Author: orthodoxaustralia

Dear Father in Christ, Panteleimon,
CHRIST IS RISEN! Evlogeite!

It was very good to talk to you, and one only regrets that the time was so short. We do hope you will be able to visit us the next time you are out on the West Coast, and we can discuss many things more thoroughly.

Glory be to God, we are well and in good spirits. As for the “problem” that still hangs over us, we have been so immersed in our printing work and plans — calendar, Catacomb Church, new martyrs, etc. — that we haven’t been thinking much of it, and in our conversation with you we hardly mentioned it. But for your information as well as to keep our ideas straight, we will give here a brief progress report.

First of all, since Christmas Vladika Anthony has left us alone, so much so that one might almost be tempted to think that he was really content to let us be independent. But such an appearance is deceptive. The Ukase he sent us in March clearly sets forth, in his mind, his “rights” over us, and he can feel himself able to put these rights into effect at any time. And again, we already know from past experience and from talking to others that Vladika likes to assert his “rights” suddenly and unexpectedly, and one is apt to find that what seemed to be a time of peace and repose was really some kind of trap in which one has committed all kinds of sins, usually of omission, against these rights. Our “day of reckoning” with him is doubtless not too far off.

Please forgive us for speaking in a way that might perhaps seem disrespectful to our bishop, but we know that you are fully as aware as we have become of being realistic about such things among ourselves, so as to avoid worse evils in future. In all, we have told only seven people of our situation: besides you and Vladika Laurus, the five people in San Francisco (Vlad. Nektary, Fr. Alexey, Deacon Nicholas Porshnikov, Laurence Campbell, Mrs. Kontzevitch) already knew or suspected, or even warned us, what was going to happen.

From San Francisco there are only two new developments: Laurence Campbell on a recent visit told us that there is talk among laymen who are close to Vladika about our “disobedient” attitude toward him. There is no way they could have formed such an opinion except from whatever Vladika himself has told them. Which only reinforces our idea that Vladika is not acting very seriously with regard to the “monastery” he has formed, talking about our “faults” to others. His approach is worldly, and his behavior is apparently governed by the fact that he has been personally offended by our behavior. You will remember that he declared himself to be personally offended when we declined to be made priests immediately; and to this was added our improprietous behavior at Christmas. This seems to us an unsound basis of behavior, and it can only be a potential threat to our common work, which certainly transcends the personal offenses of a day.

The second new development: when Vladika Nektary visited us recently he called Vlad. Anthony shortly before and requested permission to serve and give us Holy Communion. Vladika told him to relay to us this message: since our Starets was unable to come for Pascha (he is serving in Palo Alto now), and since our behavior at Christmas shows that we are in danger of falling into prelest (?!), he asks us to reconsider our decision about accepting priesthood. Does this make sense? Does one ask a person in danger of falling into prelest to accept priesthood?! Clearly, neither the suspicion of prelest nor the offer of priesthood can be taken seriously in the context of any serious church activity. They are not the statements of someone who knows our work and wants to do what is best for that work; they come, rather, from someone on the outside who is thinking about what will look best, and also what he can best control; for clearly a priest is more closely bound to his bishop than is a simple monk. And so we are only confirmed in our diagnosis of our case and in our desire to be independent of Vladika Anthony. If any further good will come from our Brotherhood, it will be from our independendy pursuing the path already begun, with Vladika Johns blessing, not by meekly accepting directions from without. We recently found, by the way, Vladika Vitalys (Maximenko’s) address on his consecration as bishop, in which he movingly speaks of the spiritual-psychological conditions under which he was able to bring such fruit as a missionary of the printed word: in absolute independence, “not bothering anyone and not bothered by anyone.” Exactly! And that’s normal in the Church, not bending oneself into some other shape for the sake of a purely formal and fictitious “obedience,” That’s the way Vladika John acted, and that’s the inspiration he gave us. If we fall into heresy or give scandal, that’s another matter. For us here in the wilds, our idea of a bishop is somewhat modelled on the vultures who circle our mountain constantly now: “overseeing” everything, they nonetheless do not bother those animals that move around doing their own affairs, but come down to examine and clean up only when they smell something rotten! If Vladika A, after all his “disillusionment” with us, still wants to ordain us priests, then clearly he doesn’t smell anything seriously rotten!

We had a good long talk with Vladika Nektary about all this, and, while he said he would not “advise” us, if it were he that was involved he would simply disobey those directives which he felt to be destructive of the idea by which we live, and thus if there were going to be a complaint at the Synod it would have to come first from Vladika A. himself. This of course reinforces what Vladika Laurus told us about not taking any formal action but nonetheless expressing our disagreement with such actions. And so we are patiently awaiting what will come, content that at least for the time being we are not actually being bothered by any pressing demands and can concentrate on the work at hand, with which we are only slowly catching up.

