A Modern Apostle to the Greek Church

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VIII (1991), No. 2, p. 7.

 

Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fill has done more to promote the Old Calendar movement in the Orthodox Church of Greece than perhaps any leader since the Blessed Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina. Like Metropolitan Chrysostomos, he was a clergyman in the State Church of Greece, founder of one of the most renowned of its monastic communities, and a spiritual son of the famed Elder Philotheos, Abbot of the Longovarda Monastery and a spiritual son of St. Nectarios of Aegina.

Just as his heroic predecessor suffered slander and condemnation for his act of conscience in returning to Church tradition, so Metropolitan Cyprian has been the victim of jealous attacks both from modernists and from the Old Calendarist extremists, who resent his able leadership of a movement which had lost grasp of the original aims and resistance of Metropolitan Chrysostomos and the first Old Calendarist zealots.

And just as Metropolitan Chrysostomos earned the respect of many of the more sober members of the State Church and the Greek government, so Metropolitan Cyprian's moderate stand—one of resisting the errors of the Mother Church of Greece but not condemning Her as a body without Grace—is drawing the attention of many leaders in Greece. He has built around him a Synod of pious, educated Bishops, dedicated clergy, and exemplary monastics. His missionary work is extensive. Uniting our Synod to the two million Romanian Old Calendarists, who now have official recognition as a valid Orthodox body by the Romanian authorities, he has almost single-handedly changed the image of the Old Calendarists in Greece.

Evidence of Metropolitan Cyprian's apostolic work is the stream of government officials who avail themselves of the hospitality of the monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina—in which he resides—, including, notably, the Greek Prime Minister and his wife. Recently, the Greek Minister of Trade, Mr. Athanasios Xarchas, was awarded a medallion by the monastery in Fill. In his acceptance speech, addressed to His Eminence, he aptly summarized the outstanding accomplishments of Metropolitan Cyprian in bringing the Old Calendar movement to a new eminence:

"I must say that I, whose life is virtually wholly microphones and speeches, find it difficult at this moment to express what I feel.

"I am obliged to thank you and the Fathers of the monastery. ...You have helped me immensely, both the first time that I came here and now today, when I once again find myself with you. Now, from these experiences of mine, I am in a position to assess how great your spiritual work is and how many people—how many individuals—you have helped in a similar way. I find it difficult to say more to you.

"I thank you yet once again and I pray God to give you strength and health—to you personally and to all with you—that you might continue this truly vital, spiritual work of yours."

The Church of Greece is compromised by spiritual decline, the politics of ecumenism, and Bishops unresponsive to forces working toward the destruction of the Faith in Greece. The serious Hierarchs are silenced. Lay theologians are given little, if any, role in the conduct of Church affairs. And the Archbishop has said that he prefers Jehovah's Witnesses to Old Calendarist traditionalists.

The extremist Old Calendarists, on the other hand, have often made their resistance movement one of hateful attack and un-Christian privilege, condemning the New Calendarists outright.

Sincere Greeks, from the simple peasants to government leaders, are looking for alternatives and for mature guidance. Metropolitan Cyprian has offered an answer to that quest and has brought many to appreciate anew the call of the Old Calendarist resistance: an apostolic work.

 

A Pearl on the Infallibility of Saints

 

“Hear the Divine revelation that came to me three days before you wrote down your question: Let all of the Fathers who have been pleasing to God, the Saints, the Righteous, and the true servants of God, pray for me; do not suppose that, although they were holy, they were genuinely able to comprehend all the depths of God....”; “They did not ask God about their teachers, whether the things that they said were uttered through the Holy Spirit”; “the doctrines of their teachers were mingled with their own teachings”; “not taking into account that they ought to seek assurance from God through entreaty and supplication as to whether these doctrines were true...”

- St. Barsanuphius the Great, (from “A Most Soul-Profiting Book”, §604, Vols. S. Schoinas, 1960, 2nd ed., pp. 28ff.) on how it was possible for St. Gregory of Nyssa to express opinions at odds with Orthodoxy (about “universal restoration”).

MP Commentator: Should ROCOR Receive Greeks into Its Clergy?

Alexey Rodionov | May 27, 2026

 

 

On May 27 in Greece, the day of commemoration of the holy martyr John the Russian is celebrated. The Russian Church, which lives according to the Old Style, celebrates his memory on June 9. But since we will be speaking precisely about Greeks, let us dwell precisely on May 27. Perhaps this is the only example when a saint of Russian origin is far better known in Greece, among the Greek people, than in Russia. And on such an occasion I wanted to reflect a little on what, in fact, the ties of Greeks with the Russian Church ought to be. Neither in the ecclesiastical nor in the civil respect are Greek-Russian ties now in a rather deplorable condition, and from year to year they only grow weaker. And the matter is not some quarrel or ambitions, but very global divergences. The question is not about details, but about the essence of what we believe. More precisely, about the attempts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to rewrite all this.

In general, what the establishments of the Phanar declared had long been causing alarm in Moscow. There even appeared the term “Eastern Papism,” which later came to be called a heresy. But what Patriarch Bartholomew now declares already goes beyond the bounds of heresy, because, after all, heresy is such a deviation from the truths of the faith which still somehow lays claim to its Christianity, whereas Bartholomew’s present declarations are already not Christianity. And not even simply a translation of a political agenda into the language of theological terms. This is already extreme lust for power, ineptly covered over with Orthodoxy. But at the same time, it is also an attempt to be, at any cost, one of their own for certain political forces, while simultaneously harshly scolding all Orthodox Christians whom this does not suit.

But all the same, there are Greeks who do not want to agree with his agenda. And the question arises as to what Greeks who want none of this should do. Because simply denouncing Patriarch Bartholomew is useless. Denounce him or do not denounce him, he will still press on toward his goal like a tank, along the way turning the accusers into the accused. His numerous visits throughout the world were not meaningless either: he has a great many sympathizers among politicians, businessmen, artists, Orthodox theologians, and leaders of various religious associations. Particular note should be made of his close contacts with every American administration without exception, going back to the 1960s. And this fully enables him to speak from a position of strength in the Orthodox world.

And what, under such conditions, are Orthodox Greeks to do who clearly understand where this path will lead, and who do not want to go down it? To struggle against all this “from within” is pointless. Here, incidentally, Nektarios Harrison is right. Yes, the Old Calendar movement is known in Greece and among Greeks; some even pass over into it, both individually and as entire parishes. But here is the question: to what extent can the Greek Old Calendar movement become precisely a global alternative to the Phanar and all its sympathizers and patrons? And the answer to this question is not especially consoling. There are several main reasons for this.

