Prayer to Saint Seraphim of Platina

O our holy father, blessed Seraphim, thou didst order thy life according to the commandment of Christ, denying thyself, taking up thy cross, and following him; and thus didst thou bring forth much fruit unto the harvest of God. Do thou pray unto the Lord for us, thy spiritual children, who dwell in an age of unbelief and enmity against absolute truth. Pray that Christ our God may strengthen us and grant us the wisdom and faith to endure the trials that lie before us. Pray for our families and friends, both the living and the departed. Pray that the inward eyes of our souls may be opened, that we may behold the divine and true Gospel of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and may acquire within ourselves the Holy Spirit. Pray that we also may one day dwell in blessedness with thee and all the saints in the Kingdom of Heaven. Beseech also the Mother of God, that she may entreat her Son to have mercy on our souls. For glorious and unending is the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

 

Saint Seraphim Rose Confronts “Super-Orthodoxy”

Greek source: https://metemorfothis.blogspot.com/2026/08/blog-post_31.html

 

 

Fr. Seraphim applied the term “super-Orthodoxy” to this kind of narrowness, sometimes also calling it the “disease of correctness.” He saw that it could exert a powerful influence on young people, both converts and native-born Western Orthodox Christians. The new “super-Orthodox” authorities, he observed, “offer them some ‘simple’ answers to complex questions, and this is very appealing to those who are somewhat uncertain or wavering in their faith. We know many converts who clutch at ‘correctness’ like a baby clutches its bottle, and I think they could save their souls better if they were a little ‘incorrect,’ but humble.”

(Fr. Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works [Greek edition], Vol. 2, p. 254)

Upon going to Greece, the “super-Orthodox” faction attempted to establish political ties between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the most extreme of all the Old Calendarist (Zealot) groups: the “Matthewites,” who believed that not only were all the New Calendarist Churches without grace, but that any Church having relations with them was likewise deprived of grace. This plan later failed because the Matthewites learned that, contrary to what they had been led to believe, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was far too “liberal” for them.

In 1976, the English-speaking Orthodox mission suffered a blow when people—mostly insecure converts—who had been baptized in other canonical Orthodox Churches were led by the “super-Orthodox” community to be rebaptized in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. “Recently,” Fr. Seraphim wrote, “some have wished to see such a ‘rebaptism’ performed in our Western American Diocese. Our Archbishop Anthony wisely refused to permit it, and we fully supported him—for this would indeed have been tantamount to an open declaration that the Greek Archdiocese was without grace.”

Bishop Nektary was greatly troubled when he heard about this unprecedented practice. “Perhaps the second baptism,” he observed, “removes the grace of the first baptism.”

At the height of the “correctness” craze in 1976, Fr. Seraphim explained to a convert why his own course could not accord with such “fanaticism.” “Their strictness,” he wrote, “compels them to become so entangled in Church politics that spiritual questions take second place. I know from my own experience that if I sit down and try to determine for myself exactly which shade of the ‘Zealots’ is correct today, I will lose all peace of mind and be continually preoccupied with questions of breaking communion, how this will appear to others, what the Greeks will think (which Greeks?), and ‘what will the Metropolitan think?’ And I will have neither the time nor the inclination to draw inspiration from the desert, the Holy Fathers, and the wondrous Saints of ancient and modern times who lived in a higher world. Especially in our time, it is impossible to remain entirely aloof from these questions, but let us put first things first.”

In another letter, he wrote: “We who wish to remain in the true tradition of Orthodoxy must be zealous and steadfast in our Orthodoxy without being fanatical or wishing to teach our bishops what they ought to do. Above all, we must strive to preserve the true fragrance of Orthodoxy, which is at least somewhat ‘not of this world,’ detached from all the cares and politics even of this Church, nourishing ourselves with the otherworldly food that our Church gives us in such abundance.”

(Fr. Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works [Greek edition], Vol. 2, pp. 257–258)

St. Seraphim Rose: Confessor of True Orthodoxy

Helen Kontzevitch (+1989)

Source: Orthodox America, Vol. III, No. 2, Issue 22, August-September 1982.

 

 

Just before awakening on the morning of September 2, 1982, when Fr. Seraphim was dying, I saw a dream. I was in the company of a priest unknown to me. who was reprimanding me for my sins. He told me I must never take offense at anyone. Together we entered a large, palatial hall. At the end of this hall a man was standing on a raised platform and singing. It was difficult to see him well because of the distance. In a most beautiful voice, he was singing the Magnification: “My soul doth magnify the Lord…” I said, “I don’t hear well.” The priest urged me to go closer and I took several steps forward. Then I began very clearly to hear the singing. The singer was a tenor with a voice like Fr. Seraphim’s whose singing I had heard years ago in the San Francisco Cathedral. That was in the early 60’s. Standing in the cliros, he alone sang the entire Matins service from beginning to end. Never in my life had I heard more prayerful singing. My soul was uplifted to the heights …. Now in my dream, I heard that same incomparable singing. It was the same voice, but it sounded like that of an angel, a dweller of paradise. This was heavenly, unearthly singing.

Waking up, I understood that there was no hope for Fr. Seraphim’s recovery.

Having the greatest admiration for the newly-reposed Fr. Seraphim, and valuing highly his achievements before God, I would like to write a few words about an attribute of his which is most dear and close to my heart. This is his faithfulness to genuine Orthodoxy. He did not have the slightest divergence with the teaching of the Church; he did not hold to any personal opinions. My late husband, Ivan M. Kontzevitch, was the same, having several university degrees and, towards tile end of his life completing theological academy. It never entered his mind to sin against the teachings of the Church.

The teaching of the Orthodox Church is not a product of the minds or the deliberations of the great Fathers of the Church. The Holy Spirit Himself inspired them with this teaching. It is for this reason that Orthodoxy is unshakable. Every offense against the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin (Matt. 12:31, 32). Faithfulness to Orthodoxy in our difficult and troubled times is of great value. Fr. Seraphim was a burning and illuminating lamp. He left us his light in his writings. Glory to God for all things.

Renovationism

From Not of this World: The Life and Teaching of Fr. Seraphim Rose by Monk Damascene Christensen (Chapter 61, pp. 464-476)

 

A man who does not express a desire to link himself to the latest of the saints (in time) in all love and humility owing to a certain distrust in himself, will never be linked to the preceding saints and will not be admitted to their succession, even though he thinks he possesses all possible faith and love for God and for all His saints.  He will be cast out of their midst, as one who refused to take humbly the place allotted to him by God before all time, and to link himself to that latest saint (in time) as God had disposed.

 

- St. Symeon the New Theologian

 

Father Seraphim lived at a time when there was talk among scholars and intellectuals of a fashionable “Patristic revival.”  This was a positive phenomenon in that many rare Patristic texts were being made known in the modern world; but Fr. Seraphim was also to see its dangers.  Having himself learned how to approach the Orthodox Tradition through a direct, living transmission from saints, he was unhappily though inevitably set at odds with scholars and theologians who had not received such a transmission.  These people, he said, were creating “a whole new approach to Orthodoxy”; and his times demanded that he speak out.

The new breed of scholars came first of all from the so-called “Parisian” school of Orthodox thought, composed mostly of members of the Russian intelligentsia.  While in Russia, some of these people had helped pave the way for the revolution.  (One, Peter Struve, had even been the translator of Marx’s Das Kapital into Russian.)  Seeing the horrors this would bring, they had repented of their work for the Marxist cause.  But it was too late: the horrors did come, and they all fled the country.  They formed an émigré community in Paris, and in their philosophy attempted a return to their cultural and religious heritage.  When they came to Orthodoxy, however, it was largely to an Orthodoxy of their own devising.  They looked down their noses at the “popular piety” of the “masses,” which they felt they had to refine according to their superior knowledge and intellectual expertise.  The most famous thinkers of this school were Nicholas Berdayaev and Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, who, in trying to be original, defended a whole system of heretical ideas which were later condemned by the Russian Church both in the Soviet Union and in the free world.  The next generation of thinkers was more subdued and careful; they would never fall into teachings so foreign to the Church.  In many respects, however, they shared the same general approach.  Some of them came to America, bringing that with them.  Chief among them was Fr. Alexander Schmemann.