Vladika Nektary told us in more detail about his own relation to Vladika Anthony, and we will tell you of one or two points so that you will be informed of what seems clearly to be an unsound situation that may later have broader repercussions in the whole Church. Vladika Nektary told us: “I am not a bishop; I am a doll in a ryassa.” Vladika A. gives him no freedom whatsoever, and will not even allow him to tonsure a candidate to be his cell-attendant. One incident in particular is most revealing: In the cell in which Vladika John reposed in Seatde there is small bed, on which he was laid just after his repose. One day at the Synod Vladika Anthony, without saying a word to Vladika Nektary in advance, in an irritated tone announced to the bishops that an intolerable situation exists: Vladika John never lay down to sleep, and yet in his cell in Seatde there is a bed; it must be removed. The bishops more or less agreed (although apparently this hasn’t been done yet), and Vladika A receives the impression of a zealot for the memory of Vladika John. Later Vladika A. came to Vladika Nektary’s cell at the Synod and made a prostration to the ground before him, begging pardon if he offended him. We do not want to believe that all this was some kind of “act,” and we can easily enough believe that Vladika A acted sincerely, unaware of how very wrong such behavior surely is. Why create such a scene, when the matter could easily be discussed with the local bishop (Vladika N.) on the scene? The Synod need not be involved at all. But why, after all, remove the bed when it actually does have such significance, as the first bed in which Vladika John lay in 40 years? The basis for such behavior is surely unsound. In our own case we have noticed that Vladika A. does not care to discuss things with us; he acts only as he sees fit, and everyone else must agree with him. And as regards his veneration of Vladika John, we find it to be, like other things, more outward than real. Otherwise he would not have simply declared our Brotherhood abolished, without consulting or even telling us in advance, and certainly without thinking whether, for the sake of the blessing of Vladika John which rests upon it, the name should somehow be preserved even in our monastic state. Likewise he would not have abolished Vladika John’s Blagovestnik in order to begin his own (frankly trivial) Tropinka. He told us directly: I’m opening my own little magazine; Blagovestnik is closed; if you want to print anything in Russian, you will not call it Blagovestnik. Vladika Nektary, a very sensitive man, was very hurt by this. Are we wrong to suspect some kind of jealousy at work here? Of course, it’s not our business to judge that; but we cannot be blind to actions which are, in a church sense, wrong.

I think you can understand after all this why we do not care to have any direct contact at all with Vladika Anthony. Rather than have a monastery subject to him, we will have no monastery at all — that will be more fruitful. For the time being we will stay as we are, acting independendy while awaiting future developments. The question of priesthood, of course, will not even arise until we can be assured of an officially independent status; for someone who does not understand what we are doing here, it would be the easiest thing in the world to send a useless wilderness priest to one of the several S.F. parishes that need or will soon need a priest.

For the immediate future we sense two sources of trouble: Vladika A., against our wishes and without our knowledge, collected money in every parish for his monastery — probably several hundred dollars at least. That was six months ago, and we have not heard anything from him as to giving it to us. We suspect that it will involve some kind of “plan” of his own, and so we are >afraid of this money. Even accepting it with no strings attached bothers us, because he would give it as “Abbot” of his “Diocesan” Monastery. Of course, we also would not want to offend those who gave in good will, knowing us, although we would never have asked them ourselves, not wishing to be parasites. So we are hoping that our “day of reckoning” with the Archbishop will come before he tries to give us the money, and then the use of it will be up to his conscience.

Secondly: soon we will put out our Orthodox Word devoted largely to Vladika John, openly confessing his sanctity. We believe that Vladika A. would prefer the veneration of Vladika John to be quiet and private, and all emphasis on sanctity to be hushed up. If so, he might react adversely to this issue; although we don’t know, (all of this would become more evident, of course, if God grants us to print something in Russian.) Then, of course, we would only rejoice if we were to suffer for our veneration of Vladika John.

A third point I forgot: Probably soon will be the S.F. Diocesan clergy assembly; and as a “Diocesan” organization we would be obliged to attend and give a report. What do we do about that? I think we had probably better send instead a letter explaining why we do not attend, not acknowledging ourselves to be a “diocesan” organization; and of course, that would precipitate our day of reckoning. To become involved with the Diocesan clergy would be our spiritual suicide. To name only one point: possibly the majority, or at least the most vocal members, of the clergy are against Vladika John, and our public veneration of him would be a Diocesan scandal.

All of this is a clearing of our mind, our Brotherhood’s “confession” to you, as it were. Please do not despair for us. We are in good spirits and working hard, and are much better prepared now for the coming trials than we were some months ago. We are most consoled of all by the fact that the bishops in whom we have confided did not at all tell us to be falsely meek and let the powerful do what they want. Thus we are not too unrealistic and naive in believing that truth and principle and serious labor for the Church should come first, and all politics and organizational questions second.

After receiving a third letter from Priestmonk Innocent (together with a copy of the letter he wrote to Anastasios Luebke, telling him he would not serve for a parish that was calling St. Herman instead of Germain), we wrote a reply to him begging him not cause a scandal and make a useless campaign out of such a minor thing which is after all a matter of usage and not principle. But we will stick to the Alaskan usage of Herman.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

CHRIST IS RISEN!
Dear Father in Christ Neketas,

Evlogeite! Please forgive our long silence. Somehow, since the Canonization last year our correspondence with you has slowed to a trickle, which is unfortunate, as our common mission of English-language Orthodox enlightenment would profit by more intercommunication, not to mention the mutual encouragement which is often so necessary. Anyway, please know that spiritually we are with you and think of you often and pray for the success and expansion of your endeavors for Christ’s Holy Church in these dark days.

As for us: we plod along and even begin to feel — thanks largely to the linotype, which is now operating fairly smoothly — that we can begin to catch up and even undertake a little more than The Orthodox Word. Our trials are many, which persuades us we’re on the right path — but they are almost all of a rather menial character, mostly mechanical failures and strange “accidents” and bureaucratic red tape. Most recently the Post Office discovered (after a year and a half!) that we have no right to mail with a 2nd Class permit in Redding, as we have no city address there; but fortunately our local Postmaster agreed to accept our mailings, and after the inspectors vainly searched for a rule that says a 4th Class post office can’t do this, they finally agreed.

Laurence Campbell tells us of your interest in his calendar. It will need additions and corrections, but it is a good and necessary beginning. His labors have crystallized our own calendar ideas, and God willing, we will print such a calendar this fall for 1972. Fr. Panteleimon is sending his own additions and corrections, and we’ve found some Romanian and Western saints to add. Our next OW will have the Synod’s Resolution in 1952 concerning Vladika John’s list of 20-some Western saints, which we will also add. Please send your own suggestions. We will of course add the Saints of Mytilene. As for St. Peter the Aleut: frankly, the Synod, or rather the Russian Church since long before the Revolution, has always been timid about doing anything without elaborate official confirmation; thus the feast of the Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion was always observed in China as a requiem service, and they were considered apparently “uncanonized.” However, if God grants us to print the calendar, we will add all these saints, only probably keeping them somehow distinct so that no one will fly on our necks.

