Author: orthodoxaustralia

Dear Brother in Christ, Alexey,
In truth Christ is risen!

My letter crossed yours in the mail, but even so I think I answered most of your letter in mine already. Please forgive me if I somehow offended you in my previous hasty letter. The comment on “no letters to bishops” was written rather tongue in cheek, and with no real idea that you might do so, but I did want to mention all possibilities of wrong actions, knowing how upset Fr. Neketas’ uncalled- for letter must have made you.

However, now that the dust has settled a little, it really looks as though it is Fr. Neketas who has acted rather like “crazy convert,” whereas you in your restraint have been quite level-headed. Perhaps we’ve all done a little too much talking about “converts” — the pitfalls into which they fall are really the same ones that any believer can and does fall into!

We had a brief letter from Fr. Neketas yesterday. He does not write about evolution, the Shroud, or Nikodemos, evidently because the differences between us on these points are so great, but raises two other points which show that whatever we tried to get across to him did not get across. Truly, as you wrote to him, “grave misunderstandings” exist between us. We sense something is deeply wrong there, but I’m afraid not much can be done or said about it, at least now. For your own peace of soul we would advise you not to worry about “getting through” to him, and in fact for the future to pay as little attention as possible to him*(By that I don’t mean to encourage a harsh or unfeeling attitude toward him, but just to stay as detached as possible from the situation where there seems no hope for “dialogue” right now!) If the Greeks are really trying to “take over” and dictate their ideology to the rest of us, they have simply fallen into the biggest “convert” trap of all, and there is danger for everyone from this. If this is so, their folly will doubtless be exposed sooner or later; but meanwhile, let the rest of us stay as uninvolved with them as possible. Fr. Neketas in the new Witness writes about “converts”; it would be tragic if he and the Boston fathers did not apply all those words first of all to themselves. This is what we must all do when presuming to “teach” (which some of us, surely, are called to do, but in utmost humility).

Concerning “theologians”: some of the fathers in Boston have been to the (apostate) Greek seminary in Brookline, which they admit does not teach Orthodox theology. Orthodox theology they got for themselves by reading books, and I’m afraid they sometimes reveal themselves as amateurs. Fr. Michael Pomazansky (see his article in OW, 1970, no. 6) and others at Jordanville are genuine theologians, with a school and tradition underneath their feet. The Boston fathers are “self-made,” and we’ve already seen several examples (particularly when they try to get into the Russian sphere, in which they are totally lost) of how they jump on some points purely on the basis of impression and whim, owing precisely to their lack of a thorough theological background. They do not trust their Russian elders (and we rather doubt that they have any Greek elders to take counsel of either), because they are under “Latin influence” — this is an extremely dangerous sign. We ourselves, not being “theologians,” follow the Jordanville school, which is in the best Orthodox tradition (and is being much and unjustly slandered today), and we frequently take counsel from Fr. Michael Pomazansky and others, whose judgment we trust and respect, knowing that thus we are in a good tradition and do not have to trust our own faulty judgment for all the answers. Fr. Michael in particular is quite aware of the problem of “Latin influence” and where it exists he explains very soberly why it is not Orthodox, but he has none of the emotional animus which, I’m afraid, clouds the judgment of the Boston fathers on this question.

We see no reason to sit in fear and trembling over Fr. Neketas’ threats. Let’s wait and see if he or the Boston fathers come up with something on “evolution” or the “Shroud,” and if they do let’s examine it objectively for what it’s worth. Whatever any of us says about these subjects later on should be quite calm and with no sense of being part of a noisy controversy. Anything written on evolution, I think, should be quite extensive, with much reference to sources, and treating thoroughly the questions which “evolution” raises for faith and which people seem afraid to bring up. On the theological implications we should by all means ask counsel of Fr. Michael and perhaps others, so as to make any presentation as precise as possible. An important thing also is the approach to be made to readers, for any presentation must be made in a way that is somehow “in their language.” (This probably explains Fr. N s violent reaction — he simply wasn’t prepared for such a straightforward approach.) What do your readers write about “evolution”? Do they indeed find it a problem, no problem, or what, and how did they respond to the article?

On the Shroud, any future article should take into consideration the whole argument of the Greeks against it, and also involve more thorough research into the evidence for Orthodox veneration of it. Unless the Greeks come up with some extremely convincing arguments, the case for the Shroud would seem to be fairly secure, and there is no need for anyone to rush in to “defend’ it as if it were a controversial issue.

We have accepted in the past, and can continue to accept, the Greeks as fellow strugglers on the true Orthodox missionary path. A “struggler” is one who does not trust his own opinion and no one else’s; who does not “know better” on everything, who does not set himself up as an ultimate authority, who does not form cliques and try to crush anyone outside the clique. But if they are not strugglers, but only “experts,” all their good labors will come to ruin, sooner or later. Our Church Abroad has had much experience of this, has had much patience, and has survived those who have gone astray.

You have had quite a few trials in your first year and a few months of missionary labors. Know that God sends these to test and strengthen you, and also to know one day how to help others in a similar situation. We trust that by this time you are not feeling yourself as being so much in the midst of a “storm,” as hopefully the Greeks will relax for a while the pressure that seems to be causing it.

In connection with all that has been happening, we would like to do much more translating of some basic texts. We have a cassette tape recorder now, and now that Laurence has joined us we have set him to work typing out some texts that I read into the recorder, translating orally from Russian so as to save all the time I usually have to spend transcribing and typing. There is a very good text of Fr. Michael Pomazansky on Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, 200 pages long and a very good introduction and background to this whole important sphere. Assuming that it hasn’t already been translated (which we will find out shortly), I would like to start translating it orally. Would you or Susan be able to help out on the transcribing of it?

We’ve also obtained a cassette of the Akathist to the Mother of God sung in the San Francisco cathedral with Vladika John serving. Hardly a word of his is understandable, but the dear familiar voice is there! You are welcome to make a copy for yourself on one of your visits.

We notice, by the way, that Ashanin seems to be talking about you in the new Logos (March- April), apparently paying you back for what you said about him but not mentioning you by name (it’s always easier to discourse beautifully on extremely general themes!).

Pray for us.

With love in Christ our Risen Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Fr. Neketas,
In truth Christ is risen!

Thank you for your letter and the advice concerning “spiritual” vs. “polemical” orientation. I think on this point we are quite in agreement.

We have nothing to add to our earlier letters, but we are very concerned that we have not gotten across to you the very important point concerning Vladika John’s attitude toward missionary labors. Of course, to a large extent this point must be “felt” rather than explained, but please try to realize that Vladika John was not at all “mistaken” on this matter, but on the contrary it was one of the most important aspects of his inspiring and holy life. One might disagree with him on some specific “economies,” but his basic approach was right and is indispensible for us today. His point was, as I think I said, previously to guide and inspire, not to push and force. He did not at all leave converts without guidance; he rather knew exactly how and when to give the guidance, so that it would inspire and not crush the spirit. Some people point to the “mistake” of the French Church — but the fact remains that there is a healthy French mission within the Church Abroad today, and without him it is hardly likely that there would be. Which is better, to inspire and let the tree grow and then collect fruits from only half the limbs, or, out of “strictness,” to stomp on the plant in the first place and get no tree at all?

