OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Faith Issues => Topic started by: Gorazd on September 03, 2012, 07:22:53 PM

Title: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Gorazd on September 03, 2012, 07:22:53 PM
I am sceptical about considering Fr. Seraphim Rose a saint. Let us discuss pros and cons of a glorification in this thread.


One con is that he accused Orthodox hierarchs of mass apostasy and considered uncanonical jurisdctions to be more Orthodox than canonical ones.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jfuij4cEtMQ/UEOc1d1jwtI/AAAAAAAAJoo/fnEVeDaLviY/s640/SAM_5974.JPG)
Source: http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2012/09/memory-eternal.html
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Asteriktos on September 03, 2012, 07:41:32 PM
If I recall correctly he said a similar things about seminaries other than Jordanville in his introduction to the Vita Patrum of St. Gregory of Tours. On the other hand, I believe he softened his stance in later years though. For example, I remember hearing that he communed people from new calendarist jurisdictions. I think he also regretted some of his earlier writings that had helped foster a "super-correct" attitude in some.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: age234 on September 03, 2012, 08:08:04 PM
I think you have to understand the state of Russian Orthodoxy at the time to understand these comments. It was a complicated, apocalyptic time, for obvious reasons. To take these quotes out of historical context and judge them doesn't work, IMO. Fr Seraphim did moderate his views on some issues late in life.

But that's neither here nor there. His personal story is grounds enough for sainthood in my view. The Church needs to hold up high such contemporary and relatable examples of radical repentance in this dark world.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Shiny on September 03, 2012, 08:12:34 PM
He's too controversial in Orthodox circles IMO and that's why I don't see him being canonized.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: stavros_388 on September 03, 2012, 08:35:04 PM
But that's neither here nor there. His personal story is grounds enough for sainthood in my view. The Church needs to hold up high such contemporary and relatable examples of radical repentance in this dark world.

I agree.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Basil 320 on September 03, 2012, 08:44:46 PM
He's too controversial in Orthodox circles IMO and that's why I don't see him being canonized.

I agree. some of Fr. Seraphim's teachings which remain of record are far too controversial to merit his "recognition" as a saint, the "toll houses" teaching which is outside the consensus of Orthodox Church teaching, is a leading reason that would preclude his "glorification."
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Asteriktos on September 03, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
He's too controversial in Orthodox circles IMO and that's why I don't see him being canonized.

I agree. some of Fr. Seraphim's teachings which remain of record are far too controversial to merit his "recognition" as a saint, the "toll houses" teaching which is outside the consensus of Orthodox Church teaching, is a leading reason that would preclude his "glorification."

*cough*St Symeon the New Theologian*cough*
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Punch on September 03, 2012, 09:00:21 PM
It really does not matter what you all think.  God is the one who glorifies His Saints, and thousands, if not tens of thousands, already venerate him as one.  Your discussion is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Shiny on September 03, 2012, 09:01:17 PM
It really does not matter what you all think.  Putin is the one who glorifies His Saints, and thousands, if not tens of thousands, already venerate him as one.  Your discussion is irrelevant.
I had to.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Manalive on September 03, 2012, 09:10:49 PM
As much as he is controversal in the States, he is highly regarded and venerated in Russia and else where. I think it's only a matter of time before he is cannonized.

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: JamesR on September 03, 2012, 09:18:28 PM
Doesn't make a difference at all. This is not the Roman Catholic Church this is the Orthodox Church. Canonization is merely the Church's formal recognition of Sainthood. But as the people we have recognized his Sainthood and been venerating and asking for his intercessions for a pretty long time. Long story short; I don't think it makes a difference. We still know and love him whether he is officially a Saint or not.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: ialmisry on September 03, 2012, 09:26:58 PM
God knows. Maybe He will tell us.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 03, 2012, 09:29:03 PM
He's too controversial in Orthodox circles IMO and that's why I don't see him being canonized.

I agree. some of Fr. Seraphim's teachings which remain of record are far too controversial to merit his "recognition" as a saint, the "toll houses" teaching which is outside the consensus of Orthodox Church teaching, is a leading reason that would preclude his "glorification."
Have you considered, then, de-glorifying St. Augustine of Hippo for the same reasons? (It seems that many already have.)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 03, 2012, 09:39:21 PM
He's too controversial in Orthodox circles IMO and that's why I don't see him being canonized.

I hate politics.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Basil 320 on September 03, 2012, 09:49:47 PM
He's too controversial in Orthodox circles IMO and that's why I don't see him being canonized.

