Amidst problematic statements from the Orthodox hierarchy becoming public, and rennovationism going from theory to practice, the online Orthodox world has seen a rediscovery of the Old Calendar movement, and, subsequently, the popularity of a number of videos put out by Father Peter Heers where he cites a letter of Father Seraphim Rose, then, on the basis of this one letter, implies that all those who have fought, or do fight for, the Old Calendar are of the same mind as the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, whose former leader, Elder Panteleimon, was frequently the object of Father Seraphim’s criticism. While I am under the New Calendar, I have been very interested in the Calendar controversy, which has led me to read, among other sources, a good number of Father Seraphim’s letters which deal with the relationship between the ROCOR and different Old Calendar Synods. Reading these letters, Father Seraphim’s relationship to the Old Calendar is seen as a lot more complicated, and nuanced than has been portrayed by Father Peter.
A Preemptive Defense
I always get uneasy when discussing theology, because I am neither a priest, nor a bishop, and certainly nothing more than a sinner. This blog is primarily political, and philosophical, and when Orthodoxy is the subject of a blog post, I almost always approach from a philosophical angle (as I offered the writing of Saint Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus as an alternative to Kant, and the Post-Kantians), or as an analogy for political tactics (such as my essay on Cyprian of Fili). On the rare occasions I speak of the Faith on its own terms (like my second most popular piece, where I respond to Academic Agent’s criticism of Christianity), I rely heavily on those competent on the subject (Alexander Schmemann in the last piece), and only provide summaries, or contextualization. So, as I prepared to write this, I committed myself to only sharing Father Seraphim’s own words, and providing brief commentary. This post is, at its core, a copy-and-paste job, and whose motivation is to share the context of the letter which Father Peter has been speaking about. Should I say anything that is improper, or inaccurate, then, to quote a certain Alexandrian “If my right hand offends, cut it off.” Should you read this Father Peter, I, first ask your blessing, and second, apologize that it has been written under a pseudonym. I am primarily a figure in the dissident right, and, because of this, I must keep my personal information guarded, and I only touch on this topic because a good deal of my followers are themselves Orthodox, and, out of a certain obligation to keep them aware of the context surrounding various issues of the day, I wish to provide Father Seraphim’s letters on the subject. This post is nothing more, and nothing less.
Jan. 21/Feb. 3, 1976
St. Maximus the Confessor
Dear Dr. Kalomiros,
Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ. I am sorry to be so late in answering your last letter. We have been working constantly at catching up on printing, and then I was sick with flu for several weeks. In general, our printing work is accomplished with great difficulty, and our helpers (both novices and laborers) often cost us as much labor (especially of soul) than they give in exchange—they are often so immature, so ready to accept and follow the most obvious temptations from the evil one. But we strongly feel that God and His saints are with us, and we go forward in faith. We sent you several weeks ago (by sea mail) a copy of our 1976 Calendar and The Northern Thebaid, which we finally finished very late. Today likewise we are sending you our latest Orthodox Word (July-August!); we hope to have the Sept-Oct. issue out in two weeks, God willing, although even then we will be far from caught up. Our winter weather has been very warm, with almost no snow, which has greatly aided our printing work—although with such a winter there is always danger of a shortage of water by the end of summer. But thisis in God’s hands.
The Fr. Panteleimon-Archbishop Averky incident has quieted down, after causing some disturbance in our Church. Apparently the incident itself was due to a misunderstanding, since Fr. Panteleimon apparently did not actually mean to break off communion. But the incident, “accidental” or not, is significant of deeper disagreements beneath the surface of our Church life, and as long as Fr. Panteleimon thinks (or at least gives the impression) that he is the Orthodox “expert” in our Church and knows better than all our bishops and theologians, there will be other such incidents in future. We have been told that Fr. Panteleimon has been humbled by this experience, but the one letter from his monastery that we have seen that explains his point of view does not seem at all humble, but rather was full of self-esteem and an “elitist” point of view—i.e., “no one but the bishops and a few of us chosen ones are supposed to know about all these things.” This “know-better” outlook is very bad and harmful.
