The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church

[Unseen.Warfare]

The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church
first edition, 1983
Preface

This little study of Blessed Augustine is presented here in book form at the request of a number of Orthodox Christians who read it in its original form in The Orthodox Word (nos. 79 and 80, 1978) and found it to have a message for the Orthodox Christians of today. It can make no claim to completeness as a study of the theology of Blessed Augustine; only one theological issue (grace and free will) is treated here in detail, while the rest of "the study is chiefly historical. If it has any value, it is in revealing the attitude of the Orthodox Church to Blessed Augustine over the centuries; and in trying to define his place in the Orthodox Church, we have perhaps thrown some light on the problem of being Orthodox in our contemporary world, where the feeling and savor of true Orthodox Christianity are so rarely encountered among Orthodox theologians. While setting forth the Orthodox attitude towards Blessed Augustine, the author has also had in mind to remove him as a "scapegoat" for today's academic theologians and thus to help free us all to see his and our own weaknesses in a little clearer light – for his weaknesses, to a surprising degree, are indeed close to our own.

These weaknesses of ours were vividly brought out for the author not long after the publication of the original study, when he met a Russian, a recent emigrant from the Soviet Union, who had become converted to Orthodoxy in Russia but still understood much of it in terms of the Eastern religious views which he had long held. For him Blessed Augustine also was a kind of scapegoat; he was accused of mistranslating and misunderstanding Hebrew terms, of teaching wrongly about "original sin," etc. Well, yes, one cannot deny that Blessed Augustine applied his over-logicalness to this doctrine also and taught a distorted view of the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin – a view, once more, not so much "un-Orthodox" as narrow and incomplete. Augustine virtually denied that man has any goodness or freedom in himself and he thought that each man is responsible for the guilt of Adam's sin in addition to sharing its consequences; Orthodox theology sees these views as one-sided exaggerations of the true Christian teaching.

However, the deficiencies of Augustine's doctrine were made by this Russian emigrant into an excuse for setting forth a most un-Orthodox teaching of man's total freedom from ancestral sin. Some one-sided criticisms of Augustine's teaching on original sin even among more Orthodox thinkers have led to similar exaggerations, resulting in unnecessary confusions among Orthodox believers: some writers are so much "against" Augustine that they leave the impression that Pelagius was perhaps, after all, an Orthodox teacher (despite the Church's condemnation of him); others delight in shocking readers by declaring that the doctrine of original sin is a "heresy."

Such over-reactions to the exaggerations of Augustine are worse than the errors they think to correct. In such cases Blessed Augustine becomes, not merely a "scapegoat" on which one loads all possible theological errors, justly or unjustly, but something even more dangerous: an excuse for an elitist philosophy of the superiority of "Eastern wisdom" over everything “Western." According to this philosophy, not only Augustine himself, but also everyone under any kind of "Western influence," including many of the eminent Orthodox theologians of recent centuries, does not "really understand" Orthodox doctrine and must be taught by the present-day exponents of the “patristic revival." Bishop Theophan the Recluse, the great 19th-century Russian Father, is often especially singled out for abuse in this regard: because he used some expressions borrowed from the West, and even translated some Western books (even while changing them to remove all un-Orthodox ideas) since he saw that the spiritually impoverished Orthodox people could benefit from such books (in this he was only following the earlier example of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain) – our present-day "elitists" try to discredit him by smearing him with the name of "scholastic." The further implication of these criticisms is clear: if such great Orthodox teachers as Blessed Augustine and Bishop Theophan cannot be trusted, then how much less can the rest of us ordinary Orthodox Christians understand the complexities of Orthodox doctrine? The "true doctrine" of the Church must be so subtle that it can "really" be understood only by the few who have theological degrees from the modernist Orthodox academies where the “patristic revival" is in full bloom, or are otherwise certified as "genuinely patristic" thinkers.

Yet, a strange self-contradiction besets this “patristic elite": their language, their tone, their whole approach to such questions – are so very Western (sometimes even “jesuitical"!) that one is astonished at their blindness in trying to criticize what is obviously so much a part of themselves.

The "Western" approach to theology, the over-logicalness from which, yes, Blessed Augustine (but not Bishop Theophan) did suffer, the over-reliance on the deductions of our fallible mind – is so much a part of every man living today that it is simply foolishness to pretend that it is a problem of someone else and not of ourselves first and foremost. If only we all had even a part of that deep and true Orthodoxy of the heart (to borrow an expression of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk) which Blessed Augustine and Bishop Theophan both possessed to a superlative degree, we would be much less inclined to exaggerate their errors and faults, real or imagined.