Father, look at yourself and Fr. Panteleimon. You came to the Church Abroad as “converts” of sorts, surely, and you yourselves tell us how un-Orthodox was the body from which you came. Do you not realize there were and are people in the Church who think you should have been stomped on, whether for your mistakes (and surely you have made them, being human) or for those practices which you have which seem strange to the “normal Russian” standard? Do you think you would have been accepted in the Church Abroad if the spirit (and direct participation, in the case of Fr. Panteleimon) of Vladika John has not prevailed? Don’t you realize that your very existence in the Church Abroad is an “economy” of which some “strict” observers do not approve?

Father, let us not introduce that kind of “strictness” into the Church Abroad. Let us thank God that you and Fr. Panteleimon have been allowed to exist freely and mature in your own rhythm within the Church Abroad; then let others do do also, particularly if in general their approach seems sound and if they are getting sound counsel. There does not have to be absolute agreement on all issues — by which I mean specifically such things as the relation between Confession and Communion, the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, the attitude toward contemporary ideology — for us to be part of the same true Orthodox Church and its mission.

We have grounds to believe we know Alexey Young much better than you, and the person you have been talking about does not seem like the same person to us. We can only conclude that you are “reading into” him certain impressions and fears of your own, and also expecting him to conform to certain of your opinions which are not by any means shared by the whole Church. And please do not dismiss all who disagree with you as being under “Latin influence.” That is just a guess, and in many cases it is circle [?] of the work. An example: How could a saint who wrote so strongly about the “grace-less Papists” (Vladika John) also sing the service to Blessed Augustine? Probably for the same reason that the latter s name was introduced into the Russian Calendar in the 19th century on the authority of St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain! Was he a Uniate too? or is it after all possible to have a difference of opinon on this subject? [Letter ends, handwritten, possibly never sent.]

Dear Brother in Christ, Alexey,

CHRIST IS RISEN! We trust that you and your family spent a spiritually profitable Pascha. We had a peaceful and quiet day here, after going to the “world” earlier in the week to receive Holy Communion and being there impressed by the deep spiritual bond which unites us supposed “desert- dwellers” with the simple Russian faithful, the sincere and striving converts, and with all the true Orthodox people today.

We received from Fr. Neketas copies of two letter which he sent to you, but no letter from him as yet. The letters to you were very disappointing to us; he wrote the second one surely after receiving our detailed defense of you. We have always looked upon Frs. Neketas and Panteleimon and their views with maximum sympathy, as you well know. But we believe we must look on all sincere and striving Orthodox people with the same sympathy and join no “camp” or “clique.” And the fact remains, as we see it, that apart from printing a text without removing from it the somewhat scandalous Latin references (and we understand the temptation of having this text on hand after printing it doubtless at considerable expense), you have done nothing at all worthy of such a severe upbraiding (and that isn’t what he’s unbraiding you for!), whose effect, whatever the intention, can only be to cause you great discouragement.

Let those who wish accept every opinion of Fr. Panteleimon; that is their right and we do not dispute it. But to take these opinions (and both “evolution” and the “Shroud” are surely questions where opinion has a large place, concerning their importance, the approach to them, etc.) and beat someone over the head with them because he doesn’t agree — seems to us totally uncalled for.

Concerning evolution: they regard it as unimportant and obviously haven’t thought much about it (and this is why Sarah was wrong to get so excited and accuse them of “heresy”; they obviously haven’t thought enough about it to form any kind of “heresy” on the subject; whatever views they have on evolution as a scientific “hypothesis” are doubtless quite vague and they don’t seem to think there’s any connection between that and anything theological). You, on the other hand, find that the whole question of evolution is quite deep and important and involves implications which are dangerous to purity of faith, even though no one in the Orthodox Church right now is explicitly trying to overthrow any specific dogma on the basis of evolution. We think you are right, and the question is very largely a philosophical one (with theological implications) that cannot be decided simply on the experience of being “40-years-0rthodox.” But even assuming that you have overemphasized the importance of evolution — even then we are simply shocked by Fr. Neketas’ violent response (all the way to the implied threat of “exposing” you in print for future transgressions!), which seems all out of proportion to any possible fault of your article.

Concerning the Shroud: obviously, here again is a matter very open to differing emphases, evaluation, etc. Fr. Neketas has raised a few questions which should really be answered in a thorough defense of the Shroud (nonetheless, they are still questions raised by common sense and logic, not by “revelation”); but he has by no means presented a case against it. Indeed, there are many more questions from the other side which I rather think he can’t answer. As you know, we are wary of relying too much on scientific evidence; nonetheless, the scientific evidence in the case of the Shroud is so striking that it cannot be avoided, and it is not sound simply to dismiss the Shroud with no better evidence against it than Fr. Neketas gives (which, like all negative evidence, is quite inconclusive) and without even examining the scientific evidence. According to such an approach, we should all cease thinking altogether and just follow whatever the “leader” says — the only problem being that whoever the “leader” might be, he is also human, with passions and prejudices very similar to the ones the rest of us have!

But let me get to the point: Obviously, the violence of Fr. Neketas’ reaction means that something deeper than either “evolution” or the “Shroud” is involved, and we think we see what it is: authority. Obviously, for Fr. Neketas, Fr. Panteleimon is the authority, and we see now that he expects everyone else to agree. You were worried about this question last year, and we rather tried to talk you out of your fears, based on our own experience; for it is indeed true that Fr. Panteleimon has never tried to influence our views in any way that we could detect (save for a fairly mild protest after the Zeytoon article). Of course, it is also true that our Brotherhood was established and we were printing The Orthodox Word before he joined the Russian Church Outside of Russia, and in that respect we are his seniors. Also, Fr. Herman knew him several years before even that, when he was still quite young and inexperienced (to say the least) in questions of “jurisdictions,” etc. But apparently his relation (or perhaps it is chiefly that of his followers? we don’t know) to the young convert movement today is somewhat different.

Alas, it now becomes pretty clear why Fr. Neketas wanted to merge his Witness with Nikodemos some time back! As I recall, at that time we repeated our earlier advice to you to preserve your independence, and we can only continue to repeat it now. If you had succumbed to that temptation then, I’m afraid you would be so discouraged by this time that you would be ready to quit entirely. Fr. Neketas’ approach to Nikodemos as a part of the Orthodox mission of the printed word is wrong, and we say this with great pain, because we both love Fr. Neketas and Fr. Panteleimon very dearly and respect their labors for Orthodoxy, which otherwise seem to us rather sound, even though none of us is perfect. We do not need an infallible “authority” on questions such as the “Shroud” and “evolution,” but rather much more love and mutual understanding; there is too much mind here and too little heart. We should not have to fight or threaten over such questions, but precisely “speak the truth in love,” if indeed God has enabled us to see the truth more clearly than our fellow Orthodox on some point or other. We would gladly listen with open mind to any genuine arguments against the Shroud; but there is no point just sitting and being beaten over the head with someone else’s opinions (and probably emotions) about it.

