The Prayer of the Heart

[haralampopoulosjc]

I started this reply to H [Your name is too long when it's late at night !] 2 pages bac. Then I realized there had been so many posts since then !
INTERESTING DISCUSSION, very informative, thank you everyone !

Here was my answer :

Yes I personally dislike Elder Silouan of Athos. I always wonder what people see in him ? Especially when there are Optina Elders, TRUE Valaam Elders, Glinsk Elders ; in recent times, Metropolitan Philaret of New York, St John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco... Elder Silouan can NOT compare with these bright lights. He just strikes me as average.

Where is the documentation about Fr Sergius Irtel raising the dead ? That is a VERY STRONG CLAIM TO MAKE !

Also do we know WHAT years Fr Sergius resided in Paris and anything more about that time ? With whom did he associate there ? We all know that Paris was the emigre capital at that time. 1st Berlin, then the Russian emigres moved en masse to Paris. Then the U.S.

So with which Paris group did he spend time, do we have any knowledge about that ? From for example, the memoirs of fellow emigres ?

To sum up so far, I would put Fr Sergius Irtel below Elder Silouan of Mt Athos in terms of validity.

I DO remember the passage from that book, thank you for posting it so it's handy for us all to read.

But it feels like Fr Herman, who was the inspiration behind that Platina publication, left out probably much more besides omitting Fr Sergius' residence at the Abbey of the Holy Name.

By the way, Fr Sergius' insistence on moving his cell to higher ground away from the Spruce Island beach is not particularly remarkable !

Surely common sense and REGULAR foresight would dictate THAT much.
We can NOT work overtime to transform simple anecdotes into assembling a case for Fr Sergius as a clairvoyant elder.

He raised a woman’s baby to life in Paris and this was a well known miracle all over Europe. When you’ve already taken this sort of tone towards him because of your dislike towards Saint Silhouan the Athonite (which seems to be rooted in World Orthodoxy promoting him) which is because his spiritual son Sophrony who is actually the one who’s problematic.. Have you considered that maybe you are wrong about St. Silouan and Elder Theodore and you aren’t as discerning as you might think and your rejection of both of them isn’t rooted in anything you’ve been revealed by God… But, your own personal logical reasoning which is cold and calculating? Maybe it would be wiser to pray about this and see if God or one of the Saints will give you an answer. I believe you would come to very different conclusions if you did that.

“No matter how much we may study, it is not possible to come to know God unless we live according to His commandments, for God is not known by science, but by the Holy Spirit. Many philosophers and learned men came to the belief that God exists, but they did not know God. It is one thing to belief that God exists and another to know Him. If someone has come to know God by the Holy Spirit, his soul will burn with love for God day and night, and his soul cannot be bound to any earthly thing.” - St. Silouan the Athonite

Elder Theodore was born George Irtel in 1904. His father had been a renowned physicist in the Russian Royal Court and a friend of St Tsar Nicholas II. His father’s connections permitted young George to be one of Tsarević Alexei Romanov’s playmate. During the Bolshevik Revolution, George fled across Siberia on foot to Irkutsk. Then learning his mother still in Moscow, he walked back across Siberia. He had been arrested in 1920; afterwards, in 1924 he entered Valaam Monastery as a novice. It was there that Novice George came under the spiritual care of the staretz Justinian. Due to godless incursion into the vicinity of Valaam, Novice George moved on to the Pskov Caves Monastery in Estonia.
Under the care of the Elder Schema-Archimandrite Simeon, Monk George was clothed in the small schema and renamed Sergei (Sergius). Stavrophore-monk Sergei was among the many Russian émigrés to Paris in the 1930s. At the Sorbonne, he earned an advanced degree in Philosophy and was ordained to the priesthood in 1934. It has been said that there were three men consecrated to the episcopacy in secret. Fr Sergei was one of the three. Secret consecrations are outside the norm in Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, these elevations were conducted because there was suspicion that the NKVD (predecessor of the KGB) had targeted certain Russian hierarchs in Europe for assassination. While in France, Fr Sergei had frequent fellowship with St. Archbishop John Maximovitć during his tenure there.