Let the correctors of Augustine's teaching continue their work if they will; but let them do it with more charity, more compassion, more Orthodoxy, more understanding of the fact that Blessed Augustine is in the same heaven towards which we all are striving, unless we wish to deny the Orthodoxy of all those Fathers who regarded him as an Orthodox Saint, from the early Fathers of Gaul through Sts. Photius of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, Demetrius of Rostov, to our recent and present teachers of Orthodoxy, headed by Archbishop John Maximovitch. At the least, it is impolite and presumptuous to speak disrespectfully of a Father whom the Church and her Fathers have loved and glorified. Our "correctness" – even if it is really as "correct" as we may think it is – can be no excuse for such disrespect. Those Orthodox Christians who even now continue to express their understanding of grace and ancestral sin in a language influenced by Blessed Augustine are not deprived of the Church's grace; let those who are more "correct" than they in their understanding fear to lose this grace through pride.

Since the original publication of this study there has been a Roman Catholic response to it: we have been accused of trying to “steal” Blessed Augustine from the Latins! No: Blessed Augustine has always belonged to the Orthodox Church, which alone has properly evaluated both his errors and his greatness. Let Roman Catholics think what they will of him, but we have only tried to point out the place he has always held in the Orthodox Church and in the hearts of Orthodox believers. By the prayers of the holy Hierarch Augustine and of all Thy Saints, O Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us! Amen.

Hieromonk Seraphim
Pascha, 1980

[Unseen.Warfare]