Which brings us to another important point: As you note in regard to the unfortunate article in the recent St. Seraphim Chronicle (which we haven’t seen), there are people in the Synod who just aren’t aware of what’s going on, who are living Orthodoxy unconsciously on the capital of the past, as it were. Such an attitude is actually probably quite widespread in the Synod, and one can even suspect that the fact that the Synod as a body can be said to preserve Orthodoxy as no one else has, is due more to the historical “accidents” (of course, this is first of all God’s Providence) of Revolution, exile, etc., than anything else. In San Francisco after Vladika John died we felt distinctly that he almost alone had been the spiritual power of San Francisco’s (or at least the Cathedrals) Orthodoxy, and if there was no counteracting force in the meantime, the services in the Cathedral in 20 years time would be perilously close to the Metropolia spirit. Among Russians there are very few sources of such a spiritual force that can counteract the drift of the times — anywhere! The conscious Orthodoxy of the Synod in future years, we believe will come from converts and Greeks, for the most part. And it may even be that this will cause friction and trouble. But of course we must just go forward trusting in God, speaking the truth and being vigilant.

We read the Newsletter with great interest. For improvement, we can only wish for a regular section of Greek news. (Mostly translations from Typos, I presume.) Perhaps Mrs. Vagin could help out on that — there’s an informed and aware Russian! Also, is it possible to issue the Newsletter in magazine format, i.e., like the beautifully done Supplicatory Canon; or does that involve too much extra labor in typing, stapling, etc.?

I somehow thought I had lots more to say to you, but it’s gotten lost somewhere — that’s what comes from letting our correspondence lapse. We’ll try to write a little more frequently. Anyway, don’t by any means thing you’re conducting a monologue with what you publish — every word of real Orthodox material in English is a seed whose future fruits are incalculable.

Pray for us, and let us hear a word occasionally. It would be nice to see you and have a good long talk, but God knows when that will come about. You’re always welcome here, if you ever venture that far out!

With love in Christ our Saviour,

Dear Father Ambrosius [Pogodin],
IN TRUTH CHRIST IS RISEN!

Thank you very much for the letter and gift, and please forgive our long delay in answering. There is so much for just the two of us to be doing, and as you see, we are very late in publishing our magazine. But by God’s mercy and the prayers of our patrons, St. Herman and Vladika John, we continue to exist and have hopes to increase our publications.

We are sending you separately our copy of St. Gregory’s [Palamas] Homilies, and are happy to be able to help you in this.

We are very touched that you would like to visit us. But probably you have far too idealistic a picture of us! Our whole “pustyn” is only two cabins and a small unfinished church, to which we add a little at a time, and we have very little of modern conveniences. Still, for us it is a paradise, for it enables us to concentrate on our work, removed from most of those distractions which are such a temptation today for those who would serve the Holy Church. We are sufficiently remote so that our visitors are few, and generally interested to see us, and not just “tourists.”

You are correct that it would be very unwise to write to our Archbishop about visiting us. Because of your situation our contacts with you will have to be “informal” for an indefinite time. With the Moscow Patriarchate, of course, we have no contact, as a matter of principle; but we know that you are not in your present situation because you support their “principle” against ours, but rather by force of circumstances. As you see in The Orthodox Word, we believe in the principle of the Church Abroad; but sometimes a living soul becomes caught, as it were, in a net of circumstances that threaten to choke and strangle him, and then it would be a sin of phariseeism not to offer, if one can, at least a word of encouragement. That is the testament we have received from Vladika John, from whom we have also learned that in Christ not all “hopeless” situations are really as hopeless as they seem…. I believe you understand all this well enough, being yourself, just like we are, an “orphan” of Vladika John! As to what form, on the basis of all this, our future contacts will take — surely God, through the prayers of Vladika John, will teach us! We only know that God does not want living souls to be stifled, nor fruitful trees to remain barren.

But perhaps I am becoming too philosophical! May God and His saints guide you aright in all your ways.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, Monk

Dear Brother in Christ, Anastasios [Luebke],
Christ is risen!

We were glad to hear from you, and pray that this finds you well and in the grace of our Risen

Lord.

In the same mail with your letter we received a letter from Priestmonk Innocent, who enclosed a copy of a part of his recent letter to you, concerning the names “Herman” and “Germain.” He had recently written us two letters on the same subject, which we had not yet answered — we were slow in answering, to be frank, because we are not at all interested in entering into controversy on this subject, considering it to be of very minor importance. Fr. Innocent, however, insists that it is extremely important, and he even seems determined to make a regular campaign out of the issue; therefore, I have just written him a letter, and I write this now to you, so that our Brotherhoods opinion on the subject might be known.

When our Brotherhood was formed, we gave some thought to the variant versions of this name. Some people, for reasons unknown to us, are very adamant for one form or another, although Fr. Innocent is the first person we have heard to defend “Germain” with such determination. Others have said that the name should or even must be German, Gherman, Guerman, Germanus, Germanos, even Gairman. There are things to be said for and against almost all of these; and we finally decided to accept the name “Herman” for one simple reason: it has long been the accepted English usage of those who love and revere the Saint, in Alaska and elsewhere. Call it a philological accident if you will, nonetheless the usage is well established (and the Saint himself has granted miracles to those who use it!), and it would require a major campaign, probably causing much bad feeling and totally unnecessary fighting, to establish any other version in its place. Such a campaign, we believe, would be a sin, because it would detract from more important things and it would constitute precisely what Fr. Innocent calls the forcing of a “private usage” upon the Church. Incidentally, the Slavonic “G” is actually closer to English “H” than “G”, and so “Herman” is just about the closest way of transcribing the pronunciation of the Slavonic name.