The first thing that must be mentioned is the schisms among the Old Calendarists. Moreover, these are not simply some personal conflicts; they are also quite serious theological divergences. This chiefly concerns whether there is grace in “World” Orthodoxy, and if so, to what degree. And all the attacks without exception against the supposedly “vile” Metropolitan Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) concern precisely this question. These are not disputes about personalities; they are disputes about where the Church is and where it is not. And so far, no clear resolution of this question is emerging. Incidentally, the same is true in “World” Orthodoxy. For the question of the boundaries of the Church is the most complex and tangled question in all Orthodox ecclesiology. And at present there is no at all convincing solution to it not only among the Greek Old Calendarists, but anywhere at all. So, it is enough for some to draw these boundaries slightly differently, and others immediately begin accusations and attacks.

The second problem is the formulaic and one-sided character of Greek Old Calendarist journalism and apologetics. Although at times it really is interesting and substantial, far more often it is a repetition of truths long since learned by heart among the Old Calendarists, which are hardly likely to captivate the mind of a modern European or American. The question even arises: to whom is all this addressed? In essence, the chief task of such journalism and apologetics is to keep those who have already come to them, rather than to reach those outside. One should also note the absence of any kind of think tanks among the Old Calendarists. The very need for them is not recognized. But it is not enough to say that ecumenism is evil and that Orthodox teaching is not subject to revision. An expert view on many problems of modernity is also needed. And this does not exist. And the result is that whatever each person finds, that is what will be.

The third problem is the limited accessibility both of materials about the Old Calendarists and of what they themselves write. In fact, finding even anything at all in Russian is extremely difficult. The situation with English is somewhat better, but still not especially good. There are the information resources of the Saint Photios Orthodox Theological Seminary in Etna, where, through the efforts of Timothy Shenone, genuinely beautiful content is being produced. There is also the vigorous activity of Subdeacon Nektarios Harrison, which, however, tends rather to confuse matters, since his journalism, heavily tied to politics, is still not typical of the Chrysostomos Synod to which he belongs. Moreover, it suffers from the common defect of all radical Old Calendarists, who are very fond of fighting against things; but however much one reads them, it still remains unclear what they are fighting for.

The fourth problem is of a general character for Orthodox mission as such. There is little money and few trained people. But the most important thing is the absence of a well-established Orthodox tradition in the sphere of missionary work. This leads to every missionary having to act at his own risk, only dimly understanding how to act correctly. And this is precisely what stops many from mission proper. For the question is how I am to preach Orthodoxy without falling away from tradition, in conditions where there is no stable tradition of missionary work. And so most “missionaries” limit themselves to memorized denunciations of ecumenists in blogs, social networks, and YouTube.

The fifth problem is social in character. The Old Calendarist milieu as a whole has become settled over the course of a hundred years. Is it ready for radical transformation and expansion? Here one should agree that the Old Calendar movement among Greeks is sustained by family continuity. As, incidentally, is the New Calendar movement. That is, if, let us say, my parents were Old Calendarists, then I too will be an Old Calendarist. Of course, it is not always exactly this way, but the very base of the Old Calendar movement rests precisely on this. And imagine that New Calendarist Greeks begin to pour en masse into this settled milieu. Will frictions not arise? Will the newcomers be welcome guests, since the former parishioners and clergy will still have to sacrifice something familiar? Are they ready to tolerate the New Style, even if only temporarily? What should be done with heterodox who were received without rebaptism (see point one)?

There are many questions and few answers. And thus, Greeks find themselves, as it were, at a crossroads between extreme modernist ecumenists on the one hand, and an amorphous and at times rather harsh Old Calendar movement on the other. And in such a situation some Greeks quite predictably begin to look toward the Russian Church. But here, of course, there are considerable difficulties. First of all, take Greek press, European press, or even American press in general. It is not customary there to speak well of Russia and the Russian Church. On the contrary, it is customary to emphasize how bad everything is there. That is, only truly courageous people can permit themselves the very decision to pass over into the Russian Church.

The foreign parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate — the Diocese of Chersonesus, the Diocese of Sourozh, the Diocese of Berlin, and the Patriarchal Parishes in the USA and Canada — were traditionally intended for émigrés, chiefly for those who arrived after 1990. Greek laypeople could also come there, if there was no Greek church nearby, or if they liked the local priest of the Moscow Patriarchate. But in these churches, there is nothing specifically Greek, nothing that could especially attract conservative Greeks. The same can be said of the Archdiocese of Western European Parishes. After 2019 they took a rather clear position of not quarreling with the Patriarchate of Constantinople under any circumstances. They did not even leave the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France, headed by the Metropolitan of Gaul.

Only the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia remains, which, incidentally, has experience of receiving ethnic Greeks into its jurisdiction directly from the Patriarchate of Constantinople; first and foremost, this means Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos) and his supporters. There are still people alive who remember everything that happened back in the 1960s and 1970s, and who can offer some advice. And finally, there is the experience of receiving Greeks quite recently, after the Russian Church Abroad broke communion with Constantinople in 2018 and began receiving its disgraced clerics. (https://orthochristian.com/122422.html) Finally, there is also a casus belli, that is, the so-called “Slavic Vicariate” within the Phanariot American Archdiocese. The backbone of this vicariate consists of former ROCOR clerics. And this vicariate was created chiefly in order to undermine the Russian Church Abroad. In this connection, it is easy to suppose that it would be logical precisely for Metropolitan Nicholas (Olhovsky), after he had, by no means without difficulty, fought off the Transcarpathian gang by the name of Belya, which wanted nothing less than to ruin the whole Russian Church Abroad, to begin receiving Greek clergy into the clergy of ROCOR.

And I am certain that Moscow would not have opposed this, but Metropolitan Nicholas said “no.” Moreover, the process of receiving Greek clergy, which had seemingly already begun, was completely blocked by the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR. The already-received Deacon Christos Karafotias was annulled and returned to the Constantinopolitan jurisdiction, where he has already been suspended from serving and defrocked. This was not even mentioned in the official communiqué following the Council. That is, Metropolitan Nicholas does not merely not want to anger the Phanar, but he also obscures any mention of a conflict with it. Earlier, Metropolitan Nicholas alienated from the Russian Church Abroad the cleric of the Church of Greece, Archpriest Peter Heers, although Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) had protected him. I also cannot fail to note the appearance of clergy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople at the recent “Heritage and Calling” conference in Munich. They did not merely sit and listen: they were given the floor. In addition, Bishop Irenei (Steenberg) even forbade the wearing of the Greek-cut cassock in his diocese.

