What We Know About Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev)

Nun [now Abbess] Seraphima (Dimitrova) [1]

 

 

On the occasion of the interview posted on the official website of the Bulgarian Patriarchate with Mr. Andrei Alexandrovich Kostryukov, “What We Do Not Know about Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev)”

 

Ten years ago, precisely on the day of the 120th anniversary of the birth of St. Seraphim, Archbishop of Boguchar, Wonderworker of Sofia, a letter was sent, on behalf of the ever-memorable Abbess Seraphima and the sisterhood of the convent “Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos,” to the primate of the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria with a request that the glorification of Archbishop Seraphim be prepared and carried out, he being the spiritual father and ideological inspirer of our church community. By the mercy of God, less than three months later, on February 25 (February 12 O.S.), 2002—on the eve of the 52nd anniversary of the saint’s righteous repose—His Grace Bishop Photius performed his glorification in the cathedral church of the Dormition of the Theotokos, where we are now gathered.

Even then, the event provoked various comments and agitation in the circles of the official church—a reaction caused not by the existence of contradictions in the personality and activity of the saint, but by the specific disposition and way of thinking of a part of today’s church figures. During this period, the article “The Theft of Saints” [2] also appeared in the official newspaper of the Bulgarian Patriarchate, Church Herald. This was yet another example of an ecclesiastical-political approach to the memory of the saint. It expressed the strange claim that St. Seraphim should be taken away from the “thieves” who had canonized him (that is, from us) and “appropriated” by the official church, but not in order that his precepts might be assimilated and preached—which would be a joy for all of us—but so that they might be mixed with aims alien to those precepts. Truly, a tragic claim, torn by inner contradictions.

Not long ago, on December 1 (N.S.) [, 2011], the 130th anniversary of his birth was commemorated in the Russian church of St. Nicholas, where the relics of St. Seraphim of Sofia repose. In connection with this, the book A Biography of Archbishop Seraphim Sobolev, published by the Synodal Publishing House in Russian and Bulgarian, was presented. Its author is Andrei Alexandrovich Kostryukov, a researcher in the Department for the Study of the Most Recent History of the Russian Orthodox Church and an associate professor in the Department of the History of the Russian Church at St. Tikhon’s Humanitarian University. In his own words, his aim was to examine in a many-sided way the personality and works of the saint, and thereby to assist in an overall assessment of his contribution to the Russian and Bulgarian Churches. Mr. Kostryukov has evidently expended no little labor, working with documents from Russian state and church archives that until recently were inaccessible to researchers. In this respect, his book, along with his other publications devoted to the recent history of the Russian Church and specifically to Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), brings to light valuable archival information, for which we owe him gratitude. However, we should not pass over in silence another aspect that casts a shadow over these works: their evident church-political orientation and the manipulativeness that at places shows through beneath their outwardly objective tone, by which they suggest certain views and attitudes to the reader. For the sake of the impartial and well-intentioned reader who will open this newly published book out of a desire to learn something new about St. Seraphim, we consider it our duty to point out some of the more significant tendentious elements in Mr. Kostryukov’s publications relating to the life and views of St. Seraphim. In this regard, we were also aided by the interview with the author published on the official website of the Bulgarian Patriarchate. In it, the aforementioned points are expressed in an extremely concise and vivid manner, which makes their critical analysis easier.

I shall permit myself to cite several excerpts from the interview. Mr. Kostryukov says:

“...a true testimony to his [Archbishop Seraphim’s] holiness is his works of a spiritual character, which are deeply Orthodox and imbued with God-inspired wisdom: his writings against modernism, his works against abnormal rapprochement with the non-Orthodox, and others. He was always in favor of dialogue with the heterodox, associated with them, and was even convinced of the necessity of creating a united Christian front against atheism. In 1948, at the Pan-Orthodox Congress, he placed his signature on the final documents alongside representatives of the Armenian community. He had nothing against associating with the heterodox; he understood that there are certain reflections of the truth in their teachings and beliefs, but nevertheless he maintained that the Truth is only in Orthodoxy, that dialogue may be conducted, but compromises with holy Orthodoxy may not be made… A little-known report by Bishop Seraphim on the Anglican hierarchy makes it clear that he was ready for dialogue, ready to agree to certain ritual differences, provided that the Anglicans return to the Orthodox confession and to Orthodoxy…” (emphasis mine — M.S.)

The manipulative character of what is said is oppressive. After Mr. Kostryukov evaluates Archbishop Seraphim’s works against modernism as a true testimony to his holiness, as spiritual, deeply Orthodox, and imbued with God-inspired wisdom, he seems to hasten to suggest that the saint nevertheless had nothing against “normal” rapprochement with the non-Orthodox. In support of this, Mr. Kostryukov adduces “proofs,” attributing to the saint specific actions, namely: 1) a desire for the creation of a united Christian front against atheism; 2) the signing of the final documents of the Moscow Congress in 1948 jointly with representatives of the Armenian community; 3) a readiness to conduct dialogue with the Anglicans and to make certain compromises regarding them.

A similar manipulative device is also employed by Mr. Kostryukov in his article “The Final Years of the Earthly Ministry of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev),” posted on the website Sedmitsa.Ru of the Church-Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia” on November 30 (N.S.)—on the very eve of the celebration held at the Russian metochion.

“[At the Moscow Congress in 1948],” Mr. Kostryukov writes there, “the archpastor delivered three reports: on the Anglican hierarchy, on ecumenism, and on the new calendar style. Being an opponent of compromises in the sphere of dogmatic questions (which is reflected in his report ‘Should the Russian Orthodox Church Participate in the Ecumenical Movement?’), the archpastor nevertheless did not reject theological dialogue. This is confirmed in his report ‘On the Anglican Hierarchy.’ At the same time, he considered cooperation with heterodox Christians to be permissible. For example, in the face of the threat of the communist God-fighting spirit that was menacing the world, Archbishop Seraphim called for the creation of a pan-Christian front for the struggle against atheism.”

As we see, the same assertions are repeated here as well. Let us now examine, step by step, their reliability in the light of what we know about the saint, pausing more carefully also over the primary sources cited by Mr. Kostryukov.