I agree. some of Fr. Seraphim's teachings which remain of record are far too controversial to merit his "recognition" as a saint, the "toll houses" teaching which is outside the consensus of Orthodox Church teaching, is a leading reason that would preclude his "glorification."
Have you considered, then, de-glorifying St. Augustine of Hippo for the same reasons? (It seems that many already have.)

I'm not a big fan of the Blessed Augustine either, who was an early proponent of the false teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and and the Son, contrary to scripture.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 03, 2012, 10:42:48 PM
He's too controversial in Orthodox circles IMO and that's why I don't see him being canonized.

I agree. some of Fr. Seraphim's teachings which remain of record are far too controversial to merit his "recognition" as a saint, the "toll houses" teaching which is outside the consensus of Orthodox Church teaching, is a leading reason that would preclude his "glorification."
Have you considered, then, de-glorifying St. Augustine of Hippo for the same reasons? (It seems that many already have.)

I'm not a big fan of the Blessed Augustine either, who was an early proponent of the false teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and and the Son, contrary to scripture.
It doesn't matter if you're not a big fan of St. Augustine. He is glorified as a saint in both East and West, and he even has a feast day on the Orthodox menologion: June 15.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: 88Devin12 on September 03, 2012, 11:19:13 PM
Also, it is up to ROCOR to canonize him  since he was under their jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Opus118 on September 03, 2012, 11:46:13 PM
I think you have to understand the state of Russian Orthodoxy at the time to understand these comments. It was a complicated, apocalyptic time, for obvious reasons. To take these quotes out of historical context and judge them doesn't work, IMO. Fr Seraphim did moderate his views on some issues late in life.

But that's neither here nor there. His personal story is grounds enough for sainthood in my view. The Church needs to hold up high such contemporary and relatable examples of radical repentance in this dark world.

I could be wrong but there could be others besides myself that are totally clueless as to what you are writing about.

What was the complicated apocalyptic event or situation in the Russian Orthodox Church? How did Fr. Seraphim Rose solve this problem?

That is my main question, if you have time:
What is it about his life story that makes him a saint?
What sets him apart from Metropolitans Kallistos Ware or John Ziziulas or Fr. Peter Gilquist.
I am only asking for your opinion and not some totally logical justification. I am just curious and will unlikely respond to your answer.

I think this world is not dark. It is brighter than it has ever been.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 04, 2012, 12:29:12 AM
There are other threads on this subject, such as this one:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,39719.0.html

Regarding the OP, Fr. Seraphim's comments regarding apostasy were mostly correct, though the situation was much more dire in his time than is the case at the present.  Regarding Fr. Seraphim's criticism of other jurisdictions and his respect of the Old Calendarists, St. Nikolai of Zica refused to pray with the fathers of Vatopedi Monastery on Mt. Athos when the monastery adopted the New Calendar for a time, and he provided chrism to the Old Calendarists in Greece who refused to accept the New Calendar despite the decision of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece (this was before Old Calendarists developed into a competing Synod in Greece with its own bishops).  Regarding Fr. Seraphim's views of the Old Calendarists, if you read his Life, and particularly the book "Letters from Fr. Seraphim", you will see that he became increasingly critical of these groups as he beccame more experienced with the bitter fruits of their fanaticism and sectarianism.

If you have not read his "Life", including the final chapters regarding his blessed repose, his appearances after his repose, the accounts of those who have been healed through his intercessions; if you have not acquainted yourself with the veneration that Fr. Seraphim receives throughout the Orthodox world (Greece, Russia, Serbia,etc.); then it would be of benefit to familiarize yourself before trusting too much in your present opinion on this subject.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Alpo on September 04, 2012, 02:05:14 AM
Doesn't make a difference at all. This is not the Roman Catholic Church this is the Orthodox Church. Canonization is merely the Church's formal recognition of Sainthood.

How this is different from RCs?

He's too controversial in Orthodox circles IMO and that's why I don't see him being canonized.

I agree. some of Fr. Seraphim's teachings which remain of record are far too controversial to merit his "recognition" as a saint, the "toll houses" teaching which is outside the consensus of Orthodox Church teaching, is a leading reason that would preclude his "glorification."
Have you considered, then, de-glorifying St. Augustine of Hippo for the same reasons? (It seems that many already have.)

I'm not a big fan of the Blessed Augustine either, who was an early proponent of the false teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and and the Son, contrary to scripture.