Fr. Schmemann came to New York from Paris in 1951, and very soon became the unrivaled ideologue of the American Metropolia.  There were many things which he felt needed changing.  Like his predecessors, he was critical of “old-fashioned piety,” particularly that of pre-revolutionary Russia.  He believed this “piety” (the very word he used in a pejorative sense) was the result of unfortunate “cultural accretions” which had to be reevaluated and stripped off in layers by modern scholars.  He said that Orthodoxy had come under “Western captivity,” that its theology had been completely dominated by “Western influences” in recent centuries.  He spoke of finding “new ways of Russian theology,” of intellectually “mastering history” and thus “restoring” Orthodoxy to what he regarded as its pure form.  This, he said, was the task of the new theological “movement” that had sprung up in the 1920’s to supersede the old, “antiquated” understanding of Orthodoxy.  As Fr. Seraphim put it: “For Fr. Schmemann, the whole of Orthodoxy is transformed into a series of tremendously important ‘problems’ to which only a few of the academically elite have the approach to any ‘solutions.’”

Fr. Schememann believed that much could be gained for Orthodoxy in place of the old-world mentality.  He and his colleagues wanted Orthodoxy to be recognized by the big names in contemporary theology and the ecumenical movement, to address problems in the Western Christian “dialogue” in a fresh and exciting way.  To do this, they naturally resonated the theological fashions which were then in the air, making use of the new catch words and phrases such as “crisis” and, following Teilhard de Chardin, the “sanctification of the world.”

One of the currents of “progressive” Christianity was the disparagement of what was now termed “private virtue.”  Thomas Merton had been one of the first to take part in this, and Fr. Schmemann also reflected it, claiming that Orthodox piety had become too self-centered and individualistic, too concerned with the personal salvation of individual souls.  Compared with famous figures like Thomas Merton and Patriarch Athenagoras, however, Fr. Schmemann was more guarded in his conclusions.  He did not accept all the ramifications of the main contemporary currents of thought, but worked to effect an enlightened “synthesis” between these currents and Orthodoxy.  Very quickly he gained widespread recognition as a “dynamic and articulate spokesman of Orthodoxy.”

Fr. Herman had encountered Fr. Schmemann’s books when he was at Jordanville.  As he explained: “When I came to Jordanville, I read three books which were bound up with my conversion: the life of St. Seraphim, the Life of Elder Ambrose of Optina, and The Way of the Pilgrim.  I found that the most interesting thing about Christianity is the ascetics, because they make all of Christ’s talk about the Kingdom of God make sense.  And then someone said, ‘If you really want to know what’s happening in Orthodoxy today, read Schmemann.’  So I read it, and I was bored.  I read more, and I was still bored.  I wondered what was wrong.  And then I figured it out.  He speaks abstractly, albeit eloquently, not from experience, like the ascetics.  And then I thought: Big deal.  I could do the same – read books and think about them.  It was to-dimensional, while the saints are three-dimensional, because they have sought and attained the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.  They try their best to get it across to us, and it’s only our denseness that prevents us from understanding their experience.”

Fr Seraphim had an even stronger reaction to modern academic theology.  Once, when Fr. Herman read to him from some recent theological journal, Fr. Seraphim became indignant.  “If you read too much of that,” he said, “you may begin to take it seriously, which will detract from the power of the true spiritual texts which gave you life.”  We have seen how Fr. Seraphim had left the modern academic world because it was not governed by a love of Truth and had degenerated into “playing around with ideas.”  Here, he felt, were people doing much the same to the most precious thing in the world to him: Orthodox Christianity.  Like modern scholars in other fields, they had to “kill” their subject, take away its pulsing life, before they could dissect and study it.  Often their talk seemed a mere juggling of loaded theological terms, deprived of concrete application.

Of course, some of their writings and lectures were better than others.  But as Fr. Seraphim noted, “the message of even the best lecturers and writers today seems strangely powerless, without spiritual force.”  In an article for The Orthodox Word, he explained why:

“Orthodoxy today, with its priests and theologians and faithful, has become worldly.  The young people who come from comfortable homes and either accept or seek… a religion that is not remote from the self-satisfied life they have known; the professors and lecturers whose milieu is the academic world where, notoriously, nothing is accepted as ultimately serious, a matter of life or death; the very academic atmosphere of self-satisfied worldliness – all these factors join together to produce an artificial, hothouse atmosphere in which, no matter what might be said concerning exalted Orthodox truths or experiences, by the very context in which it is said and by virtue of the worldly orientation of both speaker and listener, it cannot strike to the depths of the soul and produce the profound commitment which used to be normal to Orthodox Christians…

“In the Russian emigration, the ‘theologians’ of the new school, who are eager to be in harmony with the intellectual fashions, to quote the latest Roman Catholic or Protestant scholarship, to adopt the whole ‘casual’ tone of contemporary life and especially of the academic world – have been aptly called ‘theologians with a cigarette.’…  Their message has no power, because they themselves are entirely of this world and address worldly people in a worldly atmosphere – from all this it is not Orthodox exploits that come, but only idle talk and empty, pompous phrases.” [1]

Writing about an 80-year-old “living link” in Australia, the aforementioned Fr. Nicholas Deputatov, Fr. Seraphim noted that such true theologians “are not, as a rule, to be found in Orthodox academies, nor in pompous ‘theological conferences.’  They are to be sought in humbler places, and usually they will not bear the name ‘theologian.’  They themselves would not presume to call their handing down the Orthodox Theological tradition anything more than ‘faithfulness to the Holy Fathers’ – but it is just this faithfulness and this humility that mark them out as bearers of the authentic tradition of Orthodoxy – qualities which are lacking in the most renowned ‘Orthodox theologians’ today.” [2]

As early as 1957, Fr. Seraphim had read in the writings of Rene Guenon about modern scholars who look into traditional religion to find “something that can be made to fit the framework of their own outlook,” and then claim that this represents the “primitive and true” form of the religion, “whereas the remaining forms, according to them, are but comparatively late corruptions.” [3] This, as Fr. Seraphim understood, was exactly the approach of the modernist Orthodox spokesmen.  They were not at all restoring Orthodoxy to some lost purity, but were instead “renovating” it to conform to modern prejudices.  While disclaiming the fruits of the Reformation, they were in effect doing what Guenon had said of Protestantism: “exposing revelation to all the discussions which follow in the wake of purely human interpretations… [giving] birth to that dissolving ‘criticism’ which, in the hands of so-called ‘historians of religion,’ has become a weapon of offense against all religion.’”

In his book Introduction to Orthodox Liturgical Theology, Fr. Schmemann had critiqued the whole substance of Orthodox worship in a manner that appeared more Protestant than Orthodox.  Relying on Western, non-Orthodox sources, he yet claimed to have escaped the “Western captivity” of Liturgics.  He rejected the traditional Orthodox view that the history of worship was “divinely established and Providential,” and looked upon it rather as the result of mere historical circumstances.  Like Protestant scholars, he put the changes that occurred at the beginning of the Constantinian era in a dubious light, regarding them not as new forms of the expression of the same piety but rather as a reformation of the interpretation of worship and a deviation from the early Christian liturgical spirit and forms.  The true, “eschatological” nature of worship, he said, had been partially obscured by “mysteriological piety” and “symbolical explanations,” as well as by the “ascetic individualism” arising largely from monasticism.  Accordingly, the theological idea of the cycle of services had been “obscured and eclipsed by secondary strata in the Ordo,” and it remained for modern theologians to find it again.  This “secondary strata” consisted of precisely those elements which Protestantism has disowned – the Mysteries as a source of individual sanctification, the division of clergy and laity, the distinction between church feasts and “ordinary days,” the glorification of saints, the veneration of relics, etc. – elements which Fr. Schmemann referred to by such terms as the “cult of mysteries” and the “cult of saints.”  He expressed doubts as to “the complete liturgical soundness of Orthodoxy,” decried the present “liturgical piety,” and claimed that the Church was in a “liturgical crisis.”

As could be expected, Fr. Schmemann’s book was acclaimed by non-Orthodox scholars.  Its approach was quite disturbing, however, to one of Fr. Herman’s teachers at Jordanville, Fr. Michael Pomazansky.  Being one of the last living theologians to have graduated from the theological academies of pre-Revolutionary Russia, Fr. Michael felt called upon to write an article on Fr. Schmemann’s book.  Originally printed in Russian, the article was translated by Fr. Seraphim and printed in The Orthodox Word.  Fathers Seraphim and Herman thought it was excellently written: evenhanded, with clear expositions of Orthodox teaching to contrast with Fr. Schmemann’s distortions.