I. Concerning the “United Christian front”

1. Is the claim true that during the First Russian All-Diasproa Council in 1921 St. Seraphim called for the creation of a united Christian front against atheism?

As proof of this, Mr. Kostryukov points to p. 45 of the Acts of the Russian All-Diaspora Council, held from November 8 to 21, 1921 (November 21–December 3, New Style) in Sremski Karlovci, published in Serbia in 1922.

1.1. On the cited page is printed Protocol No. 6, which describes a session of the Missionary Department held on November 29 (November 16 O.S.), 1921. We shall recall that His Grace Seraphim, Bishop of Lubny—such was the title borne by the saint in those years—had been appointed by the Council’s Episcopal Council as chairman of the Missionary Department. His deputy chairman was the well-known Russian missionary Vasily Mikhailovich Skvortsov. [3] We cite the text of the Protocol without abbreviations (all emphasis mine — M.S.):

“The assembly proceeds to the consideration of the report of the Missionary Department. The reporter, V. M. Skvortsov, presents the Department’s resolution defining the tasks of the Orthodox mission abroad, namely: the strengthening of the faithful children of the Church in the dogmas of the faith and in the principles of Christian morality and piety; the safeguarding of Russian people from the corrupting influence of sectarian, heterodox, anti-Christian, and God-fighting currents of social thought, disseminated through the press and by means of Masonic organizations; the bringing to reason of those who have gone astray and the revealing before the spiritual gaze of people abroad of the light of Orthodoxy, the purity and truth of its dogmas, and the majestic beauty of its rites. Further, the reporter dwells in detail on the conditions of the missionary service abroad of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and on the dangers threatening the orthodoxy of her children. The greatest danger is represented by the spread of Baptism and Adventism, which in all the capitals and in many of the cities have their own centers, possessing enormous literature in all languages and financial means. The latter sect is dangerous not so much by the number of those falling away [from Orthodoxy] into it, as by its ideas, which corrupt faith in the coming of Christ the Savior and in the life beyond the grave. By its rites (the observance of Saturday), the sect constitutes a bridge from Christianity to the Old Testament. Great danger is also represented by the propaganda of anti-Christian and God-fighting teachings, such as theosophy, occultism, and especially materialistic socialism in the form of Bolshevism and communism. Anti-Christian teachings are introduced into life not only through ideas and through the press, but also under the flag of charitable, openly Masonic institutions, such as the Christian Youth Union [YMCA] and the Mayak society. No less a danger is represented by the propaganda of militant Roman Catholicism, which is carried on systematically and, in many forms, chiefly among influential Russian circles and the minor children of the refugees. Catholic propaganda has flung wide the doors of various schools and boarding schools for Russian children, where they are brought up in the spirit of Catholicism. The reporter also touches upon the striving of Roman Catholic propaganda to introduce union in Ukraine.

His Eminence Seraphim reports to the Assembly on the different viewpoints that individual members of the Department had expressed on the question of socialism in its various branches. Bishop Seraphim says that socialism in its root and in all its varieties must be condemned as contrary to Christianity.

After the Assembly discusses the report (printed in the Appendix), it is adopted with the exception of the appeal to the heterodox churches for the creation of a united spiritual front for the struggle against socialism in all its varieties.

The Assembly unanimously resolves that a separate commission be formed to compose an appeal in which the teaching of socialism is to be condemned. Its members are His Eminence Benjamin, Archpriest M. Stelmashenko, and T. V. Lokot.” [4] Thus Protocol No. 6 concludes (all emphasis mine — M.S.).

1.2. In order conscientiously to understand the actions described in the Protocol, it is necessary for us also to become acquainted with the procedure for discussing and deciding questions. It is described in the Council’s Regulations. [5] We shall briefly present points from them to assist our investigation.

For better effectiveness in resolving the diverse questions facing the First Council of the Russian church emigration, eight departments were formed in it [6] (point 17 of the Regulations). They were staffed by participants in the Council who possessed suitable qualifications and expressed a desire to take part in their work (point 18). As chairman of each department, the Episcopal Conference (Episkopskoe Soveshchanie) appointed one of the bishops participating in the Council (point 20)—they were fourteen in number. The members of the respective department themselves elected its deputy chairman and secretary. The first phase of discussions took place within the department. After discussing the reports of their members, the departments submitted for consideration in the General Assembly the result of their work. The report prepared for this purpose is called in the Regulations a draft resolution, but in the protocols the very word “report” is also not infrequently used. The draft resolutions were handed over to the Council of the Assembly [21] (point 21)—the body that directed the work of the General Assembly. When the draft resolution of a given department was being considered, the chairman of that department also took part in the Council of the General Assembly, and in that case his vote was decisive (point 15). The Council presented the submitted draft resolutions to the General Assembly without any changes whatsoever, but in case of necessity it had the right to propose its own parallel redaction (point 25). The draft resolution was reported to the Assembly by the chairman of the department or by another of its members according to a decision previously taken in the department (point 27). After the general discussion of the draft resolution, it was put to a vote by the Assembly, and then also by the Episcopal Conference, without whose approval it could not be adopted (points 46 and 47). All documents adopted by the Council are published in the section “Epistles, Resolutions, Reports” of the Acts. The approved resolutions of the various departments are placed there under the title “reports.”

1.3. Having before us both the text of the Protocol and the rules governing the work of the Council, we can now draw the conclusions to which these documents lead.

1.3.1. In the Protocol from the Acts there is mention of a “spiritual front for the struggle against socialism,” whereas Mr. Kostryukov speaks of a “front against atheism.” The discrepancy may not be accidental—in today’s post-communist society, given the presence of a smoldering nostalgia for the “benefits” of the totalitarian system, the idea of a “spiritual front against socialism” would hardly please everyone. A conformist approach in historical scholarship, however, inevitably leads to falsehoods. At the Council in 1921, St. Seraphim spoke precisely against the ideology of socialism, which he viewed not as a political or economic system, but first and foremost as a worldview diametrically opposed to the Christian one.