(https://orthodox-europe.org/content/within-our-diocese-may-greek-style-ryassas-be-worn/)

One would like to know what the reason is. But Metropolitan Nicholas is silent, as is his circle. All these facts cannot possibly be accidental. There must have been some very weighty reason that specifically prompted such decisions. There may be many such reasons. There is the long-standing love of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) for everything Greek. And he certainly would not have received any Greeks into ROCOR. There is also the unsuccessful attempt to establish Eucharistic communion with both the Matthewites and the Florinites in the late 1960s and early 1970s. One also cannot fail to recall the highly disappointing results of the stay in ROCOR of the already-mentioned Panteleimon (Metropoulos) and his admirers, who simply created a “state within a state” inside ROCOR. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) also spoke of the Panteleimonites without any reverence. Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich) wrote about them in a far from sympathetic manner in a letter to Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) dated December 12, 1986:

“I learned that Panteleimon has fled to Akakios [Pappas]. For us, obviously, this is for the better. Perhaps this will also resolve the question of our captivity to the Greek Old Calendarists. Enough of looking back at them and thinking about what we can and cannot do. We are part of the Russian Church, and we are not on the same path as the Greeks. Christ the Savior did not leave us a Dogmatics, nor laws about the calendar. He left us only one condition in order to have the right to be called His disciples: ‘that ye love one another!’ And when we place the calendar as the cornerstone and gnaw at one another over it, we swallow a camel and strain out a gnat. <...> Evidently, those who preserve the old calendar are permitted to be pederasts, to hate their neighbor, and to tear the Church into pieces. <...> We have fallen into an Old Calendarist sect and are floundering in its web, finding no way out. It is time to say openly and firmly to the Greeks: stop your outrages, your mutual condemnations, your hostility and hatred between brothers. By your behavior you disgrace the Church and blasphemously call yourselves True Orthodox Christians.” (https://kirillov-v-y.livejournal.com/37675.html)

After this, the “Greek” question in ROCOR was closed until 1994, when ROCOR entered into Eucharistic communion with the Synod in Resistance. In that same year Metropolitan Petros (Astyfides) of Astoria also wanted to join ROCOR, but the matter stalled. The communion established with the Synod in Resistance proved unstable and was broken off in the mid-2000s, when it was already clear that the reunion of ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate was not far off. As far as I know, no Greek from the Synod in Resistance transferred at that time; but a number of Russian, Western European, and American ROCOR clerics did settle in the Synod in Resistance, not wishing to find themselves in the Moscow Patriarchate. The history of relations between ROCOR and the Synod in Resistance in the years 1994–2005 still awaits its painstaking researcher, but it is noticeable that in present-day ROCOR, no one especially regrets the break with them.

And so, in 2018, ROCOR, having broken communion with the Phanar, once again began receiving priests of the Patriarchate of Constantinople into its clergy. For the most part these were Americans or Europeans who had converted to Orthodoxy and had served in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. For understandable reasons, it was easier for them to transfer to ROCOR than for ethnic Greeks. The first whom Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) received into ROCOR was Priest Mark Tyson of the Carpatho-Russian Diocese, received on October 15, 2018. On October 28, 2018, from the dissolved “Russian” Exarchate, the Nativity of Christ parish in Florence was received, headed by Archpriest George Blatinsky. In December 2018 it became known that Priest Nectarios Trevino had transferred to ROCOR from the Carpatho-Russian Diocese. (link)

On January 25, 2019, the parish of the former Exarchate in Florence was also received into ROCOR. In March 2019 it became known that ROCOR had opened a new missionary parish in Lubbock, Texas, to serve several families who had left the local parish of the Greek American Archdiocese of Constantinople. In July 2019 the priests Spyridon Bailey, Emmanuel Hatzidakis, and John Maridakis were received into ROCOR. The latter two were, in fact, ethnic Greeks. But here is what is noteworthy: already on July 23, 2019, Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) revoked his decree receiving Priest John Maridakis into ROCOR, “in connection with serious accusations brought against [him], requiring investigation.” He remained in ROCOR for only ten days.

Here one cannot fail to say that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has always been rather ethnocentric, and now its ethnocentrism has already been taken to the limit. Therefore, the Phanariots are quite prepared to put up with ethnic Russians, Europeans, or Americans leaving them; but Greeks leaving for ROCOR is not merely a casus belli — it is already a direct summons to wipe ROCOR off the face of the earth. This is precisely what we saw. On October 13, 2019, Archimandrite Alexander (Belya), a ROCOR cleric suspended from serving, served for the first time as a cleric of the American Archdiocese. On March 9, 2020, Archbishop Elpidophoros (Lambriniadis) established the “Slavic Vicariate.” And on August 18, 2020, Archimandrite Alexander (Belya) filed a lawsuit against ROCOR for alleged defamation against him, demanding millions of dollars in damages for his supposed “loss of reputation.” Only on March 31, 2025 did ROCOR manage to fend off Alexander (Belya)’s harassment.

However, I cannot fail to note especially the existence of two anonymous internet resources actively engaged specifically in attacking ROCOR. These are the blog “Pokrovskaya Pravda” and the website rocorabuse.org. By a strange coincidence, they appeared precisely in 2025, when Belya’s lawsuit fell apart in court. The editorial teams of both resources are clearly very well informed about what is happening in ROCOR, but their authors clearly belong neither to the “splinters” nor to the Old Calendarists. And since that is so, almost certainly Phanariot structures stand behind all this. In any case, an attempt to ask the question Cui prodest? leaves no alternatives. All the more so since the flagrant moral crimes of the Belya family have in no way interested the authors of these resources.

I will note one more circumstance: the very reliance on receiving fugitive Orthodox clergy instead of training and ordaining one’s own has always been risky. This is shown by the history of the Old Believer Beglopopovtsy, the history of ROCOR in the time of Philaret (Voznesensky), the history of ROCOR’s “Russian parishes,” and, finally, the history of the “Slavic Vicariate.” The matter here is not only that those who leave any Church are most often not the most successful or scrupulous. In general, the principle of forming any sort of structure out of clerics who have violated their oath is spiritually risky. After all, if some cleric has once left his ecclesiastical authority contrary to his oath, where is the guarantee that he will not repeat this?

Meanwhile, the Phanar has made yet another attempt to crush ROCOR. This time, by presenting it to the public as a puppet of the Kremlin. In November 2025, a number of influential Republicans, headed by U.S. Representative Joe Wilson, appealed to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, asserting that: “The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) is actively seeking to expand its political influence in the United States, including through an event reportedly planned for November 18, 2025.” Let me recall that on that day a number of clerics of ROCOR, the OCA, and the Serbian and Antiochian Churches met with American congressmen, lobbying for the interests of the UOC. This provoked a very harsh statement by a number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives against ROCOR itself.

On November 21, 2025, Metropolitan Nicholas had to publish something like a declaration containing admiration for the political system of the United States and full loyalty to its authorities. In the end, on December 16, 2025, the leader of the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate and the third-ranking person in the country, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, delivered a speech from the rostrum of the U.S. Congress in which he made accusations against the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the inter-Orthodox demonstration held on December 16, 2025, organized by the Society of St. John of Shanghai. Although he had precisely the Moscow Patriarchate in mind, if the matter had been pursued, the blow would have fallen specifically on ROCOR.

