alexey, but it was also extremely good for him spiritually. At present he seems to be at peace with everyone as far as we can see. As for the angry exchange of letters with John Johnstone some months ago, we can’t comment, not having seen them, but we know Alexey is upset at having written in this tone, but after all it is Dr. Johnstone who refuses to continue the correspondence, and not Alexey, who deep down is a very loving and meek and forgiving person. In the time ahead the devil will be using every chance to get true Orthodox Christians upset at each other over matter big and (mostly) small. We must firmly try not to take the bait, but [page ends]

This is already becoming too much of an “epistle” and much too “teachy.” Forgive me. Fr. Ephraim sends us the Troparia, and we already have Feb. and March. In his last letter Fr. E. asks if Alexey would be interested in receiving the service material from the Monastery, and I wrote back, definitely yes. We are sending Alexey Feb. and March, and presumably he will receive the rest from Boston.

Do you ever get to the UC Berkeley library? We have some research projects which we would love to give you!

Pray for us miserable sinners, who have the name of monks without the deeds.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

P.S. Marina the Starosta’s wife is my god-daughter, and in fact she married her husband with my blessing! Until a year or two ago we were on the best and closest terms, but since then something seems to have happened, as I haven’t heard a word from her, even in answer to my namesday greetings to her and her son Alexander, also my godson. Apparently something is cooking, very likely in connection with the fact that she is (or at least was) quite close to Sarah Hoffman. Speaking of whom, as a principle one must be very kind and forgiving of all converts, but at the same time one must realize that some of them can be “dangerous,” so watch out! Sarah seems to belong to this category — she is very friendly with you until she discovers that you hold some “dangerous” view, when she quite suddenly drops you with never a word, and what she says to others who can say? First she dropped Fr. Panteleimon, then when we defended him she dropped us, then when Alexey defended us she dropped him, etc. She also dragged Alexey’s name into her “heresy” epistle, which I’m afraid for the Boston Fathers to thinking Alexey was part of a plot against them, which he certainly wasn’t. All of this is supposed, not to make us upset, but to keep us sober and not to spread tales and rumors ourselves, or believe them. We suspect the tales about us in S.F. are something fantastic, and we are only thankful that we don’t hear most of them.

Dear Alexey —

Just a note to go with the Teilhard article — I think it was Sarah who sent it to us, but maybe it was you; in any case you might as well keep it in your “evolution” file. It is well done but, of course, “unpublishable,” as she says. Most people will just stop listening when they hear “fraud,” “conspiracy,” or anything like that. If you mention “fraud” in connection with Teilhard de Ch. it should be no more than a hint. Likewise Vatican II should be mentioned as little as possible in the “Christian evolution” section, as there are those who will leap at the opportunity to believe that you are of a “pre-Vatican II” mentality.

I suspect also that Sarah is overestimating Teilhard’s direct influence on the “New Christianity.” That phrase was coined (I think) by St. Simon 150 years ago, and much preparation was made for it before Teilhard. Probably T. appeared at just the right time to take advantage of the modernist current and make everyone start to think of it in connection with his name.

There are some good points for the “Christian philosophy” section on pp. 39-41.

Concerning your chapter on “Early Man” — very good! We will send it back shortly with a few comments. This is most of the “scientific” raw material you will need to support your conclusions on the “scientific” side of evolution. Only — where is the “fluorine dating system”? Isn’t that in fashion now?

This whole “book” on evolution seems to be piecing itself together very well — and its doubtless better this way than it would have been starting from a pre-conceived plan. Frankly, we had never even thought of some of the theological aspects which we have been uncovering now.

It would be good to have a quote from Charles Lyell or someone else from the period when the “immense antiquity” of man and the earth first “dawned” on men, to show precisely why they started thinking that way.

We look forward to your visit on March 1. Please pray for us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Brother in Christ, Alexey,
Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ in Whom rejoice!

Here are some more notes on evolution, specifically your chapters which we are returning herewith.

II. Chapter on the “context”: too broad, and in the wrong place. The study should begin with a “bang” (after the Preface, which should be written last), and most logical is to start with “Early Man” itself, so the reader can see what is being talked about. The “Context” offers a history of different strands of Humanism whose importance to the subject of evolution is not clear at the beginning. In any case these pages are too broad and general, and distract the reader’s attention from the central point.

III. “Science as a Fetish” and “Early Man”: the points are good (we’ll have more detailed criticism later when we see how they fit into the whole study); but here we’ll give a word of advice: try as much as possible not to “play your hand” too much or too soon. The Preface will already make it clear enough that you are against evolution: but all the way through, and especially in the “scientific” chapters, you should be as “objective” and serene as possible, omitting in particular any comments that might show how you “feel” about what you are presenting or criticizing (such as the “heavens no” on p. 5 which I’ve marked) — such comments will have an adverse effect on those who aren’t convinced yet, giving them the impressions that you are just hostilely disposed to evolution from the beginning, and therefore you are not open to whatever “truth” it might contain. Remember that from the beginning (that being the character of our times and its mentality) the burden of proof is on you, and the majority of readers will not sympathize with any disparaging comments. Your basic tone in these chapters should not be: “I’m going to show you how ridiculous evolution is,” but rather: “Let’s look at this question seriously and soberly, one point at a time, being as fair as possible to evolutionists, and see just what they believe and how much sense it makes.” Actually, there are probably very few “convinced evolutionists” among Orthodox believers, but very many who just “go along” with the intellectual current, but still do have some nagging doubts about evolution which they just can’t explain to themselves. For them you should be making the greatest possible clarification of this whole issue.