We ourselves cannot pass judgment on the question of Bishop Petros, because we have never received any actual evidence for or against him. You seem to think that our bishops have been against Bp. Petros for many years; but all the bishops whose opinion we know have been, on the contrary, very favorable towards him. The campaign against him in our Church is Fr. Panteleimon’s work, and it is solely Fr. Panteleimon’s idea that our Russian Church Abroad is the “only canonical American jurisdiction” and that the Greeks therefore have no right to their own jurisdiction here. Our bishops are so much occupied with the cares of their own exiled flocks that they do not have the leisure to indulge in useless disputes over “canonical rights,” and being very practical-minded, they are quite willing to live on friendly terms with a Greek jurisdiction of Old Calendarists in America. When Fr. Panteleimon was preparing to join our Synod in 1965, Archbishop John told me that the logical place for him was under Bishop Petros, whom Archbp. John greatly respected. When Fr. Panteleimon persuaded our bishops to accept him under the Synod, an act which could not help but cause troubles in future, as long as Fr. Panteleimon regarded himself as a rival with Bishop Petros for influence with the Greeks in America—which sadly, is just what he did, instead of remaining quietly in his monastery, as our bishops undoubtedly expected him to do.
But despite Fr. Panteleimon, Bp. Petros has been in communion with our Synod, and I think it is only a few bishops like Archbishop Vitaly who have taken sides with Fr. Panteleimon against Bp. Petros. With this background, I hope that you will be able to understand the position of Archbishop Averky. Archbp. Averky has allowed Bp. Petros to serve at Jordanville for many years, and he has not been informed (to our knowledge) of any accusations against Bp. Petros except that he refuses to deny the validity of New-Calendar Sacraments (which our bishops also refuse to deny). If any serious report of “ecumenical” activity on Bp. Petros’ part had been reported to Archbishop Averky, he would certainly have taken it most seriously and investigated it. All Archbishop Averky can see is the private rivalry of Fr. Panteleimon with Bishop Petros and he quite rightly refuses to take sides in this political battle. Archbishop Averky, therefore, finds the insistence of the “brazen young Archimandrite” Panteleimon that he not let Bp. Petros serve at Jordanville to be an intolerable impudence—as if Russian bishops must be forced to “take sides” in a “Greek quarrel,” which until now has seemed to be of a purely personal nature. Further, whether rightly or wrongly, our bishops do not feel the decisions of the Synod of Auxentios to be binding upon them; why, indeed, should Archbishop Averky not allow Bishop Petros to serve, when several of our bishops have allowed Bishop Callistos to serve—who is also not in communion with the Synod of Auxentios? Very likely our Synods dealings with the Mathewites at the 1971 Sobor were a mistake—but now the situation has become more complicated and it is difficult to see how a normal relation of our Church to yours can be restored. Perhaps all we can hope for is that at least communion will not be broken, despite many “irregularities” on both sides.
The situation with regard to Bishop Petros has been temporarily resolved by the decision of our Synod not to have communion with Bishop Petros until he is restored to communion with the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios. I’m afraid the followers of Fr. Panteleimon have taken this as a “victory” (“we made the Russian bishops back down!”), when actually it is obviously just a means for keeping Fr. Panteleimon quiet. Some of our bishops, in the absence of any concrete evidence against Bp. Petros, regard this decision as a mistake.
But all this, frankly, we find very uninteresting! The most important thing, and the greatest danger to our Orthodoxy, is occurring on another level—in the loss of conscious Orthodox life. Alexey Young let us read your two letters to him on the subject of an Orthodox community, as a means or help to preserving this conscious Orthodox life. We found them most interesting. We ourselves have given much thought to this question, and the new issue of The Orthodox Word has a little of our ideas on this (in the article on Archbishop Andrew). But it is not possible to express oneself fully on this subject in print, because the Orthodox people are simply too immature—the idea of an “Orthodox community” is very attractive, but almost no one is aware of or prepared for the difficulties and sacrifice involved in bringing it into reality, and the result is only hopeless experiments and disillusionment.
The monastic community is still possible even in bur days, but—as our experience has shown us clearly—it is very difficult and requires constant struggles to maintain. «But a lay community is much more difficult to establish and preserve, because laymen do not have the principle of obedience to an elder, which cuts off arguments and fighting, and also the family is the natural unit for lay people, and a group of families can never be as close as a monastic “family” under an elder.
But still, if one learns to be realistic and does not expect from a lay community as much as one does of a monastic community, this also is a possibility for our days—and actually a very important one. Life in an ordinary Orthodox parish today, in the abnormal big-city atmosphere and surrounded by unheard-of temptations—is not normal for Orthodoxy. We know a very zealous priest in New Jersey, with a very large flock and many young people. But he tells us that he is fighting a losing battle. He has the young people in church school for a few hours on Sunday, and perhaps Saturday night, and for an hour or two of church school on Saturday—and the whole rest of the week they are subject to the contrary influences of the public schools, television, etc. The desire to have an atmosphere where the Church can have more part in life and more influence on children—is a very natural Orthodox desire, and not something “odd” or a sign of “prelest,” as many seem to think.
