Fr Seraphim's views on World Orthodoxy

[Suaidan]

We, who have found refuge under Vladyka Agafangel, need to cling dearly to our so-called "cyprianism" with all our might. It appears from this discussion that it is the only thing protecting us from the super-correct disease.

Well, I can't agree with that either for a lot of reasons. I don't think ROCOR-A has to-- or should-- cling to "resistance ecclesiology" as its own because the nature of the schisms in Greece and Russia were very different with different results. Nor do I see expressing a different opinion-- or many as it once was-- as a justification for breaking communion. My point in this discussion was that I don't believe there is any justifiable reason to call resistance ecclesiology heretical, not that I personally believe it: my point was that if a person believes it they are still Orthodox because it deals with the question of grace, practically, among those outside the Church anyway.

However, I find it offensive (and have for a long time) to call what is usually (in the context of our 2,000 year history) considered basic Orthodox theology a "disease". If these excesses were to continue another 200 years it would certainly be justifiable for everyone to call the World Orthodox heretics.

Father Seraphim is one of the great, misquoted authors of our days. He coined the term "super-correctness" that would be bastardized these days to be applied to everyone who disagrees with resistance ecclesiology (I will note, however, that the SiR leadership does not use these terms as often) while Fr Seraphim himself was dealing with the Boston monastery, while it and its associates were inside ROCOR). I am sure that if he read what was being written now-- I would venture to say if you asked while Fr Seraphim was still with us, he'd probably regret, long-term that he used the term since it does not say what he makes clear throughout his correspondence: that under the guise of being correct, the Boston monastery and other right-wing renovationists are quite wrong.

He certainly wouldn't have applied it to everyone in True Orthodoxy outside ROCOR and those in communion with her! (Remember, he died when ROCOR was still dealing with factions in the TOCs and therefore had no position on any of them.) Father Seraphim had a great respect for Metr Kallistos of Corinth, so I imagine he'd be horrified to see the term "super-correct" to those who hold his ecclesiology. And I am guessing he never would have forseen its misuse as I have seen over the past couple of years.

These terms, "the royal path", "super-correctness", that had a great deal of nuanced understanding when they were stated by such a luminary as Fr Seraphim, have been reduced to slogans like those on car bumpers.

Allow me to express my regret at such a development.

[JHunt777]

Father Seraphim had a great respect for Metr Kallistos of Corinth, so I imagine he'd be horrified to see the term "super-correct" to those who hold his ecclesiology. And I am guessing he never would have forseen its misuse as I have seen over the past couple of years.

These terms, "the royal path", "super-correctness", that had a great deal of nuanced understanding when they were stated by such a luminary as Fr Seraphim, have been reduced to slogans like those on car bumpers.

Allow me to express my regret at such a development.

Fr. Dcn. Joseph! I also regret that Fr. Seraphim is so often underappreciated and often misquoted. From his letters to Fr. Alexey, however, I do not think he says anything which would indicate that he was or would be supportive of typical TOC/GOC ecclesiology, though I also do not think he would accept the so-called “Ecclesiology of Resistance” either in all of its detail, though he is certainly more Cyprianite than he is GOC (any of its “flavors”).

For instance, in his letter dated July 14/27, 1976, he states:

Out of all this we see the necessity for the formulation of a sound, moderate stand that will emphasize true Orthodoxy, firmly oppose ecumenism and modernism, but not go overboard in defining such things as the presence and absence of grace, or rebaptizing those who are already Orthodox. This will be difficult to do, especially with the presence among us of a politically-powerful fanatic; but, with God’s help and the prayers of our patron saints, we will try our best to do our little bit.

I think this well summarizes his ecclesiology, but to give some other examples, Fr. Seraphim states on Jan. 24/Feb 6, 1972:

We were glad to hear of the early response to Nikodemos. Concerning non-Synod articles, we would basically say that, besides the content of the article itself, one should weigh the possibility of causing misunderstanding or even some measure of scandal (depending on who is involved). We still believe in the Orthodoxy of most of the basic jurisdictions in America, but view them as being in different stages of falling away from Orthodoxy, and different priests and laymen in each jurisdiction trying more or less hard (or not at all) to remain Orthodox. We have tried not to “push” the Syno too hard, for fear of turning our position into a party line, and also retain contact with those outside who are trying to keep the same spirit. Each case should be weighted separately.

In a footnote to the above quote, Fr. Alexey states “In private conversation he later told me that this had also been the view of St. John (Maximovitch) concerning other jurisdictions.”