We are amazed that Fr. Innocent insists that his way is the only “proper traditional way of doing things in the Church.” Despite his insistence, we cannot see that one spelling should be preferred over another as a matter of principle. The question is not one of “principle” at all but of usage. He is doubtless correct that the standard form of “Germanus” in English at one time was “Germain.” But language and its usages, which are relative, change; and I do not think one could say that “Germain” is standard usage any more at all. In America it is virtually unheard of, and even the great French Saint of Auxerre is more commonly referred to on English as Germanus, not Germain.

Fr. Innocent writes, in his letter to you, that Metropolitan Philaret “agrees with my contention.” It may be that the Metropolitan agrees that “Germanus,” abstractly considered, might be most fittingly rendered by the old English “Germain”; but I doubt very much that the Metropolitan agrees that a campaign should be undertaken to force everyone to use this unfamiliar version. On matters which do not directly concern doctrine and church practice, the Church is flexible, judging minor issues by the spirit and not the letter. The question of “Herman-Germain” is one of the letter, and should not be allowed to take the place, time, and energy of the far more important questions facing Orthodoxy in America today. That Fr. Innocent refused to serve in your parish unless you call it “St. Germain” — simply bewilders us, and seems to us a case of misplaced priorities.

Dear brother in Christ: we are sorry we had to write all this and thus, in spite of ourselves, enter into controversy on this matter. But Fr. Innocent has demanded an answer of us, and so we have given it. But we beg you: do not let this small “temptation” swerve you from your path to serve God’s Church in the name of His glorious Wonderworker. If you are at all like us, you are probably at least a little hurt by this seemingly unnecessary controversy. But that, of course, is just exactly the way the devil attacks: he will try to bring down the loftiest ideas and plans by the most trivial means. But our experience in warfare with him is built up by an appropriate and prayerful response to each such temptation and trial.

Please be assured that we are with you fully, whatever spelling your parish may adopt! Uniformity on this question, while desirable, is itself a secondary question, and the times are too critical to waste time on it, we know in any case that it is one and the same Saint who is being glorified. We will not presume to advise you on your answer to Fr. Innocent; pray to God and His Saint and they will guide you. In case of doubt, Fr. Panteleimon (I believe you said he is your spiritual father) will give you wise advice.

As for liturgical goods: we have not sold any for some time. Previously we bought some hanging icon lamps from the Central Book and Art Shop in New York City (321 East 14th St., 10003); chalices and other sacred utensils are probably best ordered directly from Greece. We no longer have any Greek addresses, but doubtless Fr. Panteleimon could give you several, and you can request catalogues from them.

Please pray for us, and keep firm your spirit of serving God’s Holy Church and praising His saints.

With love in Christ our Savior,
Seraphim, Monk

Dear Father Innocent,
In truth Christ is risen!

I will be honest with you and come to the point: Why “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel”? While souls are starving and perishing for want of Holy Orthodoxy, are you going to devote your time and energy to idle academic exercises?

Doubtless you are correct that at one time the accepted English form of “Germanus” was “Germain”; that was a matter of usage and not of principle, since there is no reason in the world why foreign names must come to us through the French. But language is a living thing, and the name “Germain” is virtually nonexistent in present American usage, and is, I would say, almost quaint. Even the great French saint of Auxerre is widely known in English as “Germanus,” not “Germain.” (Both names, surely, are good usage.) Why, therefore, force “Germain” on people? It has nothing to do with “correctness”; there is no “proper traditional way,” as you say, of transcribing Orthodox names into English. “Germain” is old English usage; “Herman” is at least one present American usage. Your campaign to force one usage over the other seems to us wasted energy.

When our Brotherhood of St. Herman was founded, we gave some thought to the variant versions of this name. Then and since we have seen defended (some of them with just as much certainty as you display) such variations as: German, Gherman, Guerman, Germain, Gairman, Germanus, Germanos. We preferred “Herman” for one simple reason: it has long been the accepted English usage of those who love and revere the Saint. If you went to Alaska today, you would scarcely find one person who would know who you are talking about when you mention “St. Germain”; and to call them “Metropolia proletarians” under “German influence” is quite beside the point — they are just simple village people who love St. Herman and would be bewildered to find that it’s a matter of “principle” to change his name. How many prayers the Saint has answered, how many miracles worked, when addressed as St. “Herman”! Surely therefore, the Saint himself does not consider his glory lessened by this name and spelling!

We, therefore, cannot agree that the name “Herman” is “private and peculiar”; and in fact, whatever may be the philological accident or coincidence that produced this result, the spelling “Herman” comes closest in pronunciation to the Slavonic “German” (where G is closer to English H than G). But we are not in the least interested in engaging in controversy over the issue, nor are we concerned to enforce the name “Herman” on the English speaking world. We see no good reason to change our spelling, but there are too many other important things to be doing to be upset if someone else chooses a different spelling. Uniformity on the matter would be desirable, but there are other things much more necessary and critical.

In the name of our Precious Savior, Fr. Innocent, do not make a major issue out of something so minor. The new parish in Tucson has several recent converts to Orthodoxy; you will only upset and scandalize them if you insist on waging a campaign, and using their parish to do it, for the name “Germain.” No matter how “correct,” academically speaking, you might think yourself to be, such a campaign would in fact be your own private campaign, and you would get other people to accept it chiefly so as not to offend you personally — surely a small triumph.

We have spoken with absolute frankness. Forgive us, Father, and pray for us, and be assured of our prayers, and of all respect and love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, Monk

Dear Mr. [John] Dunlop,

Christ is risen!

