St. Seraphim’s Fellowship
P.O. Box 351656
Jacksonville, Florida 32235-1656
Dear Inmate:
Letters to my Family III
Dear Parents:
I pray this letter finds you well. As promised, I am writing this last letter to speak about the doctrine concerning the Church itself. I thought first that I would review some of the internal contradictions of Protestantism and then, since you requested it, some of the contradictions of the Roman Catholic Church. Finally, I will speak about the Orthodox Church and the question of who are the members of the Church.
As I stated in the first letter, the Protestant churches confess that only the Bible is the source of truth, but they do not obey the scriptural exhortations to follow both the written and spoken traditions which the holy apostles gave to the Church; Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter (I Thess. 2:15); Now I praise you, brethren …that you keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Cor. 11:2); and, The Things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things (Phil. 4:9). Also, whereas the Apostle St. Paul speaks of the Church as a Body, fitly joined and working together (Eph. 2:19-22), we find the actual Protestant belief is that each person is on his own to discover the true interpretation of Scripture, St Paul also exhorts the believers to be in subjection to their leaders in the Church (Heb. 13:7-17), but most Protestants are in no real subjection to their ministers. Either their ministers do not ask for obedience, or if they do, many of their people leave and go to another church with fewer requirements. You stated that you had to accept the authority of the Ecumenical Councils after reading my first letter. You therefore must accept the veneration of icons and honor the Mother of God, Mary as Ever-Virgin, yet most Protestant churches will hardly allow this, or they will even preach vehemently against it.
Christ said that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth (John 16:13), and part of that truth concerns the order of the Church. The Church was established by the apostles through the Holy Spirit, to have bishops, priests and deacons with apostolic succession, that is, the ability to trace their ordination back to the apostles. This requirement is implicit in the canons the holy apostles gave to the Church and in the writings of the early fathers. Indeed, there is no historical question that apostolic succession was required in the early Church, yet no Protestant minister can claim apostolic succession. So, according to the canons and the entire tradition of the Church, the authority and sacraments of these ministers have no validity and their doctrine is suspect. By these few signs, among others, Protestantism is shown to be in error.
In regard to apostolic succession; it was required from the first for a bishop to be able to trace his ordination back to the apostles. There are at least three important reasons for this. First, it is and was one of the few ways to prove a cleric’s Orthodoxy, that is, his correct worship and belief. If a bishop has apostolic succession, then there is some certainty that he is not just some upstart heretic trying to grab attention and power, or some half-taught worldly person, but that he is indeed a legitimate (and, one should hope, worthy) successor of the apostles, a person who has been taught the correct ways to live and believe by others who learned the way ultimately from the apostles, who learned it from Christ Himself. Such a man with apostolic succession could be relied upon (despite a few unhappy exceptions) as a legitimate shepherd of the flock, one who has come in by the gate, not by climbing over the wall; someone who is in submission to the Church, not in rebellion.
Secondly, apostolic succession shows by what authority the bishop requires obedience and administers the Sacraments (including ordination of priests). This authority was given by the apostles to holy men whom they ordained as bishops, which authority was passed down through the ages to the present Orthodox Bishops. (Please note that without Orthodoxy of faith, there is no apostolic succession, for without it a bishop falls under the Church’s anathema and is no longer a bishop for he is no longer in the Church).
Thirdly, apostolic succession shows the physical continuity of the Church. The Church’s lineage can be traced from generation to generation and it, the Orthodox Church, is the same Church that was founded by the Twelve Apostles, without schism or heresy or any break in that lineage. Thus doctrines, virtues, correct Christian attitudes, and the Christian way of life could be and were passed on from the apostles through their successors to the present time. For by striving to insure that the leaders and teachers are right, the Church ensures that the flock will be taught and corrected until all can embrace the full godly life and salvation.
As you requested, I will now speak briefly concerning the Roman Catholic Church. Their departure from Orthodoxy is most clearly seen by realizing that they are anathematized by the Third Ecumenical Council for adding to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Roman Catholics recite the Creed with an added word, saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, but the true, original Creed, as decreed by the bishops assembled in the Councils, actually states (as does John 15:26) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. This addition to the Creed was spoken against by Pope Leo of Rome in 808 A.D., who had the Creed, without the addition, inscribed on silver tablets to guard against its adoption. But the addition was later reintroduced by other popes and accepted as correct practice and defended by them for almost 1000 years.