III. B.: Further study of “Early Man” seems the logical next step. Presumably your conclusion at the end of this chapter will not be: “Evolution is proved false and special creation true,” but rather: evolution, presented popularly as “fact” and “truth,” has no coercive scientific evidence whatever to support it. All the supposed “proofs” of evolution can equally be used to “prove” another theory, depending on your presuppositions. Here you should set down in summary form all the major “proofs” of evolution (preferably quoting some major evolution textbook, or perhaps Encyclopedia Britannica — the 11th edition lists 8 evidences), showing that they presuppose a whole philosophy of nature which is not at all derived from “proofs” but from the intellectual climate of the age. (See, for example, the enclosed booklet, p. 67.) Here you should also have some quotes from evolutionists themselves showing how they realize that there is no actual coercive proof of evolution; but that it “makes more sense,” or “the alternative is unthinkable” — i.e. God’s creation; or other similar quotes. And when you thus quote evolutionists “against themselves,” as it were, you should be careful not to “pounce” on them and say “Aha, they disprove themselves” — but rather continue in a serene tone, not taking maximum advantage of their admissions — because you are going to let all their self-incriminating evidence speak for itself, until it piles up and at the end becomes absolutely self-evident, and then your own summation of this evidence will be very powerful!

And then, here is where you should give the intellectual “context” of evolution, but much more specific than your ch. II. It is too much for most readers to understand the whole movement of Humanism, etc.; besides which, they are still not disposed to think you are giving them the real story about it. It would be good to quote an authoritative, objective source at this point. So: enclosed find 5 pp. of quotes from a good textbook on modern “intellectual history.” The author is himself “modern” and believes in evolution, and so does not have your “prejudices”; yet he is quite precise and aware on the whole. These excerpts show accurately the change from the Newtonian mechanistic universe to, the evolutionary universe of our times. Some quotes like these, perhaps with a few comments in between, may be all you need to establish the “intellectual climate” in which evolution developed.

Now you are ready to enter the area of philosophy and theology: for the lack of strict scientific proof of evolution means that these questions basically are not scientific, but come from faith. At the same time you disengage yourself from the dead-end of trying to “disprove” evolution: by science it can be neither proved nor disproved; it is a question of a different order than science.

IV, V: I don’t know what or how much you planned to write on “Orthodox evolutionists” and Teilhard, but I think it might be possible to combine them in a single chapter called “Christian evolutionism.” (Rather in the same way that, in our “charismatic” article, we combined testimony from Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox charismatics — both because the testimony of all groups reinforce each other, and because there is really no difference between them; so also, “Orthodox evolutionism” is exactly the same as “Catholic evolutionism.”) This also would give more punch to the section which I am compiling to follow the Patristic quotes, and which might be called, effectively I hope: “Latin Scholasticism: the Theological Foundation of Christian Evolutionism’.”

In such a chapter on “Christian evolutionism,” a basic thing to show will be that adding “God” to evolution does not at all change its basic philosophical-theological outlook and intent. God becomes a deus ex machina for saving evolution when the absurdity of believing in it without God, as a pure chance process, becomes too evident. Thus, quoting Dobzhansky and others, you can show how they believe in the same naturalistic universe, without God’s interference, as do the atheistic evolutionists: the denial of God’s Providence, etc.

As to the climax to this section: Teilhard de Chardin as extremely symptomatic of the “spirit of the age” — a “religious” thinker has come into fashion, favored even by Julian Huxley and the Soviet Union! (I’ll send some material from Russia on Teilhard.) You might look at Lecomte DuNoüy also, since the Greek Archdiocese article mentions him together with T. de С.; I have a feeling it will be easier to find good quotes from him!

An important part of this “Christian evolutionism” chapter: quote T. de C. (the passage quoted by Dobzhansky at the end of his article) on evolution as absolutely “universal” — by this time the mere quoting of this passage will already show the reader how much such a view is dependent on simply absorbing the “spirit of the times.” This quote shows the blind faith of some “religious” figures in the latest current of scientific faith; and it offers an exact parallel (which you should by all means take advantage of!) to the blind faith of Alexander Pope in a different scientific faith: his adoration of Newton and his mechanical-deist universe of perfect order, which was mocked a century later by Voltaire in Candiele, a satire on the “best of all possible worlds” (the phrase is Leibniz’, but it sums up the faith of the whole 17th and 18th century philosophical “establishment”). Popes words are “jingly” and will catch your readers unawares and perhaps make them begin to see that one should not place so much faith in any scientific philosophy-faith.

Alexander Pope, “Essay on Man”:

All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the soul,…
All Nature is but Art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction, which thou canst not see;
All discord, harmony not understood;
All partial evil, universal good:
And, spite of pride, in erring reasons spite,
One truth is clear, whatever is, is right.

And in another place in Popes works:

Nature and Natures laws lay hid in night:
God said, Let Newton be! and all was Light.

Voltaire mocked this philosophy because it had become out of date•, and thus your reader is warned, the suggestion is made: maybe evolution too is such a passing faith that will become out of date one day, or is already becoming so! And this inevitably happens if Christian philosophy accepts the philosophy of the “spirit of the age,” which comes and goes. In general it will be a good idea to contrast the Newtonian universe with the evolutionary: this contrast will give the reader probably all the intellectual “context” of evolution he needs, and in a very painless way, without forcing him to understand the whole history of modern thought. Many people simply aren’t aware that there has ever been a “science” that wasn’t “evolutionary,” and the contrast between Newton and evolution shows how one scientific theory gives way to the next. Thus you will undermine the scientific “faith” of your readers! (In our theological section, we will also be quoting St. Basil the Great and Fr. Michael Pomazansky on this subject.)

