1970 GOC / ROCOR Concelebration in Athens

 

From left: Bishops Akakios of Diavleia, Hilarion of Manhattan (ROCOR), Auxentios of Athens, Petros of Astoria, and Gerontios of Salamis.

Nikolaos Sotiropoulos (1934-2014): The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council combats schism and is worthy of praise.

“When a hierarch preaches heresy, then the priest has the right not to commemorate the name of that hierarch.”

 

 

Nikolaos Sotiropoulos: You who are appointed unto eternal life. Brothers whom the Lord loved, for whom He became man and sacrificed Himself, and whom He ordained to obtain boundless eternity, to obtain His unshakable and indescribable Kingdom.

Your Church invited me to come and preach the word of God. I responded readily to your Church’s invitation. Your Church is accused of being schismatic. I came as an Orthodox theologian to refute this accusation. I came, as an Orthodox theologian, to defend the people of God who come to this church in order to worship the Lord of Glory. Your parish priest, the minister of the Most High, Father Alexander, has ordination from a canonical Bishop. He has canonical ordination, he has real priesthood, and he performs the Mysteries.

The congregation: Axios! Axios! Axios!

Nikolaos Sotiropoulos: The Patriarchate of Constantinople deposed Father Alexander, but it deposed him unjustly, incompetently; this Patriarchate did not have the competence to judge Father Alexander, and it did so without allowing him to defend himself, without summoning him to make a defense. For this reason, according to the Sacred Canons, his deposition is invalid, just as the notorious excommunication of the speaker is also invalid.

Those who govern the Church must learn justice; those who govern the Church must learn justice and respect the Sacred Canons, and not do arbitrary and dictatorial things within the Church of God.

What does the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council say, my brothers? When a hierarch preaches heresy, then the priest has the right not to commemorate the name of that hierarch, and to serve independently of that hierarch, and to commemorate—as I was moved when I heard earlier Father Alexander commemorating—“all Orthodox bishops who rightly divide the word of Truth.” Canon 15, I repeat, of the First-Second Council, concerning the priest who does not commemorate the heretical hierarch and serves independently of him, says that this priest does not cause schism, but combats schism, because he does not commemorate the heretical hierarch and because he serves independently of the heretical hierarch. I repeat: he does not create schism, but combats schism and is worthy of praise.

Congregation: Axios! Axios!

Nikolaos Sotiropoulos: Not of deposition. Even great Fathers and teachers of our Church were deposed, such as Athanasius, the pillar of Orthodoxy, and Chrysostom, the most universal Father and teacher of the Church. But the Fathers, although they were deposed by unjust fellow bishops, are the undeposed towers of the Church. We enjoy the Liturgy of sacred Chrysostom here on Sunday.

My brothers, your Church is not schismatic. It is canonical, Orthodox, and your parish priest is worthy of praise, because he declared: “I will serve independently of the Archdiocese of Australia, because the Archbishop preaches heresy!” Heresies. That is why I came here to speak; otherwise, I would not have come.

Do you know what another Canon says, the 31st Apostolic Canon? A priest may cease the commemoration of a hierarch and serve independently of the administration of the hierarch when the hierarch offends piety—that is, the Faith, and not only piety—and justice, when he does unjust things.

Do you know what another Canon says? If a hierarch does not combat the heresies, and all the more if the hierarch also preaches heresies, then another hierarch has the right, has the right to come and assume the pastoral care of his flock. Indeed! If there were heroic Bishops and heroic priests, they ought to have come here to Australia and assumed the pastoral care of the shepherdless flock of the Archdiocese of Australia.

Today we celebrate, the day before yesterday and today, Saint Paraskevi. After our Panagia, she is the most popular female saintly figure. Saint Paraskevi became holy, my brothers, because she had Faith. The first thing is Faith; all the other things come second. She believed, as the Apostle says today; she believed in Jesus as Lord, as God. She believed in the Lordship and the Divinity of the Author of our Faith, our Lord Jesus Christ. She also believed in the Resurrection of Christ, which the Apostle again speaks of. She believed in everything that the Church believes. She was a conscious member of the Church and struggled within the Church. And because the Church is a workshop of holiness, for this reason Saint Paraskevi, through her struggle and through the Grace of the Church, became a Saint and wonderworker.

On this occasion, my brothers, I shall briefly explain to your piety the article of the Symbol of Faith which refers to the Church, which brings forth Saints and wonderworkers and martyrs and great-martyrs. What did we say earlier, when reciting the Symbol of Faith? I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is one. Christ is not in many churches. He founded one Church: the one that has the correct Faith. The others are heresies and schisms. Here you are the Church with the right Faith, the Orthodox Faith. You belong to the One Church of which Christ said: “I will build My Church upon the rock of Faith.” He said “the” Church, “One” Church. One is the correct Faith, one is the Church.

Again, Christ said to the Jews: I do not have only you Jews, Christ said; I also have other sheep: us Gentiles, the Greeks and others, who were idolaters. I am going to lead them also, and there shall be one flock under one shepherd. What is the one Flock? The One Church. And who is the one Shepherd? He who sacrificed Himself for the sheep, our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Ecumenists speak of many churches. They say, Council, World Council of Churches. Let there be a union of the churches. Wrong! The Church is one: the one that changed nothing from the Faith of the first eight centuries. Many times, I challenge the heterodox, the heretics, to indicate and prove that we changed even one small Truth of Faith. They cannot prove such a thing. We changed nothing from the Faith. The Church is One; the others, I repeat, which are called churches, whether Papism, or Protestant confessions, or Monophysites, are heresies and schisms.

The Church is Holy. I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Why is the Church Holy? Because her Founder is Holy; because the Spirit that gives her life is Holy, the Holy Spirit. Because the Gospel is Holy, the Scripture is Holy, her teaching is holy, her Tradition is holy. Because her Mysteries are Holy, because her purpose is holy. The Church is a workshop of holiness. Within the Church there is the Grace of God, which brings forth Saints, as it brought forth Saint Paraskevi. What am I saying? Millions of Saints and martyrs and great-martyrs and wonderworkers, whose holy relics also work miracles. The Church is Holy; she has produced millions of Saints. It does not matter that within the Church there are also impious and corrupt people. The impious and corrupt do not abolish the Saints and the holiness of the Church, the Church of God. The Church is not merely a human organism; she is a divine-human organism, and for this reason the enemies and betrayers of the Faith have not been able to tear her down.

The Church is Catholic. What does it mean that the Church is Catholic? The Papists call themselves the catholic church. Wrong; the Catholics are not a church, they are a Heresy. Their church, their so-called church, is not catholic. It is called catholic, but it is not; it has the name, but it does not have the Grace. Our Church is Catholic. Why? Catholic means that it has the whole Truth of the Faith. It has thrown away nothing from the truths of the Faith; it has distorted nothing from the truths of the Faith. Because our Church has the whole Truth of the Faith, which the Lord revealed for our salvation, for this reason our Church is called Catholic. The Papists, from the name “Catholic,” do not have the Grace. We Orthodox have both the name “Catholic” and the Grace.

The Church is Apostolic. What does this mean? God founded her through the Apostles. He chose twelve, thirteen simple, unlettered men; He sent them forth into the inhabited world; they preached the most beautiful words, words which the ages marvel at, incomparable words. The philosophers do not attain to the wisdom of the Apostles. And some years, and some decades, after the death and Resurrection of Christ, they founded in the inhabited world, among all states and above all states, the State of God, the Church. The Church has as her cornerstone, her very foundation stone, Christ Himself, and as secondary founders, the Apostles; and as stones of this edifice called the Church, the Church has all conscious Christians. We are living stones in the majestic edifice of Christ which is called the Church.

The Church, my brothers, is the ark of our salvation; it is the workshop of holiness; it is, to express myself differently, our mother, our sweet mother, who grants us hope and consolation and strength. Within the Church miracles take place; for this reason, the Church is not torn down. And what did one Father of the Church say? No one can have God as Father if he does not have the Church as mother. If he does not come every Sunday to this great family of Christ, to say, “Glory to Thee who hast shown us the light,” to say, “We hymn Thee, we bless Thee, we give thanks unto Thee, O Lord.”

My brothers, all things in the world are vain. The Church is not a vain thing. Let us remain faithful to the Faith, to Orthodoxy, to our sweet mother, the Church, until the end. And when we depart from this vain world, as children of the Church of Orthodoxy, we shall not go below, where the impious go. We shall go above, above the stars, above the galaxies, and we shall receive an unshakable, indescribable Kingdom, and we shall reign together with the King of kings, our Lord Jesus Christ, unto the boundless ages; and of our Kingdom there shall be no end. Amen!

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/05/15_12.html

 

 

California Son: On the Patron Saint of Lost Western People

Paul Kingsnorth | April 27, 2025

 

 

I haven’t been well these last few days, and have not been able to write my usual Sunday Pilgrimage instalment. I hope to be back on the road next week. Instead, I’m offering up this essay, which was recently ‘printed’ in the Free Press in the US. It’s about the life of a pioneering American Orthodox figure whose journey has both intrigued and inspired me.

---

Last year I was invited to give a talk about Christianity and nature at Canisius University in Buffalo, New York. After the talk, I took some questions from the audience. One of the questions, asked in sweet innocence, was a deadly honeytrap for a visiting Englishman:

“What do you think of America?”

I had just been talking about the dangers to the soul of the technological culture of Silicon Valley, and the impact of its machine-like ways of thinking on the world, so I said the first thing that came into my head. This is rarely a good idea, especially in public.

“America is Babylon,” I said. Then, remembering I was speaking to an audience of Americans, I quickly added a qualification.

“It’s Babylon,” I said, “but it might also be the place that counters Babylon. It’s as if one force somehow begets the other. After all, California is home to Silicon Valley, but it’s also home to the monastery of Seraphim Rose.”

Somebody else in the audience put their hand up.

“Who’s Seraphim Rose?” they asked.