1.3.2. Mr. Kostryukov’s claim that it was precisely St. Seraphim who put forward the idea of “an appeal to the heterodox churches for the creation of a united spiritual front for the struggle against socialism” finds no basis in the Protocol. It says that “the appeal...” was omitted from the “report (printed in the Appendix),” that is, from the draft resolution that had been prepared in the Department with the participation of all its members. Thus, any one of them could have been its initiator.

1.3.3. As for St. Seraphim’s participation in the discussions, the Protocol speaks of it only in two phrases, set in a separate paragraph: “His Eminence Seraphim reports to the Assembly on the different viewpoints that individual members of the Department had expressed on the question of socialism in its various branches. Bishop Seraphim says that socialism in its root and in all its varieties must be condemned as contrary to Christianity.” In these words, there is not a single mention that Bishop Seraphim raised the question of creating a “pan-Christian front” against socialism. There is mention only of the necessity that socialism in all its varieties be condemned by the forum. “The Assembly unanimously resolves that a separate commission be formed to compose an appeal in which the teaching of socialism is to be condemned.” But St. Seraphim was not included in this commission, and from the results of its work interesting conclusions may be drawn, which we shall present below.

From all that has been said thus far, it is clear that the claim for which Mr. Kostryukov cites Protocol No. 6 of the Acts of the First Russian Church Diaspora Council as its basis is unfounded.

1.3.4. As we have seen, Protocol No. 6 of the 1921 Council describes St. Seraphim’s participation in its work very laconically, but in the memory of the saint’s spiritual children some details of this have been preserved. It is known, for example, that he energetically opposed the proposals for cooperation with the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) [8]—an organization of Protestant origin which at that time was carrying on extensive activity among Russian émigrés. He drew attention not only to its financial and political dependence on Masonry, but also to its “supra-confessional” ideology, alien to Orthodoxy. The saint insisted that its activity be condemned in the report of the Missionary Department on a par with that of the sects. There were opponents of his position among the participants in the Council, because the organization provided the émigrés with considerable material assistance. Nevertheless, the critical assessment of the YMCA’s activity was incorporated into the report. St. Seraphim was not afraid openly to denounce Masonry either, which at that time was one of the principal driving forces behind the processes of decomposition among the Orthodox. Yet an official condemnation of this powerful structure of anti-Christian orientation was pronounced by the Russian Council of Bishops Abroad only ten years later—in 1932. It is known that St. Seraphim was one of the active champions of this undertaking.

1.3.5. It is noteworthy that nowhere in Protocol No. 6 is it mentioned precisely what kind of socialism St. Seraphim insisted should be condemned. This silence is inexplicable unless it is taken as deliberate. The truth is that, alongside openly materialistic socialism, whose forms are Bolshevism, or communism, St. Seraphim insisted that so-called “Christian socialism” also be condemned as especially dangerous and misleading to believers. “Christian” socialism had quite a few supporters chiefly among the modernistically inclined section of Russian theologians, and in the last decades before the Bolshevik revolution it had also been successfully propagated among Russian peasants by suggesting some supposed similarity between its ideals and those of Christianity. At the Council too there were supporters of the “Christian” variant of socialism. It may be supposed that, in order to avoid further grounds for division (and there were already enough such grounds among the Russian emigration at that time), the disputes on this subject were not reflected in the Acts and the question was in practice removed from consideration. St. Seraphim’s insistent request that socialism in all its forms be condemned was formally satisfied—a separate three-member commission was appointed, consisting of Bishop Benjamin (Fedchenkov), Archpriest M. Stelmashenko, and T. V. Lokot. But in the document they prepared under the title “Basic Theses for the Exposure of the False Teaching of Socialism,” the condemnation concerns only “the false teaching of socialism and its most consistent form—Bolshevism, or communism.” It says not a word about “Christian” socialism, the exposure of which St. Seraphim regarded as especially important. It is interesting, however, that in these theses, in the section “Measures against the socialist false teaching,” there is the following point: “c) participation in the struggle against socialism by all Christian confessions and by the other religions.” It turns out that the idea of a pan-Christian, and even pan-religious, front for the struggle against socialism [9] did find, albeit modestly, a place in the Council’s documents, which means that it had quite enough supporters there, including the aforementioned compilers of the theses. This once again confirms that Mr. Kostryukov’s attempts to attribute this idea exclusively to St. Seraphim are unfounded and tendentious.

1.4. In 1933, St. Seraphim sent in succession two letters to the Synod Abroad, protesting the synodal permission granted to Archbishop Nestor of Kamchatka for his participation in the Far Eastern conference for the struggle against atheism. Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Judaists, and even pagans were to take part in it, and joint prayers among them were also envisaged. After St. Seraphim failed to achieve the desired result through his letters to the Synod, on August 30, 1934, he raised the question personally during a plenary session of the Council of Bishops Abroad. This time, the members of the Council unanimously agreed that Bishop Seraphim’s protest was well founded, and they withdrew the resolution permitting participation in the conference. The saint’s firm position proceeded both from his principled rejection of the ever more fully manifesting ecumenical ideology and from his direct observations that the participation of Orthodox in ecumenical conferences and all sorts of “supra-confessional” formations leads only to the blurring of their church consciousness, to coldness and indifference toward the faith.

St. Seraphim’s struggle against the participation of the Russian Church Abroad in the ecumenical movement in all its manifestations continued also at the Second Russian All-Diaspora Council in 1938. In an address before the Council, [10] he set forth with particular clarity the grounds for his rejection of ecumenical ideology. As the basis of his arguments, St. Seraphim placed the fundamental truth that outside the Orthodox Church there is no salvation. The more historical time advances, he emphasized before the Council, the more people become divided and depart from the only saving path of Orthodoxy. True unification, which is unification in the Truth, can take place only on the basis of grace-filled life—that is to say, only in the bosom of the Orthodox Church. For Orthodox truth is revealed through the grace of the Holy Spirit—that is, precisely through that of which the ecumenical movement has no conception and does not wish to have any conception. For this reason, true union by way of the ecumenical movement is unattainable, and the means employed by the movement are inadmissible from an Orthodox point of view. The extra-ecclesial union proposed by the ecumenists will bring only harm, and this harm cannot be redeemed by the unproven benefit of the supposed missionary activity of Orthodox ecumenists among the heterodox. Consequently, every kind of association with the ecumenical movement must be rejected on principle, and no representatives whatsoever should be sent to its conferences. Such were the principal points in the address of St. Seraphim, which he concluded with the significant words of the Psalmist: “Blessed is that man who does not go into the assembly of the ungodly!” (Ps. 1:1).