About the author of Introduction to Orthodox Liturgical Theology, Fr. Michael wrote: “He pays tribute to the method that reigns completely in contemporary science: leaving aside the idea of an overshadowing of Divine grace, the concept of sanctity of those who established the liturgical order, he limits himself to a naked chain of causes and effects.  Thus does positivism intrude nowadays into Christian science, into the sphere of the Church’s history in all its branches.  But if the positivists’ method is acknowledged as a scientific working principle in science, in the natural sciences, one can by no means apply it to living tradition, nor to every sphere of the life of Christianity and the Church, insofar as we remain believers.” [4]

It may be argued that Fr. Schmemann was inwardly not as Protestant as he appeared, that he was only trying to get the attention of heterodox theologians by writing in the key of modern academia, with its pretensions at “objectivity.”  At the canonization of St. Herman, for example, when he personally experienced the maximum expression of the “cult of saints,” he said he felt “the whole substance of faith.”  Reading this in an article, Fr. Seraphim wrote: “His heart is still Orthodox… but with his mind he is leading the ‘reform’ of the Metropolia and of Orthodoxy that will precisely make it impossible for future generations to feel what he felt… In all fairness, it should be noted that Fr. Schmemann probably does not see himself as a ‘reformer,’ and it will doubtless be left to other less sensitive souls, another generation removed from the life of genuine Orthodoxy, to draw the inevitable iconoclastic conclusions from Fr. Schmemann’s already Protestant views.” [5] In the words of Rene Guenon: “once launched, the revolt against the traditional outlook could not be arrested in mid-course.”

It should also be said that Fr. Schmemann’s “reforms” were actually a sincere attempt on his part to improve the morale of contemporary parishes.  In one article he wrote that the Metropolia’s “financial bankruptcy only reveals and reflects its spiritual state – a state of apathy and demoralization.”  He correctly diagnosed the disease, but, in Fr. Seraphim’s view, he gave the wrong cure.  The chief hierarch of the Metropolia, Ireney, had been trying to help matters by salvaging at least some parts of the liturgical practice of the Russian Church.  But Fr. Schmemann believed that the nominal parishioners would even find this minimum unmeaningful.  “He believes,” wrote Fr. Seraphim, “the Typicon must be revised in light of our knowledge of its historical development, of other traditions, and the like.  In a word, the services must be made somehow palatable to spiritually bankrupt people!  Fr. Schmemann takes a bad situation and makes it worse, advocating the establishment of a new typicon, a lower standard – which the next generation of the Metropolia will undoubtedly likewise find ‘unmeaningful’ and too demanding!” [6]

Elsewhere Fr. Seraphim wrote that the new breed of Orthodox “adapts the faith to the present low level of spiritual awareness; there are exceptions, of course, but that is the general trend.”

This could also be seen when reform-minded Orthodox gathered in 1971 to prepare for an “Eighth Ecumenical Council,” a council which was supposed to do for Orthodoxy what Vatican II had done for Roman Catholicism.  One of the reports on the agenda, entitled, “Revision of the Ecclesiastical Prescription Concerning Fasting, in Conformity with the needs of our Epoch,” proposed that, since most Orthodox believers do not keep the whole Orthodox fast, the fast should be made easier to suit them, “in order to avoid the problems of conscience create by the violation of the severe ecclesiastical prescriptions.”

“Such an approach,” wrote Fr. Seraphim, “is totally un-Orthodox, and constitutes an obvious and crude imitation of the reform spirit of the Latin church, which ended by abolishing fasting altogether.  The Orthodox rule of fasting is not intended to ‘avoid problems of conscience,’ but rather to call believers to a difficult, inspiring and humbling standard of Christian life; if they fall short of the standard, then at least they can see how far their life is from the standard, the norm, which always remains the same.  The Papal idea, based on the corrupt modern principle of spiritual self-satisfaction, is either to give a special ‘dispensation’ from the standard (an idea which has already entered some Orthodox jurisdictions), or else to change the standard itself so that the believer can fulfill it easily and thereby obtain a sense of self-satisfaction from ‘obeying the law.’  This is precisely the difference between the Publican and the Pharisee: the Orthodox man feels himself constantly a sinner because he falls short of the Church’s exalted standard (in spirit if not in letter), whereas the ‘modern’ man wishes to feel himself justified, without any twinge of conscience over falling short of the Church’s standard.” [7]

Fr. Seraphim, then, saw that the cure for apathy lay not in dissecting Orthodoxy into pieces, but in setting up the whole of its tradition as a goal towards which people could strive.  “We, the last Christians,” he wrote, “are far from the normal life of Orthodox piety; how much, therefore, must we struggle in order to get back to that normal life!  But how inspiring is the path of it!”  “Enlightened” criticism of Orthodox piety only distracts people from the main concern.  As Fr. Seraphim observed, what is needed is “a priest of the ‘old-fashioned’ mentality, on fire with Orthodoxy and so desirous for the salvation of his flock that he will not excuse their sins and worldly habits but is constantly urging them up to a higher spiritual life.” [8]

With pain Fr. Seraphim and Herman watched the new ‘American” Church that Fr. Schmemann, in his own sincere way, was striving to create.  Since America has no deep, long-standing Orthodox roots, the greatest danger in this lay in cutting off the roots of living tradition.  Fr. Seraphim stated, Fr. Schmemann was paving the way for a rootless Orthodoxy for new generations of Americans who “will not even know what they have lost.”  He was seeking to build American Orthodoxy on the autonomous “theology” of modern scholars rather than on a living transmission of spiritual wisdom from holy bearers of the tradition.  Fr. Seraphim knew from experience how vital that transmission was: without it he would never have entered the “heart of hearts,” the deeper dimension of Orthodox life for which it was worth giving up “all that is in the world.”  Once this transmission was lost, it could not be restored.

Fr. Schmemann was ignoring the “living links” by which alone, according to the teaching of St. Symeon the New Theologian, he could be tied to the ancient saints.  He said the idea of “Holy Russia” was just romantic nostalgia.  And its brightest luminaries – those whom Providence had washed onto American shores – represented to him an immigrant parochialism and an obsolete, “apocalyptic” piety unsuited to what he regarded as “the mission of Orthodox theology today.”  As a case in point, not twenty miles from his home in New York lived Fr. Adrian, that link with the Optina Elders and a clairvoyant spiritual guide himself, who was very open-minded with regard to thinkers like Fr. Schmemann.  Although Fr. Schmemann knew about him, he chose to receive his wisdom from modern institutes instead.

It was from the example of the new breed of theologians that Fr. Seraphim first beheld how perilous was the attitude of “knowing better”:  nothing so hindered one from receiving the living tradition.  “In our confused days,” he wrote, “when a hundred conflicting voices claim to speak for Orthodoxy, it is essential to know whom one can trust as spokesman for true Orthodoxy.  It is not enough to claim to speak for Patristic Orthodoxy: one must be in the genuine tradition of the Holy Fathers, not merely ‘rediscovering’ them in a modern academy or seminary, but actually receiving their tradition from one’s own fathers.  A merely clever explainer of Patristic doctrine is not in this tradition, but only one who, not trusting his own judgment or that of his peers, is constantly asking of his own fathers what is the proper approach to and understanding of the Holy Fathers.”

After Archbishop John’s death, Fr. Seraphim’s own guide to the Holy Father’s had been Archbishop Averky, to whom Archbishop John had once told the brothers to turn whenever they had questions.  “Archbishop Averky,” Fr. Seraphim wrote, “is in the genuine patristic tradition as few other living Orthodox fathers.  A disciple of great 20th century theologian and holy hierarch, Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, Archbishop Averky is a bearer and transmitter, in  a direct and unbroken line of Orthodox theologians, of the genuine Patristic doctrine which is in danger of being eclipsed by today’s generation of Western-educated proud ‘young theologians.’  In recent years his voice has resounded and thundered as never before… as he strives to give the true Orthodox teaching to Orthodox Christians who are rapidly losing the salt of Orthodoxy.” [9]

Archbishop Averky himself addressed the phenomenon of the new theologians.  “Alas!” he wrote.  “How few people there are in our times, even among the educated, and at times even among contemporary ‘theologians’ and those in the ranks of clergy, who understand what Orthodoxy is and wherein its essence lies.  They approach this question in an utterly external, formal manner and resolve it too primitively, even naively, overlooking its depths completely and not seeing the fullness of its spiritual contents.” [10]

One difference between a modern Holy Father like Archbishop Averky and a mere explainer of Patristic doctrine was their respective attitudes toward the apocalyptic and prophetic aspects of Orthodoxy.  Being in a direct line of prophets, Archbishop Averky did not hesitate to impart what to the lovers of this world might be a hard saying.  Modern academic theology, on the other hand, was already too much a part of the world to do this.  “If the Christian faith is indeed eschatological,” Fr. Schmemann wrote, “it is precisely not apocalyptic…. Apocalypticism is truly a heresy.”  Not only Archbishop Averky, but all the holy people Fr. Seraphim had known had a very sober view of imminent tribulations and deceptions.  The new theologians demonstrated their foreignness to this traditional outlook by calling such people ‘neurotic’ and defeatists.’” [11]

It was clear to Fr. Seraphim that today’s academic theology could not be successfully blended with the life of monasticism.  Various attempts at such a combination bore this out, and the reasons were not difficult to discern.  Whereas the former was abstract, the latter was down-to-earth; whereas the former was filled with talk of complex theological “problems,” the latter required simplicity of heart; and whereas the former was devised according to the way the world thinks, the latter was by nature at odds with the world.  Of all the academic theologians, Fr. Schmemann had the most animated vision of Orthodoxy in America; but even this could do hardly more than raise one a step above nominal Christianity.  It could not inspire one to take the first step of the Ladder of Divine Ascent: renunciation.