It was a fair question. The strange name I had conjured is hardly widely known. It is the name of a man who in many ways embodied the twentieth-century West’s aching search for meaning. A man who pushed himself out of the desert of modern materialism, through a banquet of “alternative spiritualities,” and into an ascetic, monastic life in the oldest and most traditional stream of Christianity: the Eastern Orthodox Church. Seraphim Rose is the unofficial patron saint of lost Western people, and only America could have made him.

Today, with the Orthodox Church in the U.S. growing faster than it ever has, and with young people flooding many of its parishes, interest in his life and work has reached new heights. Sales of his books continue to grow, his grave has become a place of pilgrimage, and there are more and more persistent calls for him to be recognized as a saint of the Church. Slowly and quietly, he may be helping to remake America.

---

Eugene Rose was born into a middle-class family in San Diego in 1934. Shy, intense, and clever, he became disillusioned, as he grew, with both the materialism of consumer America, and with what he regarded as the shallow, worldly Christianity of his suburban upbringing that did nothing to challenge it. After graduating magna cum laude in Chinese philosophy from Pomona College in Southern California, Eugene went on to study for a master’s degree at Berkeley, where he wrote an acclaimed thesis on the Tao Te Ching. Fiercely intelligent, he consumed philosophy, history, and theology at a rate of knots, in search of both truth and meaning, but none of it seemed to answer his questions: What was truth? What was life for? And what should he do with his?

One thing Rose did become sure about as a young man was that religion was a lie. Baptized a Methodist, he had grown to reject the Christian faith as empty and meaningless. He had read Nietzsche, he had met Jack Kerouac, and by the time he was a student he was cursing God in drunken fits of rage for having created an empty and meaningless world. Later, Rose described such passionate atheism as a “spiritual state… a real attempt to grapple with the true God whose ways are so inexplicable even to the most believing of men.”

If there was no God, though, what was there? The blossoming counterculture of San Francisco offered different kinds of answers, and the young Eugene threw himself into it with gusto. For a while he studied under the “beatnik guru” Alan Watts, who he believed might have the answers to his growing spiritual questions. But Eugene became disillusioned with Watts, whose pseudo-Eastern combination of booze, acid, Zen, and yoga came to seem like yet another example of the consumerism that was devouring his country.

The ’50s and ’60s counterculture as a whole presented the same problem: However much music, drink, drugs, or sex Rose experimented with, the void inside him just kept growing. “Disease, suffering, death,” he wrote in a letter to a friend, “these are reminders, convenient reminders, that man most profoundly is not of this world… Whatever the ‘eat, drink, and be merry’ school says, self-conscious man must face this problem.”

In the mid-1950s, when he was in his early 20s, Rose met another young seeker, Jon Gregerson. Gregerson was a Finnish-born Russian Orthodox Christian; he was also to become Rose’s lover. As part of Eugene’s endless search for meaning, one day he went along with his partner to the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in San Francisco. It was an experience that would alter the course of his life.

It was Easter—Pascha, in Orthodox terminology—and the cathedral was holding a night service. The Orthodox liturgy is over a thousand years old, and the Paschal service is particularly deep and intense. Typically, it will last for several hours on either side of midnight, culminating in a priest emerging from the altar into a blacked-out church, holding a single candle and declaring “Christ is risen!” The overall effect, especially after the week of heavy fasting that the Orthodox Church prescribes, can be extremely powerful. Rose had never seen—or felt—anything like it. “Something happened to me,” he later wrote of his visit, “that I had not experienced in any Buddhist or other Eastern temple; something in my heart said that I was home; that my search was over.”

After years of exploring every idea he could find in search of truth, he had seen something he never expected: “That Truth was not just an abstract idea, sought and known by the mind, but was something personal—even a Person—sought and loved by the heart,” he wrote later. “And that is how I met Christ.”

Eugene threw himself into a new exploration of Orthodox Christianity with the same intensity he had applied to his searches through Zen, Taoism, and perennialism. Just as he had previously taught himself Chinese in order to study the Tao, now he taught himself the Slavic languages in order to understand the Russian Orthodox hymns. Attending the cathedral regularly, he met its archbishop, John, who had recently arrived in San Francisco from Shanghai, where he had lived after fleeing his Russian homeland during the Bolshevik revolution. In China, John served as bishop under the Japanese occupation, later working in a refugee camp after the communist revolution and then fleeing to Paris, before being appointed bishop of San Francisco in 1962. Throughout it all, he refused to sleep in a bed, ate just one meal a day, went barefoot, and gave all he had to the poor.

St. John of San Francisco—as he now is—was an entrancing figure for the young Eugene, like an ancient saint who had walked into the modern world. In Russian Orthodoxy, and especially in the figure of St. John, he had found what he was looking for: a faith that emphasized not self-indulgence but self-sacrifice. This was no new claim—it was, he came to understand, the very foundation of Christianity, but it had been lost in the modern, comfortable versions of the faith with which he had grown up.

“Let us not, who would be Christians, expect anything else from [life] but to be crucified,” he later wrote, “and we must be crucified outwardly, in the eyes of the world; for Christ’s kingdom is not of this world.”

If there is a secret to the growing significance, and the growing veneration, of Rose as a modern Christian figure, it is perhaps the insight that he gained from watching St. John at work—that suffering and struggle are the key to wisdom and truth.

---

When Eugene Rose was received into the Orthodox Church in 1962, it was both the end of a spiritual search and the beginning of a remarkable transformation. Eugene was a man who never did anything by halves, and now that he had discovered what he considered to be the true faith and the true church, he wanted to explore it in its fullness. Above all, he wanted to be transformed by it.

In the cathedral, he befriended another young Orthodox newcomer, Gleb Podmoshensky, and soon they were hatching plans. By 1964, they had opened a bookstore in San Francisco dedicated to selling Orthodox texts. A year later they purchased an antique, hand-operated printing press and set to work producing their own magazine, The Orthodox Word, featuring stories of ancient forest-dwelling saints, lessons from the Desert Fathers, and teachings from Christian texts.

Reading and writing about the lives of ancient saints who had fled to the Russian wilderness to live for God alone, Eugene and Gleb felt a pull to do the same. In 1967, they bought a parcel of land in the wilds of northern California near the small hamlet of Platina, and formed a Christian brotherhood named after St. Herman of Alaska, America’s first Orthodox saint. Soon, the brotherhood became a monastery. It was a simple, stark, and unworldly place. Most of it was built by hand by Eugene and Gleb, using wood from abandoned mining shacks. There was no running water, electricity, or telephone, but there were bears and rattlesnakes aplenty. Here, both men were tonsured as monks by St. John of San Francisco. Eugene took the name Seraphim, and Gleb became Herman. Father Seraphim Rose was born.

For the next 15 years, Seraphim Rose used his life at the monastery to effect his own personal transformation and that of the nascent Orthodox faith in the U.S. He lived a severe, ascetic life in a small wooden cabin he built himself, sleeping on boards, never cutting his hair or beard, fasting regularly, and dedicating himself to prayer. It was a harsh existence, but one that seemed to deeply energize him. He was beginning to experience the paradox of ascetic Christianity that the monks of the Egyptian desert had noticed and taught a thousand years before: that the more you sacrifice for God, and the simpler your life, the more freedom and joy is available to your soul. The less attached you are to the world, the closer you come to God.

This was, and remains, a message so alien to modern consumer cultures as to be almost incomprehensible to many. But not, it turned out, to all. Slowly, more young men came to the monastery, seeking a radical Christian life away from the outside world, many of them drawn in by reading The Orthodox Word, which the brotherhood continued to produce. Like Rose before them, they sought a meaning that their culture could not give them.

Working by candlelight in his often-freezing wooden cell, Rose began to translate and then write his own books: God’s Revelation to the Human Heart, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, The Soul After Death, and other works poured out of him. During the 1970s, with Russian communism in full force, these titles were produced in samizdat translations in the USSR, where many remain bestsellers today. In the West, meanwhile, Rose’s teachings and writings are growing in popularity—and in some cases, relevance. Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, for example, is a blistering examination of the role that digital technology and fashionable occultism will play in the coming of the Antichrist. In the age of WitchTok, and a burgeoning neo-paganism among the young and very online, it’s hard not to read it and shiver.

Writings like this made Rose a controversial figure in some quarters. Some of the claims he made in his books are argued over by theologians, and in some circles he is seen as an extremist or even a fanatic, for the ascetic lifestyle he insisted on leading, for his particular interpretations of Orthodox theology, and for his radical condemnations of what he regarded as the corrupt nature of modern society. In many ways, the criticism is understandable: Rose was a man driven to seek the truth at almost any cost to himself, and he brooked no compromise with a rapidly secularising world which likes its Christianity to be cosy and unthreatening. In the eyes of that world, his life and work do indeed seem extreme or even inexplicable—but then, so did the life of Jesus, and all of his apostles.

As Father Seraphim, he took literally Christ’s call to leave the world and head for the kingdom instead. In this, he may have been closer to historical Christianity, with its litany of martyrs, saints, and ragged desert fathers and mothers, than many of his comfortable critics. As the Orthodox scholar David Bentley-Hart has put it, “one thing in remarkably short supply in the New Testament is common sense. The Gospels, the epistles, Acts, Revelation—all of them are relentless torrents of exorbitance and extremism.” It is, in fact, precisely this lack of sensible, worldly “moderation” that has made Seraphim Rose an increasingly significant spiritual figure in modern America more than forty years after his untimely death.

That death came unexpectedly in the early 1980s, when Rose was in many ways at the height of his powers. Working in his cell, he began to feel a series of excruciating pains in his abdomen. His fellow monks wanted him to see a doctor, but Rose refused for several days. Eventually, when the pains became unbearable, he was taken to hospital, where it was found that a blood clot had killed part of his intestines. It soon became clear that his illness was fatal. The monastic brotherhood gathered around him in his hospital bed, holding an all-night vigil and singing hymns as he slipped in and out of consciousness. He died in September 1982, aged 48.