By the way, the thought occurs to me that the spiritual tone of Fundamentalism’s opposition to evolution is actually based more on the Newtonian universe than Christianity! Undoubtedly Archbishop Ussher was a convinced Newtonian! — you should look into that. The climax of the whole article will then be in presenting the Orthodox theology of creation — Adam, which is totally independent of all scientific fashions.

For Orthodoxy DOES NOT FOLLOW THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE AGE, rather Orthodoxy has its own philosophy based on Revelation. (The Holy Fathers have a complete theology of the origin of man and creation which) This Revelation is not bound up with any intellectual fashion that passes away. It is a doctrine not modified with every passing philosophy, not bound up with either the static universe of perfect harmony of Newton (which departed from Orthodoxy by making the universe purely naturalistic — and evolution is actually just the present philosophy of the naturalized universe divorced from God and His action), nor with the “developing” universe of T. de C. and other fashionable thinkers today. Orthodox philosophy is NOT OF THIS WORLD; but it is THE ANSWER to the vain speculations of modern man, and certainly the answer to a mankind filled with the “spiritual malaise” D. [Dostoyevsky] perceives.

Above all, the whole study should be as simple and as much to the point and as “objective” as possible. If one accepts the principle of objectivity, and believes in the Holy Fathers — then the whole study, even in a very low key, should gradually build itself up to a devastating and convincing conclusion.

By the way, in your “scientific” chapters I hope you have a good account of the “carbon dating system” and whatever “evidence” there is for “millions of years”; also, you must be prepared for answers in several points of the “history of mankind” — how do you explain Neanderthal Man, for example? (I’ve just found an Orthodox pamphlet on this subject, written 25 years ago, which views him as the descendant of Cain.)

We’ve received Fr. Neketas’ newest comments on evolution, where he tries to identify antievolutionism with the sectarian fringe. Why such pointless comments? One senses that he somehow feels unsafe on evolution, is somehow threatened by anti-evolutionism. Actually, he only confuses more those people who are already uncertain enough what to believe about evolution.

And then yesterday we received from the “Zion Orthodox Hermitage” a copy of the letter to Fr. Neketas which you had already showed us, together with an article which we hadn’t seen, called “The Creation Narrative.” Seeing the quote from St. Hippolytus on page 1, we looked forward to some patristic documentation. But alas, the author doesn’t come through with this, and he turns out to be quite vague on the whole subject himself! In the next to last paragraph of p. 2 he quite losses himself in wild “speculations” which are not only unscriptural (I’ve never heard of anyone who threw dinosaurs in before the six days of creation) but are also doctrinally unsound (the suggestion that there could have been evil in the visible creation before Adam’s transgression). In a word, the author is quite naive, and in his fear that “science might be right” about the “millions of years” he already has quite a lot in common with many present-day evolutionists. (Same viewpoint is in the enclosed booklet.) We look forward to your objective presentation of the proof or lack of it concerning the “age of the earth” and man.

It is time to get this out. Pray for us.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

P.S. Why don’t you think of printing in a format something like the enclosed booklet? It could be “popular”! We could make the cover and give some other help.

Dear Brother in Christ, Alexey,
Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, our mountain was rather drenched with rain also, and all that snow that Nina and Barbara trudged through was washed away in less than two days! For a day or so all the bridges between us and the Sacramento Valley were under water, and I think the road to Redding is still closed, but the Red Bluff road is apparently open, as the mail comes through all right. There are some very deep ruts (2 feet!) in our road, but with caution the road is still usable, and it is now open all the way to us.

We rejoice at the life of your little Orthodox community — you should give great thanks to God for having such an opportunity to live remotely and independently, where Orthodoxy can readily enter into your daily life. You have just about everything you need — and what you don’t have God will provide when the time comes!

The Elder in the photograph is Schema-Archimandrite Gabriel.

Interestingly, just before receiving your letter I was reading and thinking about Khomiakovs close friend Kireyevsky, who thought very similarly and is even better because of his close connection with Optina and the Holy Fathers. We’ll be interested to see what you’ve compiled of Khomiakov. Kireyevsky’s thoughts on the difference between the Catholic-Wes tern mentality and Orthodoxy might well serve as an article or pamphlet also, which would be very instructive especially for converts today. The answer to Medieval Scholasticism, he says, is the great Orthodox Fathers who lived at the same time — namely, St. Simeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory the Sinaite, St. Gregory Palamas.

And speaking of this contrast, my research into the Fathers concerning evolution has turned up something remarkable — the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines of Adam and creation are significantly different, and “evolution” can be fitted rather nicely precisely into the Catholic doctrine, but not at all into the Orthodox! This point can be made pretty well by comparing several passages of the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas (I always wondered why I kept that book!) with the passage from St. Simeon which you have, and another from St. Gregory the Sinaite. The whole discussion of “evolution,” if it is presented just right, can be very important for giving our genuine Orthodox outlook on contemporary science and “wisdom.”

