Prophetic Letters of Fr. Seraphim (Rose) about the Boston Schism

Sergei Kondakov | October 11, 2023

Texts translated from Письма отца Серафима (Роуза) [Letters of Fr. Seraphim (Rose)], Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, NY, 2005.

 

 

“St. Tikhon of Zadonsk has a good expression, which I used in my Jordanville speech: ‘We must have Orthodoxy of the heart, and not only of the mind’” (p. 237).

“Our American Orthodoxy so greatly needs more heart and less mind! I do not know how one can help here. The only thing that comes to mind is that one must pray more and study Orthodox sources” (p. 201).

“The canons were written for man, and not man for the canons. ... Too many disputes about the canons are now taking place, and if we wish in these difficult times to remain within the bosom of the Church, then we must be faithful to the Spirit of the Church, and not to the letter of the canons. ... It is simply a fact of spiritual and ecclesial life that for the sake of love for Christ the canons are sometimes formally violated and formal ‘disobedience’ to spiritual authorities is shown, for which there are examples in the lives of the saints. If each of these laws becomes absolute and inviolable, then Orthodoxy will turn into Pharisaism” (pp. 90–91).

“...Everything depends on the interpretation ... of the rules: either broadly and with heart, or narrowly, coldly, and with calculation” (p. 125).

“(Orthodoxy) is something that belongs above all to the heart, and not to the mind, something living and warm, and not abstract and cold. ... A person who takes Orthodoxy seriously and begins seriously to work so as to realize Orthodoxy with his whole heart and to change himself possesses, at least to a small degree, that quality which we may call the fragrance of true Christianity. ... Such Orthodoxy cannot be acquired in a day; it requires suffering, experience, and trials. But above all it requires resolve” (p. 287).

“We admire the lofty patristic teaching ... while not having Christ’s simplicity in our hearts? Then we have a ‘comfortable spirituality,’ and we shall not bear spiritual fruit...” (p. 298).

Beginning of the 1970s: “Our ‘Greeks’ in the Church Abroad, whom we dearly love, have lately been troubling us by trying to impose their opinion on everyone and everything in secondary matters. Some converts have asked us whether they are responsible for the missionary work in our Church and whether we must believe exactly as they do. Because of this, some of them are close to despair” (p. 29).

1972: “...In order to be in the Church, it is absolutely not necessary to agree with everything that Fr. Panteleimon teaches. On the other hand, regarding Fr. Panteleimon’s ‘influence’ in the Church Abroad, it cannot be denied that it is rather great. ... Fr. Panteleimon is now ‘in fashion,’ and therefore he attracts not only sincere people, but also a dubious, random element” (pp. 85–86).

“If ... there exists some kind of ‘Greek party’ in the Church Abroad, then peace to them, while we should care for our own salvation and work it out with fear and trembling, and not enter into any struggle until a real danger appears, against which it will be necessary to fight” (pp. 89–90).

1973: “Fr. Panteleimon is a very strong personality, and he holds definite views on certain things of secondary importance..., which can quite well cause friction and disputes. But it would be a crime if any of us were to allow these secondary questions to destroy our unity of mind in fundamental matters, especially in view of the great army of false and anti-Orthodoxy that surrounds us, and also in view of the heavy burden of inactivity and ignorance that exists even within our Church Abroad” (p. 104).

“Let those who wish accept any opinion of Fr. Panteleimon; that is their right, and we do not dispute it. But to take these personal opinions ... and hit someone over the head with them simply because he does not agree with them is entirely unacceptable” (pp. 112–113).

“Judging from Fr. Neketas’ abnormal reaction, it is obvious that something more than simply the question of the Shroud or of evolution is involved here, and we think that we know what the matter is—what is involved here is the question of authority. Evidently, for Fr. Neketas, Fr. Panteleimon is an unquestionable authority, and now it is clear to all of us that he thinks everyone must agree with this” (p. 114).

“Fr. Neketas is, of course, right in some things..., but ... his disposition toward you is clouded by disappointment that you do not bow before the authority of Fr. Panteleimon. In this, evidently, lies the essence of the matter” (p. 116).