The basic spiritual principles of such a community we have tried to set forth in our article on Archbishop Andrew. The most apparent outward sign of this community seems to be the Divine services (even if only a minimum of them), whether with a priest or without—but daily, this being the point around which everything else revolves. In our present-day conditions, also, there must be a conscious effort to get away from involvement in the world—thus, small towns in preference to large cities, freedom (as much as possible) from television, newspapers, telephone, etc. And something more: there must be a getting away from the worldly spirit in the Church itself, this means getting away even from ordinary parish life, if possible, for this has become very worldly today.
The Etna community is by no means a highly “idealistic” or “experimental” community; it is rather a natural growth from special conditions which are exceptionally favorable for Orthodox self-preservation—provided, of course, that the basic Orthodox zeal and fervor are present to begin with. The greatest blessing for this community is, paradoxically enough, that they are far from an Orthodox parish—this has forced them to get out of the rut of so many Orthodox people today who take for granted everything about the Church and assume that someone else is “in charge” of the Church and its services, etc. These people have been forced to do the services themselves, and therefore the services are much more dear to them; and the difficulties they must go through to get to a priest and receive Holy Communion are so great that they dearly treasure this privilege and are literally working out their salvation with fear and trembling. Of course, we Americans are also blessed because everything in Orthodoxy is so new to us and therefore precious—every new translation of a saint s life or service is a new discovery for us, all the more so if we can participate in it ourselves.
We ourselves have a feeling—based on nothing very definite as yet—that the best hope for preserving true Orthodoxy in the years ahead will lie in such small gatherings of believers, as much as possible “one in mind and soul.” The history of the 20th century has already shown us that we cannot expect too much from the “Church organization”; there, even apart from heresies, the spirit of the world has become very strong. Archbishop Averky, and our own Bishop Nektary also, have warned us to prepare for catacomb times ahead, when the grace of God may even be taken away from the “Church organization” and only isolated groups of believers will remain. Soviet Russia already gives us an example of what we may expect—only worse, for the times do not get better.
But it is very difficult to plan for the difficult times ahead. There is much wilderness in our Northern California. Both Alexey Young and we ourselves live at the edge of wilderness areas where there is no dwelling for 30 or 40 miles. But with airplanes and other modern inventions, of course, there will be no “hiding” unless God covers us. From Russian experience we know that believers have been hidden both in large cities and in wildernesses (several forest monasteries were undiscovered for 20 years or more, as I recall). We trust that God will guide us in what to do when the time comes. Until then, we can only try to do our best in the conditions we have, trying to learn the principles of spiritual life, and cutting ourselves off from the world to the best of our ability. Our own skete is quite ideally situated in this regard, being two miles from the nearest human dwelling and totally without “conveniences” (perhaps our greatest blessing is the absence of a telephone, which has already saved us much grief). But as long as we are involved with printing (we have our own electric generator) and with correspondence, of course, our ties to the world remain very great. On feast days we feel the great blessing of the total absence of city noises, and even of country noises such as barking dogs—we are thus able to give ourselves entirely to the feast, with unhindered processions and singing all over our mountain.
The future, it is evident, is very dark. We ourselves do not know from one year to the next whether we will have another year of printing activity or not. We pray that God will give us at least a few more years, if only to print those patristic materials which will help us and others to survive in the dark days ahead. In America this is the “bicentennial” year—and we feel it as especially dark and ominous. Each nation has its guardian angel—thus also each pagan or masonic festival must have its special demon! We in America are grateful for our freedom, but we know the dark masonic origins of our American ideology and tremble for the future when the meaning of the occult symbols of our government (visible in our currency, for example—the unfinished pyramid, the all-seeing eye, the number 13 everywhere, the “novus ordo seclorum”) will begin to be fulfilled. Even without a Communist coup, our future is dark; “democracy,” after all, only prepared the way for Communism, and spiritually they come from the same source and prepare for the same future.
Concerning the pamphlet by Archimandrite Constantine— “Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy before the Face of Antichrist”—it is expressed in such difficult, Germanic-style language that it is easy to see that it might be misunderstood. We know him well (he reposed, by the way, on Nov. 13/26 last, at the age of 88) and therefore are not misled by some phrases which apparently trouble your friend. His thought is not at all “ecumenical,” but is rather abstractly speculative. His basic idea here, I believe, is this: True Orthodox Christians have a natural sympathy for the traditionalist Roman Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants who, even in error, at least stand against the times in their faithfulness to what truth they have; perhaps, in the approaching time of Antichrist, this faithfulness will somehow draw them nearer to the full truth, Orthodoxy; therefore we should increase our missionary labors so that they might become Orthodox. Fr. Constantine, as always, understates his position, assuming the reader knows his basic philosophy, which is uncompromisingly anti-ecumenist.