The saint continued his work of exposing ecumenism as an ideology contrary to Orthodoxy with particular firmness at the Moscow Congress in 1948, where by the report he delivered there, he became the ideological inspirer of the entire subsequent generation of Orthodox traditionalists. It would not be an exaggeration to say that by his life and word St. Seraphim was the most consistent and principled exposer of the ecumenical heresy among the hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad in the first half of the twentieth century.

II. Concerning the non-existent signing of documents jointly with representatives of the Armenian community

Is Mr. Andrei Kostryukov’s claim true that in 1948, at the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Moscow, St. Seraphim “placed his signature on the final documents alongside representatives of the Armenian community”?

In the Acts of the Congress of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, held in Moscow from July 8 to 18, 1948 (vol. 2, pp. 424–425), it is described in detail exactly which participants in the Congress had the right to sign its final documents. These were the primates of the local churches (9 persons) and the Exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate in Czechoslovakia—in all, 10 signatures of specifically named high-ranking clergymen. The name of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), who headed the Orthodox Russian communities in Bulgaria, does not appear in this list. At the ratification of the final documents, the Armenian Catholicos-Patriarch George VI, who was present at the Congress as an observer, was invited to sign those of them with whose contents he agreed. Of the four proposed resolutions, he signed two: one was “The Vatican and the Orthodox Church,” and the other, “The Ecumenical Movement and the Orthodox Church.” By this, the Armenian Catholicos expressed his agreement with documents which, although in places bearing a political tint, are in full agreement with the Orthodox confession of the faith. Thus, in this case there is no room for any superficial associations with documents on matters of faith, imbued with a spirit of compromise and apostasy, signed jointly by Orthodox representatives with the heterodox during various ecumenical forums from the 1960s onward. From what has been said, it is clear that in this case too Mr. Kostryukov’s claim is false and of a manipulative character.

III. Concerning the report on the Anglican hierarchy

We cite the next claim of Mr. Kostryukov from his interview: “A little-known report by Bishop Seraphim on the Anglican hierarchy,” he says,

“makes it clear that he was ready for dialogue, ready to agree to certain ritual differences, provided that the Anglicans return to the Orthodox confession and to Orthodoxy...”

Let us briefly acquaint ourselves with Archbishop Seraphim’s report on the question of the Anglican hierarchy, in which Mr. Kostryukov discerns in the saint an inclination toward dialogue with the Anglicans and a readiness to agree to their ritual differences.

In the opening part of his report, St. Seraphim gives a brief historical survey of the steps which the Anglican Church, or certain of its members, took from the seventeenth to the twentieth century to pave the way for a return to the bosom of the Orthodox Church. The chief obstacle on this path is the problem of the broken apostolic succession among the Anglicans. With the acceptance of ecumenical ideas after the 1920s, some of the local Orthodox Churches declared themselves ready to recognize the validity of the Anglican hierarchy—among them were Constantinople, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Antioch, and later the Romanian and other local Churches. “It is unknown on the basis of what considerations this recognition took place,” St. Seraphim writes in his report, and he points to the absence of any documents whatsoever proving that William Barlow—the senior among those who performed the consecration of Archbishop Parker of Canterbury—is in fact the link connecting the Anglican hierarchy with the Apostles.” [11] The same, however, may also be said of the other two participants in the consecration. After recounting the many erroneous positions in the Anglican confession, St. Seraphim writes: “All these defects of the Anglican Church—the extremely negative rationalistic understandings of the sacraments of Priesthood and the Eucharist, which exist even among the English episcopate; the unclear dogmatic views of the Anglican Church; the absence within it itself of wholeness and unity; its striving to unite simultaneously both with the Orthodox Church and with heretics—we consider all this to be a great obstacle to the union of the Anglican Church with Orthodoxy...” [12] To this St. Seraphim adds its strong dependence on Masonry, and above all its exceptional entanglement with the ecumenical movement, of which it is a founder and the chief driving force in its development. The union to which the Anglican Church aspires, the saint explains, is an ecumenical union, in which it wishes to preserve its erroneous beliefs, as well as its freedom to unite simultaneously with all kinds of other churches. “In view of all this,” St. Seraphim concludes, “we cannot be optimistic. We think that this union will not be accomplished.” [13]

After this clear and realistic view of the actual state of affairs, St. Seraphim expresses the opinion that the principle of ecclesiastical economy could be applied to the Anglican Church, and that it could be joined to Orthodoxy by the third rite (that is, without its hierarchs being ordained again). But for this to happen, it must first declare its readiness to fulfill the following conditions:

“To renounce all its dogmatic errors; to exclude from the composition of its hierarchy all bishops who do not believe in the grace of the priesthood and in the grace of transubstantiation, and in the future not to admit to ordination to the rank of deacon, priest, or bishop persons holding such negative and rationalistic views; to annul all its negotiations and agreements with the non-episcopal and other heretical confessions with which the Russian Orthodox Church has no church communion; to accept in full the doctrine of the Orthodox Church and henceforth to be guided not by its symbolic books, but solely by the fundamental principles of holy Orthodoxy.

The allowance of greater leniency in the matter of the union of the Anglican Church with the Russian Orthodox Church would represent not a manifestation of our love toward the Anglicans, but our falling away from the ecclesiastical Orthodox canons...” [14]

Such is the conclusion of St. Seraphim.

After carefully reviewing and presenting in concise form the contents of the report concerning the Anglican hierarchy, we found nothing in the text that indicates in St. Seraphim any readiness for dialogue or for the acceptance of any ritual differences. The saint speaks not of dialogue, but of setting before the Anglicans clear and categorical conditions for their joining Orthodoxy, if they should truly desire this.

IV. The position of St. Seraphim on the question of the church calendar

Both in his interview and in his book A Biography of Archbishop Seraphim Sobolev, Mr. Kostryukov also touches, in a certain aspect, on the question of the church calendar. This makes it necessary for us to dwell briefly on the report “On the New and Old Style,” [15] read by the saint at the Moscow Congress in 1948.