But the matter did not proceed, and for the first time in more than five years ROCOR gained at least relative peace. It is quite obvious that behind all these attacks stood the “Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate” and personally Elpidophoros (Lambriniadis), for whom the overly conservative and overly independent ROCOR had long since become something like an obstacle on their broad path of apostasy from Christ... In all this, it is logical to suppose that Metropolitan Nicholas (Olhovsky), having received the long-awaited deliverance from the “sword of Damocles,” preferred not to provoke the already-mentioned Archons unnecessarily by receiving into his clergy Bishop Emilianos of Meloa (Koutouzis) and his deacon Christos Karafotias. Incidentally, at the UOJ they arranged an hour-and-a-half of chatter on this subject.

Well then, Metropolitan Nicholas can be understood; but let the inhabitants of the Phanar themselves also understand one simple thing. Although the Council of Bishops of ROCOR refused to receive Greek clerics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the very problem that conservative Greek clerics, alien both to the extreme modernism of the Phanar and to the extreme rigorism of the Old Calendarists, have nowhere to go does not disappear. And sooner or later this problem will arise again. At the same time, it is important to understand that only the Russian Church is strong and independent enough to go openly against the Phanar and its “Archons” and to be able to protect those Greeks whom it shelters. As they say, we will follow the development of events.

 

Russian source: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/438533.html

The Tragedy of Comfortable Christianity

There was a time when to be a Christian meant danger.

To confess Christ meant the possibility of exile, ridicule, poverty, imprisonment, or death. The early Christians entered the Church knowing that they might lose everything for the sake of the Gospel. The martyrs walked into the arena singing hymns. The ascetics fled to deserts. The saints wept over their sins. The faithful fasted, prayed, struggled, repented, and endured.

Today, however, in much of the modern world, Christianity has become something else entirely.

It has become comfortable.

And therein lies the tragedy.

Modern Christianity often asks not, “How can I crucify my passions?” but rather, “How can I remain comfortable while still calling myself a Christian?” The spirit of sacrifice has been replaced by the spirit of convenience. The narrow path spoken of by Christ has been widened to accommodate the passions of the age.

There are still challenges, especially if we choose to be true Christians. Being mocked, ostracized, shunned, and having our lives made somewhat inconvenient. But we try to avoid that too!

Our Lord did not say: “If anyone wishes to follow Me, let him remain comfortable.”

He said: “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.”— Matthew 16:24

Yet self-denial has become almost foreign to contemporary religious culture. Fasting is considered extreme. Modesty is considered outdated. Vigilance over the soul is considered unhealthy. Repentance is replaced with self-affirmation. Spiritual warfare is dismissed as symbolism. The fear of God is exchanged for therapeutic sentimentality.

Many now desire a Christianity without asceticism, without tears, without obedience, without struggle, without sacrifice, and ultimately — without the Cross.

But Christianity without the Cross is not Christianity at all.

The holy Fathers never presented the spiritual life as comfortable. They described it as warfare. They spoke of watchfulness, tears, repentance, fasting, prostrations, silence, humility, and endurance. They understood that fallen man does not drift naturally toward holiness. He drifts toward carefreeness.

And this spiritual nonchalance is perhaps the greatest danger of comfortable Christianity.

A persecuted Christian may fall through weakness. But a comfortable Christian often falls through forgetfulness. His soul becomes lulled into spiritual complacency. He no longer struggles against sin because sin no longer disturbs him. The conscience becomes anesthetized little by little, not through dramatic apostasy, but through gradual accommodation to the world.
The devil does not always destroy Christians through persecution.

Often, he destroys them through comfort.

A “Christianity” that asks nothing of us eventually changes nothing within us.

This is why the modern world tolerates so much “religion”. A “Christianity” stripped of asceticism and truth poses no threat to the kingdom of darkness. But genuine Orthodox Christianity — the Christianity of the saints — remains deeply offensive to the spirit of the age because it calls man to repentance and transformation.

The saints did not seek comfort. They sought Christ.

And because they sought Christ, they willingly accepted discomfort.

The martyrs endured torture rather than burn a pinch of incense to idols. The monastics embraced poverty and fasting to wage war against the passions. Holy hierarchs endured exile rather than compromise the Faith. Countless righteous Christians chose to suffer with Christ rather than to seek comfort without Him.

Compare this with the modern mentality which often measures spiritual life according to emotional satisfaction, convenience, or personal preference. Churches are abandoned if sermons are “too strict.” Fasting rules are ignored because they interfere with lifestyle. Ancient Christian morality is modified so that modern society will not be offended.

But truth does not change because society changes.

Christ did not promise us social acceptance. In fact, He promised the opposite:

“Ye shall be hated by all men for My Name’s sake.”— Matthew 10:22

The tragedy of comfortable Christianity is not merely that it weakens the individual believer. It also weakens the witness of the Church before the world. When Christians become indistinguishable from the secular culture around them, the light grows dim. Salt that loses its savor cannot preserve anything.

The world does not need a Church that imitates its confusion.

It needs a Church that calls it to repentance.

It needs Christians who still believe that holiness is possible.

It needs men and women who are willing to struggle for purity, truth, humility, and salvation.
The True Orthodox Christian life is not a life of despair, but neither is it a life of ease. It is a life of joy born through struggle. The Resurrection comes only after Golgotha. The crown comes only after the Cross.

Comfortable “Christianity” teaches people to avoid suffering at all costs.

Orthodoxy teaches us how to suffer with meaning.

This is why the saints possessed an inner peace unknown to the modern world. Their peace did not come from comfort, wealth, entertainment, or self-indulgence. It came from reconciliation with God through repentance and spiritual struggle.

One tear of genuine repentance is most certainly worth more than years of superficial religiosity.
The great danger today is not only atheism.

It is “Christianity” emptied of repentance.

A “Christianity” that blesses the passions rather than crucifies them.

A “Christianity” that seeks applause from the world instead of salvation from Christ.

A “Christianity” that wears the name of Christ while fearing the very life to which Christ calls us.

May we not become Christians only in appearance!

May we not exchange the narrow path for the broad road of comfort!

And may we remember that the Faith handed down by the martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and holy Fathers was never meant to make us comfortable in this fallen world!

It was meant to make us saints.

 

Source: https://trueorthodox.eu/the-tragedy-of-comfortable-christianity/

 

Hieromonk Seraphim: A Tribute

By Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna (+2019)

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VII (1990), No. 4, p. 13.

Father Seraphim (Rose) of Platina was a man of exceptional intellect—a brilliant honors student as an undergraduate, a gifted graduate student at Berkeley, fluent in classical Chinese and Russian, endowed with a sound knowledge of Latin and German, and yet the author of simple, fundamental texts on Orthodox spirituality that anyone can comprehend with ease.

As the ten-year anniversary of Father Seraphim's untimely repose approaches—it is only several years off—, I often reflect on this unusual figure in American Orthodoxy.