I’ve also found commentaries on Genesis by St. Ephraim the Syrian and St. John Chrysostom, and some more isolated statements in other Fathers. There can be no doubt at all how the Fathers understood Genesis — quite “literally”! I was at first a little uncertain about a quote from St. Gregory the Theologian, showing that he regarded the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as a symbol; and some Fathers, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa, are full of such symbols, leading a scholar like Florovsky to ask: does he understand the account of creation as entirely symbolic or not? And then, to resolve my uncertainty, leafing through a French translation we have of St. Gregory Palamas, I found that, in opposing those who say that the Uncreated Light of Mt. Tabor is only a “symbol,” he cites the very passage from St. Gregory the Theologian about the tree of knowledge, and says that of course he also accepted it as having an existence of its own! All of these quotes put together should do much to give our Orthodox people the sound Orthodox approach to Genesis and creation, which I think many are now afraid of, due to the prestige of “science.”

The “Orthodox” disciple of Teilhard de Chardin is a little disappointing — he is so naive and simple-minded! Nonetheless, there are some things there that can be used in the “philosophical” part of your study.

About becoming principal, there’s not much we can advise you. It seems a logical step, and it comes to you without asking on your part — but you alone can measure what it will mean in practical terms for your life. How is the present principal surviving it? Is he under great pressure and tension or not?

Don’t be upset about Nina’s ideas on evolution and the like. As Fr. Herman says, she’s been “Panteleimonized,” which means: in general, the right attitudes, but a little “too-intellectual,” too sophisticated tone, with thinking a little divorced from reality. She’s also “been around” a little too much; it’s really much better to sit quietly in a corner such as God has given you! Hopefully, she will change a little in Vladika John’s diocese!

How was the transcription of the Apocalypse tape? We’ve finished the text in 14 more sides, including the first side or two which has already been transcribed. But we don’t want to overburden you. We would rather like to print a little book of 50-60 pages including this and other apocalyptic passages from the New Testament in Vladika Averky’s commentary — to give the Orthodox view of the last things and refute the heretical views on the millennium, tribulation period, rapture, etc. This would be rather a complement to your study of evolution and the patristic view of the first things, creation. In general, it seems that no one has really thought through the whole question of evolution, and many Russian priests are satisfied just not to think about the “species” and the “six days,” as long as Adam is kept as an historical person who lived about 7500 years ago. But “evolution” will hardly tolerate such a concession to theology in any case! It might be good, by the way, to give a brief resume somewhere in your study on the response of Catholic theology to evolution — how they gave way point by point, ending in the Rahner “theology” we sent you.

The idea has come to us to pay you a visit this Sunday, Jan. 14/27. What do you think of that? Will you be home? About what time do you read the hours in the morning? We would come about mid-morning, 10 or so. Let us know.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Alexey —
Greetings on the feast of our 20th-century wonderworker!

I’ve been finding more patristic citations, and the “patristic notes” I sent should really be expanded into a little treatise on the Orthodox view of the creation, including the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge — but how can you keep the whole article within manageable size if that’s done?

By the way, according to St. Gregory of Sinai, the incorruption of the first creation was a somewhat modified one, which means you probably shouldn’t be so bold as I was in saying “no fossils” — the main point remaining that in any case it is unknowable to present-day science. With thorough documentation of each point you make, the whole article can be even understated and still turn out extremely powerful.

Father Herman returns tomorrow morning. According to the account of his talk at Jordanville in “Orthodox Russia,” it left a powerful impression — with 150 people present.

Pray for us — with love in Christ,

Seraphim, m.

Dear Brother in Christ, Alexey,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have an extraordinary request to make of you — if it is possible and if things turn out as expected. For twenty years Fr. Herman has known a female convert to our Church on the East Coast, Nina Seco. (I’ve known her, chiefly by correspondence, for over half that long.) She went through all the trials of the earliest “convert period” in connection with Jordanville, and was actually Fr. Herman’s “spiritual daughter.” (She is about our age.) Then she discovered Fr. Panteleimon in Boston and continued under his spiritual direction. Together with her friend Margaret, she laid the foundation for Holy Nativity Convent, which in the beginning was just the two of them, praying and laboring together in an upstairs apartment in Boston. The Convent grew, and a year of two ago Fr. Panteleimon imported an Abbess for it, which gave somewhat a different emphasis to the convent. Then, after Pascha of this year, Nina left the convent — she says it’s because of her own temperament and her lack of confidability in the Abbess. She’s been back to visit several times since then, and has finally come to see quite definitely that she doesn’t belong there. People tell her she should go to a Russian convent, but she has no inclination for this, being extremely devoted to the whole labor and dream of presenting Orthodoxy in the English language. Right now she’s staying with a Russian priest in New Jersey but cannot stay there beyond Russian Christmas, and she wants to come to California for a while, perhaps on the way to our Convent in Bluffton, Alberta. She doesn’t really know anyone out here except us, and she’s been inquiring as to whom she might stay with in San Francisco. (She thought of coming to visit us on St. Herman’s day Dec. 12/25, but access to us then already looks dubious, and also Father Herman has been asked to come to Jordanville just/at that time to give a talk to a Youth Pilgrimage at the Monastery (which he hasn’t seen for 12 years, after being spiritually reborn in it.).

And so the thought came to us: If she comes to California, perhaps she could spend a week or several weeks with you? (Assuming you have room, of course.) Somehow we think this would be very good both for her and for you, both of you being so devoted to the English-speaking mission. There is, however, a possible complication in that she might be coming (although it doesn’t look like it now) with a like-minded younger convert-friend Barbara.

Please let us know frankly what you think of all this, so we can know what advice to give her on her proposed trip.

We’ve had an inch or two of snow every day for 3 days, and today it looks like more snow — quite an unusual mid-November weather pattern for us, looking more and more like a preparation for a severe winter. Indeed, you had better come to us as soon as you can, and not wait for St. Herman’s day in December (where Father Herman probably won’t be here, also) If Nina will be staying with you for a while, we can arrange her visit to us by telephone (whether with one of your visits, or separately by Greyhound).