What are the main ideas in this report? St. Seraphim clearly and consistently sets forth the grounds for rejecting the “new” calendar, both with regard to the Paschalion and the cycle of movable church feasts connected with it, and with regard to the Menaion festal cycle (the immovable feasts). In the Orthodox Church, the Lawgiver is the Holy Spirit Himself, Who through the voice of the Ecumenical Councils establishes in her dogmas and canons, so that she may abide forever as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The rejection of the Alexandrian paschal system, established at the First Ecumenical Council and safeguarded by the canons of the holy Catholic Church (7th Apostolic Canon, 1st Canon of the Council of Antioch, 7th Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, 95th Canon of the Council in Trullo, etc.), leads not only to grave canonical transgressions, but also to a disruption of the course of the Gospel events as relived by the Church through Orthodox worship. [16]

However, the acceptance of the new style even in its compromise form is also inadmissible, when, although the Alexandrian Paschalion is preserved, the immovable feasts are celebrated according to the new style. “This mixed calendar cannot be accepted by the Orthodox,” St. Seraphim says, “because it leads to the violation of other ecclesiastical ordinances contained in the ‘Typikon’ [Ustav] and which we must observe sacredly and unfailingly, since we must not show disobedience to our Mother, the Church.” [17] The saint enumerates some of these violations, laying particular emphasis on the destruction of the Apostles’ Fast committed by the new-calendarists in those years when, because of the shifting of the immovable feasts 13 days forward, no calendar time at all remains for it.

“Some may say,” St. Seraphim writes,

“that the violation of the Typikon does not constitute a grave sin, because here there is no departure from the dogmas. But do not the words of Christ, ‘And if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican’ (Matt. 18:17), likewise not speak of a violation of one or another dogmatic truth of our faith? Nevertheless, according to the testimony of these divine words, whoever among us does not render obedience to the Church is cut off from her and placed in the ranks of grievous sinners, because in that case the heaviest punishment is imposed upon him—excommunication from the Church. Moreover, by their disregard for the Church Ustav [Typikon], the new-calendarists commit their sin of disobedience to the Church openly, consciously, and boldly.” (emphasis mine — M.S.) [18]

“A grave sin of disobedience to the Church”—this is how St. Seraphim characterizes the conscious neglect of the church calendar as part of the Tradition of the Church. Concerning the Church Ustav (Typikon), “the sacred law which guides us in our Orthodox worship through the services, feasts, and fasts,” the saint writes: “The Typikon is nothing other than the voice of the Church—our Mother. And to this voice we must relate not with disregard, but with unconditional and unwavering obedience, if we wish to be faithful and devoted to the holy Church and to all her Orthodox norms.” [19]

St. Seraphim considered it important that at the Moscow Congress a clear position be taken against the reform of the church calendar, which stands in contradiction to the canons and the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church—a reform conceived and imposed from ecumenical and church-political motives, and which in the end led to a fateful division among Orthodox Christians.

Unfortunately, on this question the Congress adopted a compromise resolution. In it, celebration of the Resurrection of Christ according to the Alexandrian Paschalion alone is recognized as obligatory for all the local Churches (points 1 and 2). As for the immovable feasts, it is stated that until such time as a more perfect calendar is devised (?!), each autocephalous Church may use the calendar already in use within it (point 3). All clergy and laity are obliged to follow the church style of that local Church within whose canonical territory they live (point 4).

St. Seraphim objected to the third point of the resolution—he did not agree that the celebration of the immovable feasts according to the new style should be considered a permissible phenomenon. On July 14 (N.S.), 1948, the saint submitted to the Commission on the calendar question his dissenting opinion on this point, in which, among other things, it is said: “Sin cannot be regarded as a permissible phenomenon. And the celebration of the immovable feasts according to the new style is undoubtedly a sin, since here there is a conscious and voluntary violation of the Typikon... In any case, to permit in the churches without any reservation the celebration of the immovable feasts according to the mixed calendar, or according to the new style in its compromise form, means to affirm and legalize that which the Orthodox Church ought to reject.” (emphasis mine — M.S.)

St. Seraphim also sent a copy of his dissenting opinion to Metropolitan Nikolai of Krutitsy. It was accompanied by a request that it be taken into account at the forthcoming plenary session on July 17. This, however, did not happen. More than that, St. Seraphim’s dissenting opinion on the church-calendar question remained unreflected even in the Acts of the Congress, published a year later in Moscow. This fact is entirely understandable: under the conditions of the Soviet regime, “dissenting” opinions were in principle not permitted. It is known that the Congress was conducted under the vigilant supervision of the Soviet authorities, and in particular of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, who did not look favorably upon the saint.

In his book A Biography of Archbishop Seraphim Sobolev, Andrei Kostryukov somewhat tendentiously remarks: “Although Archbishop Seraphim was not satisfied with this decision [i.e., with the resolution on the question of the church calendar], it did not provoke active protests on his part.” [21] We do not know what Mr. Kostryukov means by the expression “active protests,” except perhaps an attempt to create the impression that the saint did not hold very strongly to his position. It is known, however, that church forums have their own definite rules for work, for speaking, for substantiating and defending opinions and views. St. Seraphim, prompted by his living episcopal conscience, worked in the most active way according to these rules, speaking responsibly and with argument on questions important for Orthodoxy. He took part in the sessions of three out of the four commissions of the Congress; within the span of only two days (July 13 and 14) he delivered three reports, and reports of very substantial content; he participated, whenever it was possible (because of the simultaneous work of the commissions), in the discussions of the reports; and he wrote a dissenting opinion on the resolution concerning the church-calendar question. It is evident that he employed in the most active way all possible means for expressing and defending his church position. St. Seraphim hardly expected that a principled resolution adopted at the Moscow Congress could lead to the abandonment of the new calendar in the local Churches that had already accepted it. But by pronouncing a clear ecclesiastical evaluation of it—an evaluation standing in full continuity with the long-established Orthodox position on this question—he stood firmly and categorically against the tendency to introduce into the local Orthodox Churches the so-called “Revised Julian Calendar.”