The end of Rose’s life, though, was to be the beginning of his reputation, which continues to grow among many who see him as an inspiring and uncompromising example of a genuine, unworldly Christianity. Today, there is a growing thrum of support for the notion that Seraphim was, and is, a saint, and that the Orthodox church should recognize him as one. Whether or not that happens, his life and works seem more and more relevant by the year, as the culture war continues, the materialism of the West intensifies, and as young people in particular begin seeking older, deeper, and more serious forms of faith in order to fill the void of meaning that has opened up around them. The endless political arguments and cultural divisions of the modern West, which seem only to grow, can easily disguise what Rose saw beneath: a spiritual void. Without a wider and deeper meaning to life—which in Rose’s view meant without Christ—only nihilism beckons. More and more people, especially the young, seem to agree.

Eugene Rose, who became Father Seraphim, was in this sense an American spiritual pioneer. He was prepared to throw everything off—even his own life—to find the truth that he had always sought so passionately, regardless of what the world thought of him. “When I became a Christian,” he once said, “I voluntarily crucified my mind, and all the crosses that I bear have been only a source of joy for me, I have lost nothing, and gained everything.”

 

Source: https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/california-son

Prayer for Someone When Recovery is Hopeless

O God, look down with mercy and loving-kindness on our dear brother, afflicted with sickness unto death; give him perfect resignation to Thy divine will, and graciously enable him to suffer, without complaining, whatever Thou art pleased to appoint. O compassionate Lord Jesus Christ, support and comfort him. O Most Holy Theotokos, and all ye blessed saints, intercede for him, that he may acquire much virtue in passing through this time of trial and be purified thereby from the smallest stain, so that at the moment of his departure from this valley of tears, he may enter into the joys which God has prepared for those who love and serve Him, through our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, together with His unoriginate Father, and His Most Holy and good and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

The Rule of Prayer for Deliverance from Evil Thoughts

 

Through the prayers of the Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.

Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee.

Heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of truth, Who art everywhere present and fillest all things, O Treasury of every good and Bestower of life: come and dwell in us, and cleanse us from every stain, and save our souls, O Good One.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us. (3x)

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

All-holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord, be gracious unto our sins. Master, pardon our iniquities. Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities for Thy Name's sake.

Lord, have mercy. (3x)

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Our Father, Who art in the Heavens, hallowed be Thy name. Thy  kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day, our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Through the prayers of the Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.

Lord, have mercy. (12x)

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

O come, let us worship and fall down before our King and God.

O come, let us worship and fall down before Christ, our King and God.

O come, let us worship and fall down before Him, Christ the King and our God.

PSALM III

O Lord, why are they multiplied that afflict me? Many rise up against me. Many say unto my soul: There is no salvation for him in his God. But Thou, O Lord, art my helper, my glory, and the lifter up of my head. I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy mountain. I laid me down and slept; I awoke, for the Lord will help me. I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people that set themselves against me round about. Arise, O Lord, save me, O my God, for Thou hast smitten all who without cause are mine enemies; the teeth of sinners hast Thou broken. Salvation is of the Lord, and Thy blessing is upon Thy people.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, Glory to Thee, O God. (3x)

Our Hope, O Lord, glory be to Thee.

PRAYER I

O Master, Lord my God, in Whose hands is my fate, help me according to Thy mercy, and forsake me not to perish in mine iniquities, neither be it Thy will that I should follow the desires of the flesh against the spirit. I am Thy creature, despite not the work of Thy hands, for I am feeble; for I am come seeking refuge in Thee, my God and Protector: heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee. Save me for Thy mercy's sake, for I was cast on Thee from my youth: let them be put to shame that seek to turn me away from Thee, by impure deeds, by foolish thoughts, by unprofitable memories. Drive from me every impurity, the excess of malice; for Thou alone art holy, Thou alone art mighty, Thou alone art immortal, having in all things power beyond compare, and by Thee is the power to withstand the devil and his hosts granted unto all. For to Thee belongeth all glory, honor and worship, to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

PRAYER II

May thine ill return upon thine own head, and let thy slander come down upon thee, O crafty and wicked demon: for I worship the Lord my God, and never will I speak blasphemy against Him. For how is it possible for me to vex, or blaspheme Him Whose glory I proclaim day and night, and at every hour, with all my strength and mind? But my doxology is indeed thine abuse; thou shalt see wherein thou slanderest Him, and as an apostate thou speakest against God.

PRAYER III

The Lord Who came into the world by the Most Pure and Holy Virgin and truly the Theotokos, unto the salvation of the world for the sake of us sinners, forbideth thee, O most crafty spirit, the devil. Cursed art thou and all thy wicked thoughts, whether at night or in the day. I exorcize thee by the name of the Consubstantial and Undivided Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: depart from me, the servant of God [name], put not thine evil thoughts into my heart, but depart unto a deserted land, without water, that the Lord visiteth not. I exorcize thee, O impure and blasphemous spirit, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, neither to flatter nor to trouble me with abusive thoughts as I make my prayer unto the Lord my God, but let all thy slanderous thoughts be upon thy head in the day of judgment: for I serve the Lord my God, and to Him alone I send up my prayers in the day and the night, to Him that abolisheth thee, yet hath mercy on me, and strengtheneth me, and forgiveth me, in His great goodness and mercy, all my sins. Get thee behind me Satan, and be thou cursed, with all thy wickedness and opposing power, for blessed and glorified is the most honorable name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. 

PRAYER IV, TO THE MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS

O my most holy Lady Theotokos, through thy holy and all-powerful prayers banish from me, thy lowly and wretched servant, despondency, forgetfulness, folly, carelessness, and all filthy, evil, and blasphemous thoughts from my wretched heart and my darkened mind. Quench the flame of my passions, for I am poor and wretched, and deliver me from many and cruel memories and deeds, and free me from all their evil effects. For blessed art thou by all generations, and glorified is thy most honorable name unto the ages of ages. Amen.

More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, thee who without corruption gavest birth to God the Word, the very Theotokos, thee do we magnify.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Lord, have mercy. (3x)

Through the prayers of the Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.

Various Prayers to the Theotokos

 

When offended

At all times try to silently endure reproaches… Pray:

"O Queen of Heaven, save us sinners, and suffer us not to fall into the abyss. I know, O Lady, that all these sorrows are profitable unto our soul. But, O Lady, Thou seest how feeble we are, and how greatly we have attached unto the life that is earthly. Grant unto us patience to bear our cross, and forsake us not, sinners, of Thy heavenly consolation."

And thus, if you act in this way throughout your entire temporal life on earth, the Lord will not forsake you together with His Mother, and at times will give you such inner consolations as no earthly pleasure or comfort can be compared with…

 

Prayer of Venerable Macarius of Optina, read during carnal warfare

O Mother of the Lord, my Creator! Thou art the root of virginity and the unfading flower of purity. O Bearer of God! Help me, who am weak from carnal passion and in affliction, for in Thee alone, and through Thee in Thy Son and God, I have protection. Amen.

 

Prayer for neighbors

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, by prayers of the Theotokos and of all the saints, send peace, well-being, and blessings to Thy servants: [names].

 

Prayers to the Most Holy Theotokos for our neighbors or the people around us whom we wish to help

Some people of high spiritual life, when they wished to help a person met on their life’s path but, due to various circumstances, could not do so, prayed thus:

“Most Holy Lady our Theotokos, take Thou this soul (name or names), and do with it what Thou willest, what I would wish to do with it, but cannot. I entrust him (or them – names) to Thy maternal care and protection.”

Prayer 1

O Most Holy Lady Theotokos! Raise us, the servants of God (names), from the depths of sin and deliver us from sudden death and from every evil. Grant, O Lady, unto us peace and health, and enlighten our mind and the eyes of our heart unto salvation, and make us, Thy sinful servants, worthy of the Kingdom of Thy Son, Christ our God; for His dominion is blessed with the Father and His Most Holy Spirit.

Prayer 2

Most Holy Virgin, Mother of the Lord, show upon me, the poor one, and the servants of God (names) Thy former mercies: send down the spirit of understanding and piety, the spirit of mercy and meekness, the spirit of purity and righteousness. Yea, O Most Pure Lady! Be merciful to me here and at the Dread Judgment. For Thou art, O Lady, the glory of the heavenly and the hope of the earthly. Amen.

Prayer 3

O Most Holy Lady Theotokos! Look down from the height of Thy holiness upon us, the servants of God (names), and help us who are weak; calm our sorrows, guide us on the right path; heal our afflicted hearts, grant us to spend the remaining time of our life in peace and repentance; grant a Christian end, and at the Dread Judgment of Thy Son appear to us as an intercessor of mercy, that we may always glorify Thee with all who have pleased God unto the ages of ages.

 

 

Source: Сборник редких молитв ко Пресвятой Богородице [Collection of Rare Prayers to the Most Holy Theotokos], published by Holy Dormition Pochaev Lavra, 2013.

Online: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/molitva/sbornik-redkih-molitv-ko-presvjatoj-bogoroditse/

 

Did Fr. Seraphim Cover Up Abuse?

On the truth about Fr. Seraphim and the alleged cover up of the sins of Herman Podmosenky.

Silouan Wright

 

 

With the prospect of his glorification, accusations have resurfaced that Fr. Seraphim Rose knowingly covered up the sexual misconduct of his co-founder, Gleb Podmoshensky (later "Fr. Herman"). Blog posts and Substack articles repeat the claims as settled fact.

Here are 12 points to consider.

1. The entire argument against Fr. Seraphim Rose relies on the testimony of Reader Daniel Everiss and Fr. Alexey Young. Both men explicitly exonerated Fr. Seraphim and remained devoted to him until the end. The accusers cannot make their case without contradicting their own witnesses.

2. Reader Daniel Everiss is the star witness against Fr. Herman. He maintained the blog (which is still online) that excoriated, criticized, and named those in ROCOR who protected and justified what Fr. Herman Podmoshensky did. Reader Daniel was among 4-6 accusers who gave sworn, signed testimonies kissing the Gospel and Cross before Archbishop Anthony, in the presence of two or three priests. [1] He was himself a personal victim of Podmoshensky:

"He [Fr. Herman] harmed many souls, myself included. He drove me away from his Platina Monastery. He drove only God knows, how many wounded souls, especially of young men, from the Church, even from God."