Hoping to hear from you soon,

With love in Christ our Savior
Seraphim, monk

P.s. We’ve just received the first of Alexander Kalomiros’ promised epistles to us — a long one on the Old Calendarist situation, and extremely revealing, about which we’ll speak when you come.

Dear Father Lev,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

We received your note and learn with astonishment that doe Acquisition of the Holy Spirit of I. M. Kontzevitch is being printed in English, it would seem, without the widow of the author (who actually wrote half of it) even being informed of it, despite the clear notice in the beginning of the book about all rights being reserved to the author (and his heirs). Vladika Nektary, the authors brother, will also not be pleased. This is not merely a lack of elementary courtesy, but also an extremely incompetent approach to the book, in view of the corrections and additions which should be made in it. Mrs. Kontzevitch will certainly not approve of any translation of her husband’s books without her first examining them, both for mistakes and for quality of translation (she knows English well). Both she and her husband have entrusted to our Brotherhood the work of editing, translating, and correcting the writings of I. M. Kontzevitch and have given us instructions concerning this. This is all the more important, by the way, in the case\of the book Optina and Its Era of which Fr. Herman was co-editor with Mrs. Kontzevitch, and which will require much revision before being presented in English. We ourselves are by no means against others laboring in the translation of Prof. Kontzevitch’s works; we only ask, in view of the desire of the author and his widow, that we see the manuscripts before publication so they can be properly revised. As long as she is alive, Mrs. Kontzevitch also must certainly see all translations before publication.

If it is really true the Acquisition is already being printed, it is truly unfortunate, especially if the book is as haphazardly done as was the “New Martyrs.” Mrs. Kontzevitch is very outspoken and will probably send an indignant letter to the Metropolitan if this is done. But even if bishops may do more or less as they please, let the rest of us laborers in Christ’s vineyard be humble and sensible and not undertake projects without knowing their full background.

Please forgive the straightforward language, but we have known the Kontzevitches for a long time and know how careful and precise they are with regard to their writings, and how much they detest literary amateurishness.

With love in Christ our Savior,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Brother in Christ, Alexey,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you for the new Nikodemos, which was full of spiritual food from first to last, including the “fillers.” May God give you the strength to continue giving this spiritual food to those who are starved for it (often without knowing it).

We received two days ago, with a sigh, Fr. Ephraim’s third letter to you. Before reading it we wondered, “is this really necessary?” And after reading it, of course, we saw that it is not. And. now (after starting this letter) we have received your new letter expressing your being “shaken” over Fr. E s -epistle. This I think I understand, although not perhaps too rationally, and I will try to express something of what I feel you might be going through.

Of course, the sometimes flippant tone disturbs you, especially as coming from a monastery which is supposed to give precisely the right, serious, (but not pompously solemn) tone. Again, there is much that is totally irrelevant in the letter, as though you are to be awed by the very fact that Lives of Saints and Holy Fathers are thrown at you, quite apart from whether they are relevant or not. Then, the patronizing tone toward St. Nikodemos and St. Nectarius, as much as to say: “we know better than our own Saints; they are not as sophisticated in theology as we are.” Yet again, the citing of Metr. Anthony and Bolotov, which means the authors think they are in the full Russian tradition, and therefore you have no ground to stand on at all (more on this below). Again, the letter contains much quibbling over words, in a rather “scholastic” spirit. And perhaps most of all: their approach and assumptions are so different from yours (and ours) that you probably just don’t know what to say in reply. Their use of Anselm is a variation on the standard joke: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” — i.e., if you enter into a discussion on their terms, you will never get out of the swamp, but will have to force yourself to be “defensive” about something that is actually quite unimportant.

Here I will set down a few impressions which this letter produced on me:

(1) Positively, it would seem that the Fathers are no longer, as in the second letter, intent on annihilating Nikodemos, but have apparently accepted the fact that you will continue to exist, outside their control. If so, glory be to God for such a measure of peace, at least.

(2) The whole letter is written in what seems to us an idle, sometimes frivolous tone, and it would really be a waste of your time and energy to make any substantial reply to it. We do not need “debates” on this level. Obviously, they have certain set ideas which are not going to be changed by any “point-by-point” reply. Your best “reply” is to continue publishing Nikodemos without letting this static interfere with you.

(3) It has now become rather obvious that Holy Transfiguration Monastery is quite limited in its theological and philosophical understanding. It is apparently not capable of understanding in full Orthodox context what is happening in the world today (intellectually [or] philosophically), nor of placing in proper perspective the theological writers of the last two centuries.

(4) The reasons for this, it would seem, lie: (a) in the poverty of the recent Greek theological- intellectual tradition, which must really have been thoroughly paralysed and devastated by the Turkish experience (in a way that the Russian tradition certainly was not). If this is so, then such Fathers as Sts. Nikodemos, Macarius, and Nectarius are evidently rare exceptions who do not really form a continuous tradition (and notice that Fr. E. disowns the theology of even these Fathers!).
(b) In the consequent unrootedness of the Fathers of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in any Orthodox theological tradition — they have to “do it themselves,” with no one and no stable tradition to correct them. Their “roots” are rather in 20th-century America, which accounts for the “modern” tone of their epistles, their failure to understand the whole significance and religious origin and context of “evolution,” the utter ridiculousness of dilettantism of their dabbling in Russian sources. To say that Metr. Philaret of Moscow is not in the Orthodox theological tradition, whereas the academic scholar Bolotov is, and that virtually all our great recent theologians and Saints teach “anselmism” — means that as theologians they are irresponsible and unaware, and their convert translators from the Russian cannot give them the whole context of Russian theological thought which might straighten them out.