V. On the church-calendar reform in Bulgaria and on the dream of Bishop Parthenius of Leukia

In his interview, Mr. Andrei Kostryukov asserts: “I can say with confidence that Bishop Seraphim would never have allowed a division in the Church over the calendar style ... because the unity of the Church [22] would have been more important to him than the calendar.”

And in his book A Biography of Archbishop Seraphim Sobolev, at the end of the chapter “Archbishop Seraphim and the Moscow Congress of 1948,” Mr. Kostryukov briefly mentions the transition of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to the new calendar style in 1968. Here, however, he expresses a much more cautious opinion on the same question, writing: “Today one can only speculate how Archbishop Seraphim would have behaved if he had been alive in 1968.”

Naturally, no one ought to dare to speculate by speaking in the saint’s name or asserting what his actions would have been if he had been alive. But unfortunately, the late Bishop Parthenius of Leukia also allowed himself this in the fragments from his letters to Archpriest Vsevolod Shpiller cited by Mr. Kostryukov. Referring to the actions of his former brethren and of the sisters of the Knyazhevo Convent of the Protection, who had refused to accept the calendar reform, the hierarch confidently declares that Bishop Seraphim would not have approved of their conduct and would have accepted the new style. At the same time, Bishop Parthenius attempts rather lightly to discredit their position. Presenting it as the fruit of blind stubbornness and recklessness, he writes in his letter:

“Bishop Seraphim had spoken at the Moscow Pan-Orthodox Congress (1948) against the calendar reform, and that was that! Just look at their mentality! No more arguments, no reasoning, no logic at all! I tell them—holiness does not mean infallibility. Otherwise, we should have to agree with Rome as well, since there have been holy popes there whose names are also entered in the Orthodox Menologion. You can talk as much as you like to a whitewashed wall.” [23]

A person who was a contemporary of the events surrounding the implementation of the church-calendar reform in our country and who knew closely the people to whom the above-cited lines were addressed can only be filled with sorrow and perplexity by these words. It turns out that Bishop Parthenius’ logic is the following: the holiness of Bishop Seraphim does not mean that the saint was sinless—something which, moreover, no one has ever claimed. On the basis of this conclusion of his, Bishop Parthenius considers that it is not obligatory to follow St. Seraphim’s position on the calendar question, which he evidently regards as erroneous. Yet nowhere does Bishop Parthenius set forth objective arguments and reasoning in favor of his own view, which he demonstrates in practice by taking an active part in the preparation and implementation of the calendar reform. [24] As for the logic to which he calls his former brethren in order that they might accept the new calendar, it is the accommodating logic of compromise, of bending before the powers of the day who imposed the calendar reform in favor of ecumenical aspirations and to the detriment of the Church. Truly, it was with this logic that the faithful spiritual children of St. Seraphim—Archimandrite Panteleimon (Staritsky), Archimandrite Seraphim (Aleksiev), Archimandrite Sergius (Yazadzhiev), Abbess Seraphima (Liven), and the clergy, nuns, and laity of like mind with them—did not agree, whatever the cost to them.

In his interview, Mr. Kostryukov speaks of a “division in the Church over the calendar style,” speculatively reducing principled disagreement with ecumenism almost to “calendar-worship.” For among the reasons why the above-mentioned spiritual children of St. Seraphim did not agree to accept the calendar reform, the most essential was its ecumenical motivation, substance, and orientation, openly declared in the Synod’s encyclical concerning its implementation. They were guarding the saint’s testament that they should have nothing whatsoever to do with ecumenism as an ecclesiological heresy. And the calendar was one link in the chain diligently forged by ecumenism as a “unifying belt” of the supposedly divided Church of Christ. Not without reason did Archimandrite Seraphim (Aleksiev) express himself figuratively with the words: “If I say ‘a,’ I shall be compelled to say ‘b’ as well—if I agree to make the first compromising step by accepting the new style, I shall inevitably have to agree to the next ones as well.” And he did not make that step. The canonical separation from the heresy of ecumenism carried out by St. Seraphim’s spiritual children was not an expression of fanatical stubbornness, but an expression of fidelity to the truths of Orthodoxy handed down to them by their grace-filled spiritual father, and at the same time an expression of fidelity to his memory.

In the last paragraph of the aforementioned chapter of his book, Mr. Kostryukov adduces as an “argument” against the “separated ones” even a dream of Bishop Parthenius—to such an extent have his objective arguments been exhausted. “Bishop Parthenius,” he writes, “also relates his dream, in which Archbishop Seraphim advises the separated ones ‘to obey Mother Church, otherwise their whole undertaking will come to ruin.’ The bishop recounted his dream to the separated nun Seraphima (Liven), but remained without an answer.” [25]

The insinuation is more than clear—the “schismatics” are proud people who do not even deign to answer the hierarch concerned for them. Yet only a person who did not know Mother Abbess Seraphima closely could think thus: the most devoted spiritual child of Bishop Seraphim from the age of seven, a witness of his labors as a saint and of his pastoral sorrows, abbess of the Convent of the Protection founded by him, and an untiring spiritual laborer until her very repose in 2004.

The incident of Bishop Parthenius’ dream is described in the personal notes of Archimandrite Seraphim (Aleksiev), who in the years of the church-calendar reform endured with great pain and evangelical meekness the inexplicable reversal in the views and conduct of his former brethren and like-minded associates—Bishop Parthenius (Stamatov) and Archimandrite Methodius (Zherev). Here is his account:

“Among other things, I received a copy of a letter sent to Mother Seraphima, the abbess of the Convent of the Protection in Knyazhevo. In it Bishop Parthenius reported a dream of his: Archbishop Seraphim appeared to him and told him to read the following words from the Akathist to St. John of Rila written by him: 1) ‘Rejoice, for in thy writings thou didst exhort the tsar to be merciful, penitent, and obedient to the Church,’ and ‘Entreat for us from the Lord Jesus Christ forgiveness of all our sins, and especially of the sin of disobedience to our Mother the Church!’ Then he told him to convey this to the disobedient. Bishop Parthenius objected: ‘They do not even want to hear me.’ And Archbishop Seraphim said: ‘Their whole undertaking will be shattered.’ And he disappeared.

