[12Cickprior]

Does anyone have a link to some good source(s) of information on Elder Sophrony?

His spiritual autobiography We Shall See Him As He Is.
The postings on this message board by Father Seraphim, who was his cell attendant.
The lectures and writings of Archimandrite Zacharias.
And God willing, Father Seraphim will have his memoirs of his time with Elder Sophrony completed by the end of this year.

[Aswdwdfg]

Elder Sophrony is a saint because he is treated as a saint by the Church. Just because he hasn't been canonised (yet) by the Holy Synod doesn't change this. This is exactly the Orthodox position. Saints are not declared such from those at the top of the Church - sainthood is something which grows upwards from the people until the Church responds accordingly.

[jeaccatty]

This is exactly the Orthodox position. Saints are not declared such from those at the top of the Church - sainthood is something which grows upwards from the people until the Church responds accordingly.

I wouldn't quite say it this way. Sainthood doesn't really "grow upwards from the people" but rather is something revealed to the Church by the Holy Spirit through miracles and answered prayer. The popular veneration grows and at some point the hierarchy approve the general veneration of the saint who is then included in the menaion and a service in his or her honor is composed. The "glorification" of the saint is simply the transition from singing the last memorial service (pannykhida) to the singing of first molieben (supplicatory prayer service) and the first celebration of the newly composed service to the new saint and the uncovering of relics and the new icon and their veneration.

Fr David Moser

[Aswdwdfg]

The popular veneration grows and at some point the hierarchy approve the general veneration of the saint who is then included in the menaion and a service in his or her honor is composed. Yes, that's what I meant, and this is what has happened with Father Sophrony (and Paisios, Porphyrios, and the others), though we await canonisation and inclusion in the menaion.

[Abebpabeniemo]

I would like to add to Fr Davids comment that veneration by the people is not the main requisite, especially since a cult of veneration could be based on liking an elder rather than on revelation by the Holy Spirit. I have a lot to thank Fr Sophrony for. I have precious memories (personal) that have helped me over the years. The criticism of Fr Sophrony comes from Archbishop Basil of Brussels, who was a fellow monk with Fr Sophrony on Athos. I respect both whom I knew many years ago in Europe. I think the Bishop's criticism was based on Fr Sophrony's last book - a personal revelation of Divine Light, which is not usually made public, except by Western writers/mystics. Also he was concerned with Fr Sophrony's innovative Liturgical practices such as general confession, serving in way that publicly demonstrated the mysteries of the Liturgy, something very alien to Orthodox praxis. I have not studied these criticisms, but I did witness some rather strange renderings of the Divine Liturgy at Tolleshunt Knights during the 1970s. Any way if the Church glorifies him - then so be it.

[Jannet.K]

I would like to add to Fr Davids comment that veneration by the people is not the main requisite, especially since a cult of veneration could be based on liking an elder rather than on revelation by the Holy Spirit. I have a lot to thank Fr Sophrony for. I have precious memories (personal) that have helped me over the years. The criticism of Fr Sophrony comes from Archbishop Basil of Brussels, who was a fellow monk with Fr Sophrony on Athos. I respect both whom I knew many years ago in Europe. I think the Bishop's criticism was based on Fr Sophrony's last book - a personal revelation of Divine Light, which is not usually made public, except by Western writers/mystics. Also he was concerned with Fr Sophrony's innovative Liturgical practices such as general confession, serving in way that publicly demonstrated the mysteries of the Liturgy, something very alien to Orthodox praxis. I have not studied these criticisms, but I did witness some rather strange renderings of the Divine Liturgy at Tolleshunt Knights during the 1970s. Any way if the Church glorifies him - then so be it.

This is an interesting point. My concerning was defining the difference between idolizing an elder and venerating an elder. My concern is that people turn to an unknown elder before they turn to their parish priest, and I think this is wrong. I hope this makes sense.

[Aswdwdfg]

Also he was concerned with Fr Sophrony's innovative Liturgical practices . . . serving in [a] way that publicly demonstrated the mysteries of the Liturgy, something very alien to Orthodox praxis. I did witness some rather strange renderings of the Divine Liturgy at Tolleshunt Knights during the 1970s. Dear Fr Seraphim,

This is the first time I ever heard the Divine Liturgy at Tolleshunt Knights so described. I never saw Fr Sophrony officiate, so I'd be grateful if you could say what these innovative Liturgical practices and strange renderings were. Then I would know if they are still in use.

[JohnfAclambrJA]

"The saints suffer persecution... it seems that all those who experience this great grace are attacked as deluded at some point." "veneration by the people is not the main requisite, especially since a cult of veneration could be based on liking an elder rather than on revelation by the Holy Spirit." In a way isn't this persecution and questioning appropriate? If someone can get past all the barriers and still be cannonized then we can be sure that God was at work and not just human preference.

