[AmericaAirline 111]

I do not wish to be confrontational in this matter, but reading about an elder, a saint or simple pious monk is not the same as confession to one or attending the Divine Liturgy when the latter serves.

You are, of course, correct, Fr. Seraphim, that reading his writings is not nearly as good as receiving the Living Tradition directly from his own mouth, in the sacrament of holy confession; or through participation in his liturgical ministry. Unfortunately, the elder reposed in Christ before I was even aware of Orthodoxy. The Lord knows, though, how I wish I had known him in person.

On the other hand, however, reading the elder's own writings is not quite the same as reading about him through "secondary" sources. We should not lose sight of the fact that he continues to live and speak to us, in a very real sense, not only from the other side of the veil, or through his spiritual progeny, but through his own writings! Which we must strive to reconcile with his unwritten transmission of the Faith.

Nor should we necessarily devalue "secondary" sources either, especially those which have been produced of late by his faithful sons in Christ, who have acquired the life and mind of the elder, through a direct and personal transmission, from father to son. The father lives in his sons, and all those who love the father must also love the sons; and in truth, their deep and genuine love of the father is manifested in their love for his filial offspring.

Fr Sophrony - to whom I owe much - had his own ideas as far as the Liturgy was served - i.e no royal doors, a curtain that was drawn completely aside (like a stage curtain) and other liturgical practices one could not find on the Holy Mountain where Fr Sophrony was raised in spiritual matters.

I do not doubt that Fr. Sophrony did such things, or that he may have been "innovative" in some minor ways, as a result of necessity. However, I remain far from convinced that he "had his own ideas," as if he were 'hell-bent' on doing it "his own way," as Sinatra would say. What I'm more interested in is the history and reasoning underlying his apparent "deviations." I'm reluctant to pass any kind of judgment without knowing "all" the facts.

Surely he was asked more than once why he did things the way he did; and surely he must have provided some explanation(s). But what are they? Can you assistance us with that? How do his surviving children, in Christ, respond to such charges, especially in light of Elder Sophrony's own paramount teaching(s) on obedience?

Has anyone, that you know of, ever attempted to address such questions or concerns in a published paper or essay? I would very much like to read anything of that kind; so some recommendations there would be greatly appreciated.

Referring to ancient practices belongs to the realm of archaeology rather than the living tradition of the Holy Orthodox Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church is a living organism and reflects the consensus of its members.

All that is ancient is not necessarily dead, obviously. The Living Tradition of holy Mother Church is very ancient; and though She is a living organism that transcends time, She also exists within time. Please forgive me for stating the obvious, as this all goes without saying. However, since she is a Living Organism, as you correctly observe, with an "ancient" tradition, then "the concensus of its members" necessarily includes all her members, reaching all the way back to the very beginning. It is not good enough to label something as "innovative," in the heretical sense, without taking into careful account the Patristic witness in its universal fullness, throughout the ages.

While the terms "innovation" or "innovative" are generally and most ususally viewed in a negative context, they may also be applied in a positive sense. To deviate from the "present" norm or way of doing things is not necessarily "innovation" in the heretical sense. While I'm unsure of the facts, relating to Elder Sophrony's "unorthodox" liturgical practices, so-called, is it possible that an element or two of "necessity" may have been led to his decision to do certain things the way he did them? Sometimes necessity is the mother of invention, as you know; or should I say the mother of "innovation!"

If as a priest I decided to omit the Litany of the Catechumens or serve without a curtain etc.. I would be breaking the universal tradition of the living Church.

As I previously intimated, I am very ignorant, for the most part, regarding all the liturgical practices of holy Mother Church, throughout the ages, but I have never, ever read or heard of a curtain being used in the Latin Mass, at any time. I admit the possibility of my being mistaken, and this is your chance to prove that I am; but if the curtain was never introduced in the Latin Rite, then how can it possibly be described as a "universal" or "Catholic" tradition?

I do not serve my Liturgy here in Seattle but the Divine Liturgy that is served by Christ in Eternity. I would recommend reading the life of Elder Porphyrios who experienced the Liturgy in ruined Churches!

I will most certainly do as you have advised. I currently own three books on Elder Porphyrios: 1) Wounded by Love, 2) Elder Porphyrios: Testimonies and Experiences, and 3) The Divine Flame.

Unfortunately we have lost the spirit of simplicity (to quote Elder Paissios) and therefore refer to books to make sense of our lives as Orthodox Christians.

Forgive, me, but I do not see how referring to books is necessarily contrary to the spirit of simplicity. How many saints were "men of letters" and thoroughly steeped in the Patristic writings? Surely they were not men who "lost the spirit of simplicity!" Or were they? Are the great Orthodox theologians of our contemporary times men who "lost the spirit of simplicity?" Or what about the holy compilers of the blessed Philokalia? Were they also beguiled from that simplicity which is in Christ?

My support of Archbishop Basil does not diminish my love for him or Fr Sophrony.

Of this I am most gladdened to hear!