B409E3C7-3299-4ABA-9C9E-1B37BE3A6963.jpeg (58.27 KiB) Viewed 3264 times

Sept. 29/Oct. 12, 1975

St. Cyriacus

Dear Father Igor [Kapral], Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Forgive me, but we have another request for you, this one a more important one. Could you possibly go to Fr. Michael Pomazansky and obtain for us replies to the questions on the enclosed sheet? We’ve tried for a long time to get a brief biography of him, but to no avail—he’s just too humble! Could you help us? It’s not for his glory, but only to help us poor strugglers to keep contact with our Orthodox theological tradition.
Concerning books—could you tell us if the Vologda Patericon is in the library?
Now, something at last that is not a request, but an expression of our deep concern over our present-day Orthodox mission. Fr. Neketas Palassis in his latest Witness again makes a self- assured and quite unfounded attack on Blessed Augustine. Everyone knows of the erroneous doctrine of Blessed Augustine on grace—but why this “fundamentalist” attempt to destroy entirely someone who has never in Orthodox tradition been denied a place among the Fathers of the Church? Fr. Theodoritos, doubtless speaking for other zealots in Greece and on the Holy Mountain, writes us that of course he accepts Augustine as a Saint, because St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain does. Our Vladika John had a service written to him and had great devotion for him. St. Nikodemos put him in our Eastern Calendar (much as Vladika John put St. Patrick there), and our Russian 19th-century Fathers followed him. The Fifth Ecumenical Council ranks Augustine as a theological authority on the same level as Sts. Basil, Gregory and John Chrysostom, with no qualification. The contemporaries of Augustine who disagreed with him (St. Vincent of Lerins, St. John Cassian) corrected his teaching without mentioning his name out of respect, far less calling him a “heretic.” His other contemporaries, including great Fathers, always addressed him with the utmost respect. The universal Orthodox tradition accepts him as an undoubted Holy Father, although with a flaw in this teaching—rather like St. Gregory of Nyssa in the East. Whence, then, this strangely “Protestant” campaign to declare Blessed Augustine a heretic, and to utterly condemn anyone who disagrees with this? This greatly disturbs us, not so much for the sake of Blessed Augustine (who, after all, is a Father of less weight than many others), but because it reveals a very unhealthy “party” spirit which threatens the whole English- speaking Orthodox mission. Fr. Neketas as much as says: If you do not believe exactly as Fr. Panteleimon believes, you are not Orthodox! If you recommend a 19th- century catechism (as Vladika John always did to converts) you are a Larin; if you read Unseen Warfare you are under Latin influence; if you refuse to believe in evolution (!), you are under Western influence!!!
We share our concern with you, because we are really being discouraged by this unhealthy attitude, which is really pobocto pelo pazzny. [?] We and others have tried gently to communicate with Fr. Neketas and Fr. Panteleimon about such things, but the impression is that no communication is possible; on every subject they are “right,” they are the “experts,” and no other opinion is possible. You know how from the beginning we have supported the “Greeks” in our Synod, and it is really out of despair for the future that we tell you of our concern.
We are in correspondence with Dr. Alexander Kalomiros in Greece, who himself writes us despairing letters concerning the actions of Fr. Panteleimon in Greece (without the blessing or knowledge of his own bishop) in favor of the Mathewite schism, which Dr. Kalomiros calls real “fanaticism and legalism.” Fr. Panteleimon has offended and made enemies of Archimandrite Kyprian and other zealots in Greece, and has entirely cut off Dr. Kalomiros who recently wrote us that we are the only ones in America who will even write to him. Dr. Kalomiros believes Fr. Panteleimon and those with him have fallen into “group pride,” and he thinks the recent burning of their church in Boston is God’s mercy to them, sent in order to wake them up for the sake of their good deeds for Orthodoxy in the past. He believes Fr. Panteleimon is very gifted and remarkable, although he does not have a Greek soul, but an American soul, which is why he is not able to have rapport with true Greeks, as opposed to Greek Americans. (I don’t know for sure about all that, but that is what Dr. Kalomiros says, and he is quite sensitive about such things.)
We ourselves know at first hand how several years ago, Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Neketas put very cruel pressure on Alexey Young, evidently trying to stop him altogether from printing Nikodemos, merely because of articles against evolution and for the Shroud of Turin, and also because Alexey resisted their pressures to force him to go through their censorship. Has our Orthodoxy in America become so narrow that we must be under the dictation of a “pope-expert” and we must accept a “party-line” on every conceivable subject? This is against everything Vladika John taught and did in missionary labors.
Already the rumor was spread through the Greek Archdiocese that Fr. Panteleimon is about to “go to some strange Old Calendar jurisdiction,” and it does seem that the false zeal which Fr. Neketas sometimes reveals is already pointing in that direction. Fr. Panteleimon’s recent act regarding Vladika Averky and Bishop Petros has already cost him some supporters of long standing, and we only pray that the stern but loving letter of our own Archbishop Anthony to him has cause him to stop and think where his path is leading. (Vladika Anthony forbade him to come to the San Francisco Archdiocese until he begs forgiveness of Archbishop Averky—not over the question of Bishop Petros, but over the crudeness and untraditional way of “breaking off communion.”)
Please forgive us for burdening you with all this. We would very much like to know your thoughts with regard to any of this. Is there any way that our “Greeks” can be persuaded to be less reckless? There seems to be no one from the “Russians” for whom they have any respect,— everyone is under “Western influence.” (This is Schmemannism!) How can they be made to see, before it is too late, that we should all be humble and not think much of our own “theology,” that we are all perhaps under “Western influences” of various sorts (this is very evident in the case of Fr. Neketas himself), but that this should not exclude us from Orthodoxy, as long as we are struggling to understand the truth.
We ask your prayers for us. With love in Christ,

Seraphim, Monk

P.s. A final request: Is it possible to obtain a copy of part of the Russian manuscript of the book by Butakov on the Shroud of Turin—the one from which the Russian and English booklets were made? We have in mind not the scientific parts, but only the parts containing historical and iconographical evidence, which according to the introduction was much abridged or omitted in the printed version. We are very much interested in a sober and objective investigation of the Shroud according to Orthodox sources—until such a thing is done, we hesitate to give full acceptance to it, despite the impressive scientific argument. The argument of Fr. Neketas that it is “unknown” in Orthodox tradition seems not to be backed up by any investigation at all of even the traditional evidence that has been offered so far. The Shroud, if it is genuine, could have a very powerful influence on faith in the USSR—-precisely because the religious level there is so primitive and in need of some kind of “scientific evidence” to combat the influence of decades of “scientific atheism.” See, for example, the new book
189.



June 13/26, 1981

St. Tryphillius of Cyprus

Dear Father Michael [Azkoul], Christ is in our midst!