The “anti-Latinism” of our Greeks is simply overdone. It seems that just about everyone except themselves is under “Latin influence,” almost the whole of Russian and Greek theology and spirituality for the last several centuries is rotten — all this is too much. Of course there are Latin influences visible here and there — but unless the Orthodox tradition itself has been preserved intact up to now, then there is no Orthodoxy left, and Protestantism triumphs. Fr. Panteleimon does not speak with the theological authority of some other people in our Church, and he simply cannot be made the universal standard.

Fr. Neketas is of course right on some of his points, such as the danger of getting involved with 17th-century Western mystics — but we wonder if he isn’t quoting your words back to you out of context or at second or third hand? At any rate, what’s the point of trying to build up a case against you as an unregerate Latin?! We all have our faults, theological and otherwise (the fathers in Boston also!); therefore, why not rather try to inspire and guide in the right direction by positive means and examples? Alas, his sympathy for you has been overcome by his disappointment that you do not bow down to the authority of Fr. Panteleimon; that seems to be the whole story!

We are unimpressed with the “40 years Orthodox” argument which he also uses against you — there are 40 and even 80-year Orthodox who disagree with him on a number of issues!

This whole outbreak makes us very sad, but we are still rather glad that it came out now rather than later. Fr. Neketas will probably not try to “help” you any more, now that you have declared your independence by writing on “forbidden subjects” (say, isn’t the Index a Latin institution!?), but you will have to keep him in mind as one of the “occupational hazards” of being an editor in the Church Abroad. By no means should any of us “fight” him and the fathers in Boston, nor form a “camp” against them. Let us all keep up our own independent labors, relying on the counsel of others in cases of doubt, and trusting in God’s grace and the prayers of His God-pleasers to help us. How well Vladika John knew how to inspire and guide without crushing anyone’s spirit or dictating his personal opinions to anyone (and yet he was more a theologian that any 100 of the fathers in Boston!). Let us pray for everyone and continue our path.

About Fr. Ischie: apparently the Greeks think he is part of a “conspiracy” against them. We have no idea about that, but would only caution you not to join “sides” with him if he wants to start a fight. We have the impression also that he is a lonely man, but probably for that very reason he has a tendency to get involved in controversies which only detract from the larger mission from which we should not be distracted.

We will be interested to hear what response you have gotten on “evolution” and the “Shroud.” We told Fr. Neketas (before the Shroud article) that for us the cause of a free Orthodox missionary movement is so dear that we are not afraid of the “mistakes” that you might make. The “Shroud” article with its Latinisms was a mistake in that form, but I really doubt that it will do any harm ultimately to the cause of defending the Shroud, whose acceptance or rejection within Orthodoxy must be decided, ultimately, in a free and objective manner. Whether or not the Latins venerate it, and no matter with what kind of piety they have surrounded it — makes no difference whatever to us, one way or the other.

Your letter to Andrew Bond, by the way, seems calm and reasonable enough. You are right not to demand “equal time” or start a fight over it. Let us keep our attention on the important issues, and all these petty mistakes and misunderstandings will die out by themselves.

If I can somehow remember where I put it, I will try to get out the Concern article in today’s mail, and also the reprint of your article on page 1 of the Serbian newspaper, which perhaps you’ve already seen. These Serbs are very well-meaning, anti-Communist, but alas, pretty far gone down the road of worldliness (roast pig during lent, dances with the bishop present on Saturday nights, etc). We know several of their priests, but Vladika John told us quite definitely that they are uncanonical and not priests at all. You can keep the newspaper, but we’d like the Concern back after you’ve read or copied it.

Pray for us.

With love in Christ our Saviour,

Dear Brother in Christ, Alexey,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom rejoice always! We received your new letter with the sad news, and in the same mail installment no. 2 of Fr. Neketas’ displeasure, for which I’m afraid you have given him cause (he hadn’t received our first letter yet.). We’ve written him a new letter making clear our own connection with the Shroud article, but also shocking him anew by saying we regard the Shroud as “extremely likely” genuine. In his letter he doesn’t mention a single point that we didn’t already give you as an objection to printing Sarah’s article the way it is — see what happens when you trust yourself? I’m afraid what will happen is just what we told you — that Sarahs Latinisms will just give ammunition to those who are violently against the Shroud and make it more difficult for Orthodox to accept it. Also, it gives all the “proof” needed for anyone disposed to believe that you are hopelessly in bondage to your Latin background. You should not have sent it out!!!

Well, that being said, what is done is done, and spiritually it could be quite good for you if you don’t now act like a “crazy convert” (as I’m sure some are expecting you to). In strongest fashion we now urge you: DO NOT ENTER INTO ANY ARGUMENT WHATEVER WITH ANYONE OVER EVOLUTION OR THE SHROUD AT THIS TIME. If someone wants to provoke you into an argument, give him a reply such as you gave to Fr. Ephraim’s letter, BUT DO NOT ARGUE. No letters to bishops or anyone else either! The dust is too thick and arguing will only make it thicker, no matter who is right or wrong, and it will be spiritually very harmful for you. Don’t even think about these two subjects until the dust settles, if you can help it.

Concerning the issue of evolution — yes, your question about “heresy” is a semantic question, about which I hope to speak more in detail a little later — no time right now. The issue is a little complex, which explains why some people don’t seem to grasp it, but is also a danger point in that violent arguments can take place between people who aren’t even talking about the same aspect of “evolution.” I’m going to ask Fr. Neketas to tell us exactly what Kalomiros said about some kind of “evolution” of which he “approves,” so we won’t be at all uncertain about this.

Do not be upset about this whole furor; learn humility from this trial, but do not think of abandoning Nikodemos, go right ahead with the next issue as if nothing had happened and don’t even hint at anything there.

Always and ever regard yourself as a struggler and learner, and beware of thinking you know the whole answer on anything. We frankly think you are wrong that the case for the Shroud is secure just because of the scientific evidence — science simply cannot give that kind of secure knowledge. More emphasis must be placed on evidence of its tradition in the Church.

Pray for us. May Christ our God grant you to meet His Resurrection with joy and peace and in His grace.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

P.s. You are correct that the “Holy Family” is not an Orthodox icon or idea. The Latins in this have overemphasized the earthly side, while the Orthodox see clearly that this is not a family at all — a Virgin Mother and a seeming father who is only the guardian of Her virginity, and a Child Who is God! The Mother of God is often depicted rather as an Abbess, but never in any way as an ordinary mother or part of the earthly institution, the family.

Dear Father Neketas,
Evlogeite!

My dear, my dear, what to say now?! In the same mail with your latest letter came a letter from Alexey about the “news” which he is sure will be greeted by us with “sighs and sadness” — that he decided to send out the “Shroud” article over our objections, and how much he regrets it now! We haven’t received the printed version yet, so have no idea what he said in his preface, which we assured him could not make up for the blatant Latinisms in the text. (By the way, he didn’t submit this preface to us for criticism, if indeed he wrote one.)