Regarding admiration for Met Kallistos of Corinth, I think “cautious” is more accurate than “great respect,” unless perhaps you were thinking of other things he said?

Fr. Seraphim on May 31/June13, 1974:

The life of Bishop Kallistos is truly moving, but watch out! Better not to touch it at all for the foreseeable future. Even though he has apparently served with our bishops in this country, still, the relationship between his jurisdiction of Old Calendarists and our Synod is not at all clear, and Fr. Theodoritos and Dr. Kalomiros both testify that the official organ of his Church has made slanderous remarks about our Synod. Our bishops are cautious and hesitant about this whole matter, and it would be best not to give publicity to something which might later be a source of scandal, [and which] could doubtless be interpreted by some Greeks in the other jurisdiction (which means all the Greek Old Calendarists with whom we have any contact) that “Synod publications are taking sides” in the internal Greek Church dispute. Besides [in this printed Life], Bishop Kallistos is treated as a saint – while still living! It is highly dangerous and not at all in the Orthodox tradition.

This he says on the Third Day of Trinity, 1976:

The events and revelations of recent months have driven us to some sober thoughts, in particular about the future. In reading the new Boston epistle [from Holy Transfiguration Monastery] to Metropolitan Anthony Bloom [exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate in London] – which is, of course, mostly “correct,” as usual, but wrong in tone – only one thought stands out: This is a rehearsal for a very similar epistle to our own bishops! They feel themselves so strong and sassy now that it is obviously only a matter of time before they weary of the “incorrectness” and “inconsistency” of our bishops in not breaking off communion formally with all the Orthodox Churches. Doubtless they are already furious with us for revealing to the world in our new OW that we have not broken with them. Zealotry is definitely in the air now; it has even become the fashion in the English-speaking wing of our Church, and the more moderate position of our bishops will now come to seem intolerable to those who think “logically.” All of which raises questions for us: Where do we stand now? Where do we all go from here?

We cannot follow the line of “Boston Orthodoxy” – which is really a kind of “reformed” Orthodoxy that happens to be mostly “correct” but is actually outside the tradition of Orthodoxy, a creation of human logic. It’s a terrible temptation for our times, and most of the converts will probably be drawn into it. We fear that all our articles about zealotry in the past years have helped to produce a monster. For the future we will have to emphasize the “feel” of Orthodoxy, without which zealotry is empty and even harmful.

The “right wing” of Orthodoxy [Fr. Alexey: by which he was referring not just to HTM but to other Old Calendarists also] will probably be divided into many small jurisdictions in future, most of them anathematizing and fighting with the others. If only our Russian Church Abroad can stay whole and on a sound path, not inclining to the left as a reaction against the zealot wing – it will be enough for us. We must keep up the living contact with the older Russian clergy, even if some of them may seem to us a little too liberal, otherwise we will become lost in the zealot jungle which is growing up around us.

First of all, of course, our instructors must be the giants of that older generation: Vladikas John, Averky, and those like them. Vladika Nektary is the most precious of that generation remaining to us. May God preserve him yet for many years!

We who wish to remain in the true tradition of Orthodoxy will have to be zealous and firm in our Orthodoxy without being fanatics, and without presuming to teach our bishops what they should do. Above all, we must strive to preserve the true fragrance of Orthodoxy, being at least a little “not of this world,” detached from all the cares and politics even of the Church, nourishing ourselves in the other-worldly food the Church gives us in such abundance. Elder Macarious well says in a letter: “Fanaticism limits a man’s way of thinking, but true faith gives him freedom. This freedom is revealed by the firmness of a man in all possible cases of happiness and unhappiness.” That freedom is the sign of our Orthodoxy; that is precisely why the Josephites separated from Sergius in 1927: not for incorrect ecclesiology or violation of canons, but because he deprived the Church of the thing most precious to her: her internal freedom.

But to see this one must have the savor of Orthodoxy. Let us not lose it!

Regarding the MP, Fr. Seraphim on July 29/Aug. 11, 1976 stated:

We’ve received some new talks of Fr. Dimitry Dudko, and he really does have much of what’s necessary not only in the Soviet Union, but here also. He speaks against making “popes” out of our bishops and spiritual fathers, of everyone thinking for himself instead of leaving it to others. He is one of the soundest and freshest voices in Orthodoxy today (despite some theoretical errors), and gives great hope for the future of Orthodoxy in Russia. With this in mind, we must be open rather than closed with regard to the Moscow Patriarchate. The whole question of ecumenism and apostasy cannot be placed simply on the canonical-dogmatic-formal level, but must be viewed first spiritually. Fr. Dimitry also speaks forcefully against letting a purely formal approach to the canons bind us spiritually and actually strangle church life, thus allowing the Protestants to take over with their fresher approach. It’s obvious that Fr. Panteleimon’s approach has nothing to say to Russia today.