Many in ROCOR considered Elder Theodore to be a Wonderworker. the Orthodox word mentioned him a few times prior to the passing of St. Seraphim Rose. But, it seems no amount of information will suffice once people have made up their minds. This constant need to make everything black and white and “consistent” is the root of this truthfully.

Not everything we have in the Church can be confirmed by documented evidence like we are in a court case. Imagine if we took this same tone towards every Saint in history. We wouldn’t have such a thing as Holy Tradition. We’d be overly rationalistic secular scholars or something.

I believe Vladyka John who knew Elder Theodore and a few others who knew him that go to our Church. if you have any questions about the Wonderworker Elder Theodore you can ask him if you’d like.

Regarding Elder Theodore being a wonderworker, again, so what? Elders Paisios, Porphyrios and Iakovos worked miracles according to the testimony of dozens of people, but we don't regard them as saints. Padre Pio was credited as a wonderworker. So was the Monophysite Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria. Saint Gerasimos of the Jordan was served by a lion and was a wonderworker, he was in error because he would not accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council, drawing along with him thousands of monks in Palestine, until he was corrected by Saint Euthymios the Great and repented.

Being a "miracle-worker" doesn't mean you're a saint or part of the Church. Which is why I keep harping on what SYNOD Elder Theodore was a member of.

“If thy bishop should teach anything outside of the appointed order, even if he lives in chastity, or if he works signs, or if he prophesizes, let him be unto thee as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, for he works the destruction of souls” (Saint Ignatius)

[eish]

...
If I'm reading the story correctly, a heretic took over the see of an Orthodox bishop who was abusing the heretics?

No, it says the heretic repented of his heresy and then took over the see. Regardless of whether his intentions were pure or not, he publicly preached Orthodoxy from there on, with all his followers, and the hierarchy considered this to be a great boon to the Church rather than a loss, to let him have the whole see (of the former heretics and those who had been Orthodox the whole time) in the place of the persecuting bishop, who had been Orthodox the whole time.

I think our brother is asking you to consider whether he should have been refused the see for the sake of a rule, or whether the rule was rightly bent for the sake of souls.

[haralampopoulosjc]

...
If I'm reading the story correctly, a heretic took over the see of an Orthodox bishop who was abusing the heretics?

No, it says the heretic repented of his heresy and then took over the see. Regardless of whether his intentions were pure or not, he publicly preached Orthodoxy from there on, with all his followers, and the hierarchy considered this to be a great boon to the Church rather than a loss, to let him have the whole see (of the former heretics and those who had been Orthodox the whole time) in the place of the persecuting bishop, who had been Orthodox the whole time.

I think our brother is asking you to consider whether he should have been refused the see for the sake of a rule, or whether the rule was rightly bent for the sake of souls.

Well, I have no objection to that, and I also don't see how it has anything to do with Elder Theodore.

[Unseen.Warfare]

I started this reply to H [Your name is too long when it's late at night !] 2 pages bac. Then I realized there had been so many posts since then !
INTERESTING DISCUSSION, very informative, thank you everyone !

Here was my answer :

Yes I personally dislike Elder Silouan of Athos. I always wonder what people see in him ? Especially when there are Optina Elders, TRUE Valaam Elders, Glinsk Elders ; in recent times, Metropolitan Philaret of New York, St John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco... Elder Silouan can NOT compare with these bright lights. He just strikes me as average.

Where is the documentation about Fr Sergius Irtel raising the dead ? That is a VERY STRONG CLAIM TO MAKE !

Also do we know WHAT years Fr Sergius resided in Paris and anything more about that time ? With whom did he associate there ? We all know that Paris was the emigre capital at that time. 1st Berlin, then the Russian emigres moved en masse to Paris. Then the U.S.

So with which Paris group did he spend time, do we have any knowledge about that ? From for example, the memoirs of fellow emigres ?

To sum up so far, I would put Fr Sergius Irtel below Elder Silouan of Mt Athos in terms of validity.