(5) Therefore, let us thank God that Holy Transfiguration is raising up monks in the genuine Orthodox discipline of monasticism, inspiring zealot parishes, and translating and spreading some patristic texts and Lives of Saints. But let us not expect more of the Fathers than they can give; they are not capable of giving the Orthodox theology and philosophy which is needed for our times. (Not unless they change their outlook, that is.)

(6) This Orthodox theology and philosophy must obviously come from the Russian tradition of the last two centuries, in particular the tradition inspired by Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky. Therefore, there is much for us to do who love this tradition and want to be formed in it!

(7) Concerning evolution: Fr. E. is quibbling over words, because he simply does not understand the whole question. He obviously misunderstands both St. Nectarius (who certainly is not trying to make a “scientific” statement, but is only, quite properly, ridiculing the pseudo-scientists who find man’s origins in the аре-kingdom) and St. Basil (who is scientifically correct in his statement on pines and oaks, and he certainly did not intend to say that the seed of one produces the other, since the whole Hexaemeron emphasizes that each kind of creature reproduces only according to its kind). But it is futile to make an answer to these points: rather, the whole discussion must be placed in a different, more serious context. Hopefully, this will be what your future article on evolution will do (whenever God wills!).

Above all: what we need now are persistent, independent labors, such as you and we are trying to make; and not useless debates.

The new Orthodox Life, by the way, has an article by Fr. Lev Puhalo which apparently comes from the same theological “school,” and which we found very unsatisfactory. Not only is such frequent and open discussion of the “sex act” distasteful and unnecessary, but the whole context of the discussion is rather pagan-modern than Orthodox. True, marriage is sacred, but the “sex act” among fallen humans certainly is not, but should always be bound up with repentance, awareness of sin (as in Psalm 50), and a humble awareness of how short married life falls of the perfect Christian life. (Likewise, one who lives in virginity should be constantly reproaching himself for the vileness of his thoughts; in no state of Christian life is there room for smug self-satisfaction.) Fr. Lev’s “positive view of sex” would seem to be rather a 20th-century reaction against Victorian prudery than anything patristic or Orthodox.

A very important point: it is not enough to talk about a “return to patristic sources” — that can be just another intellectual fashion, which I’m afraid it is to some extent among some of our new theological “experts.” There are some tell-tale signs by which these academic theologians reveal their own inadequate patristic foundation, one of the most obvious of which is the attitude: we know what is right and everyone else is wrong, under foreign influence, etc. (including great Saints and theologians). Fr. E. is telling you that he and his group (who are graduates of the pseudo-Orthodox seminaries of Holy Cross and St. Vladimir’s) know more about Orthodox theology than: St. Nikodemos, St. Nectarios, Metr. Philaret of Moscow, Bishop Theophanes the Recluse, St. John of Kronstadt (who also talks about “merits” of Christ), Archbishop John Maximovitch (who sang the service every year to Blessed Augustine, and in fact commissioned the writing of it!), and also the Elders of Optina! Such presumption can only do harm to the real cause of renewing Orthodox life by drawing from the fresh springs of Orthodox tradition.

The best advice we can give you is this: do not enter into any further discussion with Fr. Ephraim on his level. You are entirely correct that a public apology for the Shroud article would complicate rather than simplify matters. Indeed, if you were to apologize for publishing a heresy (which you certainly did not do), you would thereby publicly accuse many Saints of heresy, as well as the whole Russian Church (which uses Metr. Philaret’s catechism as an official statement of faith). Fr. E. has gone quite overboard on this subject, thereby revealing the academic amateurish level of his “theology”; do not allow yourself even to think in the same terms he does. Neither you nor we are “experts” in theology, and it is not for us to enter into debates with those who think they are. Let us rather follow the stable path which our recent Fathers have trodden before us, and not get excited over issues which did not bother them.

By the way, it cannot be doubted that the issue of “Latin influence” is real — our own recent Fathers tell us of this; but Fr. E. does not have the proper, balanced and sober, approach to it.

We just received the O.C. Witness with the article on “intellectual converts.” I don’t know what use such an article can have. Everyone when reading it will think of his own favorite “crazy convert”; the first one that came to our mind was Fr. Lev Puhalo! But let us rather be patient with each other and help each other with love and encouragement to overcome our faults and ever strive to enter more fully into the Church’s true spirit.

It does look as though the winter will be longer and severer than usual. We had snow flurries several times, but with no more than an inch of snow so far; however, the first real snow looks to be close (27° this morning, and probably colder down in Platina). We had two solid weeks of rain, which makes one place in our road (very close to us) quite difficult, but so far we’ve managed to get up and down safely. We have almost all our winter supplies, and need just two more trips for paper and gasoline.

Yes, Daniel left us, which saddened us and makes us realize all the more how strongly the devil is fighting us (for Daniel really belongs here). Our Catechumen John also left last week, without yet receiving what he came for — another attack of the devil. But we try to learn through our trials, and we have many consolations also. Last Tuesday Fr. Spiridon came and served Divine Liturgy on his namesday, and we all received Holy Communion.

We will be glad to talk to David, whenever you can bring him. St. Seraphim tells us to sow the seed of the Word whenever and wherever we can.

Trust in Vladika John’s prayer. Pray for us all.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
S. M.