Of course, there are many other such quotes that can be provided. I personally think that Fr. Seraphim was very sound and discerning in many respects, even quite prophetic, for instance when he said in 1976 regarding HTM:

They feel themselves so strong and sassy now that it is obviously only a matter of time before they weary of the “incorrectness” and “inconsistency” of our bishops in not breaking off communion formally with all the Orthodox Churches

Fr. Seraphim had no problem communing New Calendarists, though he didn’t think the calendar issue was insignificant. He reached out to those who showed a good and healthy zeal for the faith, who longed for the savor of true Orthodoxy, but discouraged those who used zeal as an excuse for pride, fanaticism, and a disguise for their prelest. I honestly do not know where he would be if he were alive today, but I honestly do not think he would be with any of the Synods which say that there is no grace in the MP or the New Calendar churches.

[Mark Templet]

Two thing about that:
1) being a saintly person does not make Fr. Seraphim perfect and infallible in every opinion he uttered.
2) he did not have the benefit of the amount of information we have access to, nor the unfolding of what happened in the Russian Church after his death. Your assertion that he would not be with any of the TOC groups is a red herring. This is not the 1980's and we know much more about the state of things than he simply was not privy to back then. This is an specious argument to bolster your opinion and it is unfair to Fr. Seraphim and the TOC.

[Suaidan]

Fr. Dcn. Joseph! I also regret that Fr. Seraphim is so often underappreciated and often misquoted. From his letters to Fr. Alexey, however, I do not think he says anything which would indicate that he was or would be supportive of typical TOC/GOC ecclesiology, though I also do not think he would accept the so-called “Ecclesiology of Resistance” either in all of its detail, though he is certainly more Cyprianite than he is GOC (any of its “flavors”).

For instance, in his letter dated July 14/27, 1976, he states:

Out of all this we see the necessity for the formulation of a sound, moderate stand that will emphasize true Orthodoxy, firmly oppose ecumenism and modernism, but not go overboard in defining such things as the presence and absence of grace, or rebaptizing those who are already Orthodox. This will be difficult to do, especially with the presence among us of a politically-powerful fanatic; but, with God’s help and the prayers of our patron saints, we will try our best to do our little bit.

Fr Seraphim, barring a miracle, will almost invariably be misquoted because his writings are largely in the hands of people who disagree with his ultimate conclusions.

I think this well summarizes his ecclesiology, but to give some other examples, Fr. Seraphim states on Jan. 24/Feb 6, 1972:

We were glad to hear of the early response to Nikodemos. Concerning non-Synod articles, we would basically say that, besides the content of the article itself, one should weigh the possibility of causing misunderstanding or even some measure of scandal (depending on who is involved). We still believe in the Orthodoxy of most of the basic jurisdictions in America, but view them as being in different stages of falling away from Orthodoxy, and different priests and laymen in each jurisdiction trying more or less hard (or not at all) to remain Orthodox. We have tried not to “push” the Syno too hard, for fear of turning our position into a party line, and also retain contact with those outside who are trying to keep the same spirit. Each case should be weighted separately.

This does not help the claim; in context he believed that World Orthodoxy was in the process of falling away.

In a footnote to the above quote, Fr. Alexey states “In private conversation he later told me that this had also been the view of St. John (Maximovitch) concerning other jurisdictions.”

Hieromonk Ambrose himself was an ardent supporter of ROCOR-MP union. Sadly, this is what I am talking about when I posit that getting a complete correspondence of Fr Seraphim will hit an ideological brick wall repeatedly.

Regarding admiration for Met Kallistos of Corinth, I think “cautious” is more accurate than “great respect,” unless perhaps you were thinking of other things he said?

Fr. Seraphim on May 31/June13, 1974:

The life of Bishop Kallistos is truly moving, but watch out! Better not to touch it at all for the foreseeable future. Even though he has apparently served with our bishops in this country, still, the relationship between his jurisdiction of Old Calendarists and our Synod is not at all clear, and Fr. Theodoritos and Dr. Kalomiros both testify that the official organ of his Church has made slanderous remarks about our Synod. Our bishops are cautious and hesitant about this whole matter, and it would be best not to give publicity to something which might later be a source of scandal, [and which] could doubtless be interpreted by some Greeks in the other jurisdiction (which means all the Greek Old Calendarists with whom we have any contact) that “Synod publications are taking sides” in the internal Greek Church dispute. Besides [in this printed Life], Bishop Kallistos is treated as a saint – while still living! It is highly dangerous and not at all in the Orthodox tradition.