“The ‘anti-Latinism’ of our ‘Greeks’ falls into an extreme. It turns out that almost everyone except them alone is under ‘Latin influence,’ that almost all Russian and Greek theology and piety of the last several centuries are rotting—this is already too much. ... Fr. Panteleimon is not, like certain others, a theological authority in our Church, and still less can he be put forward as a universal rule of faith” (p. 115).

“If the ‘Greeks’ are indeed trying to seize power and are attempting to impose their ideology on us, then they have fallen into the greatest trap for converts, and then they present a danger to us all. If this is so, then their recklessness will become evident sooner or later; but in the meantime, let us remain uninvolved in all this, as far as possible” (p. 117).

“In the past we regarded the ‘Greeks,’ and we may continue to regard them, as fellow-laborers in the work of true Orthodox missionary service. A fellow-laborer is one who does not trust his own opinion, who does not think that he ‘knows everything’ better than others, who does not set himself up as a supreme authority, does not form various factions, and does not try to crush all those who do not belong to them. But if they are not fellow-laborers, but only ‘experts,’ then all the fruits of their good labors will in the end perish. Our Church Abroad has much experience in this, much patience, and it has successfully endured all the schisms that have arisen in its midst” (p. 119).

[NB: This was written 13 years (!) before the Boston Monastery broke with ROCOR]

1974: “Regarding Fr. Theodoretos [Mavros]’ attack on Fr. Panteleimon, all these disputes among the Greek Old Calendarists are very distressing. Besides everything else, personalities are mixed into this, and that already creates confusion. But the real questions, many of which are very subtle and delicate, require great tact, patience, and love, and not theological and canonical tirades” (p. 134).

“The Athonite monk Fr. Theodoretos sent us his appeal in defense of the monks of Esphigmenou Monastery... We also received an English translation of his letter to Fr. Panteleimon. His arguments sound quite reasonable, but of course his sarcastic tone only increases the gulf that exists between them. Both sides quote the canons without ceasing, whereas what is needed is only love and understanding—and this statement, I know, could come straight from the mouth of some ecumenist, which only proves how difficult the true path of Orthodoxy has become in our days” (p. 138).

1975: “As for Fr. Panteleimon of Boston—alas, alas, alas, the trouble we feared seems to be drawing near. Vladyka Averky wrote us a desperate letter about ‘this impudent young archimandrite’ and his latest deeds. ... Fr. Panteleimon is apparently tightening his grip on the neck of Orthodox youth, making use of the charisma of his personality, from which only a few are capable of turning away” (pp. 155–156).

“JK wrote to us that Fr. Neketas said: ‘The Russians are backing down’ [?]. We have not yet heard anything about this, but the very idea that the ‘Greeks’ are at war with the ‘Russians’ sounds like the antics of mad neophytes” (p. 157).

“All these squabbles [of Fr. Panteleimon and his followers against the leadership of ROCOR—compiler’s note], which seem to have subsided, are of course ninety percent the squabbles of Fr. Panteleimon himself and are far from having died down; they foreshadow trouble in the future. In time, we shall inevitably have to confront this, but it must be remembered that Fr. Panteleimon is not an authority in our Church, and his next ‘dramatic act’ should be received with great suspicion. There is a very strong smell of politics around him, and one day he will make a fatal political mistake. Let us be watchful and ready for this” (pp. 157–158).

“We also feel betrayed by our ‘Greeks.’ All these years we thought that they were of one mind and one spirit with us, that they were giving everything they had to the work of the English-language mission. But in reality, it has turned out that throughout all this time they were laboring for their own glory, cruelly abusing the trust of our simple Russian bishops, priests, and laymen, in order finally to seize power and proclaim themselves the only experts and authorities in Orthodoxy.

We still hope that we are mistaken in this, but let them prove it to us by their deeds and words, and not by their ornate self-justifications. For years we forgave them their excesses and errors and, moreover, more than once defended Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Neketas... But now, for the sake of preserving our spiritual health and for the sake of continuing the fruitful work of the Orthodox mission, we must courageously look the truth in the face: these are simply university boys playing at Orthodoxy!” (p. 160).