I DO remember the passage from that book, thank you for posting it so it's handy for us all to read.

But it feels like Fr Herman, who was the inspiration behind that Platina publication, left out probably much more besides omitting Fr Sergius' residence at the Abbey of the Holy Name.

By the way, Fr Sergius' insistence on moving his cell to higher ground away from the Spruce Island beach is not particularly remarkable !

Surely common sense and REGULAR foresight would dictate THAT much.
We can NOT work overtime to transform simple anecdotes into assembling a case for Fr Sergius as a clairvoyant elder.

He raised a woman’s baby to life in Paris and this was a well known miracle all over Europe. When you’ve already taken this sort of tone towards him because of your dislike towards Saint Silhouan the Athonite (which seems to be rooted in World Orthodoxy promoting him) which is because his spiritual son Sophrony who is actually the one who’s problematic.. Have you considered that maybe you are wrong about St. Silouan and Elder Theodore and you aren’t as discerning as you might think and your rejection of both of them isn’t rooted in anything you’ve been revealed by God… But, your own personal logical reasoning which is cold and calculating? Maybe it would be wiser to pray about this and see if God or one of the Saints will give you an answer. I believe you would come to very different conclusions if you did that.

“No matter how much we may study, it is not possible to come to know God unless we live according to His commandments, for God is not known by science, but by the Holy Spirit. Many philosophers and learned men came to the belief that God exists, but they did not know God. It is one thing to belief that God exists and another to know Him. If someone has come to know God by the Holy Spirit, his soul will burn with love for God day and night, and his soul cannot be bound to any earthly thing.” - St. Silouan the Athonite

Elder Theodore was born George Irtel in 1904. His father had been a renowned physicist in the Russian Royal Court and a friend of St Tsar Nicholas II. His father’s connections permitted young George to be one of Tsarević Alexei Romanov’s playmate. During the Bolshevik Revolution, George fled across Siberia on foot to Irkutsk. Then learning his mother still in Moscow, he walked back across Siberia. He had been arrested in 1920; afterwards, in 1924 he entered Valaam Monastery as a novice. It was there that Novice George came under the spiritual care of the staretz Justinian. Due to godless incursion into the vicinity of Valaam, Novice George moved on to the Pskov Caves Monastery in Estonia.
Under the care of the Elder Schema-Archimandrite Simeon, Monk George was clothed in the small schema and renamed Sergei (Sergius). Stavrophore-monk Sergei was among the many Russian émigrés to Paris in the 1930s. At the Sorbonne, he earned an advanced degree in Philosophy and was ordained to the priesthood in 1934. It has been said that there were three men consecrated to the episcopacy in secret. Fr Sergei was one of the three. Secret consecrations are outside the norm in Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, these elevations were conducted because there was suspicion that the NKVD (predecessor of the KGB) had targeted certain Russian hierarchs in Europe for assassination. While in France, Fr Sergei had frequent fellowship with St. Archbishop John Maximovitć during his tenure there.

Many in ROCOR considered Elder Theodore to be a Wonderworker. the Orthodox word mentioned him a few times prior to the passing of St. Seraphim Rose. But, it seems no amount of information will suffice once people have made up their minds. This constant need to make everything black and white and “consistent” is the root of this truthfully.

Not everything we have in the Church can be confirmed by documented evidence like we are in a court case. Imagine if we took this same tone towards every Saint in history. We wouldn’t have such a thing as Holy Tradition. We’d be overly rationalistic secular scholars or something.

I believe Vladyka John who knew Elder Theodore and a few others who knew him that go to our Church. if you have any questions about the Wonderworker Elder Theodore you can ask him if you’d like.

Regarding Elder Theodore being a wonderworker, again, so what? Elders Paisios, Porphyrios and Iakovos worked miracles according to the testimony of dozens of people, but we don't regard them as saints. Padre Pio was credited as a wonderworker. So was the Monophysite Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria. Saint Gerasimos of the Jordan was served by a lion and was a wonderworker, he was in error because he would not accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council, drawing along with him thousands of monks in Palestine, until he was corrected by Saint Euthymios the Great and repented.