Thank you for your letter. I am frankly happy to see someone with your views on Blessed Augustine willing to do something besides hit him (and all of us who have any respect for him) over the head.
You ask for cooperation on what seems to be a “thorough study” of Bl. Augustine. I really wonder about the value of such a study—for someone who wishes to expose the source of “Western influence” in Orthodox theology, this detailed analysis itself seems so terribly Western!
If your attempt is to find our Augustine’s real place in the Orthodox Church, I think your approach is all wrong. It assumes that “we moderns” are the ones who can do this—that we can “know better” than anyone in the Orthodox past. I don’t think so. I have a deep distrust of all of us who are writing on theological subjects today—we are more under “Western influence” than anyone before, and the less we are aware of it, the more obnoxious our “Westernism” becomes. Our whole cold, academic, and often disdainfiil approach to theology is so remote from the Fathers, so foreign to them. Let us admit this and try not to be so presumptuous (I speak for myself also).
I have no time (and probably not the sources) to find out how much St. Photios.or St. Mark read of Bl. Augustine. I would suspect that St. Photios had read rather little apart from the texts under dispute, and St. Mark probably more (in fact, St. Mark can probably be shown to be under Augustine’s “influence” in some way if you search hard enough!—his disciple Gennadius, after all, was the translator of Thomas Aquinas into Greek). Undoubtedly their respect for Augustine was based on the general respect for him in the Church, especially in the West from the very beginning.
And this brings up the only real question I think you might fruitfully research: what did the Western Church think of Blessed Augustine in the centuries when it was Orthodox? The West knew him as one of their own Fathers; it knew his writings well, including the disputes over them. What did the Western Fathers who were linked with the East think of him? We know St. Cassian’s opinion—he challenged (politely) Augustine’s teaching on grace while accepting his authority on other questions. St. Vincent of Lerins’ argument is more with the immoderate followers of Augustine. In neither case was there talk of “heresy,” or of someone who was totally un-Orthodox. St. Faustus of Lerins—if anyone, he should be an enemy of Augustine, but the evidence seems to the contrary. St. Caesarius of Arles, St. Gregory the Great—admirers of Augustine, while not following his exaggerations on grace. I don’t mention some of the enthusiastic followers of Augustine.
There is room for research here in Latin sources, but no research can overthrow the obvious fact (it seems to me)—the Orthodox West accepted him as a Father. If he’s really a “heretic,” then doesn’t the whole West go down the drain with him? I’m sure you can find enough signs of “Western mentality” in Gregory the Great, for example, to disqualify him as a Father and Saint in the eyes of many of today’s Orthodox scholars—he also is accepted in the East on the basis of his general reputation in the West, and on the basis of his Dialogues (which I’m sure a few would now question as having a right to be called an Orthodox book).

think the "heresy hunt" over Augustine reveals at least two major faults in todays Orthodox scholars who are pursuing it:

1. A profound insecurity over their own Orthodoxy, born of the uncertainties of our times, the betrayal of ecumenism, and their own purely Western education. Here Augustine is a
   "scapegoat" hit him hard enough and it proves how Orthodox you yourself really are!
   2. An incipient sectarian consciousness in attacking Augustine so bitterly, one not only attacks the whole Orthodox West of the early centuries, but also a great many Orthodox thinkers of recent centuries and today. I could name you bishops in our Church who think like Augustine on a number of points are they, then, "heretics" too? I think some of our anti-Augustinians are coming close to this conclusion, and thus close to schism and the formation of an "Orthodox" sect that prides itself on the correctness of its intellectual views. A number of people have already left our Russian Church Abroad for the Mathewites after being infected with this consciousness (not just over the issue of Augustine the Mathewites are more pro- Augustine than anyone in our Church but over the whole idea of "intellectual correctness* as an ideal).
   I myself am no great admirer of Augustine's doctrines. He does indeed have that Western
   "super-logicalness" which the Eastern Fathers don't have (the same "super-logicalness" which the critics of Augustine today display so abundantly!). The one main lovable and Orthodox thing about him is his Orthodox feeling, piety, love for Christ, which comes out so strongly in his non-dogmatic works like the Confessions (the Russian Fathers also love the Soliloquies). To destroy Augustine, as today's critics are trying to do, is to help destroy also this piety and love for Christ these are too "simple" for today's intellectuals (even though they also claim to be "pious" in their own way). Today it is Augustine: tomorrow (and it's already begun) the attack will be on the "simple" bishops and priests of our Church. The anti-Augustine movement is a step towards schism and further disorders in the Orthodox Church.
   Let us assume that one's exegesis of Romans 5:12 is incorrect; that one believes like Augustine on the transmission of original sin; that one knows little of the difference between the "transcendent" and the "economic" Trinity and sometimes confuses them. Can't one still be Orthodox? Does one have to shout so loudly one's "correctness" on such matters, and one's disdain (and this disdain is strongly felt!) for those who believe thus? In the history of the Church, opinions such as these which disagree with the consensus of the Church have not been a cause for heresy hunts. Recognizing our fallible human nature, the Fathers of the past have kept the best Orthodox views and left in silence such private views which have not tried to proclaim themselves the only Orthodox views.
   I myself fear the cold hearts of the "intellectually correct" much more than any errors you might find in Augustine. I sense in these cold hearts a preparation for the work of Antichrist (whose imitation of Christ must also extend to "correct theology*!); I feel in Augustine the love of Christ.
   Forgive me for my frankness, but I think you probably welcome it. I have spoken from the heart, and I hope you will not pass this letter around so it can be put in various "files" and picked apart for its undoubted shortcomings.