[/quote]

I believe, however, he published that life anyway.

As for the rest, I believe a lot is miquoted. I would guess that this is why the old issues of Orthodox Word are no longer available.

[JHunt777]

Fr Seraphim, barring a miracle, will almost invariably be misquoted because his writings are largely in the hands of people who disagree with his ultimate conclusions.

Hieromonk Ambrose himself was an ardent supporter of ROCOR-MP union. Sadly, this is what I am talking about when I posit that getting a complete correspondence of Fr Seraphim will hit an ideological brick wall repeatedly.

Fr. Joseph, these are assertions that are undemonstrated. You assume that those who have control of his writings (Platina) are going in a direction other the direction they are now going. Granted, had Fr. Seraphim lived longer, Platina perhaps would not have had the unfortunate scandals that led the monastery away from ROCOR, only to be mixed up with HOOM and Pangratios, but we simply do not know if their destination would be unlike their current position.

I believe, however, he published that life [of Met Kallistos of Corinth] anyway.

If so, it would be interesting to know if Fr. Seraphim introduced the article with comments on Met Kallistos’ ecclesiology. It would be strange, though, if he counseled Fr. Alexey not to publish this, only to publish it himself. To suggest that he supported Met Kallistos’ ecclesiology regarding the New Calendar contradicts numerous quotes from Fr. Seraphim and I have found support for this idea nowhere in his writings.

As for the rest, I believe a lot is miquoted. I would guess that this is why the old issues of Orthodox Word are no longer available.

Misquoted by me or by Fr. Alexey in his book? I certainly did not misquote these letters, so perhaps you are accusing Fr. Alexey of forgery and conspiracy? If he did forge these letters, which I have no reason to believe, he would probably not make such extensive use of footnotes to make certain clarifications. Or, if you wish to suggest that Fr. Alexey was biased toward union with the MP or towards modernism and ecumenism at the time that he published these letters, or that he published these letters only selectively to promote his own ideology, this would somehow have to be demonstrated. Certainly there are many people alive today who have the old issues of Orthodox Word. St. Tikhon’s Seminary in PA has them and probably SVS in your neighborhood as well. If we wish to claim that the compiler had a certain bias, this should make itself known in the footnotes provided by Fr. Alexey. The footnotes, however, do not demonstrate this. For instance, in a letter dated Jan. 28/Feb. 10, 1976, Fr. Seraphim criticizes the practice of baptizing Orthodox Christians who had already been chrismated in another Orthodox jurisdiction, even if prior to chrismation the heterodox baptism was conduct with an incorrect form.

Fr. Alexey comments on Fr. Seraphim’s criticism:

It should be noted that in the twenty-three years since Fr. Seraphim wrote this, the situation of the heterodox Churches and the modernist Orthodox jurisdictions has deteriorated to a degree that Fr. Seraphim could not have predicted and which would have horrified him. In general, the Russian Church Abroad now finds it necessary as well as appropriate to insist on the use of less “economy” and more pastoral strictness in order to avoid unfortunate cases of scruples later on. This, however, has nothing whatever to do with the sectarian and extremely legalistic mindset of those few who deny the existences of grace in the New Calendar jurisdictions.

Fr. Alexey, then, expressed his personal opinion that heterodox churches and modernist jurisdictions had deteriorated greatly even since Fr. Seraphim’s time, justifying the Synod’s use of strictness in the reception of converts or Orthodoxy from other jurisdictions who have never received an Orthodox baptism. Fr. Alexey criticizes the belief that grace has departed from the New Calendar jurisdictions, but Fr. Seraphim criticizes the same belief in many of his writings so this cannot be considered to be Fr. Alexey’s opinion that was inserted into the text.

What you assume is that Fr. Alexey/Fr. Ambrose, in supporting the ROCOR-MP reunion, did so despite rather than because of what he learned from Fr. Seraphim. If the quotes I provided above are looked at as “skewed,” I’m sure others who had correspondence with Fr. Seraphim have had plenty of time to speak up regarding the ecclesiology of the real Fr. Seraphim. Or, if my quotes are seen as selective and not representative, someone could perhaps provide other quotes to demonstrate this. Due to the large number of letters in this volume, how one letter seems to pick up where the previous letter left off, and the close proximity of these letters in time, I would be inclined to think that Fr. Alexey wasn’t very selective in what he published.