Being a "miracle-worker" doesn't mean you're a saint or part of the Church. Which is why I keep harping on what SYNOD Elder Theodore was a member of.

“If thy bishop should teach anything outside of the appointed order, even if he lives in chastity, or if he works signs, or if he prophesizes, let him be unto thee as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, for he works the destruction of souls” (Saint Ignatius)

The difference is Elder Theodore confessed the faith. He was a Valaam Monk who later became a Catacomb Bishop and had close ties with Saint John Maximovitch when he was in Paris. He also lived in Alaska on New Monks Lagoon and was with ROCOR prior to their capitulation and had close ties with Platina before he came to the Abbey. They mention him in multiple Orthodox words and have a section in New Monks Lagoon dedicated to him. So… Why you are comparing him to Pseudo Saints is beyond me. Those who he associated with were all men we consider true elders and Saints…

The other text represents a very much different understanding of 'reception' and how Orthodoxy is proclaimed and heretics and such are recovered; it very much is different from, what, in essence has become a forensic juridical legalistic notion of the Church. This is why so many find it impossible to make heads or tales of St. Tarasius' statements in the First Session of the Seventh Ecumenical Council when they see the Church in such rationalistic / legalistic system as a forensic institution; people are unable to hold ideas in ‘tensions', and our ideas are being forced to register everything through a Modernist or Papist lens.

I’m pointing out that what you think is a “traditional” way to look at Orthodoxy doesn’t hold up through a historical perspective. It’s seen through the lens of the Matthewite situation in Greece which frankly is a black and white view of history. Everything isn’t as “consistent” as Matthewites attempt to portray and this leads to a zeal not according to knowledge where you are here rejecting an actual Holy Man because you don’t understand his life and what makes him an Orthodox confessor. The abbey wasn’t under any jurisdiction formally when he was here. They were looking to join a jurisdiction and eventually did when they made contact with Milan and Archbishop Auxentios. What that shows is they were true confessors of Orthodoxy in a difficult situation that doesn’t perfectly fit in an idealistic view of what you think makes someone “legitimate”. Was Elder Theodore Baptized Orthodox? Was he made a Bishop in the Catacomb Church? Did he teach any heresy? Was he truly an ascetic? Was him joining the abbey providential? All important questions.

Not to mention those in our Jurisdiction consider him a Holy Elder and a confessor and we are True Orthodox Christians. So, it really doesn’t matter if you accept him or not. That’ll be on you, not us. If you feel comfortable calling a True confessor a False Elder that’s on you.

A reminder that many consider esphigmenou to be “headless” because they aren’t under any jurisdiction at the moment yet they have a True Orthodox Abbot. Is this acceptable historically?

It’s like saying St. Macarius the Great isn’t Orthodox because he wasn’t formally tied to any jurisdiction when he was living in the desert. It doesn’t hold up. The question is what joins someone to the Body of Christ? Is it strictly a jurisdiction? Do you have any evidence that he’s a false elder and supported ecumenist? Again, I’ll state this one more time which seems pointless at this point. The Abbey wasn’t with the MP when he was here. Everyone here wanted nothing to do with Sergianist and Ecumenist and that is still true to this day. Intent matters which seems to be lost in legalities.

[haralampopoulosjc]

He raised a woman’s baby to life in Paris and this was a well known miracle all over Europe. When you’ve already taken this sort of tone towards him because of your dislike towards Saint Silhouan the Athonite (which seems to be rooted in World Orthodoxy promoting him) which is because his spiritual son Sophrony who is actually the one who’s problematic.. Have you considered that maybe you are wrong about St. Silouan and Elder Theodore and you aren’t as discerning as you might think and your rejection of both of them isn’t rooted in anything you’ve been revealed by God… But, your own personal logical reasoning which is cold and calculating? Maybe it would be wiser to pray about this and see if God or one of the Saints will give you an answer. I believe you would come to very different conclusions if you did that.