As to their doctrine of papal infallibility, if the above example does not raise sufficient questions concerning its validity, then there is the fact that the Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized one of the popes, Pope Honorius. This council is now and always has been accepted as valid by the Roman Catholics. In addition, the doctrine of papal authority over the whole Church is condemned as false by one who himself held the office of Pope of Rome, St. Gregory the Great. He wrote in the sixth century that no bishop (which includes the pope) ought to call himself universal (as the popes now call themselves, “Universal Pontiffs”) because all bishops are equal in authority. This was written at a time when the Church in Rome was still Orthodox. The pope cannot be the head of the Church, as the popes term themselves, for Christ is the Head of the Church. Neither can the pope be Christ’s vicar, for that would necessitate that Christ be no longer present in the world, since “vicar” means “substitute” or “representative.”
The apostles ordered the Church with each bishop equal in authority, a tradition which the Orthodox Church has kept. Indeed, at the council in Jerusalem described in Acts 15, it was the Apostle James who presided, not St. Peter, clear evidence that the apostles did not interpret the words in Matt. 16:18 as later popes have interpreted them. The Holy Fathers from the beginning have always understood the passage, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church (Matt. 16:18), to mean that Christ would build His Church on Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. The present day Roman Catholic interpretation of that verse came much later in Church history. St. Peter in his epistles makes no claim to supremacy, and neither did any of the early popes. The supremacy of the pope, the involvement of the popes in world governments, power struggles, wars, with their own armies, and in plots for or against worldly leaders and peoples are all clearly in opposition to the practice delivered to the Church by the holy apostles, and contrary to the example of humility given to us by Christ.
The Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary (that she was conceived by her parents without “original sin”) was spoken against by one of their own; much revered saints, Bernard of Clairvaux, because it was an innovation and not part of the tradition of the Church. This doctrine is an addition to the faith which was delivered to us by the apostles, as unnecessary as it is untrue. These, together with my other statements, are some of the simplest and most fundamental faults found in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Orthodox Church holds herself to be the continuation of the Apostolic Church of the first century. The other Christians do not form part of the true Church, for they have not been baptized into the Church by true apostolic bishops. Christ and the apostles taught that these Sacraments are the way by which we enter the gate which is Christ and become part of the flock of God (Matt. 17:19), Mark 16: 16, 1 Cor. 12: 13). If anyone tries to justify another way, he is entering the fold by climbing the wall and is not truly of the flock, for only Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. Now if God somehow accounts others to be part of the Church who are not manifestly Orthodox, this is something He has not told the Church in the Bible, the Ecumenical Councils, or the Fathers. We would rejoice exceedingly in their salvation if this were to happen, but there is no indication that it will. I do not mean to sound hateful or superior; I am just trying dispassionately to describe the facts. I am sorry to have to say such offensive things, for I too was horribly shocked and offended when I first heard this. Against all my desire, however, I have come to believe that although unpleasant, it is true. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the only Church of Christ. The rest of this letter contains proofs of this statement which are intended to show that ecumenism, the doctrine that all or most who call themselves Christians are truly members of the Church is a false doctrine.
Matthew 7: 22 says, In that day many will say, “Did we not prophesy in Thy Name and in Thy Name cast out demons and in Thy Name perform many miracles?” but I will say unto them, “I never knew you , depart from me, ye that work iniquity. The outstanding fact to note here is that there are seemingly sincere people who thought they were serving God and praying to Him, and having experiences with God, but God says He had nothing to do with them. There is also the fact that the Protestant ministers seem to have very little knowledge of what sin is, besides the obvious gross sins. There is little if any teaching about pride, the father of all sins, and is manifest in practically every thought, and of how much we need to repent, and what a Godly life is really like. I am not trying to accuse them, but I am trying to explain how the last phrase of the quote, ye who work iniquity, can apply to those Protestants who outwardly in the eyes of the world have a form of godliness, but by God’s standards are quite unaware of their sin.