I pray this finds you well and in the grace of our dear Saviour. Actually, I’ve been meaning to write you for some time, but the pressure of work never seems to give me a minute. Even this will just be a note concerning one practical question, and everything else will have to be once again postponed. But so that you will at least have some idea what is on our mind — we would like somehow to encourage or enlist a gathering of the talents and minds for the better propagation of genuine Orthodoxy in English: i.e., not just the collection of translators and translations, but perhaps some kind of consensus on what should be printed, and how, given the resources we have — the printing establishments of Orthodox Life, Orthodox Christian Witness, Orthodox Word. Well, perhaps what I’m saying is coming over foggily, but if you see what I’m trying to get at, perhaps you could make a comment or two.

Your study on the Moscow Patriarchate is an extremely good example of one kind of thing that is needed today, and one could only wish for it a wider circulation and a more permanent format — as a regular book.

But to get to the point of this letter: From your quotations from the two articles by Talantov (“Sergievshchina” and “The Secret Participation of the Moscow Patriarchate in the Struggle of the CPSU…”), it appears that these are by far the most interesting and profound of the documents to come out of the USSR in the last decade. But in “Patriarch and Prophets” there are only a few brief excerpts from both. Is Bourdeaux planning to print them elsewhere? And in any case, do you have the complete manuscripts, either in Russian or English, and if so is it possible for us to obtain a copy of them from you? And if they can be obtained only from Bourdeaux himself, do you have his address?

As you can see, we are very interested in printing one or both of them ourselves, perhaps in their entirety (depending on length). Our present Orthodox Word has an article in Talantovs memory, mostly taken from his own writings. But these two articles would be first-class documents in themselves.

We will be most eager to hear from you.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, Monk

Annunciation of the Most Holy Mother of God, 1971
Dear Brother in Christ, Daniel,

Rejoice in the Lord! I pray this finds you well and laboring successfully in the fast — or rather, prepared for the Great and Holy Week. With us these last weeks of long services (abbreviated, at that!) have been rather difficult, but at least we are left with few illusions about being “ascetics”! Our peace and quiet have been almost undisturbed.

Your question on the difference between the Turkish and the Communist Yoke is a very important one, but the answer is not entirely simple, and those who think only in terms of “canonical-uncanonical” will probably find it much too complicated. I think it’s important, first of all, to realize that the question of the Moscow Patriarchate is not primarily one of “canonicity” — that question ultimately will be resolved only by a free Russian Church Council (after the Soviet Yoke is overthrown). At that Council doubtless much will be forgiven owing to the unprecedented difficulties of these times, and those who will be justified then are not necessarily those who regarded themselves as “canonically correct,” but rather those who kept alive the spirit of the Church, which is after all above the canons and inspires them. But in the meantime we have to live with the situation that exists, and choose whether to have contact and communion with Moscow or not; and therefore we have to somehow penetrate to the spirit of this question and make our decision on this basis. A very great help in this is the “Documents of the Catacomb Church” which we are now printing, because in them the bishops who were present at the very outbreak of “Sergianism” give their judgements on what was then the central question of the day, and most of those who opposed Sergius did so because they believed he had placed himself outside the Church, and they had to speak out in order to remain within the Church themselves. In our days the atmosphere is not so tense and most people probably regard the question now as academic — although the reaction to the Metropolia’s autocephaly has considerably sharpened the issue.

To answer the question, one can say that first of all, in so far as the political situation is concerned, the situation of Moscow under the Soviets and Constantinople under the Turks is exactly the same. But those who are satisfied with this argument do not realize how Greeks outside of the Turkish boundaries reacted in the 19th century. (I’m paraphrasing now an article on the “Russian Church Abroad” by our Archbishop John, which we hope to print soon). When the Patriarchate of Constantinople obeyed the Turkish political demands and excommunicated the Greek rebels, the latter in their turn, while not doubting the Patriarch’s Orthodoxy and remaining with him in spirit, nonetheless declared his decrees invalid and governed themselves in complete independence from him — and when an independent Greek state was formed, this independence took the form of the autocephalous Church of Athens. A similar situation prevailed under the Serbian Patriarchs Arsenius III and IV, who went into exile with their flocks and refused to submit to the new Patriarchs elected inside the Turkish boundaries. Thus, from the political point of view, the existence of the Russian Church Abroad is fully justified by Orthodox history, while the Metropolia is chiefly to be criticized for being insensitive to the whole situation of the Russian Church and for helping, even if ever so little, the political schemes of the Soviet State.

But there is a deeper dimension to the question. The Turks persecuted the Church and, when possible, used it for political purposes. But their worst intention did not go beyond making Christians slaves and, in some cases, forcibly converting them to Islam. The Christian thus might be a slave or martyr, but on the spiritual side he was free; the Turkish Yoke was external.

But with the Soviets, the aim is much deeper: ultimately, to destroy the Church entirely, using the Church’s hierarchs themselves (when possible) as the agents of this scheme; and, on the way to this end, getting the Church to defend Communism abroad and to preach a “Communist Christianity” that prepares the way ideologically for the coming triumph of world Communism, not only as a universal political regime, but as an ideological and pseudo-religious tyranny as well. In order to appreciate this one has to realize what Communism is: not merely a power-mad political regime, but an ideological-religious system whose aim is to overthrow and supplant all other systems, most of all Christianity. Communism is actually a very powerful heresy whose central thesis, if I’m not mistaken is chiliasm or millennialism: history is to reach its culmination in an indefinite state of earthly blessedness, a perfected mankind living in perfect peace and harmony. Examine the printed sermons of the Moscow hierarchs: again and again one finds the same theme of the coming of the “Kingdom of God on earth” through the spread of Communism. This is outright heresy, or perhaps something even worse: the turning aside of the Church from its very purpose — the saving of souls for eternal life — and giving them over to the devil’s kingdom, promising a false blessedness on earth and condemning them to everlasting damnation.

The whole of modern Western Christianity is permeated already with this worldly, basically chiliastic orientation, and the more “liberal,” more worldly Orthodox Churches (such as the Metropolia) have been infected from this source; and probably the reason why most people in the Metropolia so easily accepted the autocephaly is because inwardly they do not grasp what is happening, they are themselves already halfway on the same path that the Moscow Patriarchate has taken.