“This dream caused no disturbance at all in my soul,” Archimandrite Seraphim continues, “because as a matter of principle I do not hasten to believe dreams, in the realm of which there is so much obscurity and contentiousness, subjectivity and autosuggestion, and not infrequently also cunning demonic deception. Against Bishop Parthenius’ dream I had strong counterarguments—the report of Archbishop Seraphim delivered at the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Moscow against the acceptance of the new style, as well as his clear and categorical dissenting opinion, [26] where he expressly says:

“‘The celebration of the immovable feasts according to the new style is undoubtedly a sin, since here there is a conscious and voluntary violation of the Typikon, one of the fundamental books of our Orthodox Church. Just as the dogmas, so also the holy canons and the Typikon are the voice of our Mother the Church. Not to listen to this voice means to fall into the sin called disobedience to the Church, something that is so gravely condemned by our Lord’ (Matt. 18:17).

“Bishop Parthenius’ dream now placed Archbishop Seraphim in deep contradiction with himself. According to the dream, the acceptance of the new style is obedient listening to the voice of Mother Church, whereas according to the writings of Archbishop Seraphim, fidelity to the Church Typikon and to the old style is following the voice of Mother Church. According to the dream, he who does not accept the new style manifests disobedience to the Church, whereas according to the writings of Archbishop Seraphim, he who accepts the new style does not listen to the voice of Mother Church. I preferred the trustworthy writings of Archbishop Seraphim to the dubious and subjective dream of Bishop Parthenius,” Archimandrite Seraphim concludes his note. [27]

What could we add to this moving confession of Archimandrite Seraphim—the most faithful spiritual son of St. Seraphim among his Bulgarian spiritual children? If we look at the essence of all that happened then, it would have been far more fitting for Bishop Parthenius to apply the words of his spiritual elder to his own apostate position in the preparation and carrying out of the uncanonical church-calendar reform in Bulgaria. For the abrupt turn which he made in his views before the eyes of his former brethren and before the Bulgarian church fullness shocked many of its vigilant members at the time, and remains an act worthy of sad reflection.

VI. Brief Concluding Reflections

As we reread Mr. Kostryukov’s interview, we experience again and again the sorrowful feeling that a church-political position, one that maneuvers and deals dishonestly with the facts, is being defended by nothing other than the person of St. Seraphim, who throughout his entire life was guided by a crystalline and unshakable principledness in everything pertaining to the Orthodox confession of faith and fidelity to Christ’s Church. Most likely it was precisely church-political involvement that prevented the depth and wholeness of the personality of this wondrous righteous man, wonderworker, and guardian of Orthodoxy—who united in himself the gifts of grace-filled love and knowledge of God—from being sensed and understood.

“You have now for several years been occupied with and studying the life of Archbishop Seraphim,” the interviewer says to the young historian. “It seems to me that by now you know quite well not only individual facts from his life, but also his personality. Therefore, I would ask you: if Archbishop Seraphim were alive today and were among us, what are the things with which he would not agree?

“I can say with confidence,” Mr. Kostryukov replies, “that Bishop Seraphim would never have allowed a division in the Church over the calendar style and would not have agreed with this division … because the unity of the Church would have been more important to him than the calendar.

“As for ecumenical dialogue, even today he would probably associate with the heterodox, but without exalted fraternization and without compromises with respect to our Orthodox faith.”

St. Seraphim would undoubtedly have stood for unity, but only for unity in truth. For the sake of safeguarding the truth in the holy Orthodox Church, he endured slanders, attacks, revilings, and ill-will throughout his whole life. Because of his uncompromising stance on matters of faith, he never hesitated to go against the current, to stand up against the opinions of eminent hierarchs and theologians. And it is not without significance that, when bestowing upon him the dignity of archbishop, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) said the following: “His Eminence Seraphim is a truly Orthodox hierarch who places Sacred Tradition higher than his own career!”

We shall also recall some highly revealing words of St. Seraphim, which testify to the extent to which he was prepared to defend the Orthodox faith. In connection with the accusations of uncanonical actions against the Moscow Patriarchate, which the Protopresbyter Sergius Bulgakov—persisting in his heresy—directed against the Council of Bishops Abroad, Archbishop Seraphim replied: “...Here it is altogether inappropriate even to mention uncanonicity, because in matters of faith it is not in the least sinful to disagree with the patriarch and with the council of one’s Church, if this highest ecclesiastical authority departs from the truths of holy Orthodoxy.” [28]

Yes, it is indeed striking that, despite all his firmness in the faith, St. Seraphim possessed exceptional meekness and was foreign to any kind of fanaticism or self-enclosure. Mr. Kostryukov justly mentions more than once the saint’s dialogical spirit, but he does not fail to associate it with ecumenical dialogue (as though in order to place the saint within a hidden church-political frame in the background). St. Seraphim truly was always ready for beneficial personal contact. Filled with grace-filled love for his neighbor, and possessing sensitivity and discernment, it was neither difficult nor dangerous for him to speak with all kinds of people—whether with his ideological opponent John Mott, [29] with whom he disputed face to face on matters of worldview, or with an educated Protestant, a Roman Catholic physician, or a theosophist, or with an outspoken communist, or with the last Bulgarian tsar, Boris III, with whom he held spiritual conversations several times. Kind, well-disposed, and delicate toward the people whom God’s providence brought into his path, St. Seraphim knew how to see in each of them first of all the human person; he strove to direct each in an appropriate way toward what was beneficial for his soul, to urge him toward the Orthodox faith, toward the path of salvation. But in all this there was not a drop of sentimentalism, flattery, or conformism. St. Seraphim was simply a holy man who not only spoke about the faith, but also lived according to the faith. This grace-filled capacity of his for converse and dialogue with people has nothing in common with the spirit of ecumenism, of ecumenical dialogue, of ecumenical meetings, or of any similar undertakings that blur and corrode church consciousness. Such initiatives the saint characterized as “disorder” and considered inadmissible.