In theory, Fr. Schmemann regarded monasticism very highly, but in practice he was suspicious of it for what he regarded as its corruptions, blaming monastic influence in large part for the piety and church traditions of which he disapproved. [12] He placed the monastic-ascetic tradition at odds with the “lay” Orthodoxy he envisioned, rather than seeing the former as the prime motivator and inspirer of the latter.  As Fr. Seraphim wrote, however: “It is precisely the monastic services which are taken as the standard of the Church’s life of worship, because monasticism itself most clearly expresses the ideal toward which the whole believing Church strives.  The condition of monasticism at any given time is ordinarily one of the best indicators of the spiritual condition of the whole Church, or of any local Church; and similarly, the degree to which the local parishes in the world strive toward the ideal of the monastic service is the best indicator of the condition of the Divine worship which is conducted in them.” [13]

Father Seraphim saw the final argument against modernist theology in its very fruits.  Traditional Orthodoxy, with all its alleged “cultural accretions” and “impurities,” has nurtured saints even in our own times; “restored” or “rediscovered” Orthodoxy, with all its claims at being more pure or better informed, has produced, at best, clever men.  The latter, Fr. Seraphim perceived, has lost the feeling for the whole atmosphere of piety in which saints have been raised.

Whereas academics theologians were trying to inspire the new generation of American Orthodox with “the task of Orthodox theology today,” Fr. Seraphim wanted to inspire it above all with ascetic podvig: “emphasis on doing spiritual life rather than talking about it.”  Podvig was what had moved all the great “living links” to become men and women of sanctity, and it alone would give birth to more sanctity in the American land.  As Archbishop Averky had said, “Orthodoxy is an ascetic faith that calls to ascetic labor in the name of the uprooting of sinful passions and the implanting of Christian virtue.”  And, according to the teaching of St. John Climacus and other Holy Fathers, one must conquer the passions before even attempting to theologize.

In almost every issue of The Orthodox Word, the fathers presented the Life of an ascetic laborer, a true knower of God.  They knew that, more than anything else, it was love for the ascetics themselves that inspired one to podvig.  Fr. Seraphim did not see this love for ascetics coming from the journals of the new theologians.  “And without love for saints,” he wrote, “one’s Orthodoxy is crippled and one’s sense of direction is off – for they are the examples one has to follow.”

In 1973 the fathers began to publish the Lives of the desert-dwellers of Northern Russia, having painstakingly written and compiled them from a number of rare sources.  Their definite aim, they said, was to give them “not merely as an example of dead history, but of living tradition.”  Even while they were printing them separately in each issue, however, one leading academic theologian chastised in print “those who call to non-existent deserts,” evidently regarding such Lives as an appeal to a religious “romanticism” totally out of step with contemporary conditions of life.  When the fathers finally printed the Lives together in a book, which they called The Northern Thebaid, Fr. Seraphim answered this criticism as follows:

“Why, indeed, should we inspire today’s Orthodox youth with the call of the ‘Northern Thebaid’ [of Russia] which has in it something attractive and somehow more accessible for a 20th century zealot than the barren desert of Egypt?

“First of all, the monastic life here described has not entirely disappeared from the earth; it is possible to find Orthodox monastic communities which teach the spiritual doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and to lead the Orthodox monastic life even in the 20th century – with constant self-reproach over how far one falls short of the Lives of the ancient Fathers in these times…. The wise seeker can find his ‘desert’ even in our barren 20th century.

“But this book is not intended only for such fortunate ones.

“Every Orthodox Christian should know the Lives of the Fathers of the desert, which together with the Lives of the Martyrs give us the model for our own life of Christian struggle.  Even so, every Orthodox Christian should know of Valaam, of Solovki, of Svir, of Siya and Obnora and White Lake, of the Skete of Sora, and of the Angel-like men who dwelled there being translated to heaven, living the Orthodox spiritual life to which every Orthodox Christian is called, according to his strength and the conditions of his life.  Every Orthodox Christian should be inspired by their life of struggle far from the ways of the world.  There is no ‘romanticism’ here.  The actual ‘romantics’ of our times are the reformers of ‘Parisian Orthodoxy’ who, disparaging the authentic Orthodox tradition, wish to ‘sanctify the world,’ to prostitute the spiritual tradition ‘for the life of the world,’ to replace the authentic Orthodox world view with a this-worldly counterfeit of it based on modern Western thought.  The spiritual life of the true monastic tradition is the norm of our Christian life, and we had better be informed of it before the terrible last day when we are called to account for our lax life.  We shall not be judged for our ignorance of the vocabulary of contemporary ‘Orthodox theology,’ but we shall surely be judged for not struggling on the path to salvation.  If we do not live like these Saints, then let us at least increase our far-too-feeble struggles from God, and offer our fervent tears of repentance and our constant self-reproach at falling so short of the standard of perfection which God has shown us in His wondrous Saints.” [14]

In some of his later works – those which were aimed more at the orthodox faithful than at academicians – Fr. Schmemann succeeded in providing practical edification while avoiding modern criticism of the “defects” of traditional Orthodoxy.  But for him, and especially for his followers, the transmission remained severed.  Although he made frequent mention of St. Seraphim in his lectures, he could only appreciate selected aspects of him.  He could not fully enter into this Saint’s ascetic and apocalyptic spirit (as seen, for example, in the “Great Diveyevo Mystery”), for he had cut himself off from the saints of his own time, even from those of St. Seraphim’s same spiritual lineage who lived nearby.

It was their burden to preserve the living transmission of Orthodoxy in America that caused the fathers to take such a sharp tone against “renovated” Orthodoxy.  “Schmemannism” posed a real threat, but the fathers were after all able to separate the man from the “ism.”  The distortions of Orthodoxy could never be accepted or passed over, but the man himself could be forgiven.  Fr. Seraphim had no personal animosity toward him, and in fact respected him for his commitment to bringing the Orthodox Faith to his fellow Americans.  Fearing that Fr. Schmemann might have misinterpreted Fr. Seraphim’s intention and had been personally hurt, Fr. Herman went to visit him after Fr. Seraphim died.  He made a prostration before Fr. Schmemann and asked forgiveness on the part of his departed brother.  Fr. Schmemann, who was then approaching death himself, readily forgave Fr. Seraphim.

Thus, by God’s grace, were the souls of Fr. Seraphim and Fr. Alexander Schmemann reconciled for the future life.  Fr. Schmemann, although there is no indication that he came closer to agreeing with Fr. Seraphim’s ideas, must have placed value in the fact that Fr. Seraphim was a product of the very American Orthodox mission to which he, Fr. Schmemann, had devoted the greater part of his life.  In the case of Fr. Seraphim, it was no immigrant, born in 19th-century Russia, who was calling Americans too old-fashioned, apocalyptic Orthodoxy piety, but rather full-blooded American who had himself been raised in this secular, pluralistic society, who had never even been told of Orthodoxy while growing up but had instead been inculcated with the “American dream,” which he had rejected.  Soon after Fr. Seraphim’s death and not long before his own, Fr. Schmemann was able to look at Fr. Seraphim’s life, the life of an American Orthodox convert, and to say: “Here is a man to whom belongs the future.” [15]

 

1. [Fr. Seraphim Rose], “The Holy Fathers, III,” pp. 234-236.

2. [Fr. Seraphim Rose], “Our Living Links with the Holy Fathers: Archpriest Nicholas Deputatov,” The Orthodox Word, no. 69 (1976), p. 100.

