Debunking The Orthodox Ethos:
Father Seraphim Rose on the Old Calendarist from (1965-1982)
By Subdeacon Nektarios, M.A.
Introduction
Over the course of the last few years, the new calendarist organization The Orthodox Ethos, led by the new calendarist priest, Father Peter Heers, has been pushing a renovationist narrative concerning the historical position of the Blessed Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) and his stance on "the persecuted True Orthodox Christians of Greece" [1].
Father Peter Heers and his team have been promoting a false narrative that Father Seraphim was entirely anti-Old Calendarist in an attempt to obfuscate not only his position but also that of the official stance of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). Through various means, Orthodox Ethos and Father Peter Heers use selective quote mining, piecemeal audio recordings taken out of context, and interviews from so-called “spiritual children” who claim to speak authoritatively on Father Seraphim’s views despite never having lived with him, residing across the country from him for most of their adult lives, and corresponding with him only infrequently through traditional pen-pal letters.
Father Peter Heers and his associates attempt to portray Father Seraphim as being vehemently anti-Old Calendarist in order to promote their "Resist From Within" ecclesiological heresy, wherein they try to gaslight their audience—composed of less informed Orthodox Christians and inquirers—into remaining in communion with the "official" state Churches. Ironically, Father Peter Heers himself does not belong to any of these Churches. At every turn, Orthodox Ethos and Father Peter Heers attempt to depict Father Seraphim as universally condemning all Old Calendarists as the same, suggesting that he did not differentiate between the Florinites, Matthewites, and his real adversaries, the Bostonians. Father Peter Heers would have people believe that Father Seraphim either did not differentiate between these groups or lacked the intellect to understand the differences among the various jurisdictions. This can be demonstrated by a personal conversation I had with Father Peter Heers, who said to me, “Father Seraphim did not understand what was going on in Greece.”
Father Peter and Orthodox Ethos expect their viewers—many of whom are simple, pious laypeople who live busy lives and do not necessarily have time to delve deeply into complex historical matters—to simply take their word for it. They are not professional historians who spend countless hours examining documents, nor are they doctoral students of history skilled in unearthing the truth from the historical record. Having worked for the Orthodox Ethos organization, I can say this with full confidence.
Those who know me and have collaborated with me on various academic historical projects understand that I seek the truth, and only the truth, without a biased agenda. I approach history as it happened. History can be unpleasant, not just for World Orthodoxy, which feels the need to fabricate lies to escape the ugliness of its past, but also for the Old Calendarists. These are facts we must accept because we cannot change history. As Metropolitan Demetrios of the Genuine Orthodox Church in America says regarding history, “You can’t rewrite history; it is what it is.” With those words in mind, we present you with the facts of history concerning Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) from 1962–1982, and we pray that you can set aside your biases and read the history for what it truly is.
The Position of ROCOR on the Old Calendarists
The first point that can be briefly addressed is the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) concerning the Old Calendarists during the life of Father Seraphim Rose. Orthodox Ethos and Father Peter Heers often avoid discussing this subject because they cannot justify their position and frequently sidestep the issue. The historical facts of this period are indisputable: the Russian Church Abroad was in Eucharistic communion with various Old Calendarist jurisdictions during Father Seraphim’s lifetime, including both the Florinite and Matthewite Old Calendarists.
To briefly demonstrate that this was indeed the case for both the Florinites and Matthewites, we can easily refer to ROCOR’s Synodal Resolutions regarding both Old Calendarist Synods. To the Florinite Synod of Archbishop Auxentios of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece (GOC), the Church Abroad writes the following:
18/31 December 1969
To His Beatitude Auxentios,
Archbishop of the Church of the
True Orthodox Christians of Greece
Your Beatitude,
Your Beatitude’s fraternal letter of 25 November 1969, was read by us at a meeting of our Synod today.
The many trials which the Orthodox Church has endured from the beginning of its history are especially great in our evil times, and, consequently, this especially requires unity among those who are truly devoted to the Faith of the Fathers. With these sentiments, we wish to inform you that the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad recognizes the validity of the episcopal ordinations of your predecessor of blessed memory, the reposed Archbishop Akakios, and the consequent ordinations of your Holy Church. Hence, also taking into account various other circumstances, our hierarchical Synod esteems your hierarchy as brothers in Christ in full communion with us.
May the blessing of God rest upon all the clergy and faithful of your Church, especially during the coming days of the Nativity in the flesh of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ [2].
The President of the Synod of Bishops
+Metropolitan Philaret
The Members:
+Nikon, Archbishop of Washington and Florida,
+Seraphim, Archbishop of Chicago and Detroit
+Vitaly, Archbishop of Montreal and Canada
+Anthony, Archbishop of Los Angeles and Texas
+Averky, Archbishop of Syracuse and Trinity
+Anthony, Archbishop of Western America and San Francisco
+Sabbas, Bishop of Edmonton
+Nectary, Bishop of Seattle
+Andrew, Bishop of Rockland
+Laurus, Bishop of Manhattan
Later in 1972 the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia issues a resolution to the President of the Matthewite Synod Archbishop Andreas which stated the following:
October 21/November 3, 1972
We make it known to all, that after the laying-on of hands, which has been fulfilled as a blessing to Your Beatitude’s Sacred Hierarchy, our Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia enters into full Ecclesiastical and Sacramental Communion with the Orthodox Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece, of which Your Beatitude is a Bishop.
I cordially pray that our Lord will bless and guide the Hierarchy, Clergy, and Laity of Your Beatitude’s God-protected Church forever [3].