My concerning was defining the difference between idolizing an elder and venerating an elder. My concern is that people turn to an unknown elder before they turn to their parish priest, and I think this is wrong. I hope this makes sense. I don't see things getting out of hand here, but Olympiada has a point. There is a tendency in human nature to get obessed and possessive with spiritual goods as much as with material goods and our culture is deeply infected with it. All the New Age gurus selling spiritual and emotional health, so many being enamored with miracles etc. I don't think the church is free from this vice. There comes a certain amount of pride and satisfaction in saying - I met or talked to a saint. It is hard to fight against letting the honor due to the saint rub off on us and become a boasting point.

[Aswdwdfg]

Someone posted not long ago that Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos said, 'if Father Sophrony is not saint, there are no saints'. He (Fr Sophrony) led a holy life, founded a monastery, he wrought and does work miracles; there are international conferences about him, he is venerated around the world. People have been canonised for less. We can be pleased and thankful that God gave us such a saint in our time, and why shouldn't He? The Holy Spirit has not deserted us.

[loolitoertego]

Dear Fr Seraphim,

This is the first time I ever heard the Divine Liturgy at Tolleshunt Knights so described. I never saw Fr Sophrony officiate, so I'd be grateful if you could say what these innovative Liturgical practices and strange renderings were. Then I would know if they are still in use.

Dear Andreas:

Please note the correct Father you are speaking to. Fr. Serafim was the person who made the comment regarding the Divine Liturgy at Tollshunt, not Father Seraphim. Similar names...different people.

Dear All:

It is not unusual for those who are saints among us to be slandered. I am not saying that is what is occuring here. I am just sharing the observation.

Back to lurking,
Athanasia

[AmericaAirline 111]

I think the Bishop's criticism was based on Fr Sophrony's last book - a personal revelation of Divine Light, which is not usually made public, except by Western writers/mystics.

Fr. Serafim,

I find this observation or remark a little puzzling, to be honest, due in part to its apparent imprecision. Are you referring, here, for example, to the pre-schism Western saints? Secondly, many of the Eastern saints spoke of the Uncreated Light; and it is practically understood by all that they spoke not according to their imagination of it, but rather according to their divine vision and experience.

Also he was concerned with Fr Sophrony's innovative Liturgical practices such as general confession, serving in way that publicly demonstrated the mysteries of the Liturgy, something very alien to Orthodox praxis.

"Serving in way that publicly demonstrated the mysteries of the Liturgy." Once again, your words strike me as confusing at best. Are you perhaps referring to the absence of an Iconostasis? But surely the icon screen is a very late tradition, and was not part of the early liturgy of the Church. Secondly, the Eastern Iconostasis was never introduced into the Western Rite, and so the Liturgical mysteries were always performed openly, as you say, in the West, without the covering of an icon screen. So, then, how is that an "innovation?"

While I'm a "liturgical" ignoramus of sorts, to be sure, the word "innovative" does strike me as absolutely the wrong choice of word to describe Elder Sophrony. While I was never present to witness his liturgical life and service firsthand, nothing could be more obvious and certain to me, and all objective and careful students of his writings, than the holy Elder's complete and utter fidelity to the traditions of his holy fathers in Christ.

humbly,
Ken

[Abebpabeniemo]

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.

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 knew Archbishop Basil personally too. In fact His Eminence and Fr Sophrony were monks together - this I believe, is where the criticism is coming from.

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. 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. 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!

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.

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

[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!

[Abebpabeniemo]

If Archbishop Basil was alive today, I am sure he could have offered a scholarly and truly Orthodox approach to this thread. I am simply a parish priest. Maybe I have more book learning that Elder Paissios or Elder Porphyrios, but certainly not more than St Nektarios or St Serafim of Sofia. All these saints had of course more than book learning. They had knowledge of a different kind. They also had acquired the spirit of simplicity, that is simplicity of heart, of soul and of mind, the mind here being not the intellect but the upper level of the soul whereby we encounter God. Most of us, myself included of course, operate as it were, on the level of the psyche, the lower part of the soul.

Although we may acquire great knowledge and erudition, we often lack the spirit of simplicity and accordingly accept as spiritual experience or understanding (through reading, for example) or by means of the senses, purely secular ideas for these experiences are purely external or psychological.

And so this book learning combined with our 'psyche' experience pales in the light of spiritual knowledge possessed by these contemporary saints. Yet by reading, for example the life or writings of a saint, we in some way come under their 'umbrella' and perhaps we do experience a meagre crumb of spiritual experience. So how do we learn anything spiritual? As St Makary Optina says - instead of following our personal opinion in lofty matters, we should simplify our thinking and follow the teaching and practices of the Church. Elder Paissios often talked about the loss of simplicity which earlier generations of Christians possessed and the fact that today we have become so sophisticated that we are unable to receive anything spiritual.