3. Rene Guenon, Introduction to the study of Hindu Doctrines (London: Luzac and Co., 1945), p. 195.

4. Fr. Michael Pomazansky, “The Liturgical Theology of Fr. A. Schmemann,” The Orthodox Word, no. 35 (1970), p. 263.

5. Ibid., p. 260

6. [Fr. Seraphim Rose], “The Typicon of the Orthodox Church’s Divine Services: Inspiration of True Orthodox Piety” (Introduction), The Orthodox Word, no. 53 (1973), p. 224.

7. [Fr. Seraphim Rose], “Towards the ‘Eighth Ecumenical Council,’” The Orthodox Word, no. 71 (1976), pp. 190-191.

8. [Fr. Seraphim Rose], “The Holy Fathers, III,” p.235.

9. [Fr. Seraphim Rose], “Our Living Links with the Holy Fathers: Archbishop Averky of Jordanville,” The Orthodox Word, no. 62 (1975), p. 95.

10. Archbishop Averky, “What is Orthodoxy?”  Orthodox Life (Jordanville, New York: Holy Trinity Monastery, May-June, 1976), p. 1.

11. Alexander Schmemann, Church, World, Mission (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987), pp. 231-232.

12. See Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist, (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987), pp. 231-232.

13. [Fr. Seraphim Rose], “The Typicon,” p. 225.

14. The Northern Thebaid (Platina, California: St. Herman Brotherhood, 1975), pp. xi-xii.

15. Fr. Seraphim Rose, Heavenly Realm, p. 10.

The Toll-houses Debate: An American Phenomenon

Monk Theophan (Coverdill) | June 13, 2026 | Jordanville, NY

 

 

 

This paper was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Church History 520, a graduate-level course in Church History offered at Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary during the Spring 2026 semester and taught by Protodeacon Andrei Psarev.

Introduction

In 2017, St. Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery in Arizona published a 1,112-page work, entitled The Departure of the Soul According to the Teaching of the Orthodox Church, [1] presenting the teachings of over 120 saints about the ‘particular’ judgment. Differing from the Last Judgment, which will occur at the end of time when Christ returns, the ‘particular’ judgement occurs soon after a person has died. The book includes the endorsement of eight Orthodox hierarchs, and a section addressing over 100 falsifications, misrepresentations, and errors of those authors who wrote against this teaching of the Church. [2] The numerous authors and contributors to this work consider it as “definitively ending” [3] a 40-year controversy concerning the Church’s teaching on the trial of the soul at the hour of death.

What makes this controversy particularly interesting is that before the late nineteenth century there is no evidence of any opposition to the Orthodox teaching on this subject. The first allusion to such opposition appears in the words of St. Theophan the Recluse (d. 1894) [4] directed towards unbelief in the intelligentsia: “No matter how absurd the idea of the toll-houses may seem to our ‘wise-men’ they will not escape passing through them.” [5] Nevertheless, when Deacon Lev Puhalo (the future Archbishop Lazar, b. 1941) [6] expressed his objection to this teaching in 1979, he claimed to be building upon the opinions of many people who had previously rejected the doctrine but had not published their opinions. Although within two years his writings against this teaching were condemned as unorthodox by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), he and subsequent writers continued to pronounce on the topic, and this developed into a 40-year controversy.

The purpose of this essay will be neither to consider the Orthodox teaching on the trial of the soul after death, nor the arguments of its opponents. The reader seeking such a study may refer to the above-mentioned book. Rather, this essay will consider what the toll-house controversy reveals about the state of Orthodoxy and theological debate in postmodern America, focusing primarily on individuals within the ROCOR. Why is it that this teaching, which had been accepted since the apostolic age, suddenly became the subject of such heated controversy?

Overview of the controversy

In 1976, following the introduction of new techniques for resuscitating the clinically dead, the subject of life after death became one of widespread popularity in the western world. In particular, Dr. Raymond A. Moody’s book, Life after Life, sparked great interest, selling over two million copies. [7] As a result, Hieromonks Seraphim and Herman [8] received in their small wilderness skete in Platina, California, many letters from those seeking an Orthodox understanding of the seemingly inexplicable phenomenon being described in such books. In response, Fr. Herman gave Fr. Seraphim the third volume of the writings of St Ignatius Brianchaninov, which addresses the question of the soul after death. [9] Although Fr. Seraphim initially planned to translate it, Fr. Herman contended this was insufficient and encouraged him to apply the teachings of Bishop Ignatius [10] to contemporary “after death experiences,” as well as the popular occult texts which people were then turning to for an explanation of such phenomena. [11] The result was The Soul After Death, [12] which in 1977 Fr. Seraphim began to serialize in The Orthodox Word. Chapter Six, “The Aerial Toll-houses,” presents the patristic teaching of the particular judgment which occurs three days after death. Citing the references of patristic writings, the Church services, and the lives of the saints to toll-houses and tax-collectors, Fr. Seraphim explains how souls passing through the air are tested by the fallen spirits. In so doing, he cautions against a rationalist or “literal” understanding of these texts, noting that the experiences described are “quite different from our earthly concepts of time and space” and that therefore “our accounts of these experiences in earthly language invariably fall short of the reality.” [13]

In 1978, Deacon Lev Puhalo published an article in The Tlingit Herald, [14] an Orthodox journal that he began while serving the Tlingit people of Alaska, objecting to the teaching of life after death set forth in The Soul after Death. His objections, however, were not only against The Soul after Death, but also against the same views that were to be found in publications of Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, particularly the article, “The Church’s Prayer for the Dead” published in Orthodox Life of January-February, 1978, the article “Unbelievable for Many but Actually a True Occurrence,” which was published by Orthodox Life in July-August, 1976, and the anthology Eternal Mysteries Beyond the Grave, which had been published in 1968, as well as a sermon of Archbishop John Maximovitch (d. 1966), “Life After Death”, which was published in The Orthodox Word in 1971. Fr. Lev critiqued the latter homily as “so legalistic and juridical that one might suspect it was merely a Latin apology for the doctrine of purgatory and indulgences,” expressing concern about a “hint of some legalistic form of Origenism or potential semi-Origenism,” and suggesting that it distorts Orthodox teachings. He labels the teaching of the toll-houses as being in turn “pagan,” “anti-Orthodox,” and “Protestant.” In conclusion, he states:

… we know for certain that this Orthodox Life article does not constitute an exposition of Orthodox Christian doctrine, or even of an established belief or confession, despite its apparent intent to do so.

In 1979, in a letter to a ROCOR clergyman, Fr. Seraphim expressed concerns about Father Lev’s article, noting that:

several times, [Deacon Lev] has indicated that the Orthodox teaching on the ‘toll-houses’ encountered by the soul after death is not to be understood as set forth by the Holy Fathers and in the lives of the Saints, but rather is to be thrown out entirely or reinterpreted as an ‘allegory.’ [15]

In response to Deacon Lev, Fr. Seraphim wrote his “Answer to a Critic” as an appendix to The Soul After Death, in which he addresses the errors of Deacon Lev. [16] In turn, Fr. Lev responded with a thirty-seven page Open Letter in which he argued that (Saint) Bishop Ignatius did not accept the teaching of the Scriptures and the Church, and went on to suggest that that was also true of Fr. Seraphim. [17]

In 1980, Father Seraphim wrote to Bishop Gregory [18] concerning the Open Letter, expressing no intent to continue the conflict: “I have replied that my ‘answer’ is already contained in Appendix III of The Soul After Death, and I intend to say nothing further on the subject.” [19] Thus, for his part, Fr. Seraphim ended the polemic between the two. Nevertheless, Fr. Lev continued to write and speak on the topic. As a result, on 19 November, 1980, the ROCOR Synod denounce Fr Lev’s teaching on the ‘particular’ judgement as erroneous and unorthodox and ordered him to cease his activities, noting that his writing may “cause great harm to the souls of the faithful.” [20] Nevertheless, Deacon Lev and others have continued to publish writings which “have fueled a controversy for nearly forty years, even to this present day.” [21]

The Response of the ROCOR Synod

The response of the ROCOR Synod was swift: in 1978, Fr. Lev first published his objections to the teaching of the Church on the trial of the soul after death, and, by 1980, his statements were already officially condemned as un-orthodox, and he was ordered to cease speaking on the topic. The Synod identified Hieromonk Seraphim as initiating the controversy, “despite various reservations,” but noted that Deacon Lev Puhalo’s accusations of heresy, which were written “with a spirit of condemnation” were incorrect. They expressed the concern that such a “controversy can cause great harm to the souls of the faithful.” Having presented a theological assessment of the errors of Fr. Lev’s teaching, the bishops conclude:

To add conjectures to the little that the Lord has been pleased to reveal to us is not beneficial to our salvation, and all disputes in this domain are now especially detrimental, the more so when they become the object of the discussion of people who have not been fully established in the Faith. Acrid polemic apart from the spirit of mutual love turns such an exchange of opinions from a deliberation into an argument about words. The positive preaching of truths of the Church may be profitable, but not disputes in an area which is not subject to our investigation, but which evokes in the unprepared reader false notions on questions of importance to our salvation. [22]

In brief, the stated reasons for objecting to the controversy are the following: first, it is “detrimental” to those who are not yet “fully established in the Faith,” that is, it is poses a particular danger to converts to Orthodoxy; second, without a “spirit of mutual love” any debate inevitably descends from “deliberation” to passionate “argument,” that is, a public polemic is not the appropriate means of resolving theological disputes; third, the “positive preaching of truths of the Church” is more profitable than speculative disputes. Thus, it should be noted that the response of the Synod is resoundingly negative: the controversy is viewed as dangerous, not only because of theological errors in the writings of Fr. Lev, but also because it provokes the passions and confuses those not grounded in the faith.