Source? I wonder whether his alleged Filioque could be considered as acceptable through St. Maximos' standards.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: recent convert on September 04, 2012, 08:29:43 AM
Yes, there are many who truly venerate him & find inspiration in his teachings. There are those of us who do not identify with him and will remain vigilant towards tendencies that may want to render theological speculations as dogma.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Alpo on September 04, 2012, 01:34:16 PM
There are those of us who do not identify with him and will remain vigilant towards tendencies that may want to render theological speculations as dogma.

But then again this is completely irrelevant to the discussion about canonization. We canonize people, not their opinions.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: 88Devin12 on September 04, 2012, 01:48:22 PM
There are those of us who do not identify with him and will remain vigilant towards tendencies that may want to render theological speculations as dogma.

But then again this is completely irrelevant to the discussion about canonization. We canonize people, not their opinions.

If that were entirely true, Origen would be a Saint, but he's not. It depends on how heretical and in error the opinion is.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Alpo on September 04, 2012, 02:02:32 PM
There are those of us who do not identify with him and will remain vigilant towards tendencies that may want to render theological speculations as dogma.

But then again this is completely irrelevant to the discussion about canonization. We canonize people, not their opinions.

If that were entirely true, Origen would be a Saint, but he's not. It depends on how heretical and in error the opinion is.

I thought that it was self-evident that we were talking about Orthodox Christians, not heretics. Having opinions does not make a heretic. Fr. Seraphim was not a heretic.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: 88Devin12 on September 04, 2012, 02:06:13 PM
There are those of us who do not identify with him and will remain vigilant towards tendencies that may want to render theological speculations as dogma.

But then again this is completely irrelevant to the discussion about canonization. We canonize people, not their opinions.

If that were entirely true, Origen would be a Saint, but he's not. It depends on how heretical and in error the opinion is.

I thought that it was self-evident that we were talking about Orthodox Christians, not heretics. Having opinions does not make a heretic. Fr. Seraphim was not a heretic.

One could debate toll-houses in that realm. If you take toll houses too far, then I think it could become a heresy. The debate should be about if Fr. Seraphim took them that far. (I would say he didn't but it isn't for me to determine)

Iwould argue that if you take toll-houses as absolutely literal in its entirety, then it could be considered heresy. Or if you try to make toll houses a doctrine rather than a theological opinion. I think of it like young earth creationism. If you simply believe in young earth creationism as a private opinion, then that is okay. But if you try to insist that it is correct and has to be correct, then you are bordering on heresy (not to mention scientific idiocy). The same would go for evolution, if you insist theistic evolution has to be correct and is the only possibility and border on treating it like doctrine/dogma, then it could be heresy.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Punch on September 04, 2012, 02:10:01 PM
And then what?  Should we de-canonize any Saint who believes in them?  Anything that has not been set as dogma by an Ecumenical Council is nothing more than Theological Speculation, to some degree. 

There are those of us who do not identify with him and will remain vigilant towards tendencies that may want to render theological speculations as dogma.

But then again this is completely irrelevant to the discussion about canonization. We canonize people, not their opinions.

If that were entirely true, Origen would be a Saint, but he's not. It depends on how heretical and in error the opinion is.

I thought that it was self-evident that we were talking about Orthodox Christians, not heretics. Having opinions does not make a heretic. Fr. Seraphim was not a heretic.

One could debate toll-houses in that realm. If you take toll houses too far, then I think it could become a heresy. The debate should be about if Fr. Seraphim took them that far. (I would say he didn't but it isn't for me to determine)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: recent convert on September 04, 2012, 02:12:06 PM
There are those of us who do not identify with him and will remain vigilant towards tendencies that may want to render theological speculations as dogma.

But then again this is completely irrelevant to the discussion about canonization. We canonize people, not their opinions.

If that were entirely true, Origen would be a Saint, but he's not. It depends on how heretical and in error the opinion is.
There are some of us who have serious concerns about some of  Fr Seraphim's teachings but believe he is a saint in the witness of his adherents. We also have concerns that a few of his adherents may want to dogmatize some of his speculations.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: orthonorm on September 04, 2012, 02:21:55 PM
I think you have to understand the state of Russian Orthodoxy at the time to understand these comments. It was a complicated, apocalyptic time, for obvious reasons. To take these quotes out of historical context and judge them doesn't work, IMO. Fr Seraphim did moderate his views on some issues late in life.