Just the other day I read an astute comment on the iconoclastic crisis of the 7th-8th centuries. Before the Seventh Ecumenical Council the Orthodox Church did not have any explicit “doctrine on icons,” and so one could argue that the Iconoclasts were not heretics at all, and the dispute was one over the secondary issue of “rite” or “practice.” Nonetheless, the Church (in the person of Her champions, the leading icon-venerators) felt She was fighting a heresy, something destructive of the Church Herself; and after Her champions had suffered and died for this Orthodox sensitivity, and Her theologians had finally managed to put down explicitly the doctrine She already knew in Her heart — then the cause of Orthodoxy triumphed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and the Iconoclasts were clearly singled out as heretics.

I suspect that the very same thing, only much vaster and more complicated, is happening today: that those who feel Orthodoxy (through living its life of grace and being exposed to and raised on its basic treasures — lives of saints, patristic writings, etc.) are battling together against an enemy, a heresy, that has not yet been fully defined or manifested. Separate aspects or manifestations of it (chiliasm, social Gospel, renovationism, ecumenism) may be identified and fought, but the batde is largely instinctive as yet, and those who do not feel Orthodoxy in their heart and bones (e.g., those who are brought up on Concern and Young Life instead of lives of saints!) do not really know what you’re talking about and they can’t understand how you can become so excited over something which no council has ever identified as heresy. In the testimony of the Catacomb bishops of the late 1920’s one finds again and again that the GPU agents asked them first of all whether they were for or against Sergius, and if they were against, then these agents demonstrated that Sergius had “violated neither dogmas nor canons”! Thus, either the atheist torturers are “defending the Church” — or else there is something dreadfully wrong, and the Church is up against an extremely formidable enemy. As it turns out, however, there are several dogmatic and canonical grounds on which Sergius was wrong; but first of all the Orthodox soul sensed that he was on the wrong side.

So the first part of the battle comes down to presenting basic Orthodoxy and raising people in the real spirit of Orthodoxy — above all the example of those who have lived Orthodoxy, God’s saints and confessors. That’s why, for our times, the most important thing is not general and abstract knowledge of Orthodox history, dogmas, canons, etc. (St. Sergius’ and St. Vladimir’s Seminaries turn out many who know these pretty well, but they do not become defenders of Orthodoxy, WHICH IS WHAT is needed), but rather the examples that have been given for our time — most especially Russia’s new martyrs and confessors. And one of the saddest signs in the present controversy over Moscow is that those who defend the Metropolia, instead of setting forth such inspiring examples, quote the most shameful documents and examples of Turkish and Russian history (Fr. David Black quoted several unedifying examples from the Synodal period of the Russian Church to us, and he probably doesn’t even know the worst ones!) thinking thereby to defend their own position. That is, the Church has always been bad, and it’s no worse now than before! But what a horrible, what a psychologically and spiritually crippling defense! If that’s how they have to defend themselves, then wouldn’t it be better to avoid doing the things that reduce them to such an extremity? Is “stepping out on the world Orthodox scene” really so important to the Metropolia that it must do it at the expense of the suffering Russian Orthodox faithful? To give one small example: Metr. Nikodim is the Metropolia’s great “benefactor,” and no one can doubt that his success with the Metropolia has strengthened his position with the Moscow Patriarchate. On the other hand, the layman Boris Talantov in the USSR has openly called Nikodim a betrayer of the Church, a liar, and an agent of world anti-Christianity, for which statements (among others) he was imprisoned by the Soviets; Metr. Nikodim tells the West that he was in prison for “anti-governmental activities”. On Jan. 4 of this year Boris Talantov died in prison, undoubtedly the victim of Nikodim (among others). Can the Metropolia feel itself to be on the side of this confessor? I don’t see how it can. By the way, we’ll have an article on him in this issue — pray for the repose of his soul.

I think I’ve said enough for a while! Our “Catacomb Documents” and “New Martyrs” will doubtless give a clearer picture, once we’ve got more of them translated and presented. Our new issue will have Metr. Joseph — a real champion of the Church! Interestingly, in him as well as in others the statement comes out that Sergius has done something that is “worse than heresy,” THAT HE has murdered the Church from within.

About library information: can you Xerox a page or two from each of the two books you mentioned? That way we can get an idea of how detailed the listings are, and maybe we could commission you then to do some Xeroxing from one of them. How many pages in each book?

Our weather has been up and down since you left. It turned cold just after you left, and since then spring weather has alternated with cold and rain. The first days of March were just about the coldest since we came here — 19 to 20 degrees at night, with tremendous hurricane winds and flurries of snow. We’ve only had 5 inches of snow and about the same of rain since January. Real spring is later this year than last, and only a few of the smaller bushes have fully blossomed out. The leaves are just beginning to break through the buds at the tops of the oaks — beautiful little pink leaves with yellow blossoms that will become acorns. The peak of spring won’t be here until early May, most likely. Last year was the first time that I’ve gone through spring in the country — a really inspiring experience!

This last week we’ve finally got the refectory erected, for which you gave the foundation. It’s not finished, but at least we got it all covered and waterproofed before yesterday’s rains. We were expecting Fr. Spyridon to serve Liturgy today, but the bad weather probably kept him away. Most likely he’ll come for Lazarus Saturday and Palm Sunday. If it rains then, we can have services in the new refectory-church.

Our life in the wilderness continues to have its trials and temptations, but much more its joys. At one point when our spirits were low Vladika Nektary arrived completely unexpectedly with the Kursk Icon, served a moleben, gave us Holy Communion from the Reserved Gifts (we were in the midst of Vespers when he came and hadn’t eaten yet), and let us carry the Icon over our mountain. God’s blessings to us just never cease! Only we’re continually worried that we don’t produce enough; just too much to do.

