On December 12, 1986, Metropolitan Vitaly received formal notice from Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston that it had left the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR). Nine days earlier the metropolitan had fulfilled the ROCOR Synod’s recommendation by suspending both Abbot Panteleimon and Hieromonk Isaac and appointing a commission to complete an investigation. Holy Transfiguration Monastery charged that the investigating bishops had “waged a campaign of slander” against them, and further charged the Synod with Ecumenism and “doctrinal abuses.”
The influence of Holy Transfiguration Monastery was great among English-speaking parishes in the ROCOR, and Fr. Panteleimon was a spiritual father to many. Several parishes and clergy followed Fr. Panteleimon and left the ROCOR. They were accepted by Greek Old Calendar Bishops Akakias of Davlia and Gabriel of Cyclades, who previously had left the Synod of Archbishop Auxentius.
Prior to their departure from ROCOR, Fr. Panteleimon and the monastery were also involved with Fr. Seraphim (Rose; 1934-1982), the renowned hieromonk of the ROCOR. Based upon Fr. Seraphim’s remarks about Fr. Panteleimon and the Boston monastery, as well as subsequent statements found in his later letters, it has been suggested that he advocated a more moderate position after the mid-1970’s when he began to notice problems with the zealotry approach of Fr. Panteleimon at the Boston monastery. Afterwards his writings take on a more tempered tone. In fact, in a letter dated June 2/15, 1976, he reflected, “We fear that all our articles about ‘zealotry’ in the past years have helped to produce a monster!“
For Fr. Seraphim, the “zealotry” of Fr. Panteleimon and Holy Transfiguration Monastery, which resulted in leaving ROCOR for the Greek Old Calendarists, was not the royal path. In a letter from May 29/June 11, 1976, he predicted, “This is a terribly dangerous situation, and it seems inevitable that unless our Greeks change the tone of their ‘zealotry,’ it is only a matter of time until they leave us.” He also wrote, “We do not wish to judge Fr. Panteleimon or any of the ‘zealots,’ including the Mathewites; but it is clear that our path cannot be with them.” Nonetheless, Fr. Seraphim’s letters are full of positive remarks toward the Old Calendarists, and he was not one to call them schismatics and heretics. He believed the Old Calendarists could help to avoid some mistakes “on the right side.” From the same letter cited above, Dr. Kalomiros seemed to Fr. Seraphim to be the “most moderate and sensible of the Old Calendarists with whom we have any contact.”
Today a new book was released entitled Saint Seraphim Rose on the Old Calendarists: From 1962-1982. According to the description, the volume shows that Fr. Seraphim “consistently recognized the Old Calendarist synods as canonical Orthodox Christians, … as did his Holy Synod.” At the same time, Fr. Seraphim and the ROCOR Synod, unlike the Old Calendarists, never formally broke communion with “World Orthodoxy” (with a few exceptions). As a priest ordained in ROCOR in 1985 and who in 2001 joined the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece (GOC), Fr. Steven Allen is another interesting point of reference. He acknowledges: “From the start, one needs to recognize that the ROCOR never formally broke communion with any jurisdiction of World Orthodoxy except the Moscow Patriarchate, the Evlogian Parisian schism, and the North American Metropolia/OCA schism, i.e., the other Russian groups.”
It was for this very reason of ROCOR not breaking communion with “World Orthodoxy” that some Old Calendarists separated from ROCOR. In 1974, for example, the Greek Old calendar “Matthewite” Synod formally cut off all communion with the ROCOR, because the latter refused to condemn all those who follow the new calendar as schismatics devoid of Grace. The “Matthewite” Synod later repudiated ROCOR’s corrections of their consecrations in 1971. In September of 1975, ROCOR decreed to refrain from all concelebrations with Greek Old Calendar clergy from all factions until unity could be achieved in Greece. In 1993, the ROCOR under Metropolitan Vitaly reaffirmed its 1975 decision.
As a member of ROCOR, neither did Fr. Seraphim officially break communion with “World Orthodoxy.” Referencing the dangers of the Ecumenical movement, Fr. Seraphim spoke of the two extremes being Ecumenism and zealotry. This moderate position was also represented by the bishops of the ROCOR. On the one hand, ROCOR bishops established ecclesiastical communion with Old Calendarist groups over the course of history, but on the other hand, ROCOR bishops “have refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox churches who are involved in the Ecumenical Movement” in the words of Fr. Seraphim, and “have never officially broken communion with Constantinople and do not want to.” This he said even after the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted the 1054 Anathema against unrepentant Rome in 1965.
In a lecture from August 9, 1979, Fr. Seraphim defined the moderate position of ROCOR bishops as follows: “Thus, our Russian Church Abroad suffers attacks both from the left side (from ecumenists who accuse us of being uncharitable, behind the times, and all those things which up-to-date modern people are not supposed to be) and from the right side (by groups in especially Greece that demand that we break communion with all other Orthodox Churches and declare them to be without grace).”