Well, is this supposed to one of those “mistakes” which we just wrote you we weren’t afraid of his making?! I hope you don’t think this is one of the articles we “approved”!)

However, let us shock you again by saying that we aren’t afraid of an article on the Shroud itself; but such an article isn’t the one! It doubtless will do exactly what we told Alexey: (1) Cause a great furor; (2) do so justly because an article written for Latins is given as Orthodox (and the text speaks more strongly than anything he could have said in his preface), and therefore the true case for the Shroud (if there is one — see below) will be rejected outright by many because of the papist trappings; and (3) in general the article “pollutes” the spiritual atmosphere with papist attitudes and outright errors, from which the poor Orthodox people have already suffered so much. Not to mention (4) what will happen to Nikodemos as an Orthodox voice after this?

But what about the Shroud itself. Until very recently we have never been the slightest bit interested in it and could not even bring ourselves to read the Jordanville pamphlet on it or anything else pro or contra. Finally, however, we saw that in view of all the controversy (our Russians as a whole certainly accept it, and by no means are they all papophiles, and we knew that Fr. Panteleimon was strongly against it) we reluctantly decided that we would have to at least become informed on the subject, to the extent of reading a few works on it. This task was assigned to me, and I must confess my initial repugnance at approaching a sacred object by means of laboratory experiments on cadavers and the like. But I swallowed that and read on to get the whole picture.

Well, I got a pretty good picture of the whole and presented the leading points of it to Father Herman. Now brace yourself: we think it extremely likely that it is genuine. We are not entirely convinced as yet, as we told Alexey the absolutely crucial point for Orthodox believers will be the thorough documentation of its history and the evidence for the Church’s veneration of it.

Where is the service to it? — the Vespers of Great Friday and the Matins of Great Saturday! (This startling idea, by the way, has occurred to several people we’ve asked quite independently.) When is its feast day — Great Friday and every Friday, if we are to believe the 11th century testimony (I don’t recall if Sarah’s article or the Jordanville article mention it or not) that it was brought out for veneration by the faithful every Friday (in the Blachernae Temple, I believe).

Well, that’s enough to suggest that we think there might be a case for it — but were not going to “defend” it for you, because we haven’t gone into any sources. We are completely open on the subject, but frankly sympathetic toward it. The “bloody detail” of the Shroud itself does not bother us — if it is what it is claimed to be, then of course it is full of bloodstains! How one should write about it if it is genuine — that, of course, is another question.

However, to get back to the article — as I said, this is not the article with which to defend it, if it is genuine, and we agree with you on the points you raised, all of which (and others) we made to Alexey. We emphasized the importance of the four nails (not three) even though he thought it at first an unimportant “detail” — but the Jordanville article precisely mentions the four nails and the lateness of the Latin tradition of three, because there is no evidence from the marks of the Shroud one way Or the other. We told him that the Lord’s Tunic has an important part in the Life of St. Nina, but we don’t recall a single reference to the Shroud there, which makes us not convinced by the other references either, until they are checked and others found. We told him that the article places disproportionate emphasis on the scientific side, which by no means can prove that the God-man rose from the dead or that this is His Winding-shroud, but at most can be a startling confirmation of these facts to the extent that scientific knowledge can “confirm” anything — and we specifically warned him against trusting scientific knowledge so much, as it is the lowest and least stable form of knowledge). (By the way, in case I didn’t make it clear in my last letter, the argument against the supposed “scientific” theory of evolution is not itself scientific, for “science” itself can neither prove nor disprove it, for science its only guesswork: the argument against it is theological, that it involves implications which are entirely unacceptable for Orthodoxy, and these implications can’t be escaped, and every propounder of evolution uses them, the theists and spiritualists being worse that the atheists.) We warned him that Sarah speaks with equal confidence about some dubious speculations (the Roman “Basileus,” etc.), outright errors (the three nails), and the more important points of evidence which the Shroud seems to give, which will make it easy for someone to tear the whole thing apart by pounding on her errors; etc., etc.

Unfortunately, we didn’t read Sarah’s article (it’s 100% hers!) until just before Great Lent, when Alexey told us he was thinking of distributing it during Lent, and by the time we read it and got our comments to him he had already sent it to the printer. Our letter made him abandon for a while the idea of sending it out (despite the considerable sum it must have cost him), and we thought he had really abandoned it for good. But alas, temptation overcame him and for the first time he did something directly against our counsel to him — and of course, at the worst possible moment, when a hornet’s nest has erupted over “evolution” (which in our view is a completely different matter, as you already know). We are sending him a good scolding — but one with love and genuine concern over what he should do now. Of course, he hasn’t gotten rid of all his Latin background (and has now proclaimed it to the world) (although in articles he writes himself he’s cautious and always asks), but he’s trying and learning, as we said in our last letter, and this mistake (if he survives it!) will help him on that path.

I say, “if he survives it,” and doubtless you are already rather certain that another “crazy convert” has gone off the deep end. But with this we can’t agree — not unless he does go wild or collapse completely now under this trial which his own blunder has caused him. He still respects and trusts us, and we will do our best to keep him from going off that “deep end” right now. Should he abandon Nikodemos? We don’t see why he should — Orthodox Life printed a Shroud article (admittedly a better one) and survived, and you still advertise it, having passed that article over with benign oblivion. Nikodemos also can survive, we think. And you already know our approval of this kind of “lay periodical,” although we didn’t give you all our thinking on this subject.

Well, now at the end of a second long epistle this week you probably have some conclusions about our attitudes and approaches. Specifically, you are perhaps thinking that inexperienced people like Alexey should be “taken in hand” and not simply “counseled,” as we have tried to do. To this we will disagree, for two reasons: (1) Vladika John gave us the path which we are following in this respect, and he is our guiding star, and we see pretty clearly the meaning of his approach to missionary labor and why he chose it; and (2) what is the alternative? We were frankly horrified when we heard that Fr. Panteleimon had suggested a year or so ago that Vladika Vitaly be somehow placed “in charge” of converts or convert priests, to avoid the “mistakes” of the past. Well, yes, that might mean the end of the “mistakes” of the past (but somehow we doubt even that), but it would also mean the end of the Orthodox missionary movement in the Church Abroad, period. (And it wouldn’t help to have someone better in charge — the principle itself is the dangerous thing.)

But speaking of Vlad. Vitaly (can I speak more frankly, now?) — do you see now something of what this alternative to Nikodemos and a reasonably free missionary movement is? We could have told you two years ago everything you now know about him and his approaches and more besides, but we deliberately refrained from this, not because of his high rank (which we respect, but we still speak the truth when it is called for), but chiefly for fear of causing any kind of hindrance to the possible good that might come out of the “missionary committee” (or whatever it was called) of which he was head. We do not believe in discouraging any kind of missionary labors which seem to be heading in the right direction. We even gave a notice to The True Vine after this first tentative issue when its full orientation was not yet visible — and not as a duty to an Archbishop, but as a duty to the missionary movement. (We would be glad to give such a notice to The Celtic Cross, by the way, but we have been waiting for another issue or two to test its stability first.)