[Suaidan]

Dear Jason, I apologize for taking so long to respond. I don't have access to a lot of the text you are quoting, unfortunately.

Fr. Joseph, these are assertions that are undemonstrated. You assume that those who have control of his writings (Platina) are going in a direction other the direction they are now going. Granted, had Fr. Seraphim lived longer, Platina perhaps would not have had the unfortunate scandals that led the monastery away from ROCOR, only to be mixed up with HOOM and Pangratios, but we simply do not know if their destination would be unlike their current position.

It's not an assumption. It's something that was well known; Fr Herman changed his views (and misquoted Fr Seraphim's writings) after his death to make Fr Seraphim appear to be a vocal critic of ROCOR policy, and then Fr Seraphim was further misquoted later after CSB's attempts to become official.

If so, it would be interesting to know if Fr. Seraphim introduced the article with comments on Met Kallistos’ ecclesiology. It would be strange, though, if he counseled Fr. Alexey not to publish this, only to publish it himself. To suggest that he supported Met Kallistos’ ecclesiology regarding the New Calendar contradicts numerous quotes from Fr. Seraphim and I have found support for this idea nowhere in his writings.

Unfortunately, I do not have the documents on hand. I am sure others do. I actually do not, anymore, nor for years, own a single copy of the Orthodox Word, relying on memory. That said, I have never seen the correspondence you mention, nor do I know its context unfortunately. And no, I do not believe Fr Ambrose did treat the situation honestly.

It is a shame that Fr Seraphim's writings went largely to private individuals. Had they been donated to an institution where we could objectively see them, life would be substantially different.

As for the rest, I believe a lot is miquoted. I would guess that this is why the old issues of Orthodox Word are no longer available.

Misquoted by me or by Fr. Alexey in his book? I certainly did not misquote these letters, so perhaps you are accusing Fr. Alexey of forgery and conspiracy? If he did forge these letters, which I have no reason to believe, he would probably not make such extensive use of footnotes to make certain clarifications.

Forgery requires the composition of false writings, and conspiracy requires more than one person. All it takes is for a person with full access to his letters to pick and choose which he shall use to present them, as Fr Seraphim wrote thousands of pages of letters, as I understand it. So I accuse Fr Alexey of neither to make my point.

Or, if you wish to suggest that Fr. Alexey was biased toward union with the MP or towards modernism and ecumenism at the time that he published these letters, or that he published these letters only selectively to promote his own ideology, this would somehow have to be demonstrated.

And it has, in the past, been occasionally done. You have the advantage in this argument because I do not have any such texts at my disposal, but I have occasionally seen some "contrary" texts reproduced.

Certainly there are many people alive today who have the old issues of Orthodox Word. St. Tikhon’s Seminary in PA has them and probably SVS in your neighborhood as well. If we wish to claim that the compiler had a certain bias, this should make itself known in the footnotes provided by Fr. Alexey. The footnotes, however, do not demonstrate this....

You then create a straw man argument: that "For instance, in a letter dated Jan. 28/Feb. 10, 1976, Fr. Seraphim criticizes the practice of baptizing Orthodox Christians who had already been chrismated in another Orthodox jurisdiction, even if prior to chrismation the heterodox baptism was conduct with an incorrect form", and then proceed to show that Fr Alexey's commentary somehow talks about the "deterioration" of World Orthodoxy; thus Fr Alexey, being "conservative", goes to the "right" of Fr Seraphim on the issue.

The truth is-- if you are talking about the letter below--not so much that Fr Seraphim criticizes "corrective baptism" (which he does do, but it is a secondary point) but the underlying mentality that made it an issue in the first place (emphasis mine):

I’ve written and talked to L about this hothouse approach to Orthodoxy — filled with gossip, knowing “what’s going on,” having the “right answer” to everything according to what the “experts” say. I begin to think that this is her basic problem, and not Fr. Panteleimon directly.

An example: she is horrified that T was received into the Church [from Roman Catholicism] without baptism or chrismation. “That’s wrong,” she says. But we see nothing particularly wrong with it; that is for the priest and the bishop to decide, and it is not our (or even more, her) business. The rite by which he was received has long been approved by the Church out of economy, and probably in this case it was the best way, because T might have hesitated much more at being baptized. The Church’s condescension here was wise. But L would like someone “to read Vladika Anthony the decree of the Sobor” [the 1971 decree on baptizing heterodox- D. J.]. My dear, he was there, composing the decree, which explicitly gives the bishop permission to use economy when he wishes! We don’t like this attitude at all, because it introduces totally unnecessary disturbance into the church atmosphere. And if she is going to tell T now that he is not “really” a member of the Orthodox Church, she can do untold harm to a soul.