May God preserve us all in His grace! Please pray for us. With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. An important point I didn’t specify in the letter above—the extreme criticism of Augustine show such a lack of trust in the Orthodox Fathers and bishops of the past who accepted him as a Father (including the whole Orthodox West before the Schism). This lack of trust is a symptom of the coldness of heart of our times.

[ByzantophileTheodore]

Great information here. Minor question: why is he called here Blessed Augustine and not Saint Augustine?

In Slavonic and Greek, the words for “Saint” (Russian Святой, Greek Agios) mean literally “Blessed”. It’s the same for Sanctus, the Latin word from where “Saint” derives means the same. I’ve seen some WO people (usually Romanideans) try to imply a distinction between a Blessed and a Saint in Orthodoxy. It seems like a modern distinction or something conflated from Catholicism to Orthodoxy (as the legalistic Vatican has a stage of sainthood where the person is called “Blessed” and is not canonized)

[SavaBeljovic]

Great information here. Minor question: why is he called here Blessed Augustine and not Saint Augustine?

In Slavonic and Greek, the words for “Saint” (Russian Святой, Greek Agios) mean literally “Blessed”. It’s the same for Sanctus, the Latin word from where “Saint” derives means the same. I’ve seen some WO people (usually Romanideans) try to imply a distinction between a Blessed and a Saint in Orthodoxy. It seems like a modern distinction or something conflated from Catholicism to Orthodoxy (as the legalistic Vatican has a stage of sainthood where the person is called “Blessed” and is not canonized)

In the 19th and 20th century it became common to refer to people who were not yet glorified as "blagoslavit" or Blessed in Russia especially, used in the same way as it is in the Roman Catholic church with beatification (though more so done popular veneration by the people rather than an institutional thing like the Vatican does).

[eish]

In the 19th and 20th century it became common to refer to people who were not yet glorified as "blagoslavit" or Blessed in Russia especially, used in the same way as it is in the Roman Catholic church with beatification (though more so done popular veneration by the people rather than an institutional thing like the Vatican does).

But it is also common among some Orthodox to use "Blessed" simply as a synonym of "Saint."

[ByzantophileTheodore]

Great information here. Minor question: why is he called here Blessed Augustine and not Saint Augustine?

In Slavonic and Greek, the words for “Saint” (Russian Святой, Greek Agios) mean literally “Blessed”. It’s the same for Sanctus, the Latin word from where “Saint” derives means the same. I’ve seen some WO people (usually Romanideans) try to imply a distinction between a Blessed and a Saint in Orthodoxy. It seems like a modern distinction or something conflated from Catholicism to Orthodoxy (as the legalistic Vatican has a stage of sainthood where the person is called “Blessed” and is not canonized)

In the 19th and 20th century it became common to refer to people who were not yet glorified as "blagoslavit" or Blessed in Russia especially, used in the same way as it is in the Roman Catholic church with beatification (though more so done popular veneration by the people rather than an institutional thing like the Vatican does).

I see brother. It seems to me an area for potential confusion, especially as many of our people (myself included) converted from Catholicism and Romanideans today would lead one to believe that Orthodoxy holds a lesser view of Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine’s canonization is confirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which lists him as a Church Father comparable to Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Basil the Great.