Now we’ve just received the fourth (Jan.) issue, and there at last is Vlad. Vitaly in full color: a sub-mediocre sermon that reveals him as a disciple of the worst (“literary-sentimental”) side of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky — and such discipleship will only serve to discredit someone who in other respects was a great hierarch; a Protestant “childrens legend” which, Fr. Herman urges me to say, is an absolute mockery of Orthodox Russians, who do not believe in German “Christmas trees” (and Jordanville is so strict on the subject that the fathers won’t even allow greens inside the church during the feast days around Christmas); an endorsement of “Schmemannism’ (p. 11) which reveals to our dismay that Fr. Michael doesn’t get the point about Schmemann — which is not his “incorrect views” in this or that subject, but this whole hothouse approach to theology, which our simple Russian priests grasp immediately from their genuine Orthodox instinct without needing a theological degree; a Vasnetsov “icon” (how much we’ve fought in the Russian Church over him) which is a blasphemy against the saints; a mediocre article on holiness (apparently revealing Vlad. Vitaly’s apologetic approach) over the signatures of one who is the leading public scandal of the Church Abroad; etc., etc.

This publication is a disgrace; it is not merely off the beam and completely unaware of what is needed today, it is positively harmful, and it presents our Church’s official stand!?? Whatever is good in it is swallowed up and given the tone of the rest. Well, I won’t rub in the fact that you are on the “editorial staff” and still advertize it, especially since we know how much you must be suffering over it yourself (to the extent to using it for kindling, so we hear!) But Alexey’s efforts result in a much purer Orthodoxy than it, and even the blunder of the Shroud article (which at least is not part of the periodical) can be forgiven as the mistake of a young struggler, and not simply swallowed as the “official” statement of our Church.

Well, you already have our defense of Alexey, and we don’t defend him for sending out the Shroud article — for which he will have to suffer — but, God willing, for his own good and the good of Nikodemos, which we really hope will not collapse because of this trial. Please pray for him.

Laurence Campbell has finally joined us for good, and you can probably imagine some of the adjustments that are now going on. So far all is peaceful, and we trust in God to bring a harmonious coenobia out of our previous “middle path,” which incidentally is described (on a much higher level, of course!) in the installment of Elder Paisius’ Life.

At the same time, Daniel Olson made his final decision to go to Fr. Panteleimon for good, and two weeks ago he came here to bid us a tearful farewell. His final decision was inspired by a long talk with Fr. Herman on his last visit, and we really feel that he is our “offering” to the Monastery and a part of the indissoluble tie that must always bind together us true laborers in Christ s harvest, whatever minor differences (or even seemingly major) in views we may have. Forgive us, Father, and pray for us. [Letter ends.]

Dear Father Ioannikios,
Blagoslovite!

Thank you for remembering us poor sinners. The subscription has been entered for the slave of God Constantine. May God hear his prayer and grant him the true grace of repentance!

We feel deficient in our desire to keep in closer contact with you in your very difficult path. It seems there are many who do not appreciate the labors of the fathers at Jordanville and “know better” how they should labor. May God guard us all in fruitful labors wherever we may be, but not to intrude on the good labors of others!

Apparently Fr. Lev is more or less in charge of Orthodox Life? Is anyone in Jordanville watching closely what he prints? We have in mind in particular the possibility of Metr. Anthony’s unacceptable ideas on the “Dogma of Redemption” being included in the series of articles by him. Hopefully they will not be. I made a report on this subject to Fr. Panteleimon in Seattle recently, and he at least saw some of the difficulties and said he didn’t have any chance to print anything like this anyway in the conceivable future (despite the fact that The Old Calendarist says so!). But Fr. Lev seems to be a rather independent operator. May God grant him good fruits — but we doubt that he’s aware of this issue!

What do you think of Nikodemos? Did the article on “evolution” bother you in the last issue? It didn’t us, but our Greeks seem a little upset over it. May God grant that there will not be unnecessary quarrels over points open to some personal opinion, among laborers in the true Orthodox mission field today! We try to be in harmony with everyone as best we can, but are frank when we feel it necessary. Frs. Panteleimon and Neketas don’t much like Tsar Constantine and Blessed Augustine in the calendar, but thanks be to God, they are peaceful about it and I hope got the point that we don’t want to take the authority of dropping anyone until we have good reason from the Russian sources to do so.

We are supposed to be helping Vladimir Anderson prepare for the priesthood. But please tell us precisely what it is that he can get by going to Jordanville for the summer or part of the summer. Is there some regular course now or tutoring in English language? (which we doubt.) Or is he supposed to go there only to pass tests on the books in Russian you indicated to him? (which his daughter can’t translate). In any case, we have started giving him some lessons (beginning with liturgies) and will proceed depending on what we hear from you. We will be glad to take quite a bit of rime with him. We have a feeling that Vladika Anthony’s idea of “sending him to Jordanville” is a little vague — ?

Laurence Campbell has just joined us and asks that you send the remaining number of Orthodox Life on his subscription to our address. Please pray for us, that we may be able to proceed truly in the spirit of Blessed Paisius! You are the first to comment on our printing his Life — but it is time, isn’t it?

We greet you in advance with the Paschal greeting and beg your prayers. Please give our greetings to Father Vladimir, who has gladdened us with his recent letters.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

with greetings from Father Herman and Brother Laurence

Dear Alexey,

Just a note. We received Monday a rather shocking letter from Father Neketas expressing extreme displeasure with your “evolution” article. He apparently sent you a letter too, a copy of which he said he was enclosing in his letter to us (but he didn’t).

After reading his letter, we read your article together once again — and neither of us find anything wrong with it, except that it is much too short and concise. After looking in vain for any other source of Fr. Neketas’ displeasure, we can only conclude that Fr. Neketas and Fr. Ephraim apparently are just not aware of the whole issue of evolution, whether in its scientific side or in its religious-theological implications. Obviously your article has touched something very deep (frankly we are astonished that people so keen on ecclesiastical matters, ecumenism, etc., should seem never to have given much thought to such an important thing as evolution; apparently it is because it seems to be outside the Church sphere).

However, now it is very important for all of us to approach this “disagreement” very carefully. We are sending Fr. Neketas (hopefully with today’s mail also) a long letter expressing our surprise at his letter and giving something of our own views, also, incidentally, removing the illusions he seems to have formed about you as a self-willed convert who takes no one’s advice and has never thrown off his Latinism. We have frankly no idea what his response will be when he reads that we approved the article before publication and continue to approve it. Maybe we will get thrown in the “fundamentalist” boat too, I don’t know. We certainly hope not, but rather that he and the Fathers in Boston will start to do some thinking about their own “American-modern” baggage which they seem to have dragged with them this far.

We must be “wise as serpents and gentle as doves” in what we do and say now, and by no means must we allow ourselves to be dragged into an argument on “modernist-fundamentalist” lines. Maybe they are “modernists,” I don’t know; but we certainly are not fundamentalists. The truth lies much deeper than either of these merely rational positions, and it will not be easy to present it so that it will be properly understood, judging from Fr. Neketas’ first response. I don’t think either you or we should “argue” at all, but prepare for a more thorough presentation of the whole subject. Frankly, we want to really persuade them, and the way to do that is to go into the subject deeply, especially the spiritual implications.