Fr. Herman Podmoshensky in response blacklisted him:

"'That scum Everiss!' — this he repeated over many years to many."

Reader Daniel endured forty years of isolation for telling the truth. He died in 2023, having never recanted a word.

3. Reader Daniel Everiss was extremely critical of almost everyone BUT Fr. Seraphim Rose. The entire argument against Fr. Seraphim requires using the very words of Reader Daniel while completely dismissing the same man's glowing endorsement of Fr. Seraphim. Reader Daniel wrote:

"I KNOW such was not the case! Fr. Seraphim and Herman Podmoshensky were/are two, VERY different people. Fr. Seraphim was the true self-abnegating ascetic, and poor Fr. Herman... just playing his own pompous deluded/in prelest, 'Holy Starets' role."

And again from Reader Daniel:

"Furthermore, I have hard evidence, gathered from different sources, that Fr. Seraphim was not guilty of the sins of his brother, as some foolish people who did not know him, have wrongly imagined. Fr. Seraphim was an angel in the flesh."

And again:

"I saw absolutely no signs at all, that he [Fr. Seraphim Rose] led any secret unspiritual life-style, though as it proved to be later on, Fr. Herman ...did."

All who continue to use the name and arguments of Reader Daniel have to explicitly contradict him.

4. Reader Daniel Everiss, who bluntly critiqued ROCOR for not acting, called Fr. Seraphim Rose "an angel in the flesh." How can one use Reader Daniel's testimony against Fr. Seraphim Rose and completely ignore whom Reader Daniel himself said was responsible and accountable for not acting? Credibility is not selective. Either a witness is credible or he is not. The Pokrov Truth Substack (which everyone is deferring to in the pursuit of slandering Fr. Seraphim Rose) itself calls Reader Daniel "a courageous truthspeaker" whose "validity and sincerity as a reliable source is unquestioned," and then it immediately uses his testimony to argue the exact opposite of what Daniel intended and believed.

5. The documentary record rules out a long-term coverup. Fr. Seraphim's last surviving letter (early June 1982, three months before his death) mentions Fr. Herman casually and collaboratively. [13] Across 617 pages of published letters spanning twenty years of correspondence, not a single letter hints at knowledge of misconduct. Fr. Alexey Young's Russian-language memoir places the moment Fr. Seraphim learned something alarming approximately six months before his death: a novice reported that Fr. Herman had approached him and said things "that cannot be repeated." [7] Fr. Alexey describes Fr. Seraphim as devastated by this news: "His illness probably opened up because of this terrible news. After all, this meant the end of the monastery. The monastery would simply be closed if such news had reached the bishop." [7] His language is that of a fresh wound, not of a man who has been managing a known secret for years. The "long-term coverup" narrative has no documentary support whatsoever.

6. Hieromonk Damascene's biography documents that "every evening after services, Fr. Seraphim remained in church to hear the brothers unburden their souls privately to him." [2] The brothers did revelation of thoughts with Fr. Seraphim four to five times weekly. Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky, whose rule governed this practice, explicitly called it "confession." [3] Thus: if Fr. Seraphim learned about the matter of Fr. Herman, it is very likely that he learned about it under the seal of confession. Those who demand he should have "spoken up" are demanding that he commit a canonical crime. The canons are explicit: a confessor may not divulge the sins confessed to him; if he does so and the penitent denies it, the confessor's testimony carries no weight; and a priest who breaks the seal faces suspension or outright deposition from the priesthood. [4]

St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite: "Nothing else remains after confession, Spiritual Father, except to keep the sins you hear a secret, and to never reveal them, either by word, or by letter, or by a bodily gesture, or by any other sign, even if you are in danger of death." [5] Saint Paisios the Athonite: "Is it ever permitted to reveal the confession of another? Absolutely not!" [6]

Fr. Seraphim could not reveal what was confessed to him, even if his very life was in danger. He did what he could within the bounds of the canons: Fr. Seraphim "forbade this novice to be alone with Fr. Herman." [7] according to Fr. Alexey Young. The accusers are asking us to condemn a man for obeying the Holy Canons.

7. What exactly do critics expect Fr. Seraphim to have done? Write a newspaper article? Publish it in a book? Fr. Herman was the abbot of the monastery, officially appointed as Superior by Archbishop Anthony himself in 1975. [2] In monastic life, nothing happens without the blessing of the superior. A monk cannot act independently against his own abbot; the only proper course of action was to bring the matter to the bishop above them both. And we already know what happened when Archbishop Anthony received exactly that kind of testimony from multiple sworn witnesses after Fr. Seraphim's death: he "did not want to believe them and did not press these particular charges." [8] Anthony showed the testimonies to Fr. Herman, who "swore on the Bible that it was untrue." Anthony believed him. He gave Fr. Herman more than two years before suspension while the Synod wanted him defrocked earlier. So even if Fr. Seraphim told Archbishop Anthony everything, the result would have been the same. The full answer to everything these critics demand is already in the historical record, and it indicts the hierarchy, not Fr. Seraphim.

Further, we must consider how many assumptions the accusation requires. We must assume Fr. Seraphim did not tell Archbishop Anthony. We must assume he did not direct those who confessed to him to approach the archbishop themselves. We must assume the two men never discussed the matter. We must assume the information came outside the seal of confession. Every one of these assumptions contradicts the available evidence or cannot be verified. And against all of them stands one documented fact: when Archbishop Anthony did receive sworn testimony from multiple witnesses after Fr. Seraphim's death, he still dragged his feet and believed Fr. Herman's denial. The accusation requires a tower of unproven assumptions; the defense rests on what actually happened.

8. The double standard among those who repeat these accusations is staggering. The ROCOR Ecclesiastical Court's own published decision praised Archbishop Anthony's delay as pastoral patience: "he did not rush to proceed with an Ecclesiastical Court, so as to give Fr. Herman time for repentance." [9] Anthony's obituary in Orthodox Life contained three eulogies praising his humility; the Podmoshensky affair was never mentioned. No ROCOR Synod resolution ever criticized Anthony for delay or leniency. The institution commended his inaction as virtue and eulogized him without qualification. Archbishop Anthony himself, on Forgiveness Sunday in the Novi Sobor in San Francisco, wept and bowed to the congregation, asking them to "forgive me for my not being a good or wise bishop" in regards to Herman and Platina. [1] Even the bishop admitted he failed. Worse: Reader Daniel reveals that Archbishop Anthony issued "an order of temporary silence" to the witnesses themselves. [11] The bishop received the sworn testimonies, acknowledged the problem, and then ordered the victims to stay quiet. And yet a dying hieromonk with no canonical authority, whose star witness calls him "an angel in the flesh," is the one these slanderers choose to put on trial and insult. The Pokrov Truth blog, at least, is consistent in critiquing ROCOR's institutional failures. But the vast majority of people sharing these accusations do not. They will not critique the bishop because critiquing a hierarch carries actual institutional consequences. They will critique a dead hieromonk because it costs them nothing, and because Fr. Seraphim spoke against them in his writings.

9. Fr. Seraphim Rose had absolutely no motive to protect Fr. Herman. About six months before his death, he said "he was never happier than when Fr. Herman was off on one of his many trips," for then, he said, "we have peace, quiet, and order at the Skete." [8] According to Reader Daniel, Fr. Seraphim said that if he survived another year, he would leave Fr. Herman. When Fr. Herman openly told a group at a St. Herman Summer Pilgrimage that homosexuality was "commonly accepted" in Orthodox village life, Fr. Seraphim left the lecture in obvious and open disgust. [1] Fr. Alexey Young, who knew both men personally, writes in his memoir: "He [Fr. Seraphim] touched other people only when he blessed, and never again. Father Herman, on the contrary, immediately tried to grab the interlocutor into his arms when they met." [7] These were two fundamentally different men. And this was a volatile situation: when the accusations finally came, Fr. Herman reportedly threatened to shoot Archbishop Anthony, a claim corroborated independently by the academic record. [14] This is the unstable man Fr. Seraphim was living under. These critics, from the safety of their keyboards, presume to judge a monk trapped in a remote monastery with a dangerous superior and a bishop who would later admit he failed.

Further, those who have read Fr. Seraphim Rose know that he was without fear. In his writings he criticizes GOARCH, ROCOR, the OCA, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Serbians, the Antiochians, the Old Calendarists, the Paris school, the World Council of Churches, and modernist Orthodox seminaries. He critiqued Patriarch Athenagoras, Archbishop Iakovos, Metropolitan Nikodim (Patriarch Kirill's own mentor), Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff, Fr. Panteleimon of Boston, and his own ROCOR bishops by name. He called institutional compliance "spiritually illegitimate" [10] and "slavery to men." [11] He even said of Archbishop Anthony himself: "a 'quencher of the spirit'... He is an excellent 'peacemaker,' but he crushes every good initiative." [12]

Therefore: a man planning to leave his own monastery, who called obedience to corrupt institutions slavery, who spoke critically of Fr. Herman and of his own bishop, who called out jurisdictions and notable persons, has zero motive to cover up anything for institutional self-preservation.