On November 9, 1980, prior to this official statement, Bishop Gregory had already expressed his concerns in a letter to Fr. Lev:

…the controversy to which you have given such a personal tint cannot do good to people, especially as some points about life after death, which are not open to us, are treated with too much assurance and dogmatism.

He then references “an old dispute between Bishops Theophan and Ignaty,” noting that “in old Russia” such a dispute would only be discussed in “special theological publications,” as a result of which it posed no danger to the “souls of simple people.” He contrasts this with the actions of Fr. Lev, who has sent out his writings “very liberally,” leading them to being “read by converts who are often unable yet to discern what is really essential and dogmatically valid.”  Hence, he concludes that Deacon Lev’s “exercise in polemic may in some cases be dangerous for their souls.” [23] Here Bishop Gregory’s concerns relate to the unique circumstances of postmodern America, in which mass literacy and communication technologies have facilitated more widespread access to spiritual writings than in the past. His concern is that such converts may be harmed by being exposed to writings and ideas that are beyond their spiritual state.

One may summarize Bishop Gregory’s concerns as follows: first, Bishop Gregory observes that Fr. Lev added a “personal tint” to the controversy and handled the subject with “too much assurance and dogmatism”; second, Bishop Gregory expresses concern that the public nature of the controversy is inherently dangerous. He contrasts this with ‘old Russia’ where such disputes were relegated to “special theological publications,” in which they posed no danger to the “souls of simple people.” That is, such disputes were the province of educated clergy and hierarchs, not laity. In contrast, due to the public nature of this polemic, “converts” or “simple souls” lacking discernment may be spiritually damaged. Thus, according to Bishop Gregory, such theological debates are harmful for two reasons: first, such a “personal” polemic is dangerous insofar as passions, such as pride, i.e., speaking with “too much assurance,” may distort one’s judgment; second, public debate may reach those lacking discernment, thus endangering their souls.

The Attitude of Fr. Lev Towards the Controversy

Having considered the specific objections of the ROCOR Synod to the controversy, it is necessary to consider the attitudes of the participants themselves towards the controversy, starting with Fr. Lev. As noted, the ROCOR Synod responded by asking the participants to cease the polemic, noting the danger it posed to the simple and those lacking spiritual discernment. It was also noted that, even before this official statement, Fr. Seraphim had ended the polemic by refusing to engage with Fr. Lev’s Open Letter, which Fr. Seraphim described as seeming to be a “deliberate provocation” rather than “a serious or well-meaning approach to matters he disputes.” Father Lev, however, objected to this official response, as well as Bishop Gregory’s specific command to cease speaking on the matter.

On December 18, 1980, a month after the official statement of the Synod, Fr. Lev wrote to Bishop Gregory asserting that “no one could possibly construe” his actions as disobedient and claiming that “your letter is hindering me from continuing to print and say things which do not contain any ‘heresies’ or ‘false teachings.’” He concluded by claiming that: “I have in no way disobeyed anything which you said to me either personally or in writing.” Father Lev also objected to the Bishop’s command to cease teaching, arguing that “the implications of what you are saying here and doing have very disturbing political overtones and implications.” Instead, he reasserted his “absolute innocence,” contending that “there are simply no grounds for what you are saying in this present letter.” [24]

Bishop Gregory replied to Father Lev’s letter, repeating the clear and definite command from the ROCOR Synod to cease teaching, reminding him that: “You were requested to stop the preaching of your unorthodox personal views, which can bring only confusion in the minds of the faithful, especially converts.” Bishop Gregory then continued to note that Fr. Lev’s concerns about the “political implications” of his statements are “patently absurd” and “without basis.” Rather, he reminds him that the ROCOR Synod had upheld the “orthodox view” on the teaching of life after death for “pastoral” reasons and on “purely dogmatic grounds.”

Bishop Gregory then offered Deacon Lev a clear choice: “…either to obey the voice of the Church or to adhere proudly to the errors present in your writings.” He warned that “once all the bishops have recognized your teaching as foreign to the Church’s teaching, you may continue to disseminate it only on your own responsibility and outside the Church.” Bishop Gregory cautioned that “your error will inexorably begin to transform itself into heresy, and you will be dealt with accordingly.” He concluded,

Dear father, can you not understand that acceptance of your views would entail the disavowal of the teaching embodied in all the manuals of dogmatic theology and in a great many prayers of the Church?

Bishop Gregory’s concern is twofold: first, the views that Deacon Lev promotes are erroneous and unorthodox; second, as a result, such views will cause confusion for the faithful, especially converts.

In 1981, in response to another letter from Deacon Lev, Bishop Gregory further explains these objections, emphasizing the danger posed by the passions. He advises him to not interpret the “decision of the Synod” as well as his own “reactions” as being influenced by “personal feelings, sympathies, or biases.” Rather, he emphasized that his judgment, as well as the judgment of the Synod is influenced by one thing: preserving the “right teachings of the Church,” and her best interests in general. In the same letter, Bishop Gregory then addresses the specific passion of pride. He speaks of the “test of humility,” which is vital when addressing polemical theological questions. He observes that: “a mistake in dogmatical explanations becomes heresy only when a person is influenced by pride, insists on everything of his, and does not wish to listen to the bishops.”

At the beginning of the conflict, in 1978, in a letter to Bishop Laurus (the future Metropolitan Laurus), [25] Fr. Seraphim also expressed concern about the passion of pride, which is aroused in such conflicts, noting that what is particularly disturbing about Fr. Lev’s statements is not so much his opinions, as his “exalted, superior tone,” which is reflected in his “name-calling” and accusing the Russians of being “under Western influence,” being naive and being “untheological,” believing in “moral fables,” and so on. He notes that this is not the product of a theological spirit but of “intellectual conceit.” [26]

In summary, in these letters Fr. Lev expresses a strong conviction in the correctness of his teaching, as well as distrust towards the official Synodal response, accusing them of being politically motivated. In turn, his opponents recognize this strong conviction of Fr. Lev, interpreting it negatively, as giving a “personal tint” to the controversy and being the product of “intellectual conceit.” They express the concern that the assurance with which Fr. Lev expresses himself may be a sign of pride and may lead to heresy if he does not acknowledge his theological errors.

The Attitude of Hieromonk Seraphim towards the Controversy

In 1979, Fr. Seraphim wrote:

This [polemic] makes us sad, and troubles us—why does such unnecessary conflict have to be stirred up in the Church? We ourselves (and the Fathers at Jordanville) have no desire or intention to enter into a public debate on this subject, and we are all doing what we can to handle this situation quietly.” [27]

Here, Fr. Seraphim gives the reasons for his negative response to the controversy. First, he considers it “unnecessary;” second, speaking on behalf of the Fathers of Jordanville, he expresses “no desire or intention to enter into public debate,” hoping rather that it will be resolved “quietly.” Thus Fr. Seraphim expresses a detached attitude towards the conflict, seeking to direct attention away from his incidental, personal involvement, to the broader issue at stake.