Our own experience leads us to think that only in a very few cases does the traditionalist papist or fundamentalist Protestant come to Orthodoxy; most remain “faithful” to their denomination—and go down together with the ship! Under Communist rule is seems to be no different, and humanly speaking we see little hope for even in a liberated Russian—but with God all is possible.
We are a little disturbed, however, to hear that your friend regards such a speculative article as cause for such great suspicion. We would much prefer to see among zealous Orthodox Christians tolerance even of outright mistakes, as long as the basic Orthodox attitude and orientation is present. But, as I said, the language of Fr. Constantine is difficult and might give one a wrong impression if one knew nothing of his whole Orthodox outlook.
One last word about Fr. Panteleimon—I believe now that we were mistaken that he was planning to go to the Mathewites; he seems after all sincere in his desire to stay with our Synod, which is really the most advantageous place for him, since he is not subject to the restrictions either of our Russian priests or of Greek priests in a Greek jurisdiction. But I still think he may be driven to the Mathewites in order to remain “consistent,” unless he can be humbled enough not to think he is always “right” and “knows better” than anyone else. His positive qualities are very good, and it would be tragic if he destroyed them just for his “political” position. We notice that Fr. Neketas Palassis in his Witness, although he still occasionally mentions The Orthodox Word, has not once mentioned our publications of this last year—the Calendar, Northern Thebaid, and Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. We suspect this is because of politics—we do not always follow their “party line,” and therefore we are no longer to be much recommended, even it we do not say anything to which they object too much. They wish to “lead,” and we are independent. We do not wish to have an opposing “party line,” so we will try to be objective with regard to them and to missionary labors in general. The younger priests in America, both converts and Russians, we trust are mostly able to think for themselves and not just follow what they are “told by the experts.” In general, it seems that Orthodox Christians today must more and more be helped precisely to think for themselves.
We ask your prayers and look forward to your letter—and the evolution article!
With love in Christ,
208.1
Commentary
I quote the entirety of the letter here, though only half deals with the issue at hand, lest I be accused of selectively editing what Father Seraphim said, and because his words are sweet, and edifying.
Notice the contrast between Bishop Petros, and Father Panteleimon. The ROCOR (which means Father Seraphim) was in communion with Petros, he served at Jordanville, and Saint John of San Fransisco (the Archbishop John mentioned here), highly respected him. Unlike Fr. Panteleimon, Bp. Petros shared the views of the ROCOR in regard to grace, ecumenism, and the calendar issue. Seraphim describes the two as rival leaders of the Greek Old Calendar community in America, with Petros as the level-headed, and humble, leader, and Panteleimon as the more political, more extreme option. When the ROCOR broke communion with Bp. Petros, it was because the bishop got into trouble with his own synod by refusing to declare the New Caledarists to be graceless. This break was in accordance with the practicality of ROCOR that Fr. Seraphim speaks of, and not wishing to cause discordance with the Synod of Auxentios…although Bp. Petros, as Fr. Seraphim describes, was in harmony with ROCOR.
At this point let me remind you the point of this post: to shed light on Fr. Seraphim’s relationship to the Old Calendar movement. Much can be said about the situation with Br. Petros, such as how he was received back into his synod in 19852, to question whether or not he was an exception to the Old Calendar movement (maybe he was the one sane bishop in the zealot jungle), or to compare him with Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna and Bishop Auxentios of Photiki (two Old Calendar bishops who co-consecrated ROCOR Archbishop Gabriel of Montreal)3, but none of this is relevant to the question of Fr. Seraphim’s personal relationship to the struggle. Whatever can be said about the Synod of Auxentios, the differing positions on grace that the Old Calendarist of Greece have taken, or Bp. Petros’ status within the struggle, this letter shows that while Fr. Seraphim had some hard things to say about Fr. Panteleimon, he had a positive view of the bishop of Astoria, which he supported by the bishops’ concelebration in Jordanville, and Saint John’s high regard for the bishop.
Palm Sunday, 1978
Dear Mr. Stamos,
May the blessing of our Lord be with you.
Thank you for your letter. Even though you express basic disagreements with us in it, we are glad that you have spoken frankly of your feelings, as in the long run this is the best path to mutual understanding and, if possible, agreement.