What we must keep in mind and get across, I think, is not really evolution as a heresy or wrong idea, on the same level with other ideas, and therefore go out fighting with the ordinary weapons of polemics. Evolution is not that kind of idea — but rather a kind of deep-seated primordial force which seems to capture people quite apart from their conscious attitudes and reasoning. (There’s a good reason for that: it’s been drilled into everyone from the cradle, and therefore is very hard to bring out and look at rationally.) It’s a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea.

Your article, beyond any doubt, is going to make you “unpopular” in places. Do not let this discourage you, or force you into a “defensive” posture. Your article is probably going to do something very painful at first but ultimately positive: bring out into the open some attitudes which have long been hiding in the shadows.

Do you get Соncern? In the same mail with Fr. Neketas’ letter (surely more than coincidence!) we also received the latest issue with an article by Theodosius Dobzhansky (who just was given an honorary Doctor’s Degree by St. Vladimir’s Seminary) called “Evolution: Gods Method of Creation” — a rather supercilious ridiculing of anti-evolutionism concluding with a fantastic quote (which we are sending to Fr. Neketas) from the “great thinker” Teilhard de Chardin. We’ll make a copy of it for you if you didn’t get it.

May God guide us all aright so that we may speak the truth in love — not to be “right,” but to enlighten and save souls.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

P.s. Have you thought about the icon for the chapel?

Dear Father Neketas,

Evlogeite! We hasten to reply to your letter regarding Alexey Young and Nikodemos, which frankly caused us some astonishment. Concerning some of the points you raise we can set your mind at rest, for Alexey is quite innocent with regard to some to your fears, but I’m afraid regarding some other points there are some basic disagreements which your letter points to and which we simply did not know existed up to now. As always we will state frankly our opinions and trust that bringing such things into the open will serve good purpose.

1. Concerning Alexey’s “teaching” like a “convert” and retaining his “Roman perspective”: We know Alexey rather well and can testify that he is by no means an “unstable convert” who rushes to put his own fancies into print. Perhaps you will be shocked to learn that from the beginning of Nikodemos, Alexey has submitted all the material in it to us for prior approval and criticism, and every one of our suggestions he has taken with extreme seriousness, to the extent of changing, omitting or adding whole passages, and also of not printing some things altogether. With regard to himself as a “teacher” of Orthodoxy we have found him to be most humble, reasonable, and anxious to learn and not to project any Latin or other non-Orthodox attitudes into his printed material. To say that we have “approved” the content of Nikodemos is not to say that we would have printed such articles ourselves, or if we did, in the way or with the tone of Nikodemor, it is only to say that we did not find them objectionable, but, in most cases, useful. But I will say frankly that our “censorship” never took the form of a command, but always of advice, even though sometimes expressed in no uncertain terms. Vladika John taught us that laborers in the missionary field are to be guided and inspired, but not pushed or forced; therefore we have never tried to force on Alexey our own points of view in matters of opinion, encouraging him rather to mature his own points of view in full accord with Church tradition and with a constant awareness of how much he has to learn about this. We believe he is maturing in this way soundly and normally, and that his particular outlook is reaching and benefiting people who do not find that the present Orthodox publications exhaust all one has to know about Orthodoxy or the present situation of Orthodox believers.

2. With regard to Father Ephraim’s letter and the advice of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in general: We have advised Alexey to accept with utmost seriousness any advice the Fathers may offer, not as “infallible” of course, but as well-meant and in all likelihood sound counsel. He was most anxious, in particular, to avoid legitimate criticism from the Monastery on the subject of evolution, and therefore he made a real effort to avoid even the appearance of the pitfalls that Fr. Ephraim brought out in his letter. As I recall, we told him that we think he did indeed avoid those pitfalls — specifically, the possible charge of “fundamentalism” (which I seriously doubt that he ever held). And indeed, rereading the evolution article, we do not find that it can seriously be criticized on the grounds of “fundamentalism” by any but a biased or uninformed reader. It is true that he gets into the realm of science — but evolution precisely claims to be “scientific” (which it certainly is not, it is religious philosophy masquerading as science), and it is quite impossible to discuss it at all without examining its scientific evidence (which simply does not exist — and why should we be afraid to say so, just to avoid being called obscurantists who think the earth is flat?). But more on evolution below.

I must say, as I think I already wrote you, that we found Fr. Ephraim’s letter not very satisfactory on several points, and in particular because it did not really answer Alexeys real concerns, but instead projected on to him some fundamentalist viewpoints which he doesn’t hold. I think this must be because Fr. Ephraim doesn’t know Alexey and somehow didn’t get what was bothering him; but in any case what I say in no way diminishes our respect for Fr. Ephraim, it only convinces us that no one is perfect, least of all we ourselves, and if we in the battle for true Orthodoxy do not have tolerance for each other’s weaknesses and mistakes (even those expressed in print!), there is no hope for any of us or for the Orthodox mission today. As I recall, Kalomiros made this same point in Against False Union, and we have impressed it on Alexey and others many times. From this point of view, it is certainly very unfortunate that The Old Calendarist printed Fr. Ephraim’s letter in full and with names given — for what? to call to a debate among laborers in the mission field? There must be more caution and tact here!

3. Regarding Alexey and “lay saints” etc.: I must say frankly that your idea that he has a “soft- sell” approach to Orthodoxy is unjust to him. We have discussed often with him the tone, content, orientation, etc., of Nikodemos, and he and we are quite agreed that Nikodemos is in full harmony with other Synod publications as complementing them, and not as repeating their stands. You have probably noticed that our Orthodox Word, also has had of late much less concerning contemporary subjects, anti-ecumenism, etc. — not at all because we’ve changed our mind about these things of have changed our orientation, but solely because your publications (and a few others) are now doing this work for us. We have no reason to doubt Alexey’s Orthodoxy or his awareness of the dangers of Latin-type thinking, etc. — it’s just that he doesn’t feel it’s his mission to go into that. And on another point: he’s certainly not weak on monasticism, and in fact the reason he was so interested in printing the Life of St. Juliana is because it shows the monastic spirit in a lay person, hence points out that lay life too must be penetrated by monastic ideals. We agree with him that such lives can be very inspiring in just the right way — more directly so than the lives of monk saints (of which, by the way, The Orthodox Word has had nothing but for a long time now!).

4. The most important point, regarding evolution:

a. First of all, let us shock you right off by saying that we read the article before publication, made many suggestions (which were all incorporated into the article), and fully approved it; and now rereading it after receiving your letter we find nothing seriously wrong with it — except that it is much too short and concise. Of course, now with your letter it becomes obvious also that the approach was perhaps too abrupt and direct for many Orthodox readers today, and more preparation of them should perhaps be made.

b. Therefore, there is obviously some deep disagreement between your views and ours on this subject. I have always regarded evolution, in all its ramifications, as an important part of the “American modern” intellectual baggage which I left behind when I became Orthodox, and it never before occurred to me that any aware Orthodox Christian would regard it as an unimportant, especially now when may scientists have abandoned it (purely on scientific grounds), when the pseudo-religious presuppositions of its supporters are so evident, and when it is so much bound up with masonry-ecumenism and the whole pseudo-religious modern outlook.