I will make a caveat to my previous comment. I don’t agree with the OP’s characterization of Fr. Panteleimon. In my view, Fr. Seraphim did not hold such a negative opinion of HTM and Fr. Panteleimon as one might think from certain letters simply taken by themselves. Unseen and I have had heated conversations about this subject, and it is not my intention to re-hash those in length. One can oppose the neo-Pelagianism of the Romanideans without trying to pin it all on HTM and Fr. Panteleimon, who is described as the devil incarnate for decades by people like Gregory of Denver. In my humble opinion if we condemn HTM as heretics from those days of old ROCOR, we also in doing so condemn Saint Philaret of New York and our own Russian Church as tolerating heresy. It is no secret that Saint Philaret generally supported HTM and often visited them despite criticizing some of their ‘hot takes’.

In my admittedly short three years in True Orthodoxy, I’ve found that it is all too easy to fall into an attitude of constant fingerpointing and aggressive polemics. I’ve been guilty of it at times. Everyone generally has. It is not my wish to defend the present leadership of HOCNA (especially given the unclear confession regarding nameworship), but to write off HTM from the beginning as heretics is to is to deny a historical stronghold of True Orthodoxy on the American continent (and there weren’t many strongholds by any means).

Rant over.

[Unseen.Warfare]

I’m not taking the letters out of context if I’m posting on the book he wrote and the letters explains the main reason the book was written. In the letter above he says they did many great things. I’ve never disputed Saint Philaret and Fr. Seraphim being on good terms with HTM at one time. I feel like and I felt like this before. That you think I’m not aware of the full context of that relationship. I’ve read the letters. These are later on in that relationship. Equating me with Greg of Colorado like you did in the past because I pointed out the super correctness of HTM as time went on… Such as rejecting the Tollhouses and St. Augustine. Claiming these things were “Latin/Western influence” When in reality rejecting Saint Augustine and the Tollhouses is a Western influence. I paraphrased these letters in the past and you took that like I was “demonizing” them and changed the topic to earlier letters as if that somehow changes these. It’s a revisionist mentality that thinks it’s being traditional and it doesn’t help anyone to sweep that under the rug. Greg of Colorado has also spoken on Roman Catholics. Is everyone who speaks on Roman Catholics Greg of Colorado? You used his name to tarnish the truth I presented of these letters and it’s fully false piety when you act like I’m finger pointing when I’m really just pointing out a historical fact that can be read in Fr. Seraphim’s letters.

Let me remind you why we were having that discussion in the first place. Someone was saying the Monks at Esphigmenou Monastery were at fault for the current persecution they were going through because “they don’t have a bishop and they left the GOC-k.”

“While the Athonite monasteries have protested such activity by ceasing to commemorate the Patriarch in the Divine services several times in recent decades, the Esphigmenou brotherhood has gone further by joining a schismatic, Old Calendarist jurisdiction.“— https://orthochristian.com/161818.html

Even though this current article is claiming them joining a “Schismatic Old Calendarist Jurisdiction” is apart of the reason they are being persecuted. Terrible time to take that position and I believe it’s rooted in a super correct mentality that fails to see the reason they are being persecuted is because of the heretical EP hates these True Confessors.

Someone was denying the Tollhouses as not being a dogma. They aren’t in the realm of dogma.

“I would disagree with only one point in your letter: I do not believe that I have presented the toll- houses as a dogma in my articles. I don’t think they really are a theologoumenon either, because they don’t belong properly to the sphere of dogma at all (except as they touch on the doctrine of the Particular Judgment), but rather belong to the Orthodox ascetic teaching and Orthodox piety. It would never occur to me to make belief in or even awareness of the toll-houses into a condition for baptism; but I would certainly expect that as a person goes deeper in the faith and reads the ascetic texts and Lives of Saints he would become acquainted with them and accept them as a matter of course. My articles have been meant as an attempt to facilitate this, whereas Deacon Lev’s articles, it seems to me, are an attempt to persuade people not to read this Orthodox literature as somehow harmful to a person’s Orthodoxy or state of soul.“— Fr. Seraphim Rose: Letter 287.
May 23/June 5, 1980

The Third argument was over HTM and HOCNA. I won’t go into detail about that because it’s partially already been covered. You can find something I wrote on the forum entitled “Super Correct” for more on that.