The questions you raise are very deep; the differences between our and your attitudes are the result of many years of apparently a quite different experience. I can understand how some of the statements in our articles might shock you coming “out of the blue,” as it were; but if you were more familiar with what has been happening in the Orthodox world in the 20th century I think you would find our words rather milder and more moderate. As a matter of fact, we have deliberately taken a very moderate stand, in comparison with some of the positions both to the “left” and “right” of us. You grieve over the “division and alienation” which our publication seems to represent. I assure you that we grieve together with you over this—but this division and alienation have been in our Orthodox Church now for fifty years and more. It is not our doing; we are only commenting on it. I agree with you 100% that we all need more love—we must constantly force our cold hearts to this, both for our friends and our enemies, and also our persecutors, where such exist.
But the answer to this sad division and alienation is by no means simple. You yourself seem to express in your letter a certain disturbance over the fact that in the very act of your writing about our disagreements with some Orthodox Patriarchs, you yourself are expressing disagreement with us! I myself think we should not be very disturbed over these disagreements; they exist and we should frankly admit it and try to have the most Christian and Orthodox response to them.
The fact of, not merely disagreements, but actual schism is, alas, all to real in the 20th-century Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece since 1924 has been split in two. About one-fourth of the people of Greece, and probably over half of the monks and nuns, belong to the “Old Calendarist” jurisdictions which have refused to follow the innovations of the latest Patriarchs of Constantinople and have broken communion with them. For this they have suffered persecutions, imprisonments, even martyrdom at the hands of their Orthodox brothers—the Greek government, supported by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the State Church of Greece. The latter (the “New Calendarist” churches) have excommunicated the Old Calendarists, proclaiming their Holy Mysteries to be without grace; until very recently (and perhaps even now, I don’t know) children born of Old Calendarists marriages were officially registered with the government as “illegitimate”—something even the Protestants do not suffer in Greece. In return, the Old Calendarists have excommunicated the New Calendarists, and some of them (but not all) have declared and believe their Mysteries to by without grace. There are entirely separate Orthodox hierarchies in Greece, neither thus having any communion with the other.
I give you this example for your reflection. Such a grievous state of division and alienation is a fact of today’s Greek Orthodox Church. What is to be our Christian attitude to it? Shall we be silent,’ or neutral?-—This is hardly possible, since every Orthodox Christian must receive the Holy Mysteries somewhere, and he cannot receive them in both of the divided Greek Churches. (In America, there are only a few Old Calendarist churches, so the question may seem remote to most people here; but for the Greek people as a whole it is an urgent question.) What should a bishop or priest do? He must instruct the people; even if he says nothing at all, the very fact that he belongs to the “Old” or the “New” Calendarists places him in the position of either proclaiming loyalty to the “old” tradition of Orthodoxy, or else agreeing (to some degree) with the path of modernization and abandonment of the “old” ways.
A similar state of division exists in the Russian Church, although it has not taken the extreme forms of the Greek schism. The Patriarch of Moscow and the leading bishops openly preach communism (both in the political and in a religious sense) and brazenly lie to the world about “freedom of religion” in Russia. We know that most of them do so under compulsion, and therefore we do not judge them too harshly. We in the Russian Church Abroad have our own bishops and have no communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, leaving its final judgment to a future council of bishops in a free Russia (which we pray will one day exist). But priests and laymen in the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia itself are today loudly protesting the anti-Christian acts of their own bishops, and some even proclaim that the Church there is governed by communist agents in bishops’ robes. At the same time there exists a Catacomb Church which for fifty years has had no communion with the Patriarchate and is mercilessly persecuted by the Soviet government (we have published much material on these new martyrs in The Orthodox Word). Again—a sad state of division and alienation. How can we be neutral, unless by retreating into the cowardly state of being “uncommitted” which is so common today?
The martyrs and confessors in Russia write to us that the best hope for them right now is the loud protest of free people against their persecutors. I personally would feel myself a betrayer of my brothers in Christ there if I were not to use the opportunity given me to speak the truth about them; but to do this I cannot help but contradict the lies of their bishops who say even now that “there is no persecution of religion in the USSR; those who suffer are only political criminals.” I do not feel in the least that I am sinning against the commandment of loving my brethren by doing this. On the contrary, my silence would betray love, and would only help the deliberate campaign of the Moscow church representatives to silence and exert influence on the Orthodox Churches of the free world.
I would hope that you can understand all this, even if you may not agree with our position.
The fulfillment of Gods commandment of love is by no means an easy or a simple thing. There are many “hard sayings” in the Holy Scriptures which seem (superficially) a direct contradiction of love. To those who do not do good works our Lord Jesus Christ says: “Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Even to many who prophesy and work miracles in His name, our Lord shall say: “I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:23). Our Saviour tells us sternly: “Suppose ye that I am come to bring peace on earth? I tell you, Nay, but rather division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two and two against three; the father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father,” etc. (Luke 12:51-53). St. John, the Apostle of love, writes of those who have not right belief; “If anyone come to you and bring not this teaching, receive him not into your house and give him no greeting, for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works” (II John 10-11). St. Paul warns against new teachings: “If any man preach to you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema” (Gal.1:8).