“No matter how much we may study, it is not possible to come to know God unless we live according to His commandments, for God is not known by science, but by the Holy Spirit. Many philosophers and learned men came to the belief that God exists, but they did not know God. It is one thing to belief that God exists and another to know Him. If someone has come to know God by the Holy Spirit, his soul will burn with love for God day and night, and his soul cannot be bound to any earthly thing.” - St. Silouan the Athonite

Elder Theodore was born George Irtel in 1904. His father had been a renowned physicist in the Russian Royal Court and a friend of St Tsar Nicholas II. His father’s connections permitted young George to be one of Tsarević Alexei Romanov’s playmate. During the Bolshevik Revolution, George fled across Siberia on foot to Irkutsk. Then learning his mother still in Moscow, he walked back across Siberia. He had been arrested in 1920; afterwards, in 1924 he entered Valaam Monastery as a novice. It was there that Novice George came under the spiritual care of the staretz Justinian. Due to godless incursion into the vicinity of Valaam, Novice George moved on to the Pskov Caves Monastery in Estonia.
Under the care of the Elder Schema-Archimandrite Simeon, Monk George was clothed in the small schema and renamed Sergei (Sergius). Stavrophore-monk Sergei was among the many Russian émigrés to Paris in the 1930s. At the Sorbonne, he earned an advanced degree in Philosophy and was ordained to the priesthood in 1934. It has been said that there were three men consecrated to the episcopacy in secret. Fr Sergei was one of the three. Secret consecrations are outside the norm in Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, these elevations were conducted because there was suspicion that the NKVD (predecessor of the KGB) had targeted certain Russian hierarchs in Europe for assassination. While in France, Fr Sergei had frequent fellowship with St. Archbishop John Maximovitć during his tenure there.

Many in ROCOR considered Elder Theodore to be a Wonderworker. the Orthodox word mentioned him a few times prior to the passing of St. Seraphim Rose. But, it seems no amount of information will suffice once people have made up their minds. This constant need to make everything black and white and “consistent” is the root of this truthfully.

Not everything we have in the Church can be confirmed by documented evidence like we are in a court case. Imagine if we took this same tone towards every Saint in history. We wouldn’t have such a thing as Holy Tradition. We’d be overly rationalistic secular scholars or something.

I believe Vladyka John who knew Elder Theodore and a few others who knew him that go to our Church. if you have any questions about the Wonderworker Elder Theodore you can ask him if you’d like.

Regarding Elder Theodore being a wonderworker, again, so what? Elders Paisios, Porphyrios and Iakovos worked miracles according to the testimony of dozens of people, but we don't regard them as saints. Padre Pio was credited as a wonderworker. So was the Monophysite Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria. Saint Gerasimos of the Jordan was served by a lion and was a wonderworker, he was in error because he would not accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council, drawing along with him thousands of monks in Palestine, until he was corrected by Saint Euthymios the Great and repented.

Being a "miracle-worker" doesn't mean you're a saint or part of the Church. Which is why I keep harping on what SYNOD Elder Theodore was a member of.

“If thy bishop should teach anything outside of the appointed order, even if he lives in chastity, or if he works signs, or if he prophesizes, let him be unto thee as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, for he works the destruction of souls” (Saint Ignatius)

The difference is Elder Theodore confessed the faith. He was a Valaam Monk who later became a Catacomb Bishop and had close ties with Saint John Maximovitch when he was in Paris. He also lived in Alaska on New Monks Lagoon and was with ROCOR prior to their capitulation and had close ties with Platina before he came to the Abbey. They mention him in multiple Orthodox words and have a section in New Monks Lagoon dedicated to him. So… Why you are comparing him to Pseudo Saints is beyond me. Those who he associated with were all men we consider true elders and Saints…

The other text represents a very much different understanding of 'reception' and how Orthodoxy is proclaimed and heretics and such are recovered; it very much is different from, what, in essence has become a forensic juridical legalistic notion of the Church. This is why so many find it impossible to make heads or tales of St. Tarasius' statements in the First Session of the Seventh Ecumenical Council when they see the Church in such rationalistic / legalistic system as a forensic institution; people are unable to hold ideas in ‘tensions', and our ideas are being forced to register everything through a Modernist or Papist lens.