It is well known that in his stance against ecumenical ideology and against church undertakings in an ecumenical spirit, St. Seraphim showed exceptional consistency and principledness. His categorical rejection of these phenomena, anti-Christian in their essence, was not an expression of xenophobia, narrow-mindedness, or fanaticism, but of his grace-filled knowledge, of his experiential spiritual knowledge of the path that leads to salvific union with our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. Being conscious that in this union lies the whole meaning and happiness of human existence, he guarded the path toward it with evangelical meekness, but also with unshakable firmness, inspired by his love for God and for his neighbors.

These are the thoughts we wished to share within the framework of our brief meeting today in memory of our dear spiritual father, St. Seraphim, Wonderworker of Sofia, to whom we owe so much. May the polemical tone imposed by the circumstances not have distracted our attention from his radiant person, distinguished by grace-filled simplicity, exceptional integrity, and singleness of purpose. And these qualities of the saint found expression in his consistent, untiring labors for the preservation of the faith and piety, as well as in his self-sacrificing fatherly love and care for the salvation of the flock entrusted to him by God. Through his holy prayers, may God have mercy on and save our souls.

 

NOTES

1. A paper delivered at the celebration on the occasion of the 130th anniversary of the birth of St. Seraphim of Sofia, December 14, 2011, in the cathedral church of the Dormition of the Theotokos, Sofia, expanded.

2. The Theft of Saints. — Church Herald, no. 5, 2002. — http://synpress-classic.dveri.bg/05-2002/serafim.htm.

3. Vasily Mikhailovich Skvortsov—born in 1859 into a priestly family in the Ryazan province. He graduated from the Kiev Theological Academy. He founded an Inner Mission to combat the multiplying sects in Russia. Senior official for special assignments attached to the Governing Synod. Longtime editor of the widely known Russian journals Missionary Review (from 1896 to 1917) and Kolokol (from 1905 to 1917). In Petersburg he set up a large printing house for missionary purposes. During the Bolshevik revolution he was several times miraculously saved from death. In 1920 he emigrated to Yugoslavia. He took part in the First Russian Church Council Abroad in 1921. He taught at the Sarajevo Seminary. He died in 1932.

4. Journal No. 6 of the Russian All-Abroad Church Council, Session of November 16/29, 1921. — In: Acts of the Russian All-Diaspora Council, held November 8–21, 1921 (November 21–December 3) in Sremski Karlovci in the Kingdom of S.H. and S. Sremski Karlovci, 1922, p. 45.

5. Instruction to the Russian All-Abroad Church Council. — In: Acts..., p. 14.

6. The departments were the following: Higher and District Church Administration Abroad, Parishes, Educational Activity, Missionary Activity, Economic Questions, Judicial Proceedings, Spiritual Regeneration of Russia, Military-Church Affairs (point 17 of the Regulations).

7. This Council consisted of the Secretary of the Assembly and four other persons—two clergymen (a bishop and a priest) and two laymen (point 14 of the Regulations).

8. YMCA — Young Men’s Christian Association. In usage, the abbreviation “YMCA” or the translated title “Christian Youth Union” is employed.

9. Objectivity obliges us to note that in the context of the circumstances of 1921, the idea of creating a pan-Christian front for the struggle against socialism should not automatically be understood as an undertaking of an ecumenical character. The Council was being held at a time when hundreds of thousands of Russian émigrés (and according to some data, 2 million), driven from their homeland, were living in extremely difficult conditions. The lot of a large part of the population in Soviet Russia was also unbearable, where an unprecedented famine was beginning. The Russian Church Council Abroad, in the persons of its hierarchs, was compelled to ask for material and moral support from European governments and from humanitarian and religious organizations. To this end, the Council issued an “Appeal to all God-believing governments and peoples throughout the world,” as well as a “Message to the World Conference in Genoa.” In these circumstances, the idea of a call for the creation of a spiritual pan-Christian front against socialism may also have been prompted by a desire that the European Christian peoples be protected from the “communist God-fighting spirit threatening the world,” as Mr. Kostryukov notes.

10. Acts of the Second All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad with the participation of representatives of the clergy and laity, held August 1/14–11/24, 1938, in Sremski Karlovci in Yugoslavia, p. 369. Belgrade, 1939. Unfortunately, in the Acts the address of St. Seraphim is given only in abridged outline form.

11. Sobolev, Seraphim, Archbishop. On the Question of the Union of the Anglican Church with the Orthodox Church. — Acts of the Congress of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Vol. II. Moscow, 1949, p. 251.

12. Ibid., p. 261.

13. Ibid., p. 264.

14. Ibid., p. 265.

15. Sobolev, Seraphim, Archbishop. On the New and Old (Gregorian and Julian) Style. — Acts of the Congress of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Vol. II, pp. 305–317.

16. Ibid., pp. 306–309.

17. Ibid., p. 309.

18. Ibid., p. 311.

19. Ibid.

20. Acts of the Congress of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Vol. II, pp. 432–433.

21. Kostryukov, Andrei. A Biography of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev). Sofia, 2011, p. 137.

22. Here too there is evidently discernible the incorrect understanding of the Church as an earthly organization and administrative structure, whose unity and canonicity are in no way bound up with fidelity to the truths of the Orthodox faith. This conception has become a foundational component of the ideology of contemporary official Orthodoxy.

23. Kostryukov, Andrei. Op. cit., p. 138. Note: In the Bulgarian edition, the translation of the cited letter is in places incorrect. Here the fragment is cited from the Russian original.

24. Zlatev, Zlati. The Calendar and the Paschalion against the Background of History. Sofia, 2001, pp. 413–421. The same is also testified in his notes by Archimandrite Seraphim (Aleksiev).

25. Ibid., p. 138.

26. This refers to the dissenting opinion of St. Seraphim on the church-calendar question, submitted at the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Moscow in 1948.

27. Archimandrite Seraphim (Aleksiev). Personal Notes — manuscript, pp. 69–71.

28. Sobolev, Seraphim, Archbishop. A Defense of the Sophia Heresy by Protopresbyter Sergius Bulgakov before the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad. Sofia, 1937, pp. 4–5.

30. John Raleigh Mott was an American theologian. Chairman of the International Missionary Council and of the International Alliance of the YMCA, and recipient of the 1946 Nobel Peace Prize together with Emily Balch.

 

Bulgarian source: https://bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/rr/lode/MSeraphima/KZSS.html