P.S. I am enclosing (or maybe sending separately) two cassettes, which you might try to type out. One is the life of St. Simeon of Verkhoturye which I mentioned to you before, which is almost complete on the two sides (there’s a little more on another tape, which we’ll type out). This tape (and the other as well) were translated “live” and so will need some correction before being printed as a whole; but if you want to abridge it yourself you might be able to do so from this preliminary version.

The second cassette is part of a booklet we may be printing: Vladika Averky s commentary on the Apocalypse, which comes from Vol. 2 of his New Testament Commentary. Vladimir Anderson asked about the Orthodox interpretation of the Apocalypse recently, so we re doing this, which might be able to be printed much sooner than the Orthodox Dogmatics. (40-50 pp.) If they aren’t too difficult to transcribe (I’m doing the Dogmatics with puctuation marks, erasing my mistakes, etc., so it’s easier to follow), then please send us one copy of the complete text of both tapes (8 1/2×11 paper, doublespaced) so we can make corrections.

Dear Brother in Christ, Daniel [Olson],
Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ. We are glad to hear you are safe.

Your letter states again your “position,” which is exactly as we understood it to be when you left. My words now, on the other hand, are intended once again, quite deliberately, to “avoid the question” and “to talk about something else.” Why? Because you wish to talk logically, to discuss a “problem,” whereas we can only speak from the heart, where this “problem” does not exist. Dear Daniel, because we love you dearly, I am going to bawl you out and tell you once again that the real “problem” does not exist. Dear Daniel, because we love you early, I am going to bawl you out and tell you once again that the real “problem” is something quite different from what your “wisdom” tells you; I beg you to read what I will say with your heart, and then act with your heart.

In your letter you have lectured us, accused us, judged us, and from your “position” it must indeed seem ridiculous and amazing that we cannot understand the Church’s teaching and practice as well as you can. The main point of your accusation is that we have “felt ourselves competent to decide a matter which according to Church practice can be decided only by a bishop,” and that therefore we are saying that we “know better than the Church.” Child Daniel, how stupid do you think we are?! And how proud and unfeeling you must be to accuse us of such stupidity! Do you really think we are acting with the same soulless calculation which set off your fit? Your letter in effect offers us to work out some kind of “compromise” with you and your Church “principles.” Father Herman was quite correct in telling you that you are setting yourself against the central idea which we follow — because we will not involve ourselves on that level of soulless calculation, where everything in the Church which inspires and guides us becomes “correct” or “incorrect,” “proper” or “improper.”

However, to answer your question: did we “canonize a Saint”? We did not! That is the work of bishops. We rather nourished our own piety, which is constantly in danger of being extinguished in present conditions, and we did so in a way which is by no means foreign to the history of the Church and is approved by present-day Fathers whom we trust, such as Vladika Nektary and Father Panteleimon. Must we call a council of bishops to nourish our piety, six forest-dwellers in a remote cabin, whom any sensible worldly person already regards as crazy? How spoiled rotten you must be, by thinking you know so much about Church history and the “rights” of bishops, in order to think like that!

If you wish to understand under what “category” our actions fall and may be understood, I will tell you by giving an example from the act of a bishop whom you have respected up to now. You know the “secret” which we share with Bishop Nektary, precisely because he did here just what you accuse us of doing. He did not do it in his capacity of bishop, because he does not have episcopal jurisdiction over this piece of land. He did it solely out of love for a Saint, and out of grief over the realization that political and other worldly considerations have made cold the hearts of those, including bishops, who should already be glorifying this Saint; and in doing it he likewise followed the apparently “uncanonical” act of Father Panteleimon, which he applauded. (You must realize, by the way, that by your present behavior you have fallen out of oneness of mind not only with us, but also with Fr. Panteleimon and Vladika Nektary, because you know better what the Church teaches than any of us, and you have judged us all.

And now I must shock your “principles” even more, in order that you will finally understand what is at stake: Vladika Nektary’s act (or rather, acts, for he has repeated it) was done with full knowledge that his own ruling bishop would certainly not approve if he knew of it, but on the contrary would give him great trouble if he heard of it. What?! Does Vladika Nektary, whom you have regarded as “holy,” know so much less of Church “principles” than Daniel Olson, that he would dare to usurp the “competence” of his own ruling bishop? Or does he place himself “above” Church principles?! О you fool, if you dare to think like this! He acted “secretly” — precisely because those who should be shouting the praises of a newly-revealed Saint are silent due to the political considerations and cold hearts that reign in our midst; and if it were not for such loving hearts which beat with holy Orthodoxy, the fire of true Orthodoxy would be completely absent from our midst today. In future, we trust in God, the loving zealous acts of such men (which of course are not at all “uncanonical” because they have nothing to do with any canons whatever) whether they be hierarchs or priests or monks or simple laymen, will be praised and lauded by the whole Church, because throughout the Church’s history these are the stuff of which Orthodoxy is made in practice.

If you wish to know the “principle” on which Vladika Nektary (and others who practice living Orthodoxy) have acted, and that which inspires even us poor ones just to go on under an extremely difficult and unfavorable spiritual climate (which you cold heart does not even see) — it is the principle of catacombness, of nourishing in secret those sprouts of true Orthodoxy which are not being encouraged in official Orthodox circles.

(Even if you do not understand all this, nonetheless I must strictly forbid you to speak to anyone of anything I have said in connection with Vladika Nektary, which is a strict secret among those who think as he; if you speak of it to anyone, you are his and our betrayer.)