Another example: L was very pleased that Q was baptized [after having been a member of the Russian Church Abroad already for several years]: Finally he did it “right”! But we are not pleased at all, seeing in this a sign of great spiritual immaturity on his part and a narrow fanaticism on the part of those who approve. Saint Basil the Great refused to baptize a man who doubted the validity of his baptism, precisely because he had already received communion for many years and it was too late to doubt then that he was a member of Christ’s Church! In the case of our converts, it’s obvious that those who insist or are talked into receiving baptism after already being a member of the Church are trying, out of a feeling of insecurity, to receive something which the Sacrament does not give: psychological security, a making up for their past failures while already Orthodox, a belonging to the “club” of those who are “right,” an automatic spiritual “correctness.” But this act casts doubt on the Church and her ministers. If the priest or bishop who receives such people were wrong (and so wrong that the whole act of reception must be done over again!), a sort of Church within the Church is created, a clique which, by contrast to “most bishops and priests,” is always “right.” And of course, that is our big problem today — and even more in the days ahead. It is very difficult to fight this, because they offer “clear and simple” answers to every question, and our insecure converts find this the answer to their needs.

Thus in fact, what Fr Alexey is discussing-- unless we are discussing another page in the text, I don't know, I got this letter from the "Mystagogy" website-- is totally outside what Fr Seraphim's point was to begin with, and what happened in fact to the HOCNA schism-- a developing parachurch that eventually ceased obedience to its ecclesiastical authority, which occurred through the gradual distrust of the Orthodoxy of the Bishops.

What you assume is that Fr. Alexey/Fr. Ambrose, in supporting the ROCOR-MP reunion, did so despite rather than because of what he learned from Fr. Seraphim.

Actually I'd say before that even.

If the quotes I provided above are looked at as “skewed,” I’m sure others who had correspondence with Fr. Seraphim have had plenty of time to speak up regarding the ecclesiology of the real Fr. Seraphim. Or, if my quotes are seen as selective and not representative, someone could perhaps provide other quotes to demonstrate this. Due to the large number of letters in this volume, how one letter seems to pick up where the previous letter left off, and the close proximity of these letters in time, I would be inclined to think that Fr. Alexey wasn’t very selective in what he published.

I unfortunately am not that person. I don't know if such a person can be found here. But in any case, yes, I would say that you are inadvertently misrepresenting Fr Seraphim, but are probably accurately representing later redactors of his work.

Again I apologize for the delay. We have many troubles here. In Christ

[Pravoslavnik]

Well, I would not presume to speak for Hieromonk Ambrose Young, but I have known him well enough to know that he would NEVER deliberately distort or alter any teachings or writings of his beloved spiritual father, Hieromonk Seraphim Rose. Father Alexey was quite disturbed by the revisionist history at Platina regarding Father Seraphim's relationship with the ROCOR hierarchs when Not of This World was first published. Father Alexey was quite fond of ROCOR Archbishop Anthony (Medvedev), and he told me that Father Seraphim Rose had always been deferential toward Anthony and Bishop Nektary. He was always loathe to speak ill of anyone, but certainly expressed his disappointment with events at Platina after the repose of Father Seraphim.

Code: Select all

 As for Hieromonk Ambrose enthusiastically endorsing the Act of Canonical Communion, I doubt that this was the case.  He last spoke to me about the ROCOR dialogue with Moscow in about 2005, and I did not detect any [i]enthusiasm[/i] in his voice.  My impression is that he was hinting to me that some union of the ROCOR and the MP was inevitable, and wondering if I was troubled about it.  He was still a monk at the ROCOR Holy Cross Hermitage at the time, but, if I am not mistaken, he left Holy Cross well before the ROCOR All Diaspora Conference occurred in 2006.

   That said, although he spoke only tangentially about these issues to me, Father Alexey Young did not have a generally favorable opinion of some Orthodox zealots.  Apparently, his view of extreme zealotry was similar to that expressed by Father Seraphim Rose in the above-mentioned letters.  If anything, when I knew Father Alexey in the 1990s, he was always more interested in bringing new converts to the Orthodox Church than in anathematizing people for their theological inexactitude.