We were frankly astonished at your objection to the article, and have been thinking long and hard to try to find your thinking on this subject. Then it occurred to us: apparently you regard “modern” ideas as being of two types: those that directly attack the Church, which must be confronted and uprooted mercilessly (masonry, ecumenism); and those which do not directly attack the Church and are not directly theological (evolution).

Is this true? Nonetheless, I don’t see how it can be denied that “modern” ideas are after all one whole: they are formed first outside the Church, develop in atheist-agnostic minds, and then move through the whole of society until they reach the Church, changing form in the meantime to fit in with each current of ideas. “Evolution” is one such idea (but it’s not really an “idea” — see below) that has not yet directly attacked Orthodoxy. But look what it has already done to papism: is it not true that the whole dissolution of papism in the past decade is directly bound up with the “unleashing” of Teilhardism (whose books were more or less banned up to then) in that same period, a process which was presented for popular consumption 10 years ago in a rather cheap but symptomatic novel, The Shoes of the Fisherman? By this I do not mean that a certain number of Teilhardian theses were opposed to so many papist theses and conquered them: for his evolution is not really a “heresy” (we will agree that this term applied to him, especially from the Orthodox side, is imprecise!), but rather a whole rival thought-pattern offering a whole different approach to life (and, consequently, religion); and being already so much a part of the “spirit of the age,” its approach was persuasive not by argument but by fitting in with unconscious attitudes of people who were outwardly papist.

We were rather surprised when you (and Fr. Ephraim too, as I recall) mentioned that you haven’t read Teilhard and weren’t familiar with his ideas; i.e., you are waiting for the wave to hit Orthodoxy before you start thinking of the subject. But really, Teilhardism is the “Christianity” (and “Orthodoxy”) of the future, or rather its metaphysical foundation (it fits very nicely in with “charismatic” phenomena), and it is by no means too early to find out what is hitting us! Here it may well be that Alexeys position (as a layman in the midst of the world, and coming from outside of Orthodoxy which has already been completely captured by “evolutionary” spirituality and philosophy) has enabled him to be aware of something that the more “sheltered” Orthodox (clergy, monks, life-long Orthodox) simply don’t see yet. How overjoyed I myself was to find this “shelteredness” when I became Orthodox, because I saw that in this “world-to-itself” I would be able to change completely my mental orientation (not to mention spiritual) and no longer think at all in terms of the reigning despotism of ideas (in which evolution has a key place). I did notice, however, that other converts didn’t seem to grasp this point, and some of them began to discuss how this or that modern current can be understood or accepted or criticized in terms of Orthodoxy — a false outlook, because there are two quite separate mental worlds involved, and the difference is rather greater than that between two totally unrelated languages. But the Russian Church Abroad, of course, is the only place I found where this separate mental approach was kept intact; in the other “jurisdictions” one would have to keep all this intellectual baggage. But all this is becoming too philosophical. This, by the way, explains why some Synod priests are blissfully unaware of those issues which bother the rest of us!

We fully agree with Alexey that “evolution is one of the most dangerous concepts that faces the Orthodox Christian today” — perhaps it is the very key (intellectual) to the assault upon the Church, to the very “philosophy” (and there is such a thing!) of the coming Antichrist. If we understand you and Father Ephraim aright, you regard it as merely an “idea” which one can take or leave, and which can involve one in endless modernist-fundamentalist discussions which are totally pointless (how many “hours” in the first “seven days”? etc.) We certainly agree on the pointlessness of such discussions, but now the issue is much deeper than that; “evolution” is a whole mind-set that is quite incompatible with Orthodoxy. But that is a treatise in itself. Alexey’s article, as I said, is much too brief, but perhaps it will have the good effect of inspiring a thorough treatment of the subject (not a “modernist-fundamentalist” fight, but also not what Fr. Ephraim apparently wants to do, to stand so far above the issue that one can’t even discern that evolution is a crucial question, and destructive of Orthodoxy not so much because of its theses as because of its intellectual-spiritual orientation.).

Significantly, the same mail that brought your letter brought also Concern, with the article of Theodosius Dobzhansky (who just received a Doctorate honoris causae from St. Vladimir s Seminary) on “Evolution: God’s Method of Creation.” Well, here are the arguments of an “Orthodox evolutionist,” and they are the same as all other evolutionary arguments, emotional faith with not one shred of genuine evidence to support it (although he presents material that looks very formidable and “scientific”). But more important: read between the lines and answer: does this man believe in God as a true Orthodox Christian believes in Him? He does not! He believes in Him as “modern” man believes; he is a deist. And very revealing is his conclusion: “One of the great thinkers of our age, Teilhard de Chardin, wrote the following: ‘Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more — it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow — this is what evolution is.”’

This indeed is Teilhardism, and by “all theories and systems” he means in particular theology and spirituality, as being part of the highest evolutionary layer, the “noosphere,” which is just now converging in the evolutionary apex called the “Omega Point” or “Super Christ.” I hate to appear “fundamentalist,” but his mammoth structure rests on just a few little “fundamental” facts (or fabrications), which most people seem afraid to get near because they seem so “scientific,” beginning with the transition of one species into another and so up the ladder.

To sum up: Whatever weaknesses Alexey’s article on evolution may have, it is an attempt to answer a real problem which we cannot avoid: that ideological orientation and value-system which is taught in all public schools as fact and which poisons and stupefies Orthodox minds without ever attacking Orthodoxy as such. Alexey’s response is sound, even if it is not (of course) perfect. We Orthodox are not afraid to be “narrow” on the question of ecumenism; why should we be afraid to be “narrow” on the question of evolution? The two issues, after all, are very closely bound up with each other.

Regarding Alexey and “lay thinking” in general, we continue to regard him and it as very positive and healthy — provided, of course, that it does not try to proceed on its own opinion alone but always looks for and receives counsel from within the more “official” part of the Church. Under this condition, we are not even afraid of his possible “mistakes” on matters open to personal opinion (i.e., not involving heresy, attacks against bishops, etc.) — for he is not an “authority” who must always come out with some “official” or impeccable statement of Church teaching but rather a struggler in an intellectual jungle whose dangers and real problems are not always too apparent to us formal “ecclesiastical” people — but this is precisely the world in which our Orthodox Christians live today.

Enough for this for now. Please forgive my longwordiness. Regarding our printing projects in Russian: We will not think about the periodical until after we’ve caught up with OW and gotten the 1974 Calendar out, but maybe by the first of the year we will be ready to start, depending also on Vladika Nektary. Please keep it quiet, however. The book of Vladika Savva is also not too easy because we will have to add quite a few pages ourselves that were not in Orthodox Russia. I doubt if we can do it before July 2. We have also just gotten the address of a place in Taiwan that offers to print offset books and hardbind them for hardly more than the cost of the paper in the US., and we are of course looking into this also.