10. The circulating "full story" against Fr. Seraphim Rose links rely on the testimony of a schismatic Old Calendarist "archbishop" (Gregory Abu-Asaly of the self-created "Genuine Orthodox Church of America"). [15] Consider what this man actually says in the video that Pokrov Truth promotes as "a valid source to take into consideration":

He renders the deathbed words as "I curse you" (30:44), a version found in no written source. The documented words, per Fr. Alexey Young, are "I'm finished with you. Damn you!" [8] He repeats his version three times in the video. He then fabricates the entire deathbed scene: in his telling, Fr. Seraphim "comes out of a coma, sees Father Herman, says 'I curse you, get away from me,' fell back into a coma and died" (30:36-31:04). The documented reality, per both Hieromonk Damascene and Fr. Alexey Young, is a man with tubes passed into his mouth, arms spread apart and tied to the bed, needles of IV drips in his veins, unable to move or speak. [27]

He insinuates that Fr. Seraphim's fatal intestinal illness was caused by his pre-conversion homosexuality: "And is it because of his past incontinence, we don't know, but he had a pain there" (28:45-29:01). Fr. Seraphim came to the faith from a sinful past, as many of us have. He repented. He converted. Everyone who knew him, including Reader Daniel, the star witness against Fr. Herman, testifies that Fr. Seraphim became wholly ascetic, wholly dispassionate: "an angel in the flesh." The Orthodox Church has many saints who committed grave sins before their conversion. St. Mary of Egypt lived in sin for decades. Abu-Asaly is drawing a crude connection between the location of the illness and the nature of the pre-conversion sin. Imagine a female saint who lived in sin before her conversion and later died of cancer. Imagine a man going on camera and insinuating that the cancer was connected to the sins she used to commit. That is what this man is doing. He is not a clairvoyant. He has no medical knowledge. He has no spiritual authority. He sat in a room, thought about the past sexual sins of a dead man, formed a crude anatomical theory, and published it on the internet. The Holy Fathers condemn this as gossip, and anyone who repeats these insinuations shares in it.

This is the same man who declared Fr. Seraphim "in prelest" because he did not comb his beard. He is not insulting a layman. He is insulting a hieromonk of the canonical Church, a priest and monk who showed no signs of his former life after conversion, a man every witness calls completely dispassionate, and one who will soon (God willing) be glorified as a saint.

In the same video, he claims, without any source, that Fr. Herman intercepted letters from Fr. Seraphim's "former lover" and planned to publish them to expose him (39:48). He claims the teaching of the aerial toll houses is "Gnostic" and "condemned by the ecumenical councils" (23:50), a teaching attested by St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Climacus, St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov), St. Theophan the Recluse, St. John of Shanghai, and many others, hymned in the liturgical texts of the Church, and given comprehensive treatment in St. Anthony's Greek Orthodox Monastery's volume The Departure of the Soul.

This is the man the accusers cite. Anyone who shares the opinions of this schismatic and treats him as a credible witness has no interest in truth, accountability, or Orthodoxy.

The author of the Pokrov Truth Substack writes under the pseudonym "The Grand Inquisitor." In his own post endorsing the video, he acknowledges that Abu-Asaly's "fundamentalist views about baptism, ecumenism and who is, and is not a heretic, are not in accordance with established, mainstream positions of the canonical Orthodox Churches." He writes this, and then in the very next sentence calls him "a valid source to take into consideration." He knowingly promoted the video of a schismatic who fabricates deathbed quotes, insinuates that a hieromonk's fatal illness was divine punishment for sins he repented of decades earlier, and contradicts the consensus of the Fathers.

11. So we must ask: why are these accusations coming forward? The evidence does not support the accusation. The star witness contradicts it. The canons explain the silence. The hierarchy bears the documented responsibility. When someone persists despite all of this, the question is no longer about evidence. It is about motivation. You can see it plainly: they quote nothing else Reader Daniel said. Not his decades of posts naming those who protected Fr. Herman. Not his indictment of Archbishop Anthony's foot-dragging. Not his account of being blacklisted, shunned, and driven into isolation for telling the truth. Not his explicit exoneration of Fr. Seraphim Rose. They extract one fragment and discard the rest. Reader Daniel himself saw it coming. He wrote that Fr. Herman "even has caused some to disparage Fr. Seraphim, who himself was a sincere true ascetic and priest." [1] The pattern speaks for itself: they do not want Fr. Seraphim Rose glorified. They do not care about Fr. Herman. They care about what Fr. Seraphim Rose himself stood for: uncompromising Orthodoxy that spared no institution, no hierarch, and no theological fashion from criticism. That is what they cannot tolerate, and Fr. Herman's sins are merely the instrument they have found to use against him.

12. The aftermath proves that Fr. Seraphim did not enable Fr. Herman; he restrained him. Reader Daniel, who was present at the all-night vigil over Fr. Seraphim's coffin, writes that Fr. Herman:

"was totally out of his mind with remorse and guilt and weeping and self-accusation, kneeling down many times at night, in front of the coffin and trying to tell Fr. Seraphim that he was sorry." [1]

That is the behavior of a man who knew his brother disapproved, who felt accountable to him, and who lost the one person keeping him in check. Within two years of Fr. Seraphim's death, Fr. Herman was suspended from the priesthood. Within six years, he was defrocked. He then fled to the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Pangratios Vrionis, a Greek priest defrocked by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in December 1970 after pleading guilty to sodomizing two 14-year-old boys; Pangratios was arrested again in April 2002 for the alleged 1999 sexual assault of another 14-year-old boy. [14] That is who Fr. Herman chose to align with once Fr. Seraphim's restraining influence was gone. Sixteen years of partnership produced a brotherhood; six years without Fr. Seraphim produced a defrocked priest sheltering under a convicted pedophile. The accusation that Fr. Seraphim enabled Fr. Herman has the evidence exactly backwards.

If these people cared about the victims, they would be talking about what the victims talked about. For them, the victims are simply tools to be used to achieve their aims of slandering a saint under the guise of "seeking accountability."

I would encourage the faithful, whenever they see these accusations repeated against Fr. Seraphim Rose, to share this post (you have permission) and to ask the accusers to address the evidence presented here. Let us not allow the memory of our saints and elders to be defamed without answer.

---

1. Reader Daniel Everiss. Sworn testimonies and personal account: blog post, December 7, 2012, https://readerdanielsharing.blogspot.com/.../not-of-this... "Angel in the flesh," "hard evidence," and "'That scum Everiss!'": blog post, July 1, 2014, https://readerdanielsharing.blogspot.com/.../death-of-fr.... "I KNOW such was not the case" and "I saw absolutely no signs at all": "In Fr. Seraphim's Defense," https://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/.../in-fr...

2. Hieromonk Damascene, Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, ch. 66, "Brothers."

3. Life of Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky, quoted in Damascene, p. 529.

4. Canon 132 (141 in the Pedalion) of Carthage; Canon 34 of St. Basil the Great; Canon 27 of St. Nikephoros the Confessor. Together they establish the principle that a confessor may not reveal what is confessed to him. The penalty of deposition is stated by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite in his commentary on the practice (Exomologetarion, Ch. 12).

5. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Exomologetarion, Ch. 12: "That the Spiritual Father Is Not to Reveal Sins," trans. George Dokos (Uncut Mountain Press, 2006), p. 107. The same chapter records the incident under Patriarch Nektarios of Constantinople (381-397), when a spiritual father revealed a woman's confession and the faithful were so scandalized they refused to confess at all. St. John Chrysostom personally witnessed the fallout and labored to convince the people to return to the sacrament.

6. Elder Paisios the Athonite, Spiritual Counsels, Vol. 3: Spiritual Struggle, p. 297.

7. Fr. Alexey Young, Russian-language memoir, recorded August 20-21, 1998, posted 2007. https://seraphim-rose.livejournal.com/7683.html

8. Fr. Alexey Young, review of Not of This World, Orthodox America, Vol. XIV, Issue 126-127. https://roca.org/.../from-the-bookshelf-not-of-this.../

9. Orthodox Life, Vol. 43, No. 5 (1993), Ecclesiastical Court excerpt, pp. 44-45; Orthodox Life, Vol. 50, No. 5 (2000), Archbishop Anthony obituary eulogies.

10. Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 125.

11. Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 322.

12. Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 128.

13. Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose, Letter #326, early June 1982 (the last surviving letter).

14. D. Oliver Herbel, Turning to Tradition: Converts and the Making of an American Orthodox Church (Oxford University Press, 2013), Chapter 3; Phillip Charles Lucas, "Enfants Terribles: The Challenge of Sectarian Converts to Ethnic Orthodox Churches in the United States," Nova Religio 7, no. 2 (November 2003), reposted by ROCOR Studies: https://www.rocorstudies.org/.../enfants-terribles-the.../. See also New York Post, April 19, 2002: https://www.culteducation.com/.../4691-bishops-unholy-act...

15. Gregory Abu-Asaly, "Father Seraphim Rose," YouTube (GOC America channel), August 5, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMb94cGW0w. Timestamps cited in text. Pokrov Truth endorsed this video on April 27, 2026: https://pokrovtruth.substack.com/.../video-fr-seraphim...

 

Source: posted and shared on the author’s Facebook account, May 9, 2026.

A Pastoral View of Marriage and Marital Problems

by Archpriest Sergei Shukin 

A talk given at Holy Trinity Seminary, Jordanville, NY, May 17/30, 1975.

Introduction

By way of introduction I would like to cite to you one case from the life of the Russian Orthodox Church which some of you possibly already have heard about.

This happened about a hundred years ago. There lived in Moscow a student of philology, Constantine Sederholm. He was Lutheran and even the son of a Lutheran pastor in Moscow. One day he was invited to an Orthodox wedding and was present at the ceremony in the church. As a philologist, he understood Slavonic well and he was quite surprised that in the marriage rite marriage is compared to the struggles of the martyrs, and that God's help is implored for the spouses, who are likened to "Noah in the ark" and "the three children in the fiery furnace" and so on. The explanations of the Moscow priests did not satisfy him, but someone advised him to go to the renowned Optina Hermitage and speak with the elders there. Sederholm became acquainted with the Elder Macarius, who interpreted for him the Orthodox meaning of salvation and marriage.

When he finished university and entered diplomatic service in the Near East, he visited Mt. Athos, the Holy Land and many monasteries in the Balkans. Finally, after about a year, he resigned and came back to Optina, where he converted to the Orthodox Church and shortly after took monastic vows with the name of Clement. At Optina he worked on translations of the writings of the Holy Fathers. He died in 1878 and was buried at Optina.

In relating this I would like to point out that in the Orthodox Church we have the most profound and complete teaching concerning Christian marriage compared with all other faiths.

1. Entering into Marriage

Until recently, in pre-revolutionary Russia for example, choosing a spouse was a matter for the whole family and their priest. People approached marriage judiciously, sensibly, without hurrying, and the question was discussed previously among the closest relatives. Young people took their opinion into account.