I am sure you know these and other “hard sayings” of the Scriptures and have reflected on them; I only cite them here (without going into interpretations of them) in the hope that you will not be too ill-disposed towards some of the seemingly uncharitable statements you have found in our publications. In writing them I assure you that we are trying to follow the Gospel, to the best of our knowledge and in obedience to the teaching of many bishops, martyrs, and confessors of our own times, both in the Greek and Russian Churches, both abroad and in America.
In the history of the Orthodox Church there have been innumerable cases of “hard words” spoken by defenders of Christ’s truth. I will give you only one example: In 1439, the Greek Church accepted Roman Catholicism at the false Council of Florence. One Greek bishop (St. Mark of Ephesus) refused to sign the decree of Union, accused those who accepted the Union, aroused the people against it, refused to allow the Patriarch of Constantinople even to be present at his funeral—all of these “negative” things he did out of love for Orthodoxy, and because of him the Greek people is still Orthodoxy today; if they had followed those who preached “peace” at that time, the Greek people would be Roman Catholics today and thus, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, deprived of the grace of God. (The Russian Church at that time refused to accept the Union, and broke off communion with the Greek Church until the Patriarch of Constantinople himself renounced the Union and returned to Orthodoxy.) Such champions of Orthodoxy are precisely the ones the Orthodox Church has canonized and accepts as her standard of how to act when the Faith is threatened.
There is no need to multiply such historical examples; I am sure you understand the point I am making. I am well aware, to be sure, that there can be a “fanatical” approach to this whole subject, and we condemn it as much as you. I only hope you can see the principles on the basis of which we try to speak.
I am sorry that our words have given you the impression that our attitude is “schismatic” and that we regard everyone but ourselves as un-Orthodox. That is certainly not what we have intended to convey. However, there is no benefit to any of us from hiding the truth: the hierarchy in Russia (and some other Communist countries) is indeed enslaved by the godless and does the will of the government; many people in Russia and in the Moscow Patriarchate itself have admitted it. And further, I don’t see how it can be denied that those in the free world who fraternize with the atheist-controlled church leaders and thus aid the atheist purposes which they pursue in the free world—are larking in seriousness and responsibility. Such people are acting according to the wisdom of this world, not the wisdom of Christ and His Church. We (and many others) say such things because we hope that Orthodox people (and even these leaders themselves, if possible) will see this and become serious about their Christian responsibility; if nothing is said, the false path which Orthodox leaders are now pursuing will continue without opposition until a new “union” is proclaimed, which will deprive Orthodox people of their birthright and inheritance and—unless by a miracle of God—of the very salvation of their souls. Our differences with those who are preparing the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” are very deep and will not improve by silence; they involve a whole different view of Christ, the Church, and salvation. In mentioning a few of the leading Orthodox hierarchs by name we (following many of our bishops and confessors) are merely warning the Orthodox people whom not to follow. We say little of the priests who have to follow these leaders (we know that many of them do so with a disturbed conscience), and nothing about laymen, who generally are much less aware of what is going on and are much less responsible for it.
From your letter I understand that you are afraid that the tone of our publications and missionary work will cause—or already has caused—discord among the small number of Orthodox Christians in Redding. You mention specifically Mrs. Harvey and the Romingers. Let me say a word here about each of them.
I think it is possible that you are misinterpreting Mrs. Harvey’s attitude. She has her own attitude (shared by most devout Russians) about church life, and I doubt that she would want to participate in church life based on some other attitude. Since you seem to have a different approach to church life, it is only natural that she would not be attracted by it. But this is certainly not a matter of her being any kind of “fanatic” or thinking herself “more Orthodox” than you or others; far from it. She, like many Russians in America, has suffered much: the godless took her homeland, her parents had to flee abroad under very difficult circumstances, she herself was born in exile in a totally strange land, then she was forced to flee even that refuge. Russians who go through such experiences and traumas, if they are religious, cling to their Faith as their dearest possession and are very closely attached to their bishops and priests. For them the question of church life is primarily based on trust and personal loving contact with their bishop or priest. Often church life takes place in the catacombs or near-catacombs; at best, in difficult immigrant circumstances. The question of church organization, church building, etc,—has a very secondary place in their oulook on Christian life, and they see that when there is enough peace and quiet for these questions to come to the fore, the same worldly influences, empty disputes and wrangling enter into Orthodox church life as in any other church organization, and so they most often are just not interested in these things, and will even flee the opportunity to take part in them. If she gives you the impression that she is “avoiding your fellowship,” it is probably as a result of this attitude and nothing else.