Fr Sophrony was probably able, through prayer to diverge from the practices around him, but I fail to find this spiritual authority in his writings nor am I comfortable with the spirit in which he writes (this is probably starting another thread!). Perhaps others do.

For me personally, to change the mysterium into a sacrament is to make that which is hidden into something that is 'exposed' and surely reduces the spiritual to the level of the psyche. If I remember correctly someone quoted St John's in Essex as an example of this practice. Upon reflection I now remember Fr Sophrony telling me that he wanted to build a new church full of light (architecturally) and to open or expose the Liturgy to the faithful. This was in contrast to the chapel in the monastery, used at the time for all the services, which followed a more hesychastical tradition - no windows, no light save for two or three lampadas, traditional iconostasis, curtain and doors etc. Later Father did achieve his dream and so the new church (in fact a very ancient Saxon foundation) was full of light with see-thro iconostasis, the mystical prayers read aloud with great emotion and drama. It was a different atmosphere than I had experienced in other churches, especially on the Holy Mountain.

.

[Aswdwdfg]

I do not really understand Fr Serafim's point about liturgical practice at Tolleshunt Knights. The 'general confession' - which is actually a general absolution - is in no sense intended to mitigate the need for confession. The traditional iconostasis, royal doors and curtain are to be found in all the 'on-site' monastery churches: St John's chapel, St Silouan's church and All Saints church (the new crypt chapel). The proper rubrics are observed as to the closing and opening of the royal doors and curtain during the services. Only the old Anglican church does not have royal doors though there is a curtain. It is generally the case in England that because it is impractical to build an iconostatsis in a medieval building some other means of icon display is necessary. The wrought-iron screen in old All Saints is such an example. It may be the case - though I do not know - that planning and other restrictions may bear on this.

Having attended the Divine Liturgy over many years at various churches in England, Cyprus, Bosnia, Greece and Russia, I find nothing strange, innovative and un-Orthodox about the Divine Liturgy as celebrated at Tolleshunt Knights. On the contrary, I find the fulness of the Orthodox Tradition and spirit there which is not always so evident in some traditionally Orthodox countries. This is not only my opinion but that of the many visitors from very many countries whom I have met there.

[Abebpabeniemo]

This is my last comment on this thread. I do not know what happens at St John's these days. May be things have changed considerably since the 60s. My initial response was to the suggestion that if Fr Sophrony read the mystically prayers out loud, it is acceptable. Sorry I don't agree.

[biannaruh]

Later Father did achieve his dream and so the new church (in fact a very ancient Saxon foundation) was full of light with see-thro iconostasis, the mystical prayers read aloud with great emotion and drama. I do not wish to be disrespectful, but the idea of "the mystical prayers read aloud with great emotion and drama" seems to me to be quite contrary to the nature and content of these prayers, and in the maintaining of a prayerful harmony during the conducting of a Divine Liturgy. Emotion and drama in church singing and chanting, for clergy and laity alike, must be kept to a carefully calibrated level, lest it becomes self-aggrandisement or emotionalism. The tone of so many of these priestly prayers is one of humility and supplication, not grand triumph.

On a more practical level, it is becoming common for churches to be fitted out with microphones, not just for the choir, but for the clergy as well, including for their use in the altar, be it a conventional one on a stand of some sort, or, increasingly, a radio mike clipped onto the priest's vestments. Believe me, the effect of two sets of simultaneous voices rendered at equal volume all but destroys any semblance of prayer, solemnity and compunction, particularly at the Cherubic Hymn, and the "We hymn You" at the consecration of the Eucharist. It is also quite distracting to the choristers trying to maintain proper pitch and tone. There is certainly a case for ensuring Orthodox churches are built with proper acoustics in mind.

[Aswdwdfg]

A lot has been said elsewhere about reading the mystical prayers (by which I mean the epiclesis) aloud; it is usual in the Greek jurisdictions and so such use at Tolleshunt Knights could not be said to be in any way exceptional or innovative. Further, the monastery has for many years been under a Greek jurisdiction (Constantinople) and the hegoumen and spiritual director are both Greek.

[Aswdwdfg]

I never heard Fr Sophrony officiate at the liturgy, but those priests who do so now at the monastery certainly do not read the epiclesis loudly or with any great emotion and drama. There is, rather, a mystical hush as the prayers are read in a normal voice just within the hearing of the congregation.

[Aswdwdfg]

I should add that the great majority of services are in St Silouan's church, built 20 years ago, which is kept very dim with black curtains covering the toplight windows.