Please pray for us, and be assured of our love and respect for you and the Fathers. However, I think there are some issues we should all be thinking seriously about!

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Sister in Christ, Nina,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ. This will be mainly replies to your questions.

We have no immediate plans to reprint the “charismatic” article, so Fr. Neketas is certainly welcome to do so. If no one does reprint it, later we might collect that series of articles on non-Christian religions and have it reprinted by offset, but now we’re too overwhelmed with other things. We get the Logos and have noted with decreasing interest its progress from worse to worser.

Yes, the repose of Vladika Savva was a loss for all of us, and as usual, it is only now that we begin really to value him. We have an article on him in the new (Νον-Dec) OW and will be printing regularly some of his material on Vladika John. Unfortunately, there is not too much beyond what he already published in Orthodox Russia, but some of it is very valuable (for example, a letter from Vladika Johns younger brother describing his childhood). We haven’t started going through Vlad. Savva’s norebooks yet, but they seem at first glance to be full of nothing but Holy Fathers (handwritten!). Certainly you are welcome to have the icon of the Forerunner as a remembrance of him.

Concerning the Panagia and Cross of Vladika John, I wrote a hasty scribbled note to Fr. Panteleimon when Fr. Herman returned from Edmonton, but probably it was too unclear or cryptic. In a word: after hearing about them from Fr. Panteleimon in Seattle, Fr. Herman asked about them in Edmonton: the Panagia, with inscription on the back from Archbishop Gabriel, he got and we have here. However, no one knew about a Cross with particles of the True Cross; there was only a Cross with many relics inside, of which we have a list. This we also have. Is it the same one, or is it absolutely certain that it has particles of the True Cross and not relics? By the way, don’t spread it (beyond Fr. Panteleimon) that we have these, as we have them “unofficially” and would never have asked for them if Fr. Panteleimon hadn’t spoken. Vladika Nektary knows, but his ruling Vlad, doesn’t, and we have yet to hear his response to all this. Unfortunately, he is not well disposed to the glorification of Vladika Johns memory, and besides he seems to stand in mortal fear of Vlad. Vit. We belong to the “other” tradition: do as your conscience says and speak out, and if they persecute you or “retire” you for it, well and good. (Did you ever hear of a “retired” monk? Maybe you will!)

We have no copies left of the original St. Herman Life. One day we’ll print a better one!

The Skete at Inverness Park has long since folded. It was never more than Fr. Dimitry and one or two hopefuls, but there was no attempt to introduce a rule of life, so the candidates soon moved on. There were picnics there in the summer. Now it is a “retreat center” for the SF parish with its “young, intellectual” (Schmemannized) priest, and a convert (Daniel Everiss) stays there as caretaker. Fr. Dimitry now lives in Santa Rosa where he is parish priest. We are told that Daniel bought a set of bells for the “Skete” from Sears Roebuck, I guess to tickle the ears of the “retreatants.”

We’ll be interested in the Hilandar checklist. The 1794 Paisius Life is probably the original version of the Life we are now printing — very beautiful, and we hope it will move our readers as much as it has moved us. It will take 4 issues to complete, and then God willing we’ll print it as a book. Between this and our other projects we are kept quite busy. This spring we must also finish the outside of the chapel and demolish several cabins in Platina (we’ve been offered the lumber). There’s also our “Vladika Savva Memorial Library” to start building, not to mention other construction projects! And the Post Office has given us until July 1 to be caught up on OW “or else.” Pray for us.! It looks as though we might have several more hands shortly, but that might be a trail too!

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Father Neketas,

Evlogeite! We are very glad to hear your positive reply to the proposed periodical. We are very grateful for your offer to print it for us. However, the printing itself would be the least of our labors, as we would plan to print 4 pages at a time (smaller than Orth. Word), 16-24 pages, and probably only 1000 copies to begin with — so the printing would entail only a fraction (10% or so) of the labor in printing OW.

At any rate, we still have to talk the whole project over again with Vladika Nektary, who at times can be very timid about such things. It may be better to begin not quite so soon, only remembering that no matter what happens, Vladika Nektary did give us his blessing to revive Vladika Johns periodical.

Still, we would like very much to print something for the 7th anniversary of Vladika Johns repose. We would also like to do something for Vladika Savva’s memory. In reading over his papers and also his articles in Orthodox Russia, we see that he had a definite message for the Russian people, which will probably be forgotten now if we don’t do something about it. His articles on Vladika John speak more strongly than any of us on the fact that he is a saint who is not yet properly valued and who is of great significance for the Orthodox people. His testament to us is, clearly, to continue speaking this truth, even if the “organization” mentality doesn’t like to hear it.

In reading the papers of Bishop Savva, we find addressed to him the usual complaints against Vladika John (these are the worst things they can find about him!): that he is irritable, crude, unthinking of others, (for example because he comes late to services), disrupts the usual order of things, is a poor administrator, can’t be understood, mumbles and falls asleep in the midst of the most important (worldly) discussions, that the clergy of the S.F. Cathedral consider it a holiday when he isn’t present. I myself had occasion to witness most of these phenomena, and I can testify, for example, that on the several occasions when he was “crude” with me I was extremely grateful and saw only spiritual benefit in it. In all of this I think there is hidden a significant fact about Vladika which hasn’t been brought out much: that he refused to allow the Church to become a habit, and by his seeming crudeness, he tried to jolt people out of the spiritual rut into which it can be so easy to fall. As soon as Vladika was gone, everything became “smooth” in the Cathedral and the clergy were content — because now they could and did make the Church a habit, incapable of inspiring anyone except on the capital of the past which has not yet been used up (but will be before long!).

But to come to the point: we would like to print, before July 2, Vladika Savva’s articles on Vladika John in book-form. This would mean about 100 pages of offset material from Orthodox Russia, and a little more material and some pictures which we could print ourselves. How realistic is the possibility of your printing these 100 pages (i.e., 50 printings of 8 1/2 x 11 paper, 2000 copies)? At what rate can the work be done and how much, for example, could be done if one of us (or possibly both) were to come and help for up to the better part of a week? If this proposal doesn’t overwhelm you completely, please let us know something of the technical and time factors involved. What is the biggest sheet your machine can take or your plate-maker make? (If it was 11×17 it would speed things up, but we doubt it.)

As you see, we would very much like to come out with something now which would be both for the glory of Vladika John and the memory of Vladika Savva, and to do it as joint tribute from both you and us would please us all the more.

All this, of course, is “secret,” and we haven’t even mentioned it to Vladika Nektary. It’s probably better for him if he’s kept “uninvolved” anyway! Although our ruling bishop will probably not be pleased with it, we don’t think he’ll say anything, since after all its only a “reprint.” (If he were informed in advance, of course, he would insist on advising, discouraging, etc., and in the end destroying the whole idea.)

We look forward, again, to your response to all this. Please pray for us.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

P.s. In regard to our other project: how do you have a 2nd class permit without needing paid subscribers? Does the “non-profit” label obliterate that rule?