Sources:
Fr. Seraphim (Rose), Letters from Father Seraphim: From the Twelve-year Correspondence Between Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) and Father Alexey Young (Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society, 2001).
Fr. Seraphim (Rose), Letters from 1961-1982.
Fr. Seraphim (Rose), “Orthodox Christians Facing the 1980s,” lecture August 9, 1979.
Fr. Steven Allen, “The Demise of ROCOR, the Synod of Metropolitan Agathangel, and the Ecclesiology of the Cyprianite ‘Synod in Resistance.’” Originally posted on "Ekklisiastikos.”
Subdeacon Nektarios Harrison, The Russian Orthodox Church Abraod & The Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece: A History (Orthodox Traditionalist, 2023).
Monk Benjamin (Gomartely), “Timeline of the Orthodox Church 1917-1998.” ROCOR Studies.
***
Below are relevant excerpts of Fr. Seraphim (Rose) which are compiled from his letters and transcribed from a lecture:
This whole quarrel among the Greek Old Calendarists is very unfortunate. Besides involving personalities, which only clouds things, the real issues involved are very subtle and delicate ones that require much tact and patience and love, not theological and canonical tirades. (Letter March 2/15, 1974)
The two sides quote canons back and forth, when what is needed is love and understanding – and that statement, I realize, could have come straight from the lips of some ecumenist, which only shows how difficult the true path of Orthodoxy has become in our days. (Letter April 24/May 7, 1974)
The end of our “Greek adventure” [The Holy Transfiguration Monastery under Fr. Panteleimon] seems near! We only grieve for the scandal and divisions which the vainglory of our Greeks is causing. Our poor American mission! How the OCA and the Greek Archdiocese will laugh! (Letter Oct. 2/15, 1975)
You should be allowed to receive Holy Communion in San Francisco after simply going to confession. There is no special rite for receiving people from the Greek Archdiocese, because our Russian Church Abroad has not made any declaration officially breaking off communion with them nor declaring that their sacraments are without grace; all that has been done was a statement strongly discouraging our people from being in communion with the Greek Archdiocese. (Letter Nov. 7/20, 1975)
I fear that our new Orthodox Word, with its attempt (in the introduction to Metr. Philaret’s epistle on the “Thyateira Confession”) to give the actual thinking of our bishops on questions of “breaking communion”—will be another of those “theoretical” points with which Dr. Kalomiros will disagree. I am sure that our “Greeks” will blast us for it, because they do not want it even to be known that our bishops have never officially broken communion with Constantinople and do not want to. But we cannot insist that we know better than our bishops in a sphere which it is their business to know. If we still have the “feel” of Orthodoxy (and we pray that we will not lose it in the difficult days ahead of us)—it is because we have trusted and loved those bishops and older priests who have handed the faith down to us and have not thought that we can teach them. If on some points we have “theoretical” differences with some bishops, this has not broken the bond of trust and love, and we would not presume to publicly declare such differences. But Fr. Panteleimon, quite frankly, thinks that he is called to teach our bishops, even to the point of publicly rebuking our Metropolitan (as he did at a banquet in 1974). With this we cannot agree, and we would indeed fear to lose the savor of Orthodoxy if we believed we knew better than all our bishops and elders. (Letter May 29/June 11, 1976)
[I]t is obviously only a matter of time before they [in Boston] 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 Orthodox Word that we have not broken with them—we will just have to get an Open Letter for that! “Zealotry” is definitely in the air now, 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 go from here?
We cannot follow the line of “Boston Orthodoxy”—which is actually a kind of right wing of “Parisian Orthodoxy”—a “reformed” Orthodoxy which happens to be mostly “correct,” but is actually just as much outside the tradition of Orthodoxy as is Paris, just as much the creation of human logic. A terrible temptation for our times—but most of the converts will probably be drawn into it. The rest of us will remain with our “simple” and “unsophisticated” and “theologically inept” Russian bishops. 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. (Letter June 2/15,1976)
What should be our response to this [Ecumenical] movement towards watering down the Faith and uniting it with the Western confessions? Fortunately, our bishops in the Russian Church Outside of Russia have given us a sound policy to follow: we do not participate in the Ecumenical Movement, and our Metropolitan [Philaret] has warned other Orthodox churches of the disastrous results of their ecumenical course if they continue it, but at the same time our bishops have refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox churches who are involved in the Ecumenical Movement, recognizing that it is still a tendency that has not yet come to its conclusion—which is the union with Rome—and that (at least in the case of the Moscow Patriarchate and other churches behind the Iron Curtain) Ecumenism is a political policy which is forced upon the Church by secular authorities.