Your Beatitude’s devoted brother in Christ,
+Metropolitan Philaret, President of the Synod of Bishops
+ Bishop Laurus, Secretary to the Synod of Bishops
As can be seen in these official ROCOR resolutions to both factions of Old Calendarists, they were in ecclesiastical and Eucharistic communion with them and regarded them as Orthodox Christians who were resisting the heresies of ecumenism and modernism, just as the Church Abroad was doing. The ecclesiological position of either faction regarding the mysteries in Global Orthodoxy had little to do with ROCOR’s recognition of them as grace-filled Orthodox Christians. To read more about the relationship between the Russian Church Abroad and the Greek Old Calendarist you can refer to my publish work on this subject entitled, The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad & The Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece: A History.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CK3QR24X
Florinites, Matthewites, and Panteleimonites: Ecclesiological Differences Examined
As mentioned previously, Orthodox Ethos and Father Peter Heers attempt to impose their new calendarist way of thinking about the Old Calendarists onto Father Seraphim (Rose) and use his position against what he called "super-correctness" to frame a narrative that Father Seraphim was entirely anti-Old Calendarist and was not actually in communion with them.
As we will see, Father Seraphim was not anti-Old Calendarist, but was very much opposed to sectarianism and the premature declaration that those in World Orthodoxy were graceless. To understand Father Seraphim’s position, we must define what he understood to be the various factions’ ecclesiological positions, some of which he supported and others he absolutely rejected. Florinite ecclesiology represents the understanding of the largest GOC (True Orthodox Christians of Greece) community in Greece. It has two possible meanings: on one hand, it could refer to the personal understanding of the original three bishops who renounced the "Revised Julian Calendar" and took over the leadership of the GOC in 1935 (including the sainted Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina). According to this view, the Official Church of Greece stands accused and is subject to judgment at a future Pan-Orthodox Synod for violating the anathemas against the Gregorian Calendar. Until then, its Holy Mysteries remain valid, and these Mysteries should not be repeated upon entering the GOC.
The other meaning, reflected in the official Synodal Encyclicals of 1935, 1950, and 1974, aligns with the Matthewite understanding: namely, that the Official Church of Greece became schismatic in 1924 by adopting the anathematized Gregorian Calendar, rendering its Holy Mysteries invalid. According to this view, new calendarists should be received into the GOC by Chrismation.
Matthewite ecclesiology represents the understanding held by most of the monks who constituted the spiritual leadership of the GOC before the arrival of the former new calendar bishops in 1935. As mentioned, the Official Church of Greece became truly schismatic in 1924 by implementing the anathematized Gregorian Calendar, rendering its Holy Mysteries invalid. As such, New Calendarists should be received into the GOC by Chrismation. This view is named after its most well-known advocate, the former Athonite, Bishop Matthew of Bresthena, who was consecrated in 1935 by the original three GOC bishops.
Boston ecclesiology represents the view held by Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos) and his supporters, who largely joined ROCOR from new calendarist jurisdictions. According to this understanding, the 1965 "lifting of the anathemas," rather than the 1924 adoption of the new calendar, marked the point where the autocephalous Churches fell from grace, and therefore their Mysteries should not be considered valid. Any decision or act by the ROCOR which seemed to recognize the Mysteries of the autocephalous Churches were deemed "acts of economia." The so-called "Panteleimonites" then attempted to impose this view on the entire ROCOR Synod of Bishops and misrepresented it as the de facto official position of ROCOR, despite the Synod having previously made it clear that such a determination could only be reached by an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Synod, regardless of the personal opinions held by individual bishops.
The Letters of Father Seraphim Concerning the Old Calendarists
To truly understand Father Seraphim's thoughts and position on the Old Calendarists, we must refer to his private correspondence with clergy and laypeople, spanning from as early as 1961 until his repose in 1982.
The earliest reference in Father Seraphim's letters concerning the Old Calendarists is found in January 1964, in a letter to his friend Gleb (later Father Herman). This letter, which is primarily administrative and addresses the future publication of The Orthodox Word, mentions that Father Seraphim had encountered a group of younger Orthodox Christians who were forming a somewhat ecumenical Orthodox group. In this letter, Father Seraphim states:
One of the Ukrainians let slip a disdainful remark about some of the Russians he has known who think they are preserving the “real” Orthodoxy. That’s us, and I think we should do just what he accuses us of doing: forget the other Orthodox (with a few exceptions, like Mt. Athos and the Old Calendarists, who still take Orthodoxy seriously), and concentrate on Russians and on American converts. Our adherence to the Church Outside of Russia should be made clear from the beginning; that will help frighten off at least some of the well-meaning who think they are as “Orthodox” as anyone; all their cooperation would have as its object the attempt to drag us into the mire of ecumenism and compromise [4].
In this letter, we see that Father Seraphim acknowledges the Old Calendarists as true Orthodox Christians, recognizing them as among the few who still take Orthodoxy seriously. He also expresses his own sober-minded zeal in opposing the heresy of ecumenism.
In 1970, in a cordial letter to Father Panteleimon and the brotherhood at Holy Transfiguration Monastery, which discusses the brotherhood’s printing work, the weather in Platina, California, and their agricultural activities, Father Seraphim mentions the pseudo-autocephaly being granted to the Metropolia (OCA) by the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate and [Fr. John] Meyendorff’s literary attacks on the Russian Church Abroad and its hierarchs. At the end of the letter, in the postscript, Father Seraphim writes,
“We are planning an all-Synod issue later in the year, with Vladika John’s long article (16 pages). We would also like something from the Greek and/or missionary standpoint, and thought of [Alexander] Kalomiros—perhaps a simple article on the Old Calendarists and their ties with the Synod. Any suggestions?” [5].
This brief postscript demonstrates that the relationship with the Old Calendarists was considered quite ordinary for the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad at the time.
In a long letter to Father Michael Azkoul in 1970 he mentions in passing Old Calendarists in a benign fashion saying,
You have confirmed our own general impression of [Antiochian] Metropolitan Philip as a well-meaning man who unfortunately wishes to be at peace with everyone. So many of our young American priests of almost all jurisdictions go through a vague and mostly external Orthodox education and then gain parish experience mostly in how to get along with people, and they simply aren’t equipped to stand up and fight for Orthodoxy. But now—1970 being perhaps the very year of decision, our American “watershed” for Orthodoxy—those who don’t stand up and fight, knowing what they’re fighting for and against and having the weapons to do it, just won’t be Orthodox anymore.