Now, in America, getting married is considered a purely personal matter, and young people rarely seek the advice of anyone, let alone the pastors of the Church. The results of this are extremely sad -- twenty-five percent of marriages are divorced in the first three years.

The greatest evil involved with these marriages is that they are premature and hasty. Most newlyweds are green youth, unprepared for family life and guided only by feelings. If they do not turn to a priest for advice of their own accord, then pastors must point out the right path to them on their own initiative.

In their sermons, in talks, during confession and during church school, pastors must explain to young people that entering marriage requires more than just physical maturity. Psychological or spiritual maturity is just as essential -- that is to say, being prepared for independent life, for taking the responsibility for one's future family and for choosing one's future companion in life sensibly. Feeling alone beforehand or romantic emotions are not enough to guarantee that a marriage will be lasting, because the most important thing in marriage is the inner unity of husband and wife. Initial feelings soon pass, and if the young couple does not have a common and lofty outlook on life and mutual understanding, they will find themselves estranged from each other. Quarrels and disagreements will arise, and then -- unfaithfulness and jealousy, leading to a divorce. And divorces cause the couple themselves, their children, and all their relatives to suffer.

In former times people did not marry with such lightning speed -- within two or three months. Between the engagement and the wedding there was still time for couples to come to know each other better and think more deeply about how compatible their opinions and tastes might be. Here the religious views of the couple are of vital importance. Ultimately it is precisely religious belief which constitutes that main foundation of human life. Therefore, the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever cannot be enduring and happy. When the Church crowns newlyweds, she prays that the couple will have "unity of thought" -- that is to say, identical views on all the principal questions: on life and death, on the obligations of wife and husband, on the birth and upbringing of children, and so on. That is why the Church insists as a prime condition that the bride and groom have the same faith, for it will be the principal foundation of their lives.

Still less desirable are marriages between people of different religions. Although the Church does marry people of other faiths to Orthodox Christians in exceptional cases, only marriages between Orthodox are normally accepted.

Priests must instill this attitude into their parishioners and especially into the youth. In marriage, Christians must serve God: firstly, by building up an Orthodox family, as the "church which is in their house" a little cell of Orthodoxy; and secondly, by bringing up their children in the spirit of Orthodoxy, as a future member of the Church. But can this be achieved in a family where the parents attend different churches and cannot give their children unified religious instructions? Experience shows that the children of mixed marriages grow up either as total unbelievers, or only formally Orthodox, or as Catholics or Protestants.

All the other religions have come to the same conclusion, considering that mixed marriages have a negative influence on the family's religious life. Even after the death of a non-Orthodox husband or wife, the Orthodox party cannot have a panikhida (memorial service) served for him or her, or in some cases even be buried in the same cemetery, as the deceased party dies in heresy certainly knowingly, if having been married to an Orthodox.

The reader will find more details about mixed marriages in my pamphlet On Marriages with the Heterodox, published by Holy Trinity Monastery in 1962 (in Russian).

Even if both parties are nominally Orthodox, however, this does not necessarily imply that they clearly understand the true significance of a Christian marriage. In America today a purely pagan attitude towards marriage is so widespread that even many Orthodox young people think of it as one of the "good things" of personal life, which husband and wife are given without any particular obligations on their part. This irresponsible approach to marriage is what gives rise to a whole host of misfortunes and catastrophes in family life.

Furthermore we know that the demands made upon the Orthodox by a really Christian marriage go further than just making use of the joys which marriage affords: much patience, self-sacrifice and abstinence are also required -- in a word, there is a kind of asceticism in marriage also, as in other aspects of life. Without this, the marriage will be utterly pagan, worldly or speaking in the language of the New Testament, of the flesh.

The word of God draws a sharp distinction between the man of the spirit and the man of the flesh. One lives for God and eternity; the other, for himself and for temporal life on earth alone. Thus St. Paul writes: "They that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the things of the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace: They that are (live) in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 5.6-8). All this can be applied to marriage, which was established by the Creator not for personal pleasure but to enable man and woman to preserve a pious life together. Thus marriage was established for a whole lifetime, and of it Christ said, "What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The Church Fathers teach that a pious marriage is as pleasing in God's eyes as a celibate monastic life.

Thus in people's lives there can be only two paths: either celibacy, an ascetic life principally in the monastic state, or a Christian marriage, which also requires a considerable degree of asceticism. Both of these paths consist of serving God, not serving one's own passions and lusts. It is not without reason that the Holy Scriptures see a certain mystical aspect in marriage when they liken it to the union of Christ with the Church, that "bride of the Lamb" (Colossians 5.32).

This is why it is so essential that every couple entering into marriage should know and understand the great responsibility involved. Of course, one cannot understand the whole essence of Christian marriage all at once, because this is revealed gradually, in accordance with one's spiritual growth. Usually the husband and wife learn this as they grow "into the full stature of Christ" over the course of their whole lives together, if they are truly living members of the Church.

In speaking of entering marriage, it is essential to mention two abnormal phenomena that are very widespread among contemporary youth -- premarital liaisons and children born out of wedlock.

A priest rarely finds out about premarital liaisons. If he does, it is his duty to admonish the guilty parties in every way. His aim must be to persuade them either to enter into a lawful marriage or to put an end to their sinful union. When marriage is not possible, the pastor must insist that relations be broken off completely, and also that they repent, employing all possible means: involving the parents, public opinion in the parish, and penances, even to the forbidding of Communion. Usually liaisons of this kind do not last long and are soon broken off.

Sometimes such liaisons result in extra-marital pregnancy. In such cases the priest must determine the couple's intentions: is a lawful marriage possible or will the child remain illegitimate? If for some reason lawful marriage is impossible, then all the priest's attention must be focused upon the victim of the liaison -- the future mother.

In our contemporary unspiritual society the usual decisions are either abortion or, at best, to let the child be born and then have it adopted by others. However, the priest must convince the unmarried mother that both these recourses are sinful and that a truly Christian mother is obliged both to preserve her child and to bring it up herself, thereby redeeming her sin as far as possible.

In old Russia it was very hard for an unmarried mother to bring up her child by herself, and in addition, the child was deprived of certain rights, as one "born illegitimately." Furthermore he was despised by society to a considerable degree. Nevertheless, there were girls who resolved to raise an illegitimate child themselves. In my family, for example, I had an aunt, my mother's sister, who did just that, because she had firm Orthodox convictions, which she acquired in an orphanage. As a simple school mistress, she brought up her son, my cousin, by herself and she gave her maiden name as his surname. Our family greatly respected this self-denying aunt.

In contemporary America women have gained more rights, and having an illegitimate child is not as disgraceful as in former times. Previously, in such cases girls had recourse to abortions or adoption because it was difficult not only to get married, but even to find a decent job. Of course, this was not Christian, and even led to suicides. We have a beautiful example of a purely Christian attitude toward such a mother in the life of the Elder Ambrose of the Optina Hermitage. A girl who had been deceived by her fiance was expecting a child and although her parents were Orthodox, they simply threw her out of the house in accordance with the customs of those times. Taking the advice of some good people she went to Optina to see Fr. Ambrose. He advised her not to return to her parents but to go to the neighboring town and wait for her child to be born; in addition, then and there he gave her some money to live on. When her son was born, the Elder continued to help her materially and spiritually, and helped her bring up her son. They often visited the Elder until his very death, and the boy greatly loved Fr. Ambrose.

I remember another case, in our own times, when I was in a parish in England. An Orthodox Greek with a university degree had made the acquaintance of a girl, also Greek, in a refugee camp in Germany and had had an affair with her.

When he found out that she was pregnant he panicked and left for England where he found a good job. Meanwhile, the girl had given birth to a son and was appealing to him to return. He wavered for a long time but under the influence of certain believing people he returned to her in Greece two years later. As he left, he came to me for confession and told me all about it. A year later he sent me a photograph of himself with his wife and two children. He wrote that he was very happy with his wife.

Here again, a believing girl saved her child and brought her loved one back. This could hardly have happened if she had had an abortion or had her son adopted.

Therefore, a priest must try not only to save the child's life and the unmarried mother's soul, but also to help her either to find a husband or to bring up her child on her own in an Orthodox manner.

2. The Conditions for a Beneficial Orthodox Marriage

Any marriage requires a certain mutuality of interests and opinions. Admittedly, in our times there is the widespread opinion that the chief element is the feeling of love, and that it is upon this that a marriage should be built. This opinion is based upon the idea that the most important element of married life is the sexual. Experience shows otherwise: closeness of soul or a shared outlook on life do far more to bind a marriage together. Usually, sensuality gradually cools as the couple come to know each other more closely in the course of everyday life. If they then suddenly discover that they have no common outlook and that there is no mutual understanding between them, the husband lives by his interests, the wife by hers, and both begin to feel an inner dissatisfaction. This does not mean that they separate at once, but flowing from their basically sensuous values, it can lead to taking an interest in others of the opposite sex and infidelity often arises... A situation like this already threatens to destroy the family.

We have already said that this lack of understanding arises very frequently in mixed marriages, but this does not mean that it cannot happen to Orthodox couples. The devil, like a “roaring lion,” is walking about trying to destroy the marriages even of Orthodox couples.

Now, I do not mean to imply that a certain cooling of feelings always destroys a marriage. Fortunately, God did not create people only for sexual life; He also placed other aspirations within them, thanks to which even marriages which are not completely "successful" from the worldly point of view can be bound together more strongly.

First among these aspirations we must place the raising of children. Someone has correctly said that children are cement for a marriage, and indeed, children really do bring new interests and new aims into the couple's life. Then marriage loses a certain monotony and, I would say, its purely egoistic aspect. Petty arguments and quarrels come to an end, since the marriage acquires a wider meaning.

All thinkers agree that the appearance of children strengthens any marriage, and the Church considers that this is also a fulfillment of one of the main purposes of marriage. Therefore, deliberately to avoid having children is a dangerous perversion, amounting to a kind of "mutual egoism," which often leads to a feeling of emptiness and to the destruction of the marriage itself.