I’m pointing out that what you think is a “traditional” way to look at Orthodoxy doesn’t hold up through a historical perspective. It’s seen through the lens of the Matthewite situation in Greece which frankly is a black and white view of history. Everything isn’t as “consistent” as Matthewites attempt to portray and this leads to a zeal not according to knowledge where you are here rejecting an actual Holy Man because you don’t understand his life and what makes him an Orthodox confessor. The abbey wasn’t under any jurisdiction formally when he was here. They were looking to join a jurisdiction and eventually did when they made contact with Milan and Archbishop Auxentios. What that shows is they were true confessors of Orthodoxy in a difficult situation that doesn’t perfectly fit in an idealistic view of what you think makes someone “legitimate”. Was Elder Theodore Baptized Orthodox? Was he made a Bishop in the Catacomb Church? Did he teach any heresy? Was he truly an ascetic? Was him joining the abbey providential? All important questions.

Not to mention those in our Jurisdiction consider him a Holy Elder and a confessor and we are True Orthodox Christians. So, it really doesn’t matter if you accept him or not. That’ll be on you, not us. If you feel comfortable calling a True confessor a False Elder that’s on you.

A reminder that many consider esphigmenou to be “headless” because they aren’t under any jurisdiction at the moment yet they have a True Orthodox Abbot. Is this acceptable historically?

It’s like saying St. Macarius the Great isn’t Orthodox because he wasn’t formally tied to any jurisdiction when he was living in the desert. It doesn’t hold up. The question is what joins someone to the Body of Christ? Is it strictly a jurisdiction? Do you have any evidence that he’s a false elder and supported ecumenist? Again, I’ll state this one more time which seems pointless at this point. The Abbey wasn’t with the MP when he was here. Everyone here wanted nothing to do with Sergianist and Ecumenist and that is still true to this day. Intent matters which seems to be lost in legalities.

If you look back at what I wrote, I never actually accused Elder Theodore of being a "false elder". I'm just not convinced that he was a confessor.

Secondly, I'm not viewing things "through the lens of the Matthewite situation in Greece". I'm Canadian.

Thirdly, I don't consider Archbishop Auxentius to be a valid bishop after he was deposed in 1985, and I don't consider any synod that was in communion with him after that point (like HOCNA) to be a canonical synod.

Fourthly, you mentioned that your Jurisdiction considers him a Holy Elder and a confessor, and that it doesn’t matter if I accept him or not. I would counter by saying that it doesn't matter if you accept him or not. There are plenty of True Orthodox saints in the twentieth century, and if I happen to miss one, it's not really a big deal. This is why we're supposed to wait a hundred years after someone reposes before we canonize them as a saint, because the closer we are to the time of their death, the more we tend to have disagreements over their sanctity, like the one you and I are having now.

[Suaidan]

If you look back at what I wrote, I never actually accused Elder Theodore of being a "false elder". I'm just not convinced that he was a confessor.

Secondly, I'm not viewing things "through the lens of the Matthewite situation in Greece". I'm Canadian.

Thirdly, I don't consider Archbishop Auxentius to be a valid bishop after he was deposed in 1985, and I don't consider any synod that was in communion with him after that point (like HOCNA) to be a canonical synod.

Fourthly, you mentioned that your Jurisdiction considers him a Holy Elder and a confessor, and that it doesn’t matter if I accept him or not. I would counter by saying that it doesn't matter if you accept him or not. There are plenty of True Orthodox saints in the twentieth century, and if I happen to miss one, it's not really a big deal. This is why we're supposed to wait a hundred years after someone reposes before we canonize them as a saint, because the closer we are to the time of their death, the more we tend to have disagreements over their sanctity, like the one you and I are having now.

"Whoa, Nelly!" Considering this is a thread called "Prayer of the Heart" in the "Document Library" forum and we're talking the 1985 Trial of Abp Auxentios among three or four other discussion landmines, I definitely feel like I am going to need to split posts here to keep the discussions relevant to the titles!