In the Epistles, the Church appears as a single, united Body. Outside of her, there were no Christians. To come to believe in Christ meant uniting with the Church. There is nothing, either in the Scriptures nor the teachings of the Fathers, which would indicate that this has ever changed. Notice also that in the New Testament, with a few exceptions, the new believers did not start their own church, nor did they rebel against the Church after becoming a part of it. Rather, they submitted to those in authority over them. If that was the way for the Church of the first century, and the Church continued in that doctrine, how can it suddenly be true that as long as a person says, Lord, Lord, he will enter the Kingdom of Heaven? (Matt. 7: 21)
Christ said, Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault…,if he will not hear thee, then take one or two more…and if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican…Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt. 18: 15-18) The Councils have been held. What shall we say of those who refuse to hear the words of the united Church? Christ said that they should be counted by the Church as heathens and publicans. Thus the Church has said, “Anathema!” in her Ecumenical Councils to those who follow heresies. However, the Church also prays (in our daily prayers) for all heretics (the non-Orthodox who call themselves Christians) to come to a full knowledge of the truth. In the meantime, what can we do except preach to those who will listen and otherwise obey this command which Christ gave the Church?
The canons written by the Twelve Apostles also have some hard things to say about the non-Orthodox. “Those who have been baptized or ordained by…heretics cannot be either of the faithful or the clergy” (Apostolic canon 68). We ordain that a bishop or presbyter who has accepted the baptism or sacrifice (Eucharist) of heretics be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?” (Apostolic canon 46) “Let a bishop or presbyter…who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly be deposed as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false” (Apostolic canon 47). If this is the confession and belief of the holy apostles who were guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), I cannot justify holding a different opinion.
If the allegory St. Paul used comparing the Church to a human body can be stretched a little, then let me apply it to this problem. It is easily seen that a hand cannot live apart from the body. If it separates, it dies. Neither can it give live outside of the body, for it is dead and it is not capable of giving life. Neither can a hand be united to the head directly. It is true that because of our sinfulness parts of the Body sometimes bicker with each other, as though they had become ill. This can involve individuals who are immature, willfully sinful, or who have “personality conflicts”; or whole portions of the Body may quarrel with one another. If individuals are fighting, they risk their souls, for they may be pruned off by the Husbandman who finds thorns instead of fruit. If it is sections of the Body fighting, then either they will become reconciled or the offending part(s) will be cut off. But the Body remains one.
Drawing again on the allegory of the Church as a body; if any part of a body refuses to receive blood from the rest of the body. It dies. Those who refuse the cup of the Church, therefore, soon die also, as Christ said, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in yourselves (John 6: 53). Those who have never received the Blood of Christ cannot be alive in Christ, can they? If a person has not partaken of the Body of Christ, how can he be a part of Christ’s Body? Remember, according to the apostolic canons quoted earlier, the Eucharist of heretics has no validity. But let us go on.
Notice the subtlety of the doctrine of ecumenism. It has caused much disruption even in the true Church, and is certainly worth of an ecumenical council. But how could an ecumenical council meet on this question? Since the question is “Who is the Church?” how could we gather the Church to decide it? If ecumenism is true, but we gather only the Orthodox, then the council was not ecumenical. If ecumenism is false and we assemble the heterodox also (those who have many differing beliefs and ways of worshiping), how could we arrive at the truth? It seems to be a doctrine which refuses to be directly judged by an ecumenical council. Actually, however, the ecumenical councils have already decided the issue. The Protestants and Roman Catholics have already been anathematized by the councils (see paragraphs 2 and 4 of this letter; for the basis of the authority of the ecumenical councils see Matt. 18: 15-18 and my first letter).
If the Orthodox Church is not the true Church, then one of three things must be true about Christ’s high priestly prayer (John 17). Either 1) Jesus was just doing some wishful thinking or vain hoping on the night He was betrayed or 2) He prayed, but doubted God the Father, and so His prayer was not granted Him, or 3) The Trinity is not really one unity.
But none of these statements is acceptable. 1) Jesus was plainly addressing the Father, so He was asking God for the Church’s unity. He was not just mentioning His desires to the disciples but was definitely asking the Father for the unity of the Church. 2) He would not have doubted in what He asked, for to doubt is to sin (Rom. 14: 23). And II Corinthians 5: 21 says that Christ is without sin. 3) The Trinity is united above any earthly understanding: I and the Father are One; Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee (John 10: 30, 17: 21).