Thus, our Russian Church Abroad suffers attacks both from the left side (from ecumenists who accuse us of being uncharitable, behind the times, and all those things which up-to-date modern people are not supposed to be) and from the right side (by groups in especially Greece that demand that we break communion with all other Orthodox Churches and declare them to be without grace).
If one looks at the state of the Orthodox Church in Greece, we can see there the Ecumenical Movement has produced a reaction which has often become excessive, and sometimes is almost as bad as the disease it seeks to cure. The more moderate of the Old Calendar groups in Greece—those who are broken off from the mainline Church of Athens and Constantinople—has a position very similar to that of our Russian Church Abroad. But among these Old Calendarists there have been schism after schism over the question of strictness….
A few years ago one of these groups excommunicated our Russian Church Abroad because our bishops refused to declare that all other Orthodox Churches are without grace. This group now declares that since 1924 only it has grace, and only it is Orthodox. Recently this group has attracted a few converts from our Russian Church Abroad. So we should be aware that this attitude is a danger to some of us American and European converts: with our calculating, rationalistic Western minds it is very easy to think we are being zealous and strict, when actually we are chiefly indulging our passion for self-righteousness.
One Old Calendarist bishop in Greece has written to us that incalculable harm has been done to the Orthodox Church in Greece by what he calls the “correctness disease,” when people quote the canons, the Fathers, the Typicon in order to prove they are correct…. Correctness can truly become a disease when it is administered without love and tolerance and awareness of one’s own imperfect understanding. Such a correctness only produces continual schisms, and in the end it only helps the Ecumenical Movement by reducing the witness of sound Orthodoxy. ("Orthodox Christians Facing the 1980s", A lecture given at the St. Herman Summer Pilgrimage, Platina, CA, August 9, 1979)
I think the jurisdictional problem is not really as big as it may seem to you right now. While there are some in our Russian Church Abroad (most notably the Greeks you have come to us from the Greek Archdiocese and “overreacted” to the whole situation) who want to make the Synod the exclusive and only Orthodox body left in the world, the prevailing opinion in our Church is not at all so exclusivistic. I think the realization is increasing among us that we must speak for and to all Orthodox who want to preserve their Orthodoxy, and that we should be slow in drawing absolute lines between jurisdictions. There is still a measure of partial communion between us and the other jurisdictions: for the most part there is no clergy concelebration (although even this does exist to some degree in a few places), but there is a good amount of communion on the lay level, usually left up to the discretion of the local priest. This whole attitude presupposes that there is indeed grace in the Mysteries of the “canonical” jurisdictions, and that the heresies of a few hierarchs have not yet completely infected their Churches. Our refusal to have full communion with the other jurisdictions comes from the need to make a basic distinction between the disastrous, even suicidal path they are following, and our own attempt to stand in the truth and keep the tradition….
As an example of our own attitude to other jurisdictions: your idea for us to have a “retreat” for students at the University presents no real problem for us. We could have Vigil and Liturgy and a series of talks under only one condition: that we not have to concelebrate with clergy of any other jurisdiction. We could give confession and communion to any Orthodox person, although here at the monastery we would be more restrictive and would treat each case separately. Our talks at such a “retreat” (actually we should have a better name for it!) would not concern jurisdictions (although we could answer any questions people might have about them). Actually, we would love to have such a weekend there, and I am sure our Archbishop would bless it….
Regarding the OCA and our Russian Church Abroad: I think it is frankly impossible for you to hope to change the OCA; it is only individuals and small groups there that can really hope to escape the main current of modernism, ecumenism, etc. But I can't tell you: “Come to the Synod and all your problems will be solved.” You should be aware that we have our own problems and politics too, before you make this decision. Actually, our main problem is not “fanaticism” (regarding other jurisdictions as heretical, or without grace, etc.)—this is a minority view which most of us don’t accept, and it only hinders the preaching of the Orthodox Gospel in America. The main problem I think you would find is the un-missionary attitude of many of our parishes, which are satisfied just to keep their Russians and don’t reach out to others. (Letter, Jan. 24/Feb. 6, 1981)
We, of course, are already guilty of many “sins” with which Fr. R castigates our Church — worst of all (I suppose), the giving of Communion to New Calendarists. I can see how each priest should be free to do as he thinks best on this question, but for us, I see that we must open ourselves to all the Orthodox who aren’t being helped by their own bishops and priests. Recently, we were visited by another Antiochian priest (from Los Angeles), and just the fact of our friendship is a source of strength which helps them to struggle more themselves. What the end will be, jurisdictionally speaking, I don’t know. But we must have the image of the Russian Church Abroad adjusted away from the “fanatic party line,” which up to now has tried to take over — and whose failure now is becoming evident. (Nov. 22/Dec. 5, 1981, Letters From Father Seraphim p. 227)