In 1980, in a letter to Bishop Gregory, Fr. Seraphim wrote:

[Deacon Lev’s] whole polemical approach to Church questions is profoundly distasteful to us–as, I am sure, it is to almost all the clergy in our Church… I must say that for my part, although I realize [the critic’s] articles were occasioned by my own articles (they will bear my signature in the book form), I do not regard this ‘debate’ as primarily a personal one at all. For one thing, it hasn’t really been a ‘debate’ at all, since all the attacking is coming from his side; and for another, the attack is not really against me, since the basic part of my articles is simply a retelling of the teaching of Archbishop John Maximovitch, Bishop Ignatius Briachaninov, Bishop Theophan the Recluse, etc. – but rather an attack against this teaching itself.” [28]

Here, one may observe two things. First, Fr. Seraphim expressed a negative attitude towards the polemical approach of Fr. Lev; a negative attitude which, he suggested, most of the clergy of the ROCOR shared. Second, he did not consider the debate to be a personal attack, but, rather, an attack against the Fathers of the Church and against the teaching itself. While Fr. Lev interpreted criticisms of his writings as a personal attack upon himself, Fr Seraphim took the opposite view, preferring to direct attention away from himself.

In 1983, Fr. Alexey Young (the future Hieromonk Ambrose) [29] reflected on Fr. Seraphim’s attitude towards such conflicts, noting that “in his personal life, Fr. Seraphim especially shrank from any kind of controversy or disturbance,” and “wished to be far away” from any situations that might arouse passions. He concludes by noting the irony that, despite having such an attitude, Fr. Seraphim “more than once found it necessary to speak out (with the printed word).” [30] According to Fr. Alexey, Fr. Seraphim’s aversion to such conflicts was rooted in an ascetic ethos, which “shrank” from any situation that might arouse the passions. Given this, Fr, Alexey notes that it was ironic that Fr. Seraphim felt the need to “speak out” on various matters. This assessment concurs with Fr. Seraphim’s own attitude of aversion towards the conflict, suggesting that his reason for involvement in the controversy was purely pastoral: that is, despite having no personal desire to do so, he spoke out as guided by his pastoral conscience in order to address a matter that he viewed as potentially harmful to the salvation of many.

Writing in 2003, Hieromonk Damascene [31] reflects on Fr. Seraphim’s attitude towards such conflicts, noting that he “shied away from becoming involved in protracted public controversies,” and if it was necessary to defend traditional Orthodox teaching, “he would usually write a single article to defend it,” following the example of Saint John Maximovitch, but would then “leave the matter at that.” [32] Fr. Damascene’s observation is particularly interesting, in that he understands Fr. Seraphim as following the example of St. John Maximovitch (d. 1966).  In specific, Fr. Seraphim emphasized that:

“The important thing we learn from his writings is: [to] stand above the level of fighting in theology. If you take up the writings of Archbishop John, whether a sermon or a long article, you see that there is absolutely no controversy…. For him theology was not a matter of just reading books and writing things out, but was first of all a matter of absorbing the teaching of the Church in the services. And that is why the attitude of controversy, of polemics, is absent in his works, even when he is proving what’s right and what’s wrong.” [33]

As such, he sets forth the actions of Fr. Seraphim as being worthy of emulation, in that Fr. Seraphim himself emulated the example of a renowned contemporary saint. He continues: “he did not raise a finger when the critic of The Soul After Death took up arms against him with a scathing Open Letter; and thus the ‘controversy’ which the critic had evoked eventually died down of itself.” [34]

The Cultural Context of the Controversy

Having considered the attitudes of the major parties involved, as well as their specific concerns about such public theological debates, let us now consider the specific setting of the conflict: postmodern America, in which mass  literacy and communication technologies have contributed to widespread missionary work and conversion, widespread access to the writings of the Holy Fathers, including writings such as The Philokalia that were written for those of a very advanced spiritual state, and more democratic and widespread access to avenues for publishing. In 2003, in his biography of Fr. Seraphim, Hieromonk Damascene notes that

…most of these criticisms [of the teaching] have come from people living in America; very few have come from people living in Orthodox lands, where The Soul After Death is generally held in high regard. [35]

He observes that Fr. Seraphim ascertained the reason for this: for the “pampered” and “self-centered” lifestyle in America, the Orthodox teaching on the afterlife seems too severe. In contrast, because of the “more sober outlook” in Orthodox countries, people there have “have little or no problem in accepting the Orthodox teaching on death.” [36] These observations supplement the objection of Bishop Gregory to the controversy, in which he expressed concern that it would endanger new converts who may lack discernment. Here, Fr. Damascene contrasts the “pampered” and “self-centered” lifestyle of America to the “more sober outlook on life” in traditionally Orthodox countries, as the reason for this lack of discernment. Fr. Damascene seems to be building upon the views of Fr. Seraphim, as expressed in The Soul after Death, in which Fr. Seraphim notes that “the Orthodox teaching on life after death is rather severe and demands a very sober response on our part,” whereas contemporary man is “very pampered and self-centered and would rather not hear of such stern realities as judgment and accountability for sins.” [37]

In addition to moral laxity and the “self-centered” lifestyle of America, Fr. Seraphim also identifies the rationalistic Western mindset as another danger in theological debate. In 1979, in a letter to another clergyman, Fr. Seraphim notes that, while presenting his “unorthodox” views,

[Fr. Lev] undermines respect for the Lives of the Saints and other basic Orthodox sources, seeking rather to establish himself as the ‘interpreter’ of these sources for all of us who are not as modern and ‘sophisticated’ as he is. …this… is something just as bad as what Fr. Schmemann [38] is doing in the OCA; but we never expected to see such modernism and rationalism in our Russian Church Outside of Russia! [39]

Here Fr. Seraphim connects the passion of pride, or “intellectual conceit,” with the broader trend towards “modernism” and “rationalism.” A month later, in June 1979, he wrote:

…it is all bound up with the great problem of our present-day Orthodoxy (where it tries to be serious and faithful to tradition); too much calculation and not enough heart. We’ve seen this… in numerous converts; well, why look further – I see it in myself, it’s part of the air we breathe in our ‘enlightened,’ mind-oriented times.” [40]

Two months later, in August 1979, Fr. Seraphim suggested the proper alternative to such rationalism, noting that due to an overemphasis on “head knowledge,” which is emphasized “at the expense of the proper development of emotional and spiritual life…the Patristic teaching on pain of heart is one of the most important teachings for our days.” He continued by noting that the “lack of this essential experience” is responsible for “the dilettantism, the triviality, the want of seriousness in the ordinary study” that characterized the study of the Holy Fathers in his day. [41]

What is the Proper Response to Theological Controversy?

This essay has primarily focused on the negative aspects of the conflict, the reasons why such a controversy was viewed as dangerous and unnecessary. Now it is worth considering what Fr. Seraphim proposed as a more productive response to such polemics. First, as mentioned above, he emulated the example of Saint John Maximovitch, who, seeing an error that posed a danger to his flock, as a good pastor, wrote a letter addressing the matter, but engaged in no further polemic. In his own pastoral work, Fr. Seraphim encouraged others to avoid such conflicts. When, in 1979, Andrew Bond (the future Deacon Andrew Bond) wrote to him, complaining about the statements of some bishops, Fr. Seraphim advised him that:

…“the best thing is to ‘forget it’…All of this is a sad background for our present Orthodox labors–here you are right. But please listen to this: We simply cannot let our attitudes, inspiration, and missionary labors take their tone from all these negative factors: we must ourselves be generating a positive outlook that will inspire ourselves and others.” [42]

Here, Fr. Seraphim’s attitude towards Church controversy is similar to the Patristic attitude towards sinful thoughts: simply do not engage with them. By directing one’s attention toward the sinful thought or scandal, one allows them to set the “tone” and negatively influence our own actions. Thus, rather than allowing one’s labors to be fueled by such “negative factors,” Fr. Seraphim insists that one must generate one’s own “positive outlook.” In 1980, Fr. Seraphim warned against a “negative Orthodoxy that defines itself by what it is not,” i.e., that defines itself as anti-Western, anti-Latin, anti-scholastic, and so on, suggesting that one ought rather to emphasize the “positive Orthodox Gospel.” [43]

Finally, Fr. Seraphim proposes a moral lesson about the providential purpose of the controversy:

Perhaps a ‘positive’ side of [the critic’s] articles is that they have caused us to present the Orthodox teaching with maximum clarity, keeping in mind any possible distortions.” [44]

In his biography of Fr. Seraphim, Hieromonk Damascene cites the publication of numerous works on the teaching of the toll-houses (the particular judgment) as confirmation of the correctness of this observation, specifically listing: The Future Life According to Orthodox Teaching by Constantine Cavarnos; [45] The Mystery of Death by Nikolaos P. Vassiliadis; [46] Life after Death by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos; [47] and After Death by Archimandrite Vasilios Bakogiannis. [48] He also cites a homily of Elder Ephraim of Arizona on the toll-houses, which was included in The Departure of the Soul According to the Teaching of the Orthodox Church by St. Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery in 2020. [49] In the final entry in the acknowledgements section of The Departure of the Soul, the authors list “Lazar Puhalo, former ‘Archbishop of Ottawa’…without whose previous efforts this publication would most likely have not been produced.”  While this essay has focused specifically on the reactions to the toll-house debate within America, the above-mentioned books published in Greece or by Athonite writers (Elder Ephraim) suggests the broader relevance of the controversy. In particular, this supports the view of Fr. Seraphim and Fr. Damascene that, having a more sober outlook, those living in historically Orthodox countries have less difficulty accepting the teaching of the Church on the ‘particular’ judgment.