As for the Romingers, they visited us today and both Fr. Herman and I discussed some church questions with them. They seem open to understanding our point of view on these questions, but they are level-headed people and the concern they have over these questions is a real one, proceeding from the questions themselves and not from any opinion we may have about them. They also wish not to sin against love, and not to judge anyone—but also not to adopt a misleading “peace and love” which merely hide problems that really exist and are urgent. We are not at all trying to “press” them into adopting our opinions on various questions; this is a matter of their free choice.
Whatever you may think of all this, I hope that you at least understand our point of view a little better. As for the situation in Redding, I will be frank with you. Our Archbishop has blessed us to open a mission station at Mrs. Harvey’s, and we will have occasional services there. This will not be any “organized parish,” but just a mission station to serve (to begin with) those people in Redding and outlying towns who already come occasionally to our monastery for services.
With regard to “jurisdictions,” we are in full communion with the Greek Old-Calendarist jurisdiction of Archbishop Auxentios in Athens and with the Catacomb Church in Russia; with other jurisdictions our relations are strained, and in some cases broken altogether (owing to the sad history of 20th-century Orthodoxy, outlined above). Our Church as a whole simply refuses to accept the excommunications hurled by the various jurisdictions against each other under the heated circumstances of controversy; but on the other hand a state of free intercommunion does not exist between us. In our own case, we would not be able to concelebrate with the priests of any other jurisdiction; as for laymen (whose responsibility in these sad divisions is much less, but who still must be striving to be conscious and responsible Christians), those who wish to receive Holy Communion must go to confession first and must be prepared to accept instruction from the priest in preserving oneself in true Orthodoxy. Most Orthodox people today, at least in America, do not seem very open to taking such guidance, and would find our approach too “strict.” To name but one problem that could arise: many decrees of the Greek and Russian Churches in the 20th century have forbidden the giving of Holy Communion to members of masonic lodges. In open disobedience to these decrees, many priests and even bishops of several jurisdictions do give Communion to them, our Church does not. We are no “fanatics” on this question, but we are required to explain to Orthodox Christians who in their ignorance have joined masonic lodges, that there are religious aspects to masonry which make it incompatible with membership in the Orthodox Church.
Judging from your letter, you will not find what I have said very consoling. The Romingers told us that you wish to have a “soft” (I don’t recall their exact word) approach to Orthodox Christians in Redding so as not to frighten anyone away. I can tell you frankly that anyone who is easily “frightened” at such things as we have written will probably not be at home with us. In our experience, rather few of the Orthodox Christians in any given locality have much interest in the services of our Russian Church Abroad and in our attitude towards church questions; most find us indeed too “strict” and “hard.” We understand this and try to keep quietly going our own way, at the same time warning our own faithful about what is happening in the Church. If you wish to have your own services or organized parish in the Greek Archdiocese, we will certainly not interfere or indulge in any “jurisdictional rivalry.”
Now, after saying all this to you, I really have not told you what is in my heart. Why all this “strictness” and lack of full communion? Is it some kind of phariseeism? I pray that it is not, and believe it is not. We (and the bishops and confessors whose path we follow) fear more than anything else the loss of our eternal souls and those of the flock who follow us. Our times are critical; the devil is going about devouring the souls of Orthodox Christians; a false religion of “peace and harmony” is being spread in order to prepare for the reign of Antichrist, who, as the Gospel and whole new Testament clearly teaches, is to come before the end of the world and take by a subtle seduction—so subtle that “even the elect will be deceived, if it were possible”— all but the “little flock” which Christ our Saviour will find when He comes. With all this in mind, and with the experience of anti-Christianity in action which those of us in the Russian Church have had either directly or through our close ones—our whole tone and approach is and has to be urgent and uncompromising—although always within the bonds of love, “speaking the truth in love” as far as we are able. We do not expect many in America to understand or follow us— sadly, because we believe that this is the authentic Christian Orthodoxy handed down to us by our Saviour through His Apostles and all His Saints.