“...LM will not find peace until he either finally breaks with Fr. Panteleimon’s sect, or joins it. As for his sect: judging by the way they are now behaving, our ‘Greeks’ will not remain with us for long. It is also difficult to imagine that they will be able to remain long with the Matthewites, unless, of course, there is a great deal of money and politics behind all this” (pp. 161–162).

“...The Old Believers are charming, but they are far from the spirit of Orthodoxy—perhaps like the Matthewites” (p. 157).

“It seems that the end of the ‘Greek epic’ is not far off! We only grieve over the scandals and divisions arising as a result of the vanity of our ‘Greeks.’ Poor our American mission!” (p. 162).

“You are learning humility and distrust of your own fallen mind. In the case of our ‘Greeks’ we are observing a classic instance of prelest, into which they have fallen through vanity and self-conceit. The result of all this will be tragic, and many will fall into this pit, because they believe Fr. Panteleimon more than God.

Two years ago in Seattle, Fr. Panteleimon told me that for the good of the Church everything is permitted—to lie, to steal, anything, because the end justifies the means. At the time I did not attach special significance to his words, because I knew that sometimes, in order to avoid a greater evil, one has to commit a lesser one, for example, to lie. But this can be allowed only in a case of extreme necessity and with self-condemnation and repentance before God for the falsehoods one has committed. But with Fr. Panteleimon this Jesuit principle becomes the basic principle of church life, which clever church politicians can use with impunity. ...

Pray for Fr. Panteleimon, who is in serious spiritual danger, but distance yourself from him. There is sickness there, petty politicking, and devilish intrigues. In the depth of our heart, we look quite peacefully upon all this, for we know that the Church is stronger than all those who, having yielded to delusion, have imagined themselves to be the Church; in any case they always fall away, helping those who remain to become more sober-minded” (pp. 164–165).

“LM forwarded to us several letters from the Boston monastery. They are written in an entirely false spiritual tone, and moreover, under the cover of piety there are judgments and gossip hidden there. ... Only the bishops and the ‘elite,’ but not the faithful, are allowed to know what Fr. Panteleimon is doing... Fr. Panteleimon and his followers know everything better than anyone else. This is a mortally dangerous syndrome of neophytes” (pp. 165–166).

“A kind of cloud apparently hangs around Fr. Panteleimon, which prevents even prudent people from thinking clearly...” (p. 169).

1976: “I wrote and spoke with L. about this hothouse approach to Orthodoxy—full of gossip, knowledge of ‘what is happening where,’ where there is a ‘correct answer’ for everything, in agreement with the opinion of the ‘experts’” (p. 173).

“...There is being created ... as it were, a Church within the Church, a clique which, unlike the majority of priests and bishops, is ‘always right.’ ... It is very difficult to fight this, because they offer a ‘clear and simple’ answer to every question, and our neophytes suffering from feelings of inadequacy find in this an answer to their needs. ... This is the formation of ‘Orthodox sectarianism’ at the expense of our simple believers” (p. 174).

“...Fr. Panteleimon is now directing his ecclesiastical career toward a ‘seizure of power,’ in one form or another. ... He has a very strong influence on many seminarians and young monks from Jordanville, thanks to the fact that he is an ‘expert in theology,’ and also because he is successfully undermining the authority of the older generation of Russians in the eyes of the youth” (p. 184).

“At present they [the Bostonians—ed.] are so self-assured that it seems to be only a matter of time how quickly they will grow weary of the ‘incorrectness’ and ‘inconsistency’ of our bishops, who do not wish to break formal Eucharistic communion with all the Local Orthodox Churches. ...

At present the spirit of zealotry is in the air; it has even become fashionable in the English-speaking wing of our Church, and the more moderate position of our bishops will now seem unacceptable to those who reason ‘logically.’ ...

We cannot follow the line of ‘Boston Orthodoxy’—which in reality is a variant of ‘reformed’ Orthodoxy, distinguished by the fact that, although outwardly it appears ‘correct,’ in reality it lies outside the Orthodox tradition and has been created by the human mind.

This is a terrible temptation of our time, and probably most converts will fall into it. We fear that all our articles about the zealots, written in former years, helped to create this monster. In the future we will need to devote more attention to the fragrance of Orthodoxy, without which zealotry is meaningless and even harmful” (p. 186).