Conclusion

The toll-house controversy attests to the unique situation of Orthodoxy in postmodern America. A specialized theological debate, which beforehand would have only been accessible to learned theologians and hierarchs, suddenly became a public affair. Nevertheless, the attitudes of all the participants towards the controversy, with the exception of Fr. Lev, were decidedly sober and pessimistic, viewing the conflict as potentially dangerous and unnecessary. However, Fr. Seraphim, Fr. Damascene, and the monks of St. Anthony’s Monastery all point to a providential, positive side of the conflict, in that it led to the clarification and confirmation of the teaching of the toll-houses and the refutation of the errors of its opponents.

What, then, does this controversy suggest about the state of theological debate in America? The controversy suggests that unique historical and cultural circumstances of Orthodoxy in postmodern America make public theological debate possible in a form that was unknown in pre-revolutionary Russia, in which such debate was confined to specialist theological journals. However, the contemporary possibility of public theological debate presents various problems, some specific to postmodern Western societies and some rooted in human nature. First, personal passions, such as pride, are likely to distort judgment, potentially leading to heresy. Second, in a post-industrial society of mass literacy a public theological debate may reach people lacking discernment, who may thus be confused and endangered. Third, the rationalistic ethos of Western society encourages an intellectual approach to such questions, which, when separated from the ascetic life of prayer and spiritual struggle, is likely to lead to distorted judgment. Fourth, the individualistic culture of America — what Fr. Seraphim described as the “self-centered lifestyle of America” — presents obstacles to a sober attitude towards theological matters.

Nonetheless, while noting these inherent dangers, Fr. Seraphim in no way expressed a pessimistic or negative attitude. On the contrary, his very attitude of moderation and sobriety in relation to theological controversy was rooted in a practical and positive attitude towards Orthodoxy in the West. While defending the traditional teaching when it proved necessary, according to the example of St John Maximovitch, Fr. Seraphim was careful not to allow any personal feelings or considerations to influence his writings. Moreover, this was not his primary focus, nor was it what he emphasized in his pastoral work. On the contrary, he warned of the spiritual dangers of a “negative Orthodoxy” that defines itself by what it is not, encouraging others instead to focus on preaching the “positive Orthodox gospel” and, through one’s own personal ascetic struggles, to develop a positive outlook that can inspire others.

 

References

1. Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery. The Departure of the Soul According to the Teaching of the Orthodox Church. (2017).

2. See Chapter 7: “On the Falsifications, Misrepresentations, and Errors of Those Who Oppose the Teaching of the Orthodox Church,” pages 724-822 and 910-985: a profound critique of the writings of Deacon Lev Puhalo.

3. Departure (2017). 41.

4. Saint Theophan the Recluse was a Russian Orthodox bishop and theologian, who was glorified as a saint in 1988. He is renowned for his writings on the spiritual life, commentaries on Holy Scripture, and translation activity.

5. Departure (2017).719.

6. Fr. Lev Puhalo is a retired hierarch of the Orthodox Church in America. Before being received into the OCA in 2002, he served in different clerical ranks in the ROCOR, the Free Serbian Orthodox Church, the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, the Holy Synod of Milan, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. His theological writings, which criticize the notion of toll-houses, have caused much disagreement. This essay will refer to him as Deacon Lev or Fr. Lev, since this was his title during the period of the controversy. In fact, the OCA has forbidden Fr. Lev from publicizing his controversial views on other matters, such as homosexuality and transgenderism.

7. Moody, Raymond. Life After Life. (Mockingbird Books, 1975.)

8. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) (d.1982) co-founded the Saint Herman of Alaska Monastery in Platina, California with Monk Herman (Podmoshensky) (d. 2014).

9. Christensen, Damascene. Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works. (St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003.) 88.

10. Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov) (d. 1867) was a bishop and theologian of the Russian Orthodox Church. He is considered to be one of the greatest patristic writers of the nineteenth century and was glorified in 1988.

11. Christensen (2003). 888.

12. Rose, Seraphim. The Soul after Death: Contemporary “After-Death” Experiences in the Light of the Orthodox Teaching on the Afterlife. (Platina, California, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2004)

13. Rose (2004). 69.

14. The Tlingit Herald was an Orthodox publication started by Deacon Lev Puhalo while serving in south-eastern Alaska among the Tlingit people. In 1980, after moving to Canada, he changed the name of the publication to Orthodox Missionary and then to Orthodoxy Canada.

15. Letters of Father Seraphim Rose (LFSR): letter to Fr. Roman, May 1, 1979.

https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/letters-of-fr-seraphim-rose-1961-1982/ accessed June, 2026.

16. Rose (2004). Appendix III: Answer to a Critic, 229-260.

17. Christensen (2003). 900.

18. Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) of Washington and Florida (d.1995) was a bishop of the ROCOR.

19. LFSR: Letter to Bishop Gregory, November 9, 1980.

20. Extract from the Minutes of the Session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, from http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_debate.aspx accessed June, 2026.

21. Departure (2017). 41.

22. Extract from the Minutes of the Session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The Debate Over Aerial Toll-Houses accessed June, 2026.

23. Letter of Bishop Gregory to Deacon Lev, November 9, 1980.

24. Letter from Deacon Lev Puhalo to Bishop Gregory, December 18, 1980. 

25. Metropolitan Laurus (Škurla) (d. 2008) was First Hierarch of the ROCOR, 2001 – 2008.

26. LFSR: letter to Bishop Laurus, October 31, 1978.

27. LFSR: letter to Father Roman, May 14, 1979.

28. LFSR: letter to Bishop Gregory, December 22, 1980.

29. Father Alexey Young (d. 2022), spiritual son of Fr. Seraphim (Rose), authored books and articles on Orthodox Christianity. 

30. Christensen (2003). 910.

31. Igoumen Damascene (Christensen) (b.1961) is an igoumen of the Serbian Orthodox Church. He was converted to Orthodoxy after listening to a lecture by Fr Seraphim Rose. In 2013 he became abbot of St. Herman of Alaska Monastery, Platina.

32. Christensen (2003). 908.

33. Rose, S. “The Theological Writings of Archbishop John and the Question of ‘Western Influence’ in Orthodox Theology,” Orthodox Word, 175-176 (1994). 146, 154-158.

34. Christensen (2003). 908.

35. Christensen (2003). 904.

36. Christensen (2003). 904.

37. Rose (2004). 259-260.

38. Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann (d. 1983). Priest of the Orthodox Church in America. See chapter 60, “Modern Academic Theology” in Igoumen Damascene (Christensen), Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works. (St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003.)

39. LFSR: letter to Fr Roman, May 14, 1979.

40. LFSR: letter to Fr Theodore, June 6, 1979.

41 “The Holy Fathers of Orthodox Spirituality: Introduction, III: How Not to Read the Holy Fathers.” Orthodox Word, no. 65 (1975). 239.

42. LFSR: letter to Andrew Bond, August 23, 1979.

43. LFSR: letter to Fr. Demetrios, June 22, 1980.

44. LFSR: letter to Mrs. Prokopchuk, August 22, 1979.

45. Cavarnos, Constantine. The Future Life According to Orthodox Teaching. (Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1985).

46. Vassiliadis, Nikolaos P. The Mystery of Death. (Orthodox Brotherhood, 1993).

47. Vlachos, Hierotheos. Life after Death. (Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1993)

48. Bakogiannis, Vasilios. After Death (Tertios, 2001).

49. Departure (2017). Introduction: “The Trial of the Soul at the Hour of Death,” from Elder Ephraim’s spoken homilies delivered to the Brotherhood of Philotheou Monastery (Mount Athos) on January 6, 1977 and April 5, 1978. 24.

 

Source:

https://www.rocorstudies.org/2026/07/07/the-toll-houses-debate-an-american-phenomenon/