Of course, some marriages are naturally childless due to the infertility of one of the partners. Such marriages can be quite durable if the characters of the husband and wife are suited to each other. But it renders the marriage unfulfilled, as it were, and this often leads to divorce or coldness and indifference. Nevertheless, for the Church, the absence of children is not a ground for divorce; the marriage is considered to be blessed and indissoluble just as is any other marriage, although some contemporary secular laws regard childlessness as such ground.

In passing, it must be pointed out that the Church allows childless families to adopt orphans or children from poor families. In America this is a very widespread practice among childless couples and in those cases where the wife cannot give birth to normal children. From my personal experience in Canada I recall three instances when my spiritual children thought about adoption. As you may know, in the U.S. there are special agencies or state institutions which arrange adoptions, but in Canada a special division of the Ministry of Social Services is concerned with this. Parish priests are included among those who can recommend suitable adoptive parents. In two cases I recommended the young couples, each of whom received two children: now they are already grown. In the third case the couple was refused, as they were already middle-aged.

The second factor which binds a marriage more firmly is, strange as it may seem, simply being used to each other. Pushkin referred to this in Eugene Onegin when describing the Larin family:

Habit is given us from above

To take the place of happiness.

This has a psychological explanation in that, with the passage of time, the couple become so accustomed to their situation that even a marriage which is not altogether satisfactory will be preserved for a lifetime as they do not wish to run the risk of looking for anything better. Although there may be quarrels and misunderstandings, still a total separation does not occur.

What has been said so far concerns marriage in general. An Orthodox marriage has deeper foundations which we will find in the Holy Scriptures. Of the many passages which refer to marriage, I will touch on only a few from the Epistles.

1). Ephesians 5:22-33.

Here the Apostle depicts marriage in the image of Christ and the Church. "As Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it with the washing of water by the word" ... so must husbands love their wives. Here the Apostle is raising conjugal love to the highest level -- putting this ideal before every married couple.

"So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies... for no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church."

Here he is indicating that the husband's love must strive to protect his wife both physically and spiritually -- i.e., the couple must "work out their salvation" together.

The last verse, 33, emphasizes that conjugal love should be in fulfillment of God's commandment of love:

"Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself"; thus it is not fleshy egoism that we should find in marriage, but an implementation of the second of God's principal commandments. Of course, this love is not achieved at once, but gradually, over the course of one's entire married life.

2). I Corinthians 7:2-5.

Here the Apostle considers it necessary for every man to have his own wife and every woman to have her own husband, but he explains this necessity on practical grounds: to avoid fornication (v. 2). We all know how people become debauched and perish from a blind and unrestrained use of sexuality. We can see how many sufferings and crimes arise from this if we acquaint ourselves with police records and criminal statistics. I will mention only the chief ones: broken homes, abortions, venereal diseases, women's and childen's diseases, nervous disorders, murders and suicides... The normal marriage, blessed by God, was instituted to oppose all these perversions and abuses.

"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband" (v. 3). In this way the husband and wife maintain their love and at the same time create the right conditions for their children to be born and brought up normally.

Let us take a look at verse five: "Deprive ye not one another, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinence."

It appears that Christian spouses must also have periods of abstinence. This is an important commandment of spiritual life, which the Apostle confirms in another epistle: "That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor. Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles (pagans) which know not God" (I Thess. 4:4-5). This tells us that married couples must learn to master their instincts, so that their bodies submit to their spirit. In addition to abstinence that is required for natural reasons, the Church appoints days of abstinence for fasting and prayer.

I recall an incident of my youth which made an immense impression on me. My best friend at school had a sister, very beautiful, who married and went to live in a neighboring town. About a year later she reposed quite unexpectedly and my friend went to her funeral. He returned in a state of furious indignation against her husband, who had been the cause of her death. She was expecting a child, but her husband had not refrained from having sexual intercourse with her. As a result she gave birth prematurely, caught an infection of the blood and died. Thus an eighteen year old girl perished, and her husband was her murderer.

In another case I know of, a husband, due to his incontinence, let his wife have three pregnancies almost without any interval. As a result of this she developed tuberculosis and died, leaving him three little orphans.

3). The last passage I would like to look at is from I Peter 3:1, 2, 7.

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that if any obey not the word (i.e., Christian teaching), they also may be won without the word by the conversation of their wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear" (v. 1-2).

The Apostle is emphasizing the possibility of the wife's influencing her husband if he is not religious enough. We know that not only can a husband save his unbelieving wife, but also a wife can influence her husband if he is indifferent to religion. Thus, in some cases, a difference of opinion between spouses can be corrected by the believing one.

Verse 7: "Likewise, ye husbands dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together in the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Here the Apostle is saying that it is essential to treat one's wife sensitively and considerately, in accordance with her psychology. We know that women are more vulnerable and sensitive than men and always expect men to be kind, considerate and protective. In the family life of Christians this is strengthened by their spiritual proximity, since the husband and wife are made one in Christ, fellow participants in the life of grace -- in the common life blessed by God. The Apostle adds: "that your prayers be not hindered." This is because in their spiritual lives the couple must constitute a "church at home" -- must turn to God together and serve Him together. How great is the loss to a Christian family if the husband and wife do not pray together! Common prayer unites them and restores all breaches in their mutual relationship.

From the texts we have cited we see that the Apostles see the main purpose of Christian marriage not in personal satisfaction, nor even in childbirth, but in the spouses helping each other to lead a pious Christian life. A union of this kind, based on a common faith, also creates the conditions essential for the other aims of marriage: both for healthy childbirth and for correct upbringing up one's children.

In Russian there is a wonderful word which hardly has any equivalent in English: zhalet.* In married life there is often not enough of this quality. Russian peasants in former times used to say, "He loves his wife, but he doesn't spare her" (i.e., he overburdens her with work, frequent pregnancies and so on). Of other husbands they would say "He loves his wife and he spares her..." This meant that the husband struggles with his male egoism and treats his wife kindly and considerately. It seems to me that the Apostle Peter is speaking of precisely this attitude, "according to knowledge", on the husband's part, of this considerate, protective love, which a woman values even more than sexual intimacy.

3. Childbirth and Bringing Up Children

The Roman Catholics consider that having children is the primary function of marriage, while Orthodoxy gives first place to its spiritual purpose -- leading a pious life. St. John Chrysostom writes that "giving birth to children is a matter of nature. Far more important is the parents' task of educating their children's hearts in virtue and piety." Consequently, only a spiritually healthy marriage ensures that one's offspring will have a healthy upbringing.

How many children there should be in a family is one of the most hotly disputed questions of our times. The complexity of contemporary city life makes it difficult to have and bring up a large number of children. Consequently, a great deal of consideration is now being given to methods of limiting childbirth.

Different faiths hold different positions on this question. Catholicism advocates large families, and so forbids abortions and all contraceptives. The Protestants give parents a great deal of freedom and allow them to decide these questions for themselves -- sometimes they even allow abortions to be performed. But here the Protestant communions are basing their ideas mainly on humanitarian and social considerations.

Proceeding to the Orthodox viewpoint, I will not touch on abortions at all, as they are obviously contrary to God's commandments. When we speak of contraceptives, we must first examine the grounds for limiting childbirth. They can be of a personal, family or social nature.

Personal reasons can be purely self-centered, such as when couples do not want to have any children at all so as not to complicate their married life. Such an outlook is unacceptable for us, as it rejects the spiritual aim of marriage. In addition, such marriages are often short-lived.

Family reasons can be more well-founded as, for instance, when parents try to limit the number of their children for the good of the whole family and so they can raise the children they have in the best possible way. Sometimes this is connected with the wife's state of health -- normal deliveries are not always possible.

The parents' responsibility for their children's upbringing and health also weighs against the Catholic view. Numerous pregnancies and anxieties for a large family often reflect on the mother's health and spiritual state. Orthodox views approach the question of the number of children more carefully, asserting that a Christian family is obliged to be more concerned about the quality of children than the quantity of them.

On the other hand, experience shows that small families cannot guarantee a good upbringing. It is well known that a single child in a family will grow up spoiled and egotistical and there is little to ensure that he will be well-behaved towards his parents. Generally speaking, large families accustom children to being concerned about the family, to sensitivity and a family spirit.

How many children should be considered sufficient? Nobody can give a precise indication, as the actual conditions of a given family have to be taken into account -- the parents' health, the family's material situation, whether there is a grandmother who can help the mother, and so on. Generally speaking, from a spiritual point of view one should try to have a large family, so that it will be durable and full of love, with all its members bearing the burdens of life together. Therefore, two or three children cannot be taken as the limit.

The other side of this problem is the question of contraception.

The Roman Catholic Church categorically forbids all methods of contraception except the "rhythm method" (using the periods when one's wife cannot conceive). At present there are many other purely artificial contraceptives; I do not consider that an analysis or critique of these is part of my task. Today I would like to mention that Christians may use the following natural methods for preventing further childbirth:

a) Total cessation of sexual activity ("He who can receive it, let him receive it");

b) Limiting sexual relations to a minimum;

c) Using the rhythm method.

These are the "ascetical" methods of avoiding childbirth which Orthodox couples can use without burdening their consciences.

Going on to the question of artificial prevention of pregnancy, we shall say that there must be serious reasons if the aforementioned natural methods are somehow unacceptable. One can only begin to think about them when the physical or moral well-being of the family demands it. For example, when further childbirth threatens the mother's health, or when healthy children cannot be born, or if the family's material circumstances cannot ensure normal birth or upbringing for the baby. Here it is impossible to give general rules. The question must be decided by the parents' conscience, and it is extremely desirable that their spiritual father should be involved in the discussion.

As a not uncommon example, I can point to cases in which a doctor concludes that a wife cannot be sure of giving birth in the normal way, but only by operation (a Caesarean section), which threatens the wife's health and even her life. A husband who spares his wife must think over the situation very carefully.