Having said all this, I repeat that you are welcome to join us in any of our services. We will be reading the Twelve Gospels of the Passion (in English) on Thursday evening at about 7 p.m.; the bringing out of the epitaphion will be on Good Friday at 2 p.m. (but the Lamentations service will be not in the evening but only early in the morning, 2 a.m., following monastic tradition); Liturgy Great Saturday about 11 a.m., and midnight Matins and Liturgy on Pascha itself. If after all that I have written here, there remain differences in our approach to the Faith, these differences have not yet gone so far that it is impossible for us to pray together. The question of receiving Holy Communion is something deeper; this is a spiritual question which our Superior, Father Herman, decides individually in confession. In cases of the dying, of course we will not refuse Holy Communion to any baptized Orthodox Christian who desires it and repents of his sins.
No matter what you may think of all this, I hope that our relation will continue to be a friendly one.
With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim
254.4
Commentary
Including this letter was obvious, as in it Fr. Seraphim explicitly states that he is in communion with two Old Calendar groups, and in, albeit strained, relationship with additional groups. He also makes it clear that, to his mind, having communion with Moscow would be a betrayal of those suffering under the communist dictatorship, which, combined with how harshly the Church of Greece treats the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (the Old Calendar church), he, though you can hear the pain in his voice, sides with the Old Calendarists against the New Calendarists who persecute those on the Old, and have communion with Moscow. Yet, Fr. Seraphim, while willing to boldly call out bishops, says he would not criticize priests or the laity, and says so on pastoral grounds. As seen in the previous letter, where Seraphim refuses to deny the existence of grace in New Calendar churches, his concern here seems to be pastoral. It would be unloving to criticize bishops who hurt their flock, but to tell a hurt flock that their medicine (confession, and the eucharist) is an ersatz, would also be unloving.
Conclusion
Father Seraphim was a complicated man, who wrote in complicated times. It is easy to forget that he wrote in a time of UFO cults, Jim Jones, the Soviet Union, and a push to spread Hinduism in the States. Trying to pin his positions, as if he was an armchair theologian who wrote in peaceful times, and was not, as the reality was, trying to guide a hurt flock in a trying century, would be to do injustice to him. Looking at the entirety of his correspondence, we can see that he:
a) Was in communion with Old Calendar groups
b) Like Saint John, admired Bishop Petros
c) Did not consider the New Calendarist churches to be graceless
Arguing on the basis of his criticism of Father Panteleimon that Father Seraphim was against the Old Calendar movement, would be to cherry pick letters from the corpus. Arguing on the basis of Father Seraphim’s communion with, and agreement, on many points, with, Old Calendarist synods, that Seraphim was himself an Old Calendarist, would be hasty, and bending his own statements. Whether you are arguing for, or against, the Old Calendar movement, the case cannot be based upon the letters of the Platina monk. If the Old Calendarist movement is schismatic and potentially heretical, as Father Peter has argued, then he must show were Father Seraphim was in error, and accept that Father Seraphim was in communion with schismatics, and potential heretics. If the New Calendarist churches are without grace, then, if this position is itself heretical (as I know many Old Calendarists would claim), then Father Seraphim must also receive that label, and should not be used to make the Old Calendarist case.
At the end of the day, Father Seraphim was a member of the old ROCOR, and as such, narrowly walked between the two sides on the Calendar issue.5
File share. Orthodox Archive. (n.d.). https://www.theorthodoxarchive.org/file share/2dd23749-733a-452c-818d-dacb4149336b Letters from Father Seraphim, pages 412-417
Harrison, Nektarios. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad & The Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece: A History. Orthodox Traditionalist Publications, 2023. 33
Nektarios. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad & The Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece. 53
File share. Orthodox Archive. (n.d.). https://www.theorthodoxarchive.org/file-share/2dd23749-733a-452c-818d-dacb4149336b Letters from Father Seraphim, pages 497-503
The closest analogue to the old ROCOR in the Old Calendar movement, from what I have seen, is either that of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina’s position in 1937, or the position of Metropolitan Cyprian of Filli.
It seems odd to me that Fr Peter would consider the Old Calendar schismatic? And I will ask him about it next time I see him.
As for Fr Panteleimon, his big mistake was in breaking with the opinion of his Spiritual Father, St Joseph the Hesychast, who started out being very anti-new calendarist and gradually came around to the more balanced viewpoint of remaining in Communion with them.
Fr Panteleimon by his unforgiving stance has unfortunately taken himself and his followers outside of the Church
(Which is such a shame since they publish such great books!)
I would hope that Fr Peter will not follow in his footsteps on the opposite side of the question.
Things are bleak as far as the 'Church Organization' goes, as Fr Seraphim mentions, and it seems as if most of the sincere Orthodox Christians that I know of personally, are flocking around the Monastery's and forming small lay communities there.
May God Bless the remnant, wherever they may be found!
I hate to break it to you, but Father Peter has not been on the mark with various topics. I am not pleased with some of the current things I have been hearing about him.