We rejoice in your coming to the Synod. In The Orthodox Word we’ve tried not to push any too-exclusive idea of the Synod, but the logic of Church history itself is forcing the role of “guardian of Orthodoxy” upon the Synod. Diaconia already speaks of the forging of a Synod-Old Calendarist “ultra-conservative alliance” against the rest of Orthodoxy, a rather politically-toned appraisal, but perhaps even useful if it leads some to investigate that there is something worth conserving in Orthodoxy [6].
In September 1970 in a letter to his friend Daniel, Father Seraphim describes the atmosphere of the Orthodox Church on a number of specific topics’ says,
The Greek Church (Athens), by the way, has protested so strongly to Athenagoras against Moscow giving Communion to Catholics that I don’t see how they can avoid breaking off Communion with Moscow now—and that from the “ecumenist” Archbp. Ieronymos—one senses he feels the pressure of the Old Calendarists, who are apparently getting stronger. Meanwhile, even though Athenagoras did not recognize the autocephaly, the Metropolia is clinging to him, and Fr. Meyendorff writes in the new Orthodox Church that anyone who does not recognize Athenagoras as a genuine Orthodox Patriarch is simply “outside the communion of world Orthodoxy.” And this at a time when Athenagoras is being driven to wilder and wilder statements (he’s afraid that Moscow will turn out to be more modernist than he, and thus will take over the leadership of “world Orthodoxy”!), and when a Greek Archpriest in America (Fr. Dombalis) has seriously called for the canonization of Athenagoras while alive!!! [7].
What is significant about this letter is that it is filled with insights into Father Seraphim's thinking. Here, we read that the new calendarist Church in Greece protested to Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras about the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate giving communion to Roman Catholics, a decision issued by their Patriarchal Synod in 1969, which has never been revoked, even to the present day.
What is crucial about this is that Father Seraphim Rose sees this as a legitimate reason for the Ecumenical Patriarchate to break communion with the Soviet Patriarchate. He is also surprised that this protest is coming from another ecumenist jurisdiction.
In 1971 Father Seraphim and Father Herman jointly wrote a very significant letter to the Minister of the Interior in the Greek government in support of the Old Calendarist priest Archimandrite Kyprian (Koutsoumbas) and protested his persecution by the government because he was an Old Calendarist. This letter states:
February 26, 1971
The Minister of the Interior
Government of Greece
Stadiou and Dragatsaniou Sts.
Athens, Greece
Your Excellency:
We have heard that the Archimandrite Kyprian Koutsoumbas has been reduced to the lay state by the official Church of Greece. We beg you to use your authority to protect him and his priesthood against any act of violence from the official Church of the Government.
In America we know Archimandrite Kyprian Koutsoumbas as a highly respected priest of the Old Calendarist jurisdiction, which is recognized by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church Outside of Russia and many bishops outside of Greece. We, in common with many Orthodox Christians in America, wish to believe that the Greek Government will respect the sincere religious convictions of those in Greece who have separated for canonical reasons and for reasons of conscience from the official Church, and will allow Father Kyprian to freely practice his Orthodox faith and exercise his priesthood without interference from the Government.
If, despite our hope, Archimandrite Kyprian should be subjected to any kind of violence on the part of the Church or Government, we and many thousands of Orthodox Christians outside of Greece can only regard this as an ACT OF PERSECUTION against the true Orthodox Church and faithful, about which we would be obliged to inform the readers of our magazine.
With Respect,
Seraphim, Monk
Herman, Monk
Editors, The Orthodox Word [7]
As we can see here, Father Seraphim and Father Herman recognized Archimandrite Kyprian's priesthood as grace-filled and also acknowledged that the Greek government, in cooperation with the new calendarist Church of Greece, was indeed persecuting them. This letter strongly contradicts the narrative fabricated by Orthodox Ethos and Father Peter Heers, who claim that the Platina Brotherhood believed the Greek Old Calendarists to be schismatic or non-canonical.
Father Seraphim, in his private correspondence, writes a significant letter to Father Neketas Palassis in which he discusses a meeting he had with a Zealot of Mount Athos, praising him for his "stand for true Orthodoxy." In this letter to Father Neketas, he writes:
Concerning the whole Church situation which faces us, we had two interesting and indicative encounters this week. On Friday we [were] visited by Fr. Theodoritos [Mavros], and what joy there was in meeting and praying with this true Athonite zealot. We were only confirmed in our judgment that, if the Greeks look to our Synod bishops for confirmation of their stand for true Orthodoxy, we in the Synod look to you zealot Greeks for inspiration in true and unbending Orthodoxy. Then, a few hours after Fr. Theodoritos left, we were visited by Hieromonk Theodore, newly moved to S. F. (surname Hoeins, not the one who was tonsured by Fr. Panteleimon)—and it turns out that he fully recognizes Athenagoras “until he preaches a heresy” (long since!), and is against the Old Calendarists and views the Athonite zealots as fanatics who will end in priestless sectarianism.
I fear his views are all too close to the “organizational view” that prevails among many of our priests, and, one fears, even higher. This Sobor will doubtless reveal much concerning this. Please remember that we are with you Greek zealots in this, and keep us informed of crucial developments, decisions, etc. The day of “unconscious Orthodoxy” is past, and truly it is not enough for Russians to sit aloof and just wait for the restoration of Russia—which, when it comes, may take a surprising form and find most Russians off guard! We are more than ever concerned to preserve the independence of our monastery so that if—God forbid!—there should come a division in the Synod, we will be free to act according to conscience [8].