“...We see the need to define a sensible moderate position... This will be difficult for us to do, especially because of the presence among us of a politically influential fanatic” (pp. 188–189).

“So long as Fr. Panteleimon has his own ‘psychological diocese’ in our Church, there will also exist a source of constant discord and misunderstanding. I think that the zealots need to acquire a deep humility of mind, so as to accept other opinions and ways of looking at things and begin to regard them as just as Orthodox as their own. And if they succeed in developing such a quality, then the tension between us will simply cease to exist” (p. 191).

“Interest in genuine Orthodoxy continues to grow, and perhaps American Orthodoxy will survive even its syndrome of ‘dependence on Boston,’ which, it seems, is above all a sign of immaturity” (p. 192).

1979: “M. ... thinks and feels everything so ‘correctly,’ including a correct assessment of the ‘disease of correctness’ among converts, that I fear lest he himself fall ill with the ‘disease of excessive correctness’! It seems that something is in the air nowadays because of which almost all who try to set out on the path of spiritual struggle begin to sink into the mire. May the Lord preserve him and teach him simplicity. ...

My God! What is happening to people? How easily they are led astray from the path of serving the Lord onto the path of parties, jealousy, and attempts at revenge. I wrote to K. and urged him to begin thinking about the spiritual life and to stop engaging in church politics” (p. 228).

“...The Boston tone, which unfortunately is now so widespread—Orthodoxy of calculation, not of the heart. ...

...Fr. Panteleimon has poisoned the air with a destructive and poisonous spirit; but sadder still is to see that in those whom he has harmed he provokes only a negative reaction, which in fact does not rise above mere attacks. This shows that ‘Panteleimonism’ (that is, Orthodoxy of calculation) is a disease, the microbe of which all of us today carry, and that the answer should be not attacks on some particular carrier of the microbe, but on the microbe itself...” (p. 232).

“Some are concerned about the tone and content of Fr. Neketas’ journal [Orthodox Christian] Witness, but most simply do not know that a conflict is ripening between two tendencies in the Church. We need somehow to make use of this situation in order to preserve as many people as possible from extremism. It is necessary to fight the extremists without showing that we are fighting, to give teaching deeper and higher than merely ‘correct Orthodoxy,’ and thereby to set the tone for others.” ...

“It seems that almost all the young priests and monks are of one spirit with us. Only a few Americans and Greeks close to Boston are infected with the ‘disease of correctness.’ Tomorrow I shall meet with Fr. D. We shall see what awaits me. I suspect that to some degree this ‘microbe’ is present in him, but his closeness to the Russians and his respect for such people as Vladyka Averky will save him from extremism” (pp. 237–238).

1981: “...It is very sad that the spirit of our ‘Greeks’ is simply not right, and they now consider me a ‘theosophist,’ a heretic, and I do not know what else. Undoubtedly, they will soon leave our Church when they see that our bishops are of the same spirit as our Brotherhood” (p. 34).

“Elena Yuryevna Kontzevich told Fr. Herman that she fears that in the future a terrible catastrophe awaits our Church, and I think this is connected with this ‘overly correct’ cast of mind, which has also affected some Russians (though not in so unpleasant a form as our Greeks display it). I think this is in some way akin to papism—the desire to define concepts in order to be ‘at peace’ about them, even if the spirit has been lost” (p. 249).

“I am enclosing a copy of Fr. R.S.’s statement on leaving our Church. Now, it seems, the sad fruits of ‘over-correctness’ are beginning to come to the surface. It is interesting how long Fr. Panteleimon will continue pushing people toward such actions, while himself remaining in our Church.

In any case, it is sad, but it makes our task even clearer: we must preach true apostolic, missionary Orthodoxy even more zealously, and help retain as many of our zealous zealots as possible—young recently converted priests. Orthodox America began its existence at the most necessary moment, and now all the more it must become the unifying mouthpiece for the true zealots of Orthodoxy in our Church” (p. 251).

“...The ‘Boston mentality’—cold, ‘correct’...” (p. 269).

 

Russian source: http://kondakov.ws/blog/Prorocheskie-pisma-oSerafima-(Rouza