By the way, thanks for sending the Jeane Dixon book. We were interested to see that her doctrine of Antichrist was basically Orthodox, and who knows, maybe even the details or her predictions about him are correct. However, in one important respect she is off: for his reign is the culmination of human history, after which comes the new heavens and the new earth, whereas she predicts after his reign a new age of peace and harmony and union of world religions, which are themselves the doctrines of devils! Looking at her “ministry” as a whole, one cannot but think that whatever truth she speaks (whether in doctrine or accurate predictions) is only used by the devils to gain credence for her whole philosophy — which seems to be a combination of “conservative” Catholic prelest and the chiliastic philosophy of the age. She seems entirely too persuaded that her “gift” obliges her to go around being a combination healer-holy woman. But where does her “gift” come from? It seems to be a combination of a rare natural faculty (6th sense) and information given by demons. She hears voices giving the names of winners at horse races — do angels do that?! And often her voices and visions come in pieces and fragments — a few letters of someone’s name, etc. — which is typical of the way devils operate, as for instance at seances, and reveals that she is in contact with the infernal, anarchic world, and not with the heavenly. Doubtless a well-meaning woman, but her “holiness” fits in too nicely with the “spirituality” of this evil age!

Pray for us, and drop us a line or two.

With love in Christ our Savior,
Seraphim, Monk

P.S. I just read in an old Readers Digest Jeane Dixons own account of her two interviews with President Roosevelt in 1943-44.1 think they show very well how the devils “use” her “gift”. She predicted a few things such as the Presidents death within 6 months, but the President was most interested in one question and asked it several times of her: “Will we be allies with Russia?” “Am I right in going with Russia?” She — who seems to be quite anti-Communist — told him the results of her visions and voices, that in a generation the U.S. and USSR would fight together against Red China, and FDR was finally reassured: “Then I am right to go with Russia.” In a few weeks he went to Yalta and gave half of Europe to Stalin!

Father Herman sends his greetings and poklon.

Dear Elena Yurevna,

You know how upset we have been in the past few months over the status of our Brotherhood and the whole future of our missionary work in the Church. Unfortunately, Father Herman’s letters to you seem to have communicated more our present feeling of disturbance than the basic principles that have inspired us and continue to inspire us; and from this you have come to believe that we have a revolutionary or reformist idea of monasticism.

Please believe us that nothing could be farther from our intention. In order to explain this, I am writing you this letter in English in an attempt to avoid some of the emotional overtones that we seem to become involved with when we write in Russian, and to give you in this way as clear and brief a picture as possible of our present situation and our hopes for the future. After Vladika John, it is you and Ivan Michaelovich who have helped and inspired us on this path, and nothing would cause us more sorrow than for you to become convinced that our Orthodoxy was in danger, or that our missionary work is about to come to an end.

It is true that we are presently threatened, and we take this threat very seriously. But the cause of this threat is not difficult to understand, and it does not in itself place us in any uncanonical position. In a word: our bishop does not understand us or our work, and he is trying to “use” us for his own plans. Spiritually and canonically, we are in the right: it is absurd and impossible to “establish a monastery” against the wishes of the only monks in that monastery; the very “Decree on Monasteries” of our Synod of Bishops sets forth the right of monks to elect their own Head; and the very idea of monasteries in Orthodox history is clearly that of independent spiritual centers that have their own autonomous life and are not subject to interference from bishops unless they try to introduce novelties in dogmas or church life. This is the ideal, and this is the way Jordanville and Father Panteleimons monastery in Boston are operated today; and this is why monasteries can be inspirers for the rest of the Orthodox people — because they offer the possibility to preach and live Orthodox Christianity free from all external influences — whether the cares of parish life, the whims of bishops, or whatever.

In our present case, we have a fundamental disagreement with our bishop over the organization of our monastery: we wish to be independent and continue the tradition of Jordanville and Father Panteleimon, while our bishop wants to control everything himself which would mean the end of our missionary work (as you yourself very well realize). Therefore, the question of “obedience” does not enter in at all, and it is spiritually illegitimate for our bishop to try to impose his ideas concerning the organization of our monastery by this means. When Fr. Panteleimon was received into the Synod, no bishop appointed himself “Head” over his monastery; and we have exactly the same right to independence. Our mistake was that we did not in the very beginning stand up for this principle, and this allowed our bishop to believe that we were weak and that he could do whatever he wanted with us. We misplaced our trust in him, and we confess that you were right all along about him. But now we are prepared to stand up and fight for the independence which the Church and its canons guarantee to monasteries.

Monastic obedience cannot possibly be “slavery”; if that were true, then the Church would be divided up into “slaves” and “tyrants.” Some people in the Church at various times have tried to enforce this perverted concept, but it does not come from the Church or from monasticism. All Orthodox Christians, and especially monks and nuns, are trying to cut off their own will and lead a God-pleasing life; but to meekly bow down to tyranny, most especially when this tyranny only destroys a God-pleasing work and extinguishes the Christian and monastic spirit in its victims — is certainly only a parody and mockery of Orthodoxy and monasticism.

We are absolutely resolved, in all obedience to the Church and lawful ecclesiastical authority, not to become a part of any such mockery. We pray that our firmness will not lead to any scandal, and that we can proceed according to the letter as well as the spirit of all the Church’s canons. But we know also that the canons were made for man, and not man for the canons, that above the canons is the spirit that inspired them, and that to preserve this spirit we are prepared even to go against the letter of separate canons, if these are enforced in order to crush our spirit. In actual fact, no one would dream of trying to enforce the letter of every canon today, for then there would be no Orthodox Christians left at all! Our own bishop is in San Francisco “uncanonically,” for it is against the canons to transfer bishops from one Diocese to another (this canon has caused considerable fighting recently in the Church of Greece); it is also against the canons to ordain a deacon before the age of 25, or a priest before 30 (this is strictly enforced in the Greek Church, and one of our priest correspondents in Africa wrote us a year or two ago that a priest was desperately needed for Tanzania, but the only candidate there was 25 years old and under no circumstances could he be ordained before 5 more years — but according to the letter of this canon most of our Russian priests are “uncanonical”. etc.