This letter is significant because it shows how Father Seraphim Rose viewed the Zealots of Mount Athos, the Old Calendarists, and those beginning to develop a mindset poisoned by the “resist within” mentality. The position of Hieromonk Theodore (Hoeins), which Father Seraphim discusses, closely aligns with the ecclesiological views of Orthodox Ethos and Father Peter Heers concerning the “official” patriarchates and their active participation in heresy. This stance perpetually advocates remaining in communion with public preachers of heresy until an ecumenical council officially proclaims ecumenism to be a heresy, which is contrary to the teachings and practices of the Church Fathers.
The Ideological Battle Between Father Seraphim & Archimandrite Panteleimon
Sometime after 1973, issues between Father Seraphim Rose and Archimandrite Panteleimon began to arise, leading to a major literary battle with back-and-forth publications and a struggle of ideas between the two. This well-known drama, which played out in the 1970’s, is where Orthodox Ethos and Father Peter Heers attempt to create a false historical narrative, claiming that this battle of personalities between the two major figures is proof that Father Seraphim outright condemned all Old Calendarists. Orthodox Ethos' purpose in this regard is to drive a further wedge between World Orthodoxy and the Old Calendarist so that those in World Orthodoxy do not deviate from the official Churches, of which even he is not a member.
In Father Seraphim’s letters we can see this rift between the two starting in May of 1973. In a letter to Irina Constantinovna, Father Seraphim writes,
“Christ is risen! Enclosed are two recent articles of Fr. Theodoritos, which we hope you will be able to tell us something about. The printed article is evidently directed against some “uncanonical activities” of Fr. Panteleimon concerning the Old Calendarist situation (Fr. Theodoritos supports one group of Old Calendarists, Fr. Panteleimon the other group)” [9].
Father Theodoritos was a member of the Florinite Old Calendarists, while Panteleimon was a strong supporter of the Matthewites, who were known for their more “extreme” position concerning World Orthodoxy compared to the typically more moderate stance of the Florinites. In 1974, tensions further unraveled between Fathers Theodoritos and Panteleimon, as seen in a letter Father Seraphim wrote to Alexey, dated March 2/15, 1974, stating:
“Regarding Fr. Theodoritos’ attack on Fr. Panteleimon—since Fr. Ephraim has asked you for a copy, I suppose the decent thing is to make one for him. This whole quarrel among the Greek Old Calendarists is very unfortunate; besides involving personalities, which only clouds the issues, the real issues involved are very subtle and delicate, requiring much tact, patience, and love, not theological and canonical tirades. It seems to us that much can be said for both sides, and both sides have made mistakes" [10].
Although conflicts among the Greek Old Calendarists (and only among the Greek Old Calendarists) began to flare up, Father Seraphim did not waver in his support of the Zealot Athonites, who rejected communion with the heretical patriarch. In his letter to Father Valery Lukianov, he expresses disappointment with the ROCOR Synod meeting, noting that there was no mention of support for the Zealots of Mount Athos, who were suffering persecution by the Greek government and the Patriarchate. Father Seraphim writes:
The more we hear of the Jordanville Sobor (or at least the Bishops’ Sobor after everyone else left), the more discouraged we are. We still don’t understand what was the purpose of the decree on the Old Believers? The question of the canonization of Blessed Xenia was postponed, evidently (from what Vladika Nektary tells us) because it is “unimportant.” There was no support shown for the zealots of Mt. Athos who are suffering persecution for true Orthodoxy. (Our friends in Greece write us that the Old Calendarists were expecting help from us, and Patriarch Demetrius also waited to see whether our Bishops would speak out—if not, then the persecution can continue.) And the Epistles to the Paris [Western Exarchate] and Metropolia [OCA] groups—what feeble statements, as though the differences between us were nothing more than “jurisdictional squabbles” which can be ended with a few “negotiations”— instead of a question of confessing the truth as against going along with the spirit of the times […] How discouraging to see the Bishops running after the world, trying to keep in “fashion.” In the 1971 Sobor Fr. Panteleimon of Boston was in “fashion”; then it was seen that due to his influence the Bishops made some mistakes at that Sobor (about the two different groups of Old Calendarists) and themselves to make the “Greek situation” worse. And so in 1974 there is a new “fashion”—Solzhenitsyn and the “spirit of reconciliation.” Meanwhile, Fr. Panteleimon has gone “out of fashion,” and Archbp. Anthony of Geneva even told him: “If you don’t like the way we do things, get out of our Church.” Of course, Fr. Panteleimon himself makes mistakes and also is a little subject to “fashions”—but at least he is sincerely trying to uphold a “zealot” position and so far, has been very loyal to the Synod; he does not deserve to be “kicked out” just because he has gone out of fashion […]
We feel very much the dangers ahead of us: true Orthodoxy can be swallowed up by half-hearted Orthodoxy, which is actually only a stage on the path to fake Orthodoxy (Constantinople, Metropolia, etc.). The schism of Evlogy and the Metropolia was a blessing from God, because it cut off many rotten members, the fake intelligentsia that wants to make a new Orthodoxy. The talk now of “reconciliation” with these groups shows that within our Church true Orthodoxy is in danger of being lost.[11].
In the following letter from August 1975, clear personality conflicts emerge, which dominated the rest of the decade. Father Seraphim (Platina), Archimandrite Panteleimon (Boston), Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, Bishop Petros of Astoria (Greek Old Calendar), and Bishop Gregory Grabbe (Secretary of the Synod) all harbored strong dislikes for one another, and each chose a faction to side with. Father Seraphim writes to Bishop Laurus saying,
Your Grace, Dear Vladika Laurus,
Blagoslovite! We send you our heartfelt greetings on the feast of the Transfiguration and of the approaching Dormition of the Theotokos.
We have just heard that Archimandrite Panteleimon of Boston has “broken off communion” with Archbishop Averky because Vladika Averky allowed Bishop Petros of Astoria to serve in the Monastery on Transfiguration. Can you inform us for what reason he did this? Is there any reason why we should not be in communion with Bishop Petros? Dr. Kalomiros in Greece informs us that the Synod of Auxentios has, apparently, excommunicated Bishop Petros? What should be our attitude to Bishop Petros if this is true?