I first began corresponding with Father Seraphim when I was a graduate student. We began a three-way correspondence, as it were, with the late Father Georges Florovsky, to whom Father Seraphim would often pose questions through me. I was much edified by Father Seraphim's wisdom and guidance during my sometimes lonely years of study.

In 1981, shortly before his death, Father Seraphim visited me at our monastery, then located in Ohio. He shared with me some of the problems which eventually led to the present unfortunate status of the St. Herman of Alaska Monastery in Platina, demonstrating the kindness for which he has often been praised, but showing, too, a resolute spirit with regard to correcting certain problems in Platina—corrections which he did not live long enough to realize.

I happened to be in California when Father Seraphim reposed. Father Herman, Father Auxentios, and I (then an Archimandrite) celebrated the first Liturgy over his body. The next day, Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco arrived to celebrate the funeral service, in which I also took part. These experiences, before an unembalmed body that showed no signs of decay, have never left me. I was privileged to see with my own eyes what many can only read about in Church history.

Father Seraphim's life has been misrepresented. He has been used in a way which he would never have wanted. Many of us prematurely proclaimed his sanctity. Others have exploited those premature proclamations and have dishonored a man of dedication, sincerity, and commitment. Whether Father Seraphim was a saint, I cannot say. That he was a man of great holiness and of a magnanimous spirit, this I can say. Let the passing years and the Will of God tell us anything beyond this. In the meantime, let us reflect on this man who cleansed himself of sin, suffered greatly from injustice, covered and protected those around him, and who yearned for the unity of all sincere Orthodox. He is, as such, a great inspiration to our age of believers.

 

The Beacon of Light: The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (Part 2)

by Protopriest Nikita Grigoriev

Instructor of Apologetics, Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, Jordanville, NY  1986-2006

 

 

In May of 2006, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) convened a council in San Francisco, USA, to discuss the possibility of ROCOR entering into communion with the Moscow Patriarchate (MP). After four days of deliberation, the Council passed a resolution not to enter into communion with the MP at this time.

This is the quote from the resolution of the Fourth All-Diaspora Council of the ROCOR in San Francisco, May 11, 2006: “Our Paschal joy is joined by the great hope that in the appropriate time, the unity of the Russian Church will be restored upon the foundation of the Truth of Christ, opening for us the possibility to serve together and to commune from one Chalice”.

Why did the Council resolve that that was not the appropriate time to unite with the MP on a foundation of Truth of Christ? The reason is alluded to in a statement of the Council of Bishops that followed right after the 4th All-Diaspora Council.

This is the actual quote from the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR: “The draft Act on Canonical Communion was then discussed. This draft was adopted and approved in principle, though with the stipulation that certain points be resolved.”

It is crucial to understand that then, and to this day, these obstacles to union with the MP have not been resolved and not even addressed—but rather—simply ignored.

The first of these “certain points” referred to the Sergian doctrine of total unity of purpose with an atheistic regime, that laid the foundation for the group that is now referred to as the Moscow Patriarchy and the resultant Ecumenism in which the MP was—and still is—deeply involved, despite the fact that they try to downplay it.

This is of utmost importance to understand: The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad did not agree to the union then, nor did the Council of bishops agree to the union, nor did they bless it then. The union with the Moscow Patriarchate was forced through, illegally and surreptitiously, mainly by Met. Laurus and Archbishop Mark during a Synod meeting in New York.

It is also important to realize that the Synod has no authority to make such decisions on its own. The Synod is subject to the authority of the Council of Bishops, which, in turn, needs to respond to and reflect the decision and the will of the All-Diaspora Council. And those bodies had decided that this was not the time to unite with the MP because of the unresolved issues.

Nevertheless, the ROCOR Synod decided to unite ROCOR with the MP on its own. This was a clear usurpation of authority and a violation of fundamental ecclesiastical rules. This amounted to what can be rightly called Neo-Sergianism. That fateful Synod session did not even have the quorum necessary to make any valid decisions. Only present were Met. Laurus, Archbishop Mark, and Bishop Gabriel (of Manhattan, who actually wrote that he did not agree with this then, but later was convinced to agree), who were members of the Synod.

Bishop Peter of Cleveland was present, but not a member of the Synod and not eligible to vote, and Bishop Hilarion called in sick and was not going to attend.

With only three Synod members present, there was not a quorum to make any valid decisions, much less a decision on the fate of the entire ROCOR, which was contrary to the decision of the All-Diaspora Council of ROCOR and the Council of Bishops.

The reason why the language in the All-Diaspora Council resolutions was so vague and obfuscating was because there was great pressure applied on several key members of ROCOR clergy to facilitate the union as quickly as possible. This pressure on ROCOR to capitulate was being exerted since ROCOR’s very beginning in 1920. But it was suddenly, substantially increased in September 2003.

Metropolitan Laurus was in his office in Jordanville when he unexpectedly received a phone call from a representative of Vladimir Putin. Met. Laurus was told that Mr Putin will be in New York, and will meet with the Met Laurus and his Synod of bishops in the synod headquarters in Manhattan.

On September 25th, 2003 President Putin met with Metropolitan Laurus, Archbishop Mark, Archbishop Kirill, as well as several others.

(http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/29418)

This is a quote from the website in the link above: “Mr. Putin stressed the exceptional importance of a rapprochement between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). It was of extreme significance for the integration of Russia into the world and for the ROCOR”.

Why was the “rapprochement between the MP and ROCOR” of “extreme significance for the integration of Russia into the world”?

Not long before this meeting, Met. Laurus made a rare public announcement after Sunday Liturgy, in the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity in Jordanville. He said that he had recently made a trip to Russia, unannounced, in order to have a look at the situation with the Moscow Patriarchate there. He astounded everyone in the cathedral by saying that he now realizes that any union with the Moscow Patriarchate is not possible and we must now prepare for a possible martyrdom. The shock of what he said will never be forgotten by the many people present there. People could hardly believe their ears because Met. Laurus had usually been very soft and diplomatic.

However, soon after that, the drift towards union with the MP began to accelerate, despite what Met Laurus had declared in the cathedral. Then, after the meeting with President Putin in New York, the push towards union became feverish. The impression was that this union is of the utmost urgency and must take place as soon as possible, at any cost.

Why did Met. Laurus seem to change his mind so dramatically regarding union with the MP? The answer to that can be glimpsed from the response Met. Laurus gave to a lawyer who was questioning him on the witness stand. When the attorney asked Met. Laurus, “What would have happened if you had refused to unite with the MP?”

Met. Laurus replied emphatically, even slamming his fist on the bench, “They would have killed us!”