Therefore, if Christ prayed for the unity of the Church to be as the unity of the Trinity, and if He prayed believing, then what He prayed for must happen. And if the unity of the Body of Christ will only happen in heaven, why would Christ have prayed for it?, for the righteous dead do not sin any longer and so must be at peace with and united with each other. If He wanted to give His disciples an exhortation to stay united, He could have given it to them as a lesson, as He gave them many lessons and parables. Is it not rather that Christ wished to assure us that the true Body of Christ would stay united, for He had prayed to the Father for it? He told us there would be tares in the field and wolves in the fold (John 19: 7-14, Matt. 13: 24-43), but here He assures us that the Body of Christ is and always will be one, a reflection of the Trinity itself.
When I first read the anathemas issued by the ecumenical councils and first read that the Orthodox Church is the only true Church, I thought that the people who said such things were prejudiced, uncompassionate, and blind. As you might guess, I had to change that opinion. Let me try to explain with a simple allegory. It is very hard for a doctor to tell a patient that he is dying. But when there is a chance for recovery, for a cure, then he hurries to the patient and tries to explain that although the treatment is long and painful, it is the only sure chance for life. Since there is a chance for a cure, the Church is compelled to speak out to the heterodox even though many may come to hate her for her words. The Church says these unpleasant things in the hopes of saving souls. If she earns the hatred of some for having said them, then she fulfills Christ’s prophesy that true disciples will be hated. The warnings the Church gives in her anathemas and teachings, she gives out of love. For like God, the Church does not want any to perish, but wishes all to come to the knowledge of the truth (II Peter 3: 9).
The world teaches self-love and egotistic isolation. The way to salvation, however, is the way of the cross, of dying to one’s own will. This cannot be done in isolation. Only in the Church can one’s will truly die. For only when there is someone else in authority to say specifically, “do this now, that later, and don’t do the other thing at all,” can the will truly be denied. And self denial for the love of Christ is the way to salvation.
Lest you become discouraged or distressed, let me finish by saying that the Church does not teach that God has forsaken those outside of the Church. He works in all hearts, trying to lead all to the truth. Therefore, if you believe that God touched you at any time, particularly if such an experience led to true repentance for your sins and love for God, then such an experience should not be discounted. But the purpose of all true experiences with God is to lead people to salvation, and for this purpose He has chosen the Church as the means to salvation in Christ.
Please believe that I came to this belief only after much agonizing, tears, prayers, and thought. Yet I had to acknowledge that it is the truth even if I did not desire it. Having grown up in American society, I believed that beliefs were not important as long as one was a “good person.” When I first sought to become a Christian, I decided that perhaps most adherents of other religions would not be saved, but at least all who called themselves Christians and who really sought to love and obey God would be saved. You see, I modified ecumenism by redefining the word “good,” but I did not forsake it. I then became Orthodox, for it was the only form of Christianity which was internally consistent. Finally, in the Orthodox Church I came to the realization that I must deny Christianity or ecumenism, for they were mutually exclusive ideas. The fathers and the councils everywhere teach against ecumenism, so I had to make a choice. I decided that ecumenism had much less proof that Orthodox Christianity, and so I forsook ecumenism. I had to choose what was true over what I wished was true. I chose Orthodoxy.
Before I close, let me try to say something I fear I have not communicated very well yet. Throughout these letters, I have been using logic and facts to reveal the truth. But Orthodoxy is not a mental exercise, nor is it a philosophy or a set of opinions. It is a way of life, an entirely different orientation of one’s whole being. It is not possible to communicate this way of life in writing. It must be experienced. I therefore recommend to you that you go to the services of the Church, talk to the priest, and ask him to recommend to you some pious Orthodox Christians with whom you can talk and whose lives you may observe. Read the lives of the saints and the writings of the fathers. The Church is alive and so must be experienced if one is to know what the Church truly is in all its fullness and beauty.
It is with great trepidation that I have written you these letters, but I have done so out of love for you both. I have briefly stated the case for Orthodoxy (for to do so in full would take volumes). Think about what I have written, and if you have more questions, ask me or research the answers yourself, but please don’t ignore what I have said. Pray God for eyes to see and ears to hear the truth. My unworthy prayers and love are with you always.
Your son,
Peter
In Christ's Mercy,
Brother Seraphim