However, in talking about using artificial methods of contraception, we must bear in mind one factor about which people do not often speak. I want to emphasize the fact that none of these methods gives a 100 percent guarantee. A recent widespread investigation conducted by American doctors established that all these methods have a failure rate of between five and twenty-five per cent. Consequently, one has to bear in mind that pregnancy is possible. Then the family is faced with the question as to whether the fetus should be preserved. Ordinary American families which are not bound by any religious restrictions have recourse to abortion in such cases, but in an Orthodox family this decision is inadmissible.

Here we are approaching an evaluation of the "family planning" which is so widespread in America. "Rationally thinking" parents believe that they are quite independent as far as having children is concerned. But in reality it happens that God adds a corrective factor of his own and sends a child even when the parents do not want one. From the religious point of view, it is the Supreme Will which is here intervening in the life of man. In former times, when parents knew nothing about contraceptives, they relied exclusively on God's will. Children were born and they accepted the last one just as they had the first, saying "God gave the child, He will also give what we need for the child". Such was the faith of our ancestors in God's Providence, and it often happened that the last child proved to be the best or most necessary for the family.

If it is now difficult to expect all parents to be so completely resigned to God's will, yet, in a case of unexpected pregnancy they should see the intervention of God's Providence, and accept this child as a gift from above. Amazingly enough, I have observed God's real goodness in such cases, for such children are truly a blessing for the family -- either richly gifted or the most considerate, real protectors in the parents' old age.

I will briefly cite two vivid examples. In the Soviet Union a mother of three children lost her husband, a priest, who was exiled for ten years. All her neighbors advised an abortion, since it was very difficult to survive with four children at that time. However, the believing matushka refused an abortion and had her baby. It is true that she had to have her daughter fostered by a single woman, but five years later the war began and the matushka found herself in Germany with her two younger daughters. This last daughter was the more faithful and affectionate towards her both in Germany and in the United States, until she buried her mother in the cemetery at Novo-Diveyevo.

The other instance was also with a refugee family. The mother insisted on letting her third child, a girl, be born when this could have been forestalled. During the war the husband ended up abroad with the older children, but the youngest daughter alone remained with her in the Soviet Union and looked after her in her old age.

4. Reasons Why Marriages Fail

The reasons for this are very numerous. I will dwell only on the most important.

A. The couple grow cool towards one another. American psychologists consider that marriages go through their most critical period in the first three years and then in the tenth year. Statistics show that fifty per cent of all divorces occur in the first three years. We can assume that this occurs with those marriages that are contracted too early or hurriedly. The fact that fifty per cent of all marriages contracted before the age of twenty end in divorce also points to this. The older people are when they marry, the lower the percentage of divorces.

Obviously, we are dealing here with the causes of which we spoke in the first part: people who get married under the influence of passion or first impressions more often than not become disillusioned with one another. This is also the case with marriages where sexual relations are supposed to be most important. A marriage cannot last long on this alone, because there should also be other common interests between the husband and wife. Women in particular cannot be satisfied by sexuality alone. Surveys have shown that in marriage a woman seeks first of all emotional love; secondly, security; thirdly, friendship; fourthly, a home and family; fifthly, a place in society and only in last place -- physical intimacy with her husband. If a man does not understand this feature of his wife's psychology, then his marriage will be short-lived.

A priest cannot do much to help in such cases. Therefore he should concentrate on trying to avert early marriages, pointing out their risks and consequences.

A priest can help more in subsequent years, when even more natural marriages are threatened with divorce. In these cases it is necessary first of all to determine the fundamental cause that is destroying the integrity of the marriage. Most frequently it is one of those listed below.

B. Difference of opinions. Here we encounter inner disagreements, about questions of religion, for example, or the methods of bringing up children -- about the purposes of marriage in general. Mixed marriages suffer most often from discord of this kind, since there is no unity over the question of the children's religious upbringing.

The situation is the same when the couple belong to the same faith but are not on the same spiritual level. Here the pastor should advise the more indifferent spouse to leave the upbringing of the children to the other -- usually the mother, insofar as women are more religious than men. The same method can be used in a mixed marriage, where the guidance of the children's religious upbringing should remain in the Orthodox mother's hands. This is motivated by the children's interests, so as to avoid a duality in their religious upbringing.

The most difficult cases of disagreement in marriage occur when the husband, say, is a total unbeliever. If there are children in such cases, then the wife must have a great deal of support from the pastor, who must defend her rights to bring up her children in her own religion. If this does not succeed, a serious conflict may arise. If there are no children, then all attention must be transferred to the wife, to help her bear her heavy cross patiently. Here she needs deep faith and great humility. According to American law, a divorce is possible here, but from the Church's point of view it is inadmissible.

C. Unmatched character. This includes purely external, day to day, domestic disagreements. Often the temperaments of the couple suffer from these deficiencies of character. This falls heavily on the mother, and also on the children. In these cases the pastor has a large field of action for reconciliation and pacification of their family life. Without taking sides, the pastor should try to influence both -- to make one more restrained and peaceable, and the other more patient and humble. He must emphasize the bad influence that quarrels have on the children and how inadmissible they are in a Christian family. If the family is not very religious he must insist that they attend church more regularly and prepare for Communion more often.

Sometimes close relatives, such as the parents of the husband or wife, are mixed up in these family discords. In such cases, the priest must influence them also, pointing out how essential peace and concord are in an Orthodox family.

D. Unfaithfulness. This is hardly ever encountered in happy, pious families, but in unsuccessful families -- those suffering from one of the types of discord mentioned above -- one can always expect unfaithfulness, which can finally destroy a marriage. Therefore, a priest must pay closer attention to such families, so as to avert this, if possible.

We have already noted that absence of children, disagreement between husband and wife or cooling of feelings between them create the danger that they will be tempted to seek other attachments.

We must also make a distinction between incidental unfaithfulness and a serious feeling for another person, one that has acquired a lasting nature. If it is a chance case, the pastor must try to incline the deceived party towards forgiveness and reconciliation, and to restore mutual trust. If the infidelity comes to light at confession, then the matter can be limited to repentance and a penance, and telling the other party about it. If one party knows or suspects unfaithfulness, then it is best if the priest acts as an intermediary to reconcile them. Also, if the unfaithfulness was caused by some abnormality in the couple's relationship, it is essential to discuss it with them so as to remove the cause of infidelity for the future.

Often infidelity results from a long absence on the part of the husband, or from his being overburdened with work and so unable to pay sufficient attention to his wife and children. Here ways must be found to stop the wife from feeling neglected, albeit with a certain reduction in the husband's earnings. Similarly, the wife must not be so engrossed in her cares as a mother and housekeeper that she forgets about her husband.

The matter becomes more complicated when the wife gives birth to another man's child. Here the pastor must make every effort to ensure that things do not end in abortion. It is essential not only to preserve the child's life, but also to persuade the husband to accept him into the family. The moral basis for this is as follows: the child is not to blame that he came into the world through adultery, so it is better to accept him into the family than to leave him without a father or mother and thus ruin his life. If the baby is refused, the mother will grieve and suffer torments of conscience. But if the child remains in the family, then the mother will not only be calm, but she will also feel gratitude and respect towards her husband.

In pre-revolutionary Russia such cases were frequent when husbands were away for four or five years on military service. Usually, especially among the peasantry, husbands would accept such a child so as not to destroy the family. This was regarded as a good Christian act. I know of such instances from my own experience, and in large families this fact passed quite unnoticed by the other children. Nevertheless, the pastor must exhort the husband to take a perfectly normal attitude towards a child of this sort and never to reveal his birth.

It is harder to reconcile a childless couple when a child is born in this way. In my experience I have not had an instance of this sort, but I have heard that some husbands have accepted such a child in order not to distress the wife who, of course, had offered repentance for her infidelity.

In all cases cited above, the pastor's main aim has been to preserve the family and prevent divorce. It must be remembered that it is always the deceived party and, of course, the children who suffer from a divorce. Sometimes the party guilty of infidelity suffers too. Therefore, preserving even a marriage which is not entirely successful must be considered a great success on the part of the priest, who is preserving the children from the loss of a family, and the parents -- from the severe consequences of loneliness.

To this end the pastor must make use of all the methods of pastoral exhortation and also of prayer for couples that are at enmity. In the event of a reconciliation a moleben (service) of thanksgiving can be served, with the addition of prayers for the reconciliation of those at enmity, which are to be found in the Book of Needs.

5. Divorce

In this part I will be brief, as the divorce procedure is of formal nature and has an established order. Of course, even here the priest must try to dissuade both parties from divorce and reconcile them.

From the Orthodox point of view, a divorce is confirmed if a marriage blessed by the Church is destroyed. If it cannot be restored then it must be declared non-existent and the couple freed from the vows they have taken.

In accordance with the Church's canons, divorces are allowed in the following three cases: 1) If adultery has been committed; 2) If one of the spouses is absent without trace for more than three years; and 3) If the husband is incapable of conjugal cohabitation.

Divorce is within the competence of the ruling bishop. A petition for divorce is given to the bishop, who assigns an experienced priest to carry out an investigation of the matter -- to check the facts, gather testimony from witnesses, demand an explanation from the accused party, and so on. If possible, a last attempt at reconciliation is made, especially if there are children. After this the matter enters the Spiritual Court of the diocese, which can either confirm the divorce or return it for the gathering of supplementary data. Finally, the decision of the Spiritual Court is confirmed by the bishop.

It should be borne in mind that in the United States and Canada an ecclesiastical divorce is effectual only after a civil divorce has been obtained. Therefore, attempts at reconciliation must be made until the civil divorce is completed.

A divorced husband or wife, if not guilty of infidelity, can immediately enter into a new Christian marriage. But the guilty party can marry a second time only after the penance for adultery has been lifted.

 

* Zhalet means something between "to take pity on", “to take care of”, and "to spare". Here we have translated it as "to spare" for want of a better word. (Trans.)

Source: Orthodox Life, Volume 25, No. 5 (Sep.-Oct. 1975), pages 17-26, and Volume 25, No. 6 (Nov.-Dec. 1975), pages 22-28. Minor typos corrected.