Our dear brother: yes, we fervently desire the return to us of you, our lost sheep, because we really do believe that this place was given to you to work out your salvation, and that your salvation in the world, especially with your cold heart and calculating mind, and with ηό one to humble you in love, is dubious. But you yourself must make the effort to return to the oneness of soul with us which you left with your calculating “principles.” But you must have trust in us, with entire resolution and commitment — not with your mind, as you seem to think, but with your heart. The trust of the mind is merely calculation (“do they really know better than I do, or not?”); but the trust of the heart is self- sacrificing devotion, that path of commitment upon which you entered some months ago, and which you now wish so easily to abandon, without having offered yourself as a sacrifice to God.

You say that you wish to “work out your differences” with us. I will give you an example of how that is done — with the heart and not with the mind. Four years ago Fr. Panteleimon visited us, before the canonization of St. Herman. We asked him to serve a panikhida for him, and he replied that he simply couldn’t serve a panikhida for someone to whom his community prays as a Saint. Behold, a “difference” between us and Fr. Panteleimon — and we rejoiced! And how did we work out our “difference,” even as we were rejoicing over it? Fr. Panteleimon served a panikhida for “Monk Herman” — but he prayed for the newly-reposed Jordanville Monk Herman, while we prayed for Fr. Herman of Alaska — to whom for a long time we had already sung the troparion, magnification, and akathist. (How inconsistent” of us!) And how “inconsistent” for Vladika John to end his panikhidas for Fr. Herman with the magnification to him! And how “inconsistent” that we both glorify Elder Nazarius and pray for his Repose! What kind of “canonization” is that?!

Come to your senses, child Daniel! You have trapped yourself in a satanic net of “principles” which you are too cold and stupid to know how to apply; and yet you think yourself smart and worthy enough to do so.

If your heart responds to this that I have said, then return to us with tears and repentance that you fell away from unity with us through your accursed calculating logic, which is not at all based on “principles” but on pride, and which does not at all join you to the mind of the Church, but on the contrary separates you from it. However, we must tell you straight: we can give you no “answer” to the “problem” you imagine you have with us; you will simply have to trust us and wholeheartedly accept our judgment — or else there is no hope that you will ever attain humility, or even desire it. There can be no “compromise” on the petty point you raised, because we simply refuse to think in those terms, and we will continue to follow our heart right up to the time we are persecuted and banished for it; and if we ever did agree to begin thinking in those terms and “calculating” together with you, we would precisely then lose just what attracted you to us in the first place, about which you are evidently not very much aware.

If you return to us, it must not be a “gentlemen’s agreement” or “concordat” whereby each of us jealously guards his opinions, but rather by a wholehearted commitment to travel the path of humbleness and oneness of soul with us. Out of love for Christ we must continue to try to humble you, according to your strength, which so far has been very little. You are very proud, and up to now you have set a limit and condition to your humility: you will accept being humbled only if it can be proved to you that you are “wrong” of have done something “improper.” Now you must strive harder to enter into true humility and not think you “know better” about the conditions of collecting firewood or transporting ladders, or whether you should be bawled out for your transgressions immediately or later: in fact, it is because you would not give up your own will and understanding on such petty points that you were caught in the devils nets on the “principles” which caused you to grow cold, judge us, and walk away from us. It is this pride also which allowed tne devil to get into your heart when the Kursk Icon came and reduce you to a state of total unfeelingness.

Daniel, God gave us to you to help fight your pride; come to us in repentance and let us help you. By yourself you will only spend your whole life trying to preserve your soul, under the pretext of your understanding of Church “principles” and the like; and he who would preserve his soul will lose it. Only if you try to lose your soul for Christ, by really committing yourself, will you finally gain it.

I pray that these words will get through your stupid cold mind and speak to your heart, for despite their seemingly harsh tone, I assure you they are written from the heart. You have fallen into an extremely elementary trap of the devil, which has been repeated a million times in the history of Orthodoxy and monasticism. And the only way you can get out of this trap is humbly to recognize your own stupidity and trust in God and your brothers.

I close with a quote from St. Barsanuphius, in answer to a question of Abba Dorotheus (when he was a novice), which I copied out this morning:

Q: The thoughts which arise in me say: Go to a different place and there you will be saved.

A: Brother! May he be cursed who has sowed in your heart such thought of leaving this place because of the transgression of commandments here. This is the devil. He presents this to you under an appearance of truth, so that, having mocked you, he might make you an object of scandal for many, so that you might bear condemnation for them also.

You are being subjected to this for your negligence and vainglory. You say: “If I go away to a different place, there I will endure dishonor.” But why is it that now, just as soon as you hear that your brother has said something against you, your heart is disturbed, and you do not wish that anyone should know of your transgression? To negligence and vainglory the demons also join their nets so as to cause your soul to perish. Be assured in the Lord, that if it were not for the help of God and the prayers of the true slaves of God who are in this place, you could remain even a year in the monastery. But just as a blind man sees nothing, so also you do not see the benefactions which God has shown you and continues to show by the prayers and the Saints. Beorhwe! Pay careful heed to yourself; labor against thoughts so as not to fall into negligence and vainglory, not to do anything according to your own will, and not to accept the thoughts and self-justification which arise in you: otherwise you will be subjected to a powerful fall. Know for sure, that wherever you might go, though you might go over the whole earth from end to end, nowhere will you receive such benefit as in this place. What an anchor is for a boat, such will be for you the prayers of the Fathers here. Acquire firmness, and it will remove from you familiarity in your relation with your near ones, which is the cause of all evils in a man. Leave off all outward care, and then you will freely serve God.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

P.s. This reply has been delayed by a week of rain, and a little snow.