Please believe that despite our recent trials we are not crushed in spirit. In fact, on the contrary, now that our very existence is being attacked, we are more persuaded than ever that the path on which Vladika John blessed and inspired us to go, is correct, and that by his prayers, and in accordance with God’s will, we will go on this path through every suffering, all the way to martyrdom, if God calls us to this. The fact that such a severe attack has come upon us only persuades us that the devil wishes us to give up this path, because it is right.

You seem to believe that we cannot continue the path we have begun as monks. But we believe, on the contrary, that only in monasticism, with all the suffering and trials that this choice must inevitably bring upon us, can our work spread and bring the maximum good. While we were “in the world” everything came easy to us — we had much work but no great trials and attacks — but now everything is difficult, on every side we are attacked, trials and temptations are many. But these are spiritual proofs that our path is right, even more right now than it was before.

We are weak and sinful, and what we have undertaken is far, far beyond our strength and our spiritual talents. Nonetheless, God multiplies His favors to us, and we go forward with difficulties and sorrows, yet certain that He is with us, and Vladika John also. The form which our future existence will take is still uncertain. We always thought that to be a “monastery” was beyond us, but in principle the Synod has blessed this and the only problem now is one of organization and independence — and this has happened without our own will being involved at all, in fact it has been forced upon us. If our work so far has pleased God, then surely He will not leave us now or abandon us to the path of pseudo-Orthodoxy!

Glory be to God for everything! Do not believe for a moment that we are abandoning the path we began with Vladika Johns blessing. We go forward with absolute trust in God, on the straight monastic path which Vladika John foretold to us when he called our Brotherhood a “reflection of Valaam” and when he told me, when I told him of our hopes for a missionary monastery away from the city: “I too believe that there will be such a missionary monastery in California.”

Only pray for us, dear Elena Yurevna, and do not lose hope in us; and do not cease to tell us what is right!

With love in Christ our Savior,
Sinful Monk Seraphim

P. S. After I had written the above, Father Herman read the address of Vladika Vitaly (the elder) on the occasion of his consecration as bishop. One paragraph in it tells of what inspired the great accomplishments of his younger years, what his basic spiritual orientation was. It is precisely the same as ours, and even if we never accomplish a fraction of what he accomplished, this attitude is worthy of imitation, and we are both absolutely convinced that only by its means will we be able to bring forth any fruits at all in the Church of Christ. The Pharisees will doubtless find that these words of Vladika Vitaly are full of “self-will” and “disobedience,” but following them he accomplished great things in and for the Church, and they burn with the very spirit that is so needed in the Church today, the same spirit we long to burn with!

[quote in Russian follows]

1. I am in terrible state.

2. Interview with Vladika Anthony — brief — ______?

3. We are horrified because in back of this event is a frightful lack of______: We think we
are still independent again, in monastic calling; and he thinks he has taken us over as Abbot.

4. Already on top of posting[?] he announced Ukase whereby he was Abbot (temp.) and tried to force priesthood on us as obedience — we were greatly disturbed but were calmed by thought that this was some purely formal temporary status.

5. Throughout these last months when thought of monasticism approached, our discussion with Vladika Anthony was much too indefinite and almost entirely oral (although he wrote to us discussing use of______?). Now we find that his idea is entirely different from ours.

6. We cannot operate within the idea blessed by Vladika Ioann which we have pursued for 6 years, and which is now blessed as monastery by Synod (“to conduct in monastic calling the same missionary work….”) unless we are absolutely independent: in organization, in our life and work, able to make all decisions necessary for this life and work and organ, without dictation from without.

7. Since Vladika Anthony insists on giving outside direction, we must be free of him; stavropignialny [followed by 8 page letter in Russian by Fr. Herman]

Dear Father in Christ Panteleimon,

Evlogeite!

Enclosed is our letter to Vladika Laurus, to which we have not yet received a reply. There is no new development in our “case” as yet.

Our Staretz, Archimandrite Spyridon, is planning to come to us for a week or more — from Annunciation to Palm Sunday, and then just after Pascha (he has to serve Passion Week and Pascha in Palo Alto), and so, God willing, we shall have the Divine Liturgy several times here.

Glory be to God for everything! In all our trials, we become more and more conscious that something is happening that is far beyond us. What the end will be, God alone knows, and it is in His hands. We begin to get a rather definite idea that “Synodal opinion” does not place much confidence in our future. In February Archimandrite Cyprian wrote us from Jordanville, advising us to pack up as soon as possible and come to Jordanville, because we are in danger of falling into prelest, and because Jordanville is dying off and in ten years there won’t be anyone left to do the work. Recently Fr. Vladimir also began hinting that we would be best off in Jordanville, and Vladika Laurus last year also emphasized how much they need people there. With all respect to Jordanville, to which we are absolutely devoted, we are so conscious of the blessing of Vladika John to trod a different path, that we can only accept the opinion of these respected fathers as a “temptation” to get us off our path. The devil, it appears, is trying his utmost to get us out of here, and we are thereby all the more convinced that we are where we should be. Two days ago, as if we didn’t have problems enough already, I met an Indian at the Post Office in Platina, who asked me what we were building, and when I replied “A chapel,” he told me, “this land belongs to us Indians, and I’ll do everything I can to stop you.” I don’t know exactly what he meant, but as we are unarmed and two miles from the nearest neighbor, it is not difficult to imagine what could be done to us. And so we are literally reduced to trusting in God and the protection of our patrons, St. Herman and Vladika John. May God s holy will be done!

With love in Christ our Savior,
Seraphim, Monk