But that's neither here nor there. His personal story is grounds enough for sainthood in my view. The Church needs to hold up high such contemporary and relatable examples of radical repentance in this dark world.

I could be wrong but there could be others besides myself that are totally clueless as to what you are writing about.

What was the complicated apocalyptic event or situation in the Russian Orthodox Church? How did Fr. Seraphim Rose solve this problem?

That is my main question, if you have time:
What is it about his life story that makes him a saint?
What sets him apart from Metropolitans Kallistos Ware or John Ziziulas or Fr. Peter Gilquist.
I am only asking for your opinion and not some totally logical justification. I am just curious and will unlikely respond to your answer.

I think this world is not dark. It is brighter than it has ever been.

I like your posts lately Opus more than ever, be careful.

And to the bolded part:

He has reposed something only Fr. Peter has just recently done, if I recall correctly which is unlikely.

But ROCOR will have its Saint.

I think they might want to wait and see how his legacy pans out especially the fruit he planted.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on September 04, 2012, 02:49:00 PM

But ROCOR will have its Saint.


A growing number of folks have already canonized Fr. Seraphim.  We're just waiting for the rest to catch up.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: orthonorm on September 04, 2012, 02:53:41 PM

But ROCOR will have its Saint.


A growing number of folks have already canonized Fr. Seraphim.  We're just waiting for the rest to catch up.

Like I said about the most recent rush to canonize someone by the RCC, they might want to wait to see what comes to light.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on September 04, 2012, 03:03:44 PM

But ROCOR will have its Saint.


A growing number of folks have already canonized Fr. Seraphim.  We're just waiting for the rest to catch up.

Like I said about the most recent rush to canonize someone by the RCC, they might want to wait to see what comes to light.

What do you think is going to 'come up'?  You can read his thoughts and books as well as listen to his lectures.  After 30 years, anything that could come up already has.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on September 04, 2012, 03:19:26 PM
Also, it is up to ROCOR to canonize him  since he was under their jurisdiction.

My first thought as well, sort of. Actually, at this point in time I would think the start of the recognition would be the ROC-MP.
Otherwise, I have no opinion that I care to offer, sinner enough I am.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 04, 2012, 03:52:44 PM
A growing number of folks have already canonized Fr. Seraphim. 

Do you mean some living room synods?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Basil 320 on September 04, 2012, 10:14:49 PM
And then what?  Should we de-canonize any Saint who believes in them?  Anything that has not been set as dogma by an Ecumenical Council is nothing more than Theological Speculation, to some degree. 

There are those of us who do not identify with him and will remain vigilant towards tendencies that may want to render theological speculations as dogma.

But then again this is completely irrelevant to the discussion about canonization. We canonize people, not their opinions.

If that were entirely true, Origen would be a Saint, but he's not. It depends on how heretical and in error the opinion is.

I thought that it was self-evident that we were talking about Orthodox Christians, not heretics. Having opinions does not make a heretic. Fr. Seraphim was not a heretic.

One could debate toll-houses in that realm. If you take toll houses too far, then I think it could become a heresy. The debate should be about if Fr. Seraphim took them that far. (I would say he didn't but it isn't for me to determine)

No, saints are honored and recognized for specific reasons; not too many were perfect in every way.

In the Orthodox Church, there is an essential consensus of "Theological Opinion" on many theological matters, "Theologoumena," that are not church dogma.  But not all deviations from the church's consensus of  theological beliefs and thought, are necessarily heresy.

This is just a broad comment about the dogma and "theological opinions" of the Orthodox Church.  It is not meant to be a comment about any of Fr. Seraphim's specific teachings.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: age234 on September 04, 2012, 11:04:43 PM
What was the complicated apocalyptic event or situation in the Russian Orthodox Church? How did Fr. Seraphim Rose solve this problem?

The Soviet Union and all that. The Russian Church was overrun by communists, millions were dead, churches were destroyed. The Russian Church abroad (small A) was split several ways over differing views of the Russian hierarchy's legitimacy. The fall of the God-anointed Tsar and the Byzantine-style church-state relationship had a devastating effect on the Russian psyche. To contemporary Russians, it really seemed like the world and Church were falling apart and end times were approaching. St. John Maximovitch and others had these concerns and fears, and they unsurprisingly affected and inspired people like Fr. Seraphim to be the way they were. It was a serious time that produced serious men and women.

Fr. Seraphim didn't dream this all up in a vacuum, that's my point. He is a product of his time, just like we all are. Whatever extremes or liberties he took, I feel they are at least consistent and understandable given who his teachers were and what was happening in the Russian Church at the time.