Met. Laurus seemed to believe that the Moscow Patriarchate was going to take over the ROCOR one way or the other, regardless of whether ROCOR agreed or not. He felt that it would be much less detrimental to ROCOR if it submitted peacefully. He was by nature extremely averse to any kind of confrontation. It seems possible that Met. Laurus was interpreting, in his own way, the words of Christ:

“Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.” (Luke 14:31-32)

A scant two and a half months after Mr. Putin visited the Synod and impressed upon the ROCOR bishops the urgency of their union with the MP, the ROCOR administration organized an All-Diaspora Pastoral Conference in Nyack, NY. The object of this conference was clearly not so much to discuss whether, or how it may be possible to unite with the MP but to convince the ROCOR clergy that there were no longer any real obstacles for uniting with the MP and the time for unification had arrived.

For this purpose, three high ranking MP clergy were brought to the Nyack, NY Pastoral Conference to promote the MP as the “Mother Church” from which the ROCOR had separated and now needed to “re-unite” with (in fact the Russian Orthodox Church was never united with the Sergianists but rejected them). These three were each given time for lengthy speeches to deliver the MP message to the ROCOR clergy. Several of the ROCOR bishops, who were now totally pro-union, also gave long speeches.

The rest of the ROCOR clergy were allowed a maximum of three minutes to speak. The original reason for the schism in 1927 was not discussed. Why did the senior bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, Met Kyrill of Kazan, Met. Peter of Krutitsk and most of the other bishops and clergy, refuse to serve with Met Sergius, and warned others not to follow him? All attempts to discuss the fundamental reason for the separation of Met. Sergius and his followers from the Russian Orthodox Church were ignored. Those very same reasons that the Russian Orthodox Church rejected Sergius in 1927 are not only present today but have solidified over time.

This All-Diaspora Clergy Conference was a perfunctory exercise to begin preparing the ROCOR clergy for the union, since the decision to unite with the MP had already been made, despite Met. Laurus telling everyone that there will be no union.

Another result of this Conference was the formation of a “negotiating committee” to negotiate with the MP the terms of union.

Before the start of the first session with the MP, the ROCOR “negotiating committee” was clearly told by the MP that there will be no discussions of Sergianism nor any of the reasons why the Russian Orthodox Church did not recognize the Sergianists. In fact, no mention of Met. Sergius’ name will be allowed. Thus, the whole reason for the separation from the MP was to be ignored and forgotten.

Several prominent ROCOR clergy, who had hitherto been clearly against union with the MP suddenly began to actively promote it. Those who still maintained the traditional view of the Russian Orthodox Church regarding Met Sergius and his group of “Living Church” revolutionaries, were ostracized and sidelined. This was all in preparation for the 4th All-Diaspora Council, where the decision to unite with the MP had to be pushed through by any means necessary.

To this end, many of the clergy, and even some laity, who were pro-union were invited to read speeches promoting the union, whereas those who would have given clear reasons why this union cannot take place were not permitted even to attend.

Remarkably, the original Resolution of the 4th All-Diaspora Council had been prepared ahead of time. However when it was presented at the Council, there was such an outcry of resistance that it was withdrawn. Even so, the final Resolution was never voted on in its entirety, but rather piecemeal and in parts.

What was eventually presented as the Resolution of the 4th All-Diaspora Council was a carefully crafted document with sufficient ambiguity for both sides to understand it each in their own way. The following quotes are some examples.

“…we express our conciliar consent that it is necessary to confirm the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad for the future as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Church, in accordance with the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia currently in force”.

The Russian Church Abroad always considered itself to be a part of the Local Russian Church. The canonical basis for this was, and still remains, the Decree #362 of Patriarch Tikhon. This is true and was perfectly acceptable to the members of ROCOR. The Local Russian Church was never accepted by ROCOR to mean the current Moscow Patriarchate, which was a schismatic group created by the godless Bolsheviks to destroy the Local Russian Church and then to replace it.

However, after an intense campaign of propaganda and indoctrination, prior to this Council, the pro-union supporters began to promote the MP as not only the traditional Local Russian Orthodox Church, but even as the “Mother Church”, an odd but useful slogan for propaganda purposes.

Another quote from the Resolution concerned the active role of the MP in the ecumenical movement, which the ROCOR under the leadership of Met. Philaret, had declared to be a heresy:

“From discussions at the Council, it is apparent that the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the World Council of Churches evokes confusion among our clergy and flock. With heartfelt pain we ask the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to heed the plea of our flock to expediently remove this temptation”.

Most ROCOR people, who understand the nature of the MP, realize that asking the MP to cease its ecumenical activities is akin to asking a fish to stop swimming in water. The very purpose for the creation of the MP by the atheistic regime was infiltration, gathering of intelligence, and control.

The final point in the Resolution states: “We hope that the forthcoming Local Council of One Russian Church will settle remaining unresolved church problems.”

These “remaining unresolved church problems” needed then to be resolved, as they still need to be resolved, at a Local Council of One Russian Church. Clearly, as the Council stated, they need to be resolved prior to any union with the MP. What was understood by a “Local Council of One Russian Church” was a genuine and true Council of the entire Russian Orthodox Church.

This needed to include the ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Catacomb Church and the MP. All needed to be properly and fairly represented. The Local Council then would need to examine Met. Sergius’ decision to unite with the atheistic Soviet government and the subsequent creation of the MP by Stalin and their history and current situation, as well as the position and history of ROCOR, and also the position and history of the Catacomb Church.

Needless to say, the MP was not in the least interested in such a Council because they know full well that their founder Met. Sergius illegally usurped authority in the Church and fully collaborated with the NKVD, striving to subjugate and destroy the real Local Russian Church, including the ROCOR and the Catacomb Church.

The “hope” that the Council of the One Russian Church was actually “forthcoming” was very much wishful thinking, more like a prayer for a miracle. It was really not much different than hoping that the Pharisees of the time of Christ would have an honest council with the Apostles to discuss why they had decided to crucify Christ.

There is no doubt that the Local Russian Church needs to be united. We, as Orthodox Christians, believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But in order to be One, the Church absolutely needs to be Holy.  This is where that stipulation of the 4th All-Diaspora Council for union “upon the foundation of the Truth of Christ” comes in. The Truth of Christ is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.

The Church lives by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. There can be no lies, no deceit, no guile, nor any compromise with lies whatsoever in the foundation of the Church, for the Church is the foundation and the pillar of Truth.

The current problem of division in the Church stems from the fact that there are two very different views as to what the Church of Christ actually is. This is born from an indifference to the Truth of Christ and the absolute necessity to take up one’s cross to truly follow Christ, a path that the real Church of Christ has always taken. The majority of people regard the Church as a human institution, that can be changed or adapted to changing circumstances, as needed.

The traditional, Patristic and truly Orthodox Church is actually a living organism, comprised of God, the Holy Spirit, and also humans. This marriage of God and humans is the new spiritual and physical being that God created with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles on Pentecost. The Holy Church of Christ is the marriage of God and man, where Christ is the groom and the human portion is the bride.

Thus, the real Church of Christ, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, has Jesus Christ Himself as the Head of the Church. He is with us always, as He promised, protecting and leading His Holy Church with the Holy Spirit. To this Church He promised absolute invincibility, even against the gates of Hell.

As the gates of hell are now swallowing up almost the whole world, we, as Orthodox Christians, must hold dear more than ever the words of Christ: “Take heed that no man deceive you. (Matt 24:5b) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matt 24:24) (See also Mark 13:5-22)

As Orthodox Christians we must never forget that the Holy Orthodox Church is not ours to negotiate or compromise with anyone. It is led by the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from God the Father. This is the Spirit of Truth and He will not tolerate any compromise with lies or distortions of Truth. As soon as lies or distortions or compromises are accepted knowingly, the Holy Spirit departs the party that accepted them.

Christ has already defeated Satan and hell. All power has been granted to Him in Heaven and on earth. Satan is powerless to do anything without permission from Christ. We need not worry about saving the Church from its enemies or from extinction.  Christ has already done that and He promised it will not be prevailed against.

What we do need to be very concerned with is that we remain faithful to Christ and his Truth. No one can follow Christ unless they deny themselves and take up their cross to follow Christ. For many shall be deceived and seduced away from Christ and His Holy Church because the Love of many shall grow cold. Apathy and indifference to the Truth of Christ is the main reason people can be deceived and fall away from the real Church of Christ.

Many end up in facsimile churches because they love something or someone more than Christ. Christ said that anyone who loves his father or mother or brother or sister or son or daughter more than Him, is not worthy of Him. That, of course, includes loving your career or your friends and society or your lifestyle or even your country more than Christ and it will definitely be used by Satan to separate you from Christ.

Hence those terrifying words of Christ, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt 7:22-23)

Christ also did say that towards the end times His Church will become smaller and smaller. He even said, “When I return, will I find any Faith on the earth?”  But His Holy Church will definitely remain, albeit very small and persecuted but full of True Faith, to greet Him when He returns with trumpets and surrounded by the glory of countless Angels.

Christ said in the Old Testament: “I have set before you Life and death… choose Life.” (Deut 30:19b) Now, in the same vein, He sets before us Life, which is the Truth of Christ—or death—which is the deceit and guile of Satan. Let us choose Life in the Truth of Christ. The Truth of Christ was what the Russian Church Outside of Russia and the Council of Bishops chose in San Francisco in May of 2006, when it rejected the union at that time precisely because it was not “on the foundation of the Truth of Christ.”

The True Russian Orthodox Church Abroad remains as it was. It continues as before, to serve only Christ God and not the powerful of the world. In May of 2007, almost three quarters of the Church members were pulled into an uncanonical and illegal union with a Church whose leadership serves only the civil authorities and still persecutes the Russian Orthodox Church, whether abroad or in Russia.

This account was written in response to many requests for a factual historical presentation based on documents and eyewitnesses. This was not written for those who have already made up their minds and are comfortable with having joined the MP.

This was written for those whose conscience is not at ease with the union with the MP and who care enough to want to know the truth as to what happened and how. Many people felt in 2007 that the union with the MP was rushed and carried out under duress—that it was more like a hostile takeover rather than the will of God and not with the agreement and blessing of the Russian Church Outside of Russia. They are right.

Some people are still having doubts and even regrets about having been swept up in the optimism of a unification of the Russian Orthodox Church, as it was presented in 2007. With some, buyer’s remorse is setting in as they see the fruits of this takeover. These people need to know that the True Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is still here and although much smaller in number, nevertheless is still faithful to Christ and to Her mission abroad.

This is the Church that they left to join with the MP and this Church is waiting and praying for their return. There is no greater joy than when a soul returns to the flock of Christ.

The only way to help Russia is to restore the Church in Russia - The True Russian Orthodox Church of Patriarch Tikhon.

The modern-day MP is definitely not the Russian Orthodox Church, but rather a false church created by the Bolshevik godless authorities to destroy the real Russian Orthodox Church and to replace it. The words of Christ that He spoke to the Pharisees fully apply to them now: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” (Matt 23:13b)

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is still the Beacon of Light to the world, because darkness cannot destroy Light. Lies, corruption and hypocrisy cannot be defeated by joining with them. Christ already defeated them by His death on the Cross and by His glorious Resurrection. To dispel the lies and hypocrisy of the prince of this world, we must deny ourselves, take up our Cross and follow Christ.

That is the thorny and narrow path that the true Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is following and it entreats all of its faithful members, and those who may have been misled or have strayed, to stand firm with Christ in His Truth. Only in the Truth of Christ is Salvation.

 

Source: http://rocana.org/archives/15144

 

MP Professor A. A. Kostryukov on the Canonization of Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)

May 21, 2026

 

On May 2, 2026, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia blessed the process of preparing for the church glorification, in the rank of venerable fathers, of Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose). We asked Doctor of Historical Sciences, Candidate of Theology, Chief Research Fellow of the Department of Contemporary History of the Russian Orthodox Church, and Professor of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University, Andrei Alexandrovich Kostryukov to comment on this decision.

 

 

— Andrei Alexandrovich, although the name of Hieromonk Seraphim is known to many, to some it will mean nothing. Could you remind us what makes this man interesting?

The life of Hieromonk Seraphim, Eugene Rose in the world, is very interesting and in some respects recalls the path of the ancient saint Justin the Philosopher, who sought the truth in various teachings and found it in Christ. Hieromonk Seraphim did not come to Orthodoxy immediately. He was born into an American Protestant family, but in his youth became interested in Eastern teachings, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism, and wanted to study these religions, including by coming to know them in practice. Eugene Rose had an aptitude for studying languages and therefore tried to study religious texts in their native language. But Eugene did not find the truth in any of these teachings. Only when he came to an Orthodox church did he understand that the search was over: the truth had finally been found in the Orthodox Church. Saint John (Maximovitch) and another ascetic of the Russian diaspora, Bishop Nektary (Kontzevich), who became his spiritual father, had a great influence on Eugene Rose. Conversion to Christ also changed Eugene’s life, which had previously been far from moral ideals.

In 1962, Eugene converted to Orthodoxy; in 1970 he became a monk; and in 1977 he was ordained a hieromonk in the Russian Church Abroad. For a long time, Father Seraphim lived in a skete near the settlement of Platina in California, learned Russian, studied Orthodoxy, engaged in translations, carried on extensive correspondence, and composed akathists to Saint John (Maximovitch) and Venerable Paisius Velichkovsky. Father Seraphim died in 1982 at the age of 48.

— Father Seraphim is also known as the author of many writings. Why are they important?

I must repeat what I have said more than once: it was precisely the Russian diaspora that helped us with literature and textbooks in the first years after the fall of communist rule. For almost seventy years, theological and ecclesiastical-historical scholarship in the Soviet Union had been suppressed. Textbooks and studies appeared in emigration, and in the 1990s they came to be in demand. The books of Father Seraphim (Rose) also proved useful. Let me recall that, in parallel with the revival of the Church in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there began an influx of dubious teachings. People who had grown up over the decades of Soviet godlessness thought that everything unusual was from God. And therefore, both Eastern cults and charismatic practices unacceptable to Orthodoxy gained popularity. It was not easy to resist this onslaught, and the works of Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) helped the Church considerably. These include, for example, the books The Soul After Death, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, Genesis: Creation and Early Man, and others. I remember how, during my studies, I wrote a term paper on glossolalia, the gift of “speaking in tongues,” and this was not even at the beginning, but at the end of the 1990s. There were major difficulties in finding literature on the subject; it turned out that, apart from Protestants, almost no one had studied this question in particular. Almost the only Orthodox work on this topic was the work of Father Seraphim (Rose).

— Hieromonk Seraphim is sometimes accused of radicalism, of an overly harsh attitude toward non-Christian religions and non-Orthodox confessions. How fair are these accusations?

Yes, Father Seraphim insisted that salvation is only in Orthodox Christianity. But I think there is no basis for dispute here: this is the foundation of our faith, although the Jubilee Council of 2000 did indicate that the action of grace among the non-Orthodox is a mystery of God’s Providence. Nevertheless, it is incorrect to accuse an Orthodox ascetic of having been too straightforward on this question.

Personally, I have not formed the impression that Father Seraphim was a fanatic or an obscurantist. On the contrary, he emphasized that the study of theological sciences must be joined with the raising of one’s cultural and educational level, and he warned against a “sudden leap into theology.” Along with patristic literature, he advised reading classic writers for the softening of the heart. And among such classics he named not only Orthodox authors, for example Alexander Solzhenitsyn, but also non-Orthodox ones, for example Charles Dickens.

— What was Hieromonk Seraphim’s attitude toward the Local Churches? After all, he belonged to the Russian Church Abroad, which, as is well known, at times sharply criticized both the Church of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate.

Father Seraphim indeed made quite a few sharp statements both regarding ecumenism and regarding the compromises which hierarchs were forced to make. At times Hieromonk Seraphim was unsparing. But I would not generalize. First, he was not the only one to speak this way: we have both New Martyrs and ascetics numbered among the saints who were extremely uncompromising toward compromises in matters of faith and in relation to totalitarian regimes. Second, Hieromonk Seraphim could express himself both more and less radically. It is understandable that at first, having come to the faith, he was more categorical, but gradually his views began to soften. This is evident, for example, from his letters published in Jordanville in 2005.

For example, analyzing the failure of the mission of the Russian Church Abroad in Alaska, Hieromonk Seraphim wrote that this mission should be taken upon itself by one of the Local Churches, the Orthodox Church in America, although the attitude toward it on the part of the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad was generally negative.

In another letter, Hieromonk Seraphim wrote that the Church Abroad should be open to all Orthodox Christians. Here Father Seraphim held the view of Saint John (Maximovitch). Hieromonk Seraphim believed that the Church Abroad should admit all Orthodox Christians to the Chalice, regardless of their calendar and other manifestations of modernism. According to Father Seraphim’s thinking, the Church Abroad was thereby to become a source of support for those who were struggling within their own Churches against unreasonable innovations.

I will quote words from one of Hieromonk Seraphim’s letters: “We must maintain living contact with the Russian clergy of the older generation, even if some of them seem too liberal to us; otherwise, we will simply lose ourselves in the jungles of zealotry, which are growing up around us.” The understanding of zealotry, that is, fanatical conservatism, as “jungles” is very telling. Elsewhere Hieromonk Seraphim called zealotry a monster and predicted that right-wing radicals in the Orthodox Church would split more and more. As we see, Father Seraphim proved to be right.

— Were there other cases of such discernment?

I think that what is at issue here is not a miraculous gift of clairvoyance, but knowledge of Church history and an understanding of historical patterns. For example, in the 1960s a group of radical Greek Old Calendarists, headed by Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos), entered the Russian Church Abroad. Before long they began drawing the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad into their radicalism as well, including its head, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). Hieromonk Seraphim directly called this group “university boys playing at Orthodoxy,” and predicted that they would not remain in the Church Abroad. And that is what happened: in 1986, the group of Archimandrite Panteleimon accused the Church Abroad of modernism and ecumenism and created its own schism, which went down in history as the “Boston” schism.

— You mentioned Father Seraphim’s work on the creation of the world. What views did he hold on the question of creation?

Here we have come to a very important point in the legacy of Hieromonk Seraphim. As far as I have been able to follow the polemics on social networks, there is an accusation against the hieromonk of interpreting the biblical words about creation literally. Yes, Father Seraphim was a creationist; he was an opponent of evolutionary views. But here is where I see the problem. In past centuries, when a saint was canonized, his attitude toward the creation of the world was not a current issue, since everyone was a creationist, except that some inclined toward a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, while others inclined toward a more or less allegorical one.

Now, however, the situation is different. In connection with the development of science, the question of creation will be raised more and more often at canonizations. After all, an ascetic who received an education in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and left a written legacy can no longer remain aloof from various theories. And now we will encounter the fact that a person who speaks in favor of one of the theories will be subjected to attacks from the other camp. Perhaps the question is already ripe for the Church to prepare an authoritative document on its attitude toward theories of the creation of the world and the origin of life? But in general, figures of the Church, including saints, often held the same opinions as the science contemporary to them. And if these opinions are now outdated, this does not diminish the authority of the saints.

Or another question: that of “Unidentified Flying Objects” (UFOs). We remember what a sensation stories about flying saucers and contacts with extraterrestrial intelligence caused in our country at the end of the 1980s. Long before this, Father Seraphim wrote that, if such phenomena do occur, they are manifestations of demonic activity, and he substantiated his view with examples from Church tradition. Now, however, such an explanation of the “UFO” phenomenon is leading to new attacks on Hieromonk Seraphim. But I am certain that if he had said that he believed in extraterrestrials, this would have caused incomparably greater indignation.

— That is, the views of Hieromonk Seraphim cannot affect his glorification?

It is known that for glorification there must be such criteria as a holy life, irreproachable faith, popular veneration, and, finally, testimony to holiness—usually, help received through the prayers of the ascetic. He was faithful to Orthodoxy; the Council of Bishops of ROCOR has stated that he lived an ascetic life. As far as I know, veneration of Father Seraphim exists; some time ago there was even information that Father Seraphim had been glorified in one of the dioceses of the Georgian Church. Although the information proved to be false, the tendency toward his glorification is clearly present. As yet there is no official canonization; the Council of Bishops of the Church Abroad has only blessed its further preparation. Therefore, polemics concerning the life path and views of Hieromonk Seraphim are still possible. The main thing is that this polemic be serious. And the final decision will be rendered by the Church.

 

Russian source:

https://pstgu.ru/news/main/professor-pstgu-a-a-kostryukov-o-kanonizatsii-ieromonakha-serafima-rouza/

Shared by:

https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/436777.html