We should tell you frankly that we do not trust Fr. Panteleimon’s “political” acts with regard to the Greek Old Calendarists; since he began interfering with the Greek Church situation (is this with the blessing of the Synod or his own Bishop?), he has only made things much worse. Things were much better when our Russian Bishops were ordaining Old Calendarist Bishops “uncanonically,” but out of love, not for “politics.” We have a long letter (in English) from Dr. Alexander Kalomiros in which he explains what Fr. Panteleimon has been doing in Greece with regard to the Matthewites, whom Dr. Kalomiros calls “fanatics” and “legalists.” Would you like us to send you a copy of this letter? Incidentally, in this letter he says that Fr. Panteleimon is not a Greek in soul, but an American, and that is why he has so much influence on Americans and Greek-Americans, but not on real Greeks (nor on Russians). This confirms what we have thought for some time also.
We would very much like to receive a reply soon from you on the situation of Bishop Petros, and on the bad Church situation which has been created by Fr. Panteleimon’s act; this will only cause yet more confusion among our converts. Fr. Panteleimon is planning to visit us later this year, and we would like to know whether we can be in communion with him, since he is cutting himself off from at least one of our Bishops, for whom we hold the greatest respect. Please help us to clarify our thoughts and position on this matter! Up until now, Fr. Panteleimon’s attitude towards Bishop Petros seems to have been based on emotions and jealousy, and if that is why he has “broken communion,” is it not time that a rebuke were given to him in order to humble-him a little? We greatly fear that he will repeat the history of so many of our “crazy converts,” and when he is rebuked for being wrong he will just leave and take much of his flock with him, like Bishop Jacob of the Hague. May God preserve us from such a scandal—our poor American Orthodox converts are not prepared for such a shock! [12].
With love and respect in Christ,
Seraphim, monk
What is important here is that we can see the rift occurring between Father Seraphim Rose and Archimandrite Panteleimon. However, what is not happening is Father Seraphim rejecting the Old Calendarists as schismatics, non-canonical, non-Orthodox, or outside of the Church, as Father Peter Heers and his pseudo-historians within Orthodox Ethos would have the average reader believe. As you can see, he asks Bishop Laurus, why shouldn’t we be in communion with Bishop Petros of Astoria, the founder and leader of the Greek Old Calendarist Cathedral of Saint Markella in Astoria, New York?
In another letter to Father Valery Lukianov from October 1975, Father Seraphim provides more insight into the unfolding drama being stirred up by Archimandrite Panteleimon within the Russian Church Abroad. In this letter, Father Seraphim refers to the Panteleimonites or Bostonians as “our ‘Greeks.’” Orthodox Ethos and Father Peter Heers would have us believe that this reference to "Greeks" is a blanket term for all Greek Old Calendarists, which is historically false. In this detailed letter, Father Seraphim writes,
For years Fr. Panteleimon has been spreading distrust among the converts—toward Bishop Petros, toward Bishop Laurus, toward any convert priest who doesn’t become his “follower,” and lately toward us also, apparently because we are “Russians” who are under “Latin influence”— and at the same time he himself keeps a “file” with copies of private letters (at least two of them outright forgeries) proving that there is a “plot” against him, and that it is the others who are spreading distrust of him. Well, it is about time somebody started distrusting him—he is involved in precisely that “political” church atmosphere which so grieves Vladika Averky, and we begin to see him now as a “classic case” of prelest, brought about by self-esteem and vainglory.
We feel that our “Greeks” will not be with us much longer—you and others have felt this for a long time, sensing their foreign spirit; but we supported them for a long time, thinking they were really helping our converts to receive true Orthodoxy. Fr. Panteleimon in his self-deception does not realize how far out of harmony he is with our Church—he thinks that the bishops also think what the Greek-Americans and many converts tell him, that he is the only real voice of Orthodoxy in English. Dr. Kalomiros in Greece writes us that in his opinion Fr. Panteleimon and his followers have fallen into “group pride,” thinking that they alone are the standard of Orthodoxy. Fr. P. has done much harm in Greece also, but siding against the majority of Old Calendarists and supporting the “Matthewites”—who are real fanatics and legalists. We feel that disaster is coming upon our poor English-speaking mission, and the converts who trusted the “Greeks” too much will have a tragic fate [13].
The real target of this letter is Father Panteleimon, not Old Calendarists in general. The focus is primarily on the hyper-legalism of Panteleimon and the Matthewites in Greece, who were a significant problem at the time.
Father Seraphim writes to a woman named Nina about all of the political Church drama going on that,
“It’s futile for you to defend Alexey—or us, when the time comes—before Fr. Panteleimon; his views are not based on facts, but on political realities. You’ve been warned! No need to “take sides”—but be sober. […] We suspect, for example, that the most sober position with regard to the Old Calendarists lies somewhere between Vlad. Laurus’ position and that of Dr. Kalomiros. But we continue on the best of relations with both, because we all realize that we are human and do not have all the answers, unlike Fr. P., who (like all “party men”) sees plots against him everywhere” [14].
Again, we see that Father Seraphim is not condemning the Old Calendarists as schismatics at all, but is rather preaching that the faithful must avoid taking extreme positions on any given issue. Further in this letter, Father Seraphim continues to discuss the ongoing situation with Archimandrite Panteleimon saying,
Again, Fr. P. doesn’t seem to understand that his position in our Synod is a special one, something granted as a great favor to him. Vlad. John told us in the beginning that the logical place for the “Greeks” when they came over was under Bp. Peter. The decision to bring them under our Russian jurisdiction, thus creating two groups of Greek Old Calendarists in this country, was a risky one and was owing to the love and kindness and naivete of our bishops. But Fr. P. seems to think that this special favor is his right, and he thereby involves our Church directly in Greek disputes, which he thinks is normal, but our bishops certainly don’t. I’m afraid the logical conclusion of all this, which will probably now be more and more impressed on our bishops, is that Fr. P. belongs in some Greek jurisdiction where he can do what he thinks is right without dragging Russians into it. If he doesn’t want this, Fr. P. had better start being more quiet and meek, just like the rest of us [15].
This letter is important because, within these short paragraphs, it contains significant ROCOR history. For example, the reference to Vladyka John refers to Saint John of San Francisco, who during his life, and openly at the 1959 ROCOR Synod meeting, supported the acceptance of Greek Old Calendarists into ROCOR, even advocating for the consecration of bishops for them. Originally, Saint John wanted all the Greek Old Calendarists who entered ROCOR to fall under Bishop Petros of Astoria. However, due to various political Church circumstances, this never came to fruition.
Father Seraphim writes in another letter to Andrew Bond concerning the Panteleimon issue saying,
“I fear there are problems for true zealots of Orthodoxy in our Church. On the one side Fr. Panteleimon of Boston is preaching a zeal not entirely according to knowledge and is setting a wrong tone of “expertness” in theology and superiority to the Russians who are all under “Western influence” (if only he understood what “Western influences” he himself is under and learned humility from it, as the rest of us have to do!)—and this only encourages an opposite reaction which wants to believe that everything is practically all right with Constantinople and even the Soviet Patriarchate. May God guide us in a true middle path between these unnecessary extremes” [16].
Father Seraphim in a letter to Dr. Alexander Kalomiros in Greece who was a member of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, had a parish within the territory of Greece, and had a Greek priest under the Omophorion of the ROCOR for that parish writes in a long letter explaining in detail the situation that was going at that time with Panteleimon. Father Seraphim writes to Dr. Kalomiros of the event saying,
We ourselves cannot pass judgment on the question of Bishop Petros, because we have never received any actual evidence for or against him. You seem to think that our bishops have been against Bp. Petros for many years; but all the bishops whose opinion we know have been, on the contrary, very favorable towards him. The campaign against him in our Church is Fr. Panteleimon’s work, and it is solely Fr. Panteleimon’s idea that our Russian Church Abroad is the “only canonical American jurisdiction” and that the Greeks therefore have no right to their own jurisdiction here. Our bishops are so much occupied with the cares of their own exiled flocks that they do not have the leisure to indulge in useless disputes over “canonical rights,” and being very practical-minded, they are quite willing to live on friendly terms with a Greek jurisdiction of Old Calendarists in America. When Fr. Panteleimon was preparing to join our Synod in 1965, Archbishop John told me that the logical place for him was under Bishop Petros, whom Archbp. John greatly respected. When Fr. Panteleimon persuaded our bishops to accept him under the Synod, an act which could not help but cause troubles in future, as long as Fr. Panteleimon regarded himself as a rival with Bishop Petros for influence with the Greeks in America—which sadly, is just what he did, instead of remaining quietly in his monastery, as our bishops undoubtedly expected him to do.
But despite Fr. Panteleimon, Bp. Petros has been in communion with our Synod, and I think it is only a few bishops like Archbishop Vitaly who have taken sides with Fr. Panteleimon against Bp. Petros. With this background, I hope that you will be able to understand the position of Archbishop Averky. Archbp. Averky has allowed Bp. Petros to serve at Jordanville for many years, and he has not been informed (to our knowledge) of any accusations against Bp. Petros except that he refuses to deny the validity of New-Calendar Sacraments (which our bishops also refuse to deny). If any serious report of “ecumenical” activity on Bp. Petros’ part had been reported to Archbishop Averky, he would certainly have taken it most seriously and investigated it. All Archbishop Averky can see is the private rivalry of Fr. Panteleimon with Bishop Petros and he quite rightly refuses to take sides in this political battle. Archbishop Averky, therefore, finds the insistence of the “brazen young Archimandrite” Panteleimon that he not let Bp. Petros serve at Jordanville to be an intolerable impudence—as if Russian bishops must be forced to “take sides” in a “Greek quarrel,” which until now has seemed to be of a purely personal nature. Further, whether rightly or wrongly, our bishops do not feel the decisions of the Synod of Auxentios to be binding upon them; why, indeed, should Archbishop Averky not allow Bishop Petros to serve, when several of our bishops have allowed [Matthewite] Bishop Callistos to serve—who is also not in communion with the Synod of Auxentios? Very likely our Synods dealings with the Matthewites at the 1971 Sobor were a mistake—but now the situation has become more complicated and it is difficult to see how a normal relation of our Church to yours can be restored. Perhaps all we can hope for is that at least communion will not be broken, despite many “irregularities” on both sides [17].
As we can see from this 1976 letter, the personal political dramas between these personalities were still an ongoing issue, though they had begun to die down. It is also important to point out that Father Seraphim, once again, does not condemn the Old Calendarists as schismatics but rather refers to them as another Orthodox jurisdiction grappling with many of the same challenges that the Russian Church Abroad was facing.
In 1978, Father Seraphim wrote a long letter to Mr. Stamos, which provided a detailed account of how he understood the Greek Old Calendarists. He described them as being persecuted by the Greek government with the full support of the Ecumenist Patriarchate of Constantinople and the new calendar state Church of Greece, and whose mysteries were first declared graceless by the new calendarist state Church. Father Seraphim demonstrates his understanding of this issue quite well, despite the narrative Orthodox Ethos has promoted. Father Seraphim writes, saying,
The latter (the “New Calendarist” Churches) have excommunicated the Old Calendarists, proclaiming their Holy Mysteries to be without grace; until very recently (and perhaps even now, I don’t know) children born of Old Calendarists marriages were officially registered with the government as “illegitimate”—something even the Protestants do not suffer in Greece. In return, the Old Calendarists have excommunicated the New Calendarists, and some of them (but not all) have declared and believe their Mysteries to be without grace.
There are entirely separate Orthodox hierarchies in Greece, neither thus having any communion with the other […] With regard to “jurisdictions,” we are in full communion with the Greek Old-Calendarist jurisdiction of Archbishop Auxentios in Athens and with the Catacomb Church in Russia; with other jurisdictions our relations are strained, and in some cases broken altogether (owing to the sad history of 20th-century Orthodoxy, outlined above).
Our Church as a whole simply refuses to accept the excommunications hurled by the various jurisdictions against each other under the heated circumstances of controversy; but on the other hand, a state of free intercommunion does not exist between us. In our own case, we would not be able to concelebrate with the priests of any other jurisdiction; as for laymen (whose responsibility in these sad divisions is much less, but who still must be striving to be conscious and responsible Christians), those who wish to receive Holy Communion must go to confession first and must be prepared to accept instruction from the priest in preserving oneself in true Orthodoxy [18].
One of Father Seraphim Rose’s last letters, written in 1981 to Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), references the Old Calendarist movement and puts to rest the false narrative promoted by Orthodox Ethos and Father Peter Heers regarding Father Seraphim’s position on the Old Calendarists. Father Seraphim writes,
This final sentence, written by Father Seraphim Rose near the end of his life in 1981, is significant to the true historical narrative regarding his thought process concerning the Old Calendarists. Father Seraphim clearly differentiated the Panteleimonite mentality of super-correctness and zeal not according to knowledge from that of the genuine Orthodox Old Calendarist movements in Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria. In none of his personal correspondence or published materials did he recognize Old Calendarists as a whole as schismatics, graceless, or non-Orthodox, as Orthodox Ethos, Father Peter Heers, and his cult of internet followers have done over the past few years. We must remember that complete historical context is everything, and any narrative can be constructed to fit an agenda in modern soundbites and reels that lack authentic and in-depth historical context.
The Orthodox Word & The Old Calendarists
Another place of interest for those examining Father Seraphim’s position on the new calendar innovation and the Old Calendarists is the journal he founded and edited from 1965 to 1982.
We can see that Father Seraphim was opposed to the new calendar innovation early on and supportive of the Old Calendarist Christians who refused to adopt this non-canonical change and were subsequently persecuted by the official state Church and the Greek government for their stance. In the August-September 1967 edition of The Orthodox Word, a piece concerning the calendar change by Father Basile Sakkas was published. In a section entitled "Orthodox Issues of the Day: The Question of the Orthodox Calendar," they wrote,
In the 1968 volume of The Orthodox Word, Father Seraphim includes an article entitled, "The Orthodox Mission Today: A Greek Mission in Montreal" where he describes this little Greek Old Calendarist Church saying,
Quite clearly, its use of the uncanonical Western calendar is only one of the Archdiocese’s many deviations from the God-given norms and standards of universal Orthodoxy. This falling away from true Orthodoxy — this deliberate discarding of the age-old Orthodox piety and the sacred patrimony of the Martyrs, Holy Fathers, and Ascetics – is a deep-rooted disease which began under Meletios Metaxakis of unhappy memory and has been greatly accelerated under the present Archbishop, the lamentable and much-publicized Iakovos, and his superior, Patriarch Athenagoras [21].
The Orthodox Word in September - October of 1969 in the article, Orthodoxy in the Contemporary World, Father Seraphim writes,
The Orthodox Word produced an article dedicated entirely to the True Orthodox Fathers of Mount Athos. This article, entitled "The Zealots of Mount Athos: Leaven for True Orthodoxy Today" includes a staunch defense by Father Seraphim of the Old Calendarist and Non-Commemorating Fathers of Mount Athos. In part, he writes,
As the “ecumenical” cancer eats more and more away at the remaining sound organs of the Orthodox Churches today, and increasing sympathy is being shown by the most sensitive members of the “official” Orthodox jurisdictions for the cause and the representatives of the anti-ecumenist, anti-reformist Churches of Russia, Greece, and the Diaspora. Some seeing the “official” jurisdictions as now irrevocably set on a course of anti-orthodoxy, and are abandoning them as sinking ships and joining the ranks of the True Orthodox Christians' [25].
Father Seraphim Rose in his 1980 volume of The Orthodox Word published an article entitled, "Concerning 'Super-Correctness'" written by Bishop Cyprian of Oropos and Fili of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece, under Metropolitan Kallistos of Corinth. In the introduction to this article Father Seraphim states,
In Father Seraphim’s book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, originally published in 1975, he writes about the True Orthodox Christians who are resisting the modernism of his time and who are not being carried away by the apostasy of the age. In this text, Father Seraphim explicitly lists the True Orthodox Christians of Greece among those Orthodox Christians who have not succumbed to apostasy and follow the Orthodox bishops of these jurisdictions, who also have not capitulated to the heresy of modernism. However, after Father Seraphim’s repose, a certain element, in their sin of deceit and historical revisionism—none of which have yet been publicly repented of—removed this part of the book in order to deceive the faithful and rewrite Father Seraphim’s words to promote their heretical ecumenistic agenda. In the original text of the 1975 publication, Father Seraphim Rose writes concerning the True Orthodox Christians of Greece, saying,
Conclusion
Many in World Orthodoxy, particularly those in new calendarist jurisdictions and within the OCA, have made far-reaching efforts to hijack the person of Father Seraphim for their own purposes and to create a posthumous narrative in which he supposedly rejected the Old Calendarists as schismatics and graceless apostates who are not Orthodox Christians. Sadly, Orthodox Ethos and Father Peter Heers have been major leaders in this effort, which is exactly what prompted me to conduct this in-depth research article.
Public figures such as these have an obligation to be honest in what they publish. These individuals (myself included) often have a great ability to influence the thinking of others on these specific topics, and it is our obligation before God to do the right thing and be entirely honest about what we write and publish to the best of our ability. As historians, we do not have the right to alter history simply because we do not like how it played out. We do not have the right to alter texts or censor books in order to deceive people into conforming to our “party opinion” or within our so-called “official” jurisdiction. Historical revisionism is a grave sin, and those who engage in it will have to answer for their actions. Would Father Seraphim think anything other than that? I believe we can all answer that question.
Father Seraphim was very knowledgeable about these issues, as we have seen from his letters. He understood the differences between the Matthewites, Florinites, and Panteleimonites, as well as the distinct personality struggles that each group included. Father Seraphim was specific about what he fought against, which was the extremism that he believed was largely coming from the followers of Archimandrite Panteleimon and certain Matthewite factions in Greece. He did not blindly label all Greek Old Calendarists as zealots without knowledge, nor did he ever call Old Calendarists heretics, schismatics, apostates, or graceless, as many in World Orthodoxy do today. How could he promulgate such a theory when, throughout his life, his synod, to which he was in humble obedience, was in communion with them as well? Was he self-condemning? Obviously not.
It is time for honesty to shine forth and for people to accept history for what it is. The cards have fallen where they have, and there is no changing how Father Seraphim lived, what he thought, or what he wrote. As Orthodox Christians, we are still bound to the Ninth Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (Exodus 20:16). Let us never forget that.
With that, I conclude this article with another statement from the writings of the Blessed Father Seraphim Rose, who says:
References
[1]. Father Seraphim Rose, “The Zealots of Mount Athos: The Leaven of True Orthodoxy,” The Orthodox Word 46, no. 5 (September-October 1972): 219-228.
[2]. Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, "To The Most Blessed Auxentius, Archbishop of the True Orthodox Christians in Greece," The Orthodox Archive, accessed October 10th, 2024 https://www.theorthodoxarchive.org/post/50th-anniversary-of-the-goc-episcopal-consecrations-by-the-russian-church-abroad
[4]. Father Seraphim (Rose) to Gleb Podmoshensky, Letter 8, Platina, California (December 30, 1963/January 12, 1964).
[5]. Father Seraphim (Rose) to Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos), Letter 33, Platina, California (March 21/April 13, 1970).
[6]. Father Seraphim Rose to Father Michael Azkoul, Letter 45, Platina, California (May 10/23, 1970).
[7]. Father Seraphim & Father Herman to Government of Greece, Minister of the Interior, Letter 72, (February 26, 1971).
[8]. Father Seraphim Rose to Father Neketas Palassis, Letter 95, Platina, California, (August 31/September 13, 1971).
[9]. Father Seraphim Rose to Irina Constantinovna, Letter 129, Platina, California (May 14/27, 1973).
[10]. Father Seraphim Rose to Alexey, Letter 150, Platina, California (March 2/15, 1974).
[11]. Father Seraphim Rose to Father Valery Lukianov, Letter 170, Platina, California (February 1/14, 1975).
[12]. Father Seraphim Rose to Bishop Laurus (Skurla), Letter 180, Platina, California (August 12/26, 1975).
[13]. Father Seraphim Rose to Father Valery Lukianov, Letter 191, Platina, California (October 5/18, 1975).
[14]. Father Seraphim Rose to Nina, Letter 193, Platina, California, (October 9/22, 1975).
[15]. Ibid.
[16]. Father Seraphim Rose to Andrew Bond, Letter 197, Platina, California (October 24, 1975).
[17]. Father Seraphim Rose to Dr. Alexander Kalomiros, Letter 207, Platina, California (January 21/February 3, 1976).
[18]. Father Seraphim Rose to Mr. Stamos, Letter 253, Platina, California (Palm Sunday 1978).
[19]. Father Seraphim Rose to Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), Letter 313, Platina, California (August 21/September 3, 1981).
[20]. Father Seraphim Rose, “Orthodox Issues of the Day: The Question of the Orthodox Calendar,” The Orthodox Word 3, no. 4 (August-September 1967): 129.
[21]. Father Seraphim Rose, “The Orthodox Mission Today: A Greek Mission in Montreal,” The Orthodox Word, 4, no. 1 (January-February 1968): 29.
[22]. Father Seraphim Rose, “Orthodoxy in the Contemporary World,” The Orthodox Word 5, no. 5 (September-October 1969): 197.
[23]. Father Seraphim Rose, “The Zealots of Mount Athos: The Leaven of True Orthodoxy,” The Orthodox Word 46, no. 5 (September-October 1972): 219-228 ; https://www.orthodoxtraditionalist.com/post/the-zealots-of-mount-athos-leaven-of-true-orthodoxy-today
[24]. Father Seraphim Rose, “Orthodoxy or Death: New Persecutions of the Zealot Monks of Mount Athos,” The Orthodox Word 10, no. 2 (March-April 1974): 73.
[25]. Father Seraphim Rose, “The Royal Path: True Orthodoxy in the Age of Apostasy,” The Orthodox Word 12, no 5. (September-October 1976): 143.
[26]. Father Seraphim Rose, “The Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina: Witness of True Orthodoxy in Greece,” The Orthodox Word 12, no 5. (September-October 1976): 150.
[27]. Father Seraphim Rose, “Concerning ‘Super-Correctness’ By Bishop Cyprian of Oropos and Fili,” The Orthodox Word 16, no. 93 (July-August 1980): 164.
[28]. Father Herman Podmoshensky, “Archbishop Leonty of Chile,” The Orthodox Word, 17, no. 4 (July-August 1981): 152.
[29]. Father Seraphim Rose, “The True Orthodox Christians of Romania By Bishop Cyprian, Metropolitan Oropos,” The Orthodox Word 18, no. 1 (January-February 1982): 5.
[30]. Father Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1975), 220.
[31]. Father Seraphim Rose, “Orthodoxy in the USA: Its Historical Past and Present,” The Orthodox Word 16, no. 5 (September-October 1980): 235.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. Anonymous comments are unlikely to be posted. Comments can be made by email.
joannahigginbotham@runbox.com