I think this world is not dark. It is brighter than it has ever been.

There is much to be hopeful about. But talk to any Russian Orthodox person who was alive during the Soviet period and they will have much darkness to tell you about. And there is plenty of darkness in this world today, and our Lord told us it would be very dark by the End.

Especially among young people, positive role models are needed. Given our culture's obsession with "relevance" in Christianity, among departed saints you don't get much more relevant than a guy who lived in the upheaval of the 60s and did just about every bad thing you can think of—and yet made a total repentance; who then threw his energy into teaching and ministering to the rejects of society who lived on the dark fringes.

We need more like Fr. Seraphim. We all know the Church does not make saints, but sainthood makes a special example of a person in the liturgical life of the Church. To have a holy priest who lived as recently as the 1980s—who overcame and did so much—up there on the iconostasis and in the Menaion is a powerful thing.

What is it about his life story that makes him a saint?

Eugene Rose's lifestyle before he became Fr. Seraphim has a lot of parallels to St. Augustine's lifestyle before his conversion. Both men's lives in general seem to have a lot of parallels—yes, even the questionable teachings. But that's not a dealbreaker with other saints, so it shouldn't be here either.

His battle against the passion of homosexuality is particularly striking, and unique (at least among contemporary saints). I can't think of any other saints who are known specifically for overcoming that passion. It would be nice to be able to point to a bona fide saint and show homosexual Orthodox people that they are not alone. We have patrons for every kind of sin, but not really for this one. For people who struggle with this passion it would be nice to be able to point to a saint who "finished the race," and importantly, who lived in our day and time.

What sets him apart from Metropolitans Kallistos Ware or John Ziziulas or Fr. Peter Gilquist.

I can't say anything bad about any of these men. Having met him a few years ago, I think Fr. Peter is certainly among the saints now.

But I think Fr. Seraphim stands apart because of the example his life can provide to people, the positive impact his work has and does have (especially outside the US, where he is far less controversial), and his cultus. He is widely venerated as a saint already, which is grounds for the Church to engage in the glorification process.

I don't think the tollhouses should be an important factor in his glorification one way or the other. We don't make or reject sainthood on the basis of one's Theology 101 exam. Call it theologumenon and move on. Sainthood is based on God's work manifested in a person's life, and no one can deny Fr. Seraphim's good fruit.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Opus118 on September 05, 2012, 12:55:02 AM
What was the complicated apocalyptic event or situation in the Russian Orthodox Church? How did Fr. Seraphim Rose solve this problem?

The Soviet Union and all that. The Russian Church was overrun by communists, millions were dead, churches were destroyed. The Russian Church abroad (small A) was split several ways over differing views of the Russian hierarchy's legitimacy. The fall of the God-anointed Tsar and the Byzantine-style church-state relationship had a devastating effect on the Russian psyche. To contemporary Russians, it really seemed like the world and Church were falling apart and end times were approaching. St. John Maximovitch and others had these concerns and fears, and they unsurprisingly affected and inspired people like Fr. Seraphim to be the way they were. It was a serious time that produced serious men and women.

Fr. Seraphim didn't dream this all up in a vacuum, that's my point. He is a product of his time, just like we all are. Whatever extremes or liberties he took, I feel they are at least consistent and understandable given who his teachers were and what was happening in the Russian Church at the time.

I think this world is not dark. It is brighter than it has ever been.

There is much to be hopeful about. But talk to any Russian Orthodox person who was alive during the Soviet period and they will have much darkness to tell you about. And there is plenty of darkness in this world today, and our Lord told us it would be very dark by the End.

Especially among young people, positive role models are needed. Given our culture's obsession with "relevance" in Christianity, among departed saints you don't get much more relevant than a guy who lived in the upheaval of the 60s and did just about every bad thing you can think of—and yet made a total repentance; who then threw his energy into teaching and ministering to the rejects of society who lived on the dark fringes.

We need more like Fr. Seraphim. We all know the Church does not make saints, but sainthood makes a special example of a person in the liturgical life of the Church. To have a holy priest who lived as recently as the 1980s—who overcame and did so much—up there on the iconostasis and in the Menaion is a powerful thing.

What is it about his life story that makes him a saint?

Eugene Rose's lifestyle before he became Fr. Seraphim has a lot of parallels to St. Augustine's lifestyle before his conversion. Both men's lives in general seem to have a lot of parallels—yes, even the questionable teachings. But that's not a dealbreaker with other saints, so it shouldn't be here either.

His battle against the passion of homosexuality is particularly striking, and unique (at least among contemporary saints). I can't think of any other saints who are known specifically for overcoming that passion. It would be nice to be able to point to a bona fide saint and show homosexual Orthodox people that they are not alone. We have patrons for every kind of sin, but not really for this one. For people who struggle with this passion it would be nice to be able to point to a saint who "finished the race," and importantly, who lived in our day and time.

What sets him apart from Metropolitans Kallistos Ware or John Ziziulas or Fr. Peter Gilquist.

I can't say anything bad about any of these men. Having met him a few years ago, I think Fr. Peter is certainly among the saints now.

But I think Fr. Seraphim stands apart because of the example his life can provide to people, the positive impact his work has and does have (especially outside the US, where he is far less controversial), and his cultus. He is widely venerated as a saint already, which is grounds for the Church to engage in the glorification process.

I don't think the tollhouses should be an important factor in his glorification one way or the other. We don't make or reject sainthood on the basis of one's Theology 101 exam. Call it theologumenon and move on. Sainthood is based on God's work manifested in a person's life, and no one can deny Fr. Seraphim's good fruit.

Thank you for going beyond what I asked for Age234. I understand much more clearly what you are referring to.

I am glad that you feel there is much to be hopeful about. No matter how much darkness surrounds me I cannot dwell on it because I fear it will result in my spiritual death. I confess that I do often dwell on the darkness but I fight it by remembering Holy Week and the meaning of Christ's resurrection, the light from the candle that I held and the words of St. John of Chrysostom's sermon. The war is over and we hold the light of that within us. This may seem simple minded and it probably is.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Shiny on September 05, 2012, 12:56:50 AM
I think this world is not dark. It is brighter than it has ever been.
Yeah, sure.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 05, 2012, 01:44:16 AM
A growing number of folks have already canonized Fr. Seraphim. 

Do you mean some living room synods?

Almost all conservative Orthodox I have met
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 05, 2012, 01:46:23 AM
I think this world is not dark. It is brighter than it has ever been.

I want whatever you are drinking!  :D
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on September 05, 2012, 01:49:19 AM

But ROCOR will have its Saint.


A growing number of folks have already canonized Fr. Seraphim.  We're just waiting for the rest to catch up.


+1



Selam
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Alpo on September 05, 2012, 05:04:23 AM
A growing number of folks have already canonized Fr. Seraphim. 

Do you mean some living room synods?

Almost all conservative Orthodox I have met

What an Earth is "conservative Orthodox"?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Punch on September 05, 2012, 08:54:14 AM

Almost all conservative Orthodox I have met

What an Earth is "conservative Orthodox"?

If you have to ask, you are probably not capable of understanding the answer.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Alpo on September 05, 2012, 09:10:56 AM

Almost all conservative Orthodox I have met

What an Earth is "conservative Orthodox"?

If you have to ask, you are probably not capable of understanding the answer.

If there is such thing as "conservative Orthodox" augustin and stashko are the most conservative posters of OC.net.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: stavros_388 on September 05, 2012, 12:03:35 PM
I think this world is not dark. It is brighter than it has ever been.

I want whatever you are drinking!  :D

Pour me one, too, please!
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Opus118 on September 05, 2012, 01:09:32 PM
I think this world is not dark. It is brighter than it has ever been.

I want whatever you are drinking!  :D

Pour me one, too, please!


Achronos,  celticfan1888, stavros_388

I think I wrote about this before.

It is called Zinfandel.

For some it causes elation and hope.

For others it causes sorrow and despair.

One of these days I need to get you guys over for dinner.

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 05, 2012, 10:10:17 PM
God knows. Maybe He will tell us.

God tells us if a person's a saint, by the miracles which occur through their intercession.  When Saint Nektarios died, there was an overpowering scent of roses in the room, and when his robe was placed on a crippled man's cot next to him, the man got up and walked.  There are so many miracles through the intercession of Saint Paissios that people are clamoring for him to be declared a saint.  Have there been any miracles through the intercession of Father Seraphim Rose?  I think not!

Now why am I so certain that Fr Seraphim Rose is not a saint?  Well forgetting the toll houses, which can be allegorical, I'm bothered by his condemning of a certain group of people, rather than just condemning the ideals and values they follow.  By condemning them, he was arousing hatred towards them.  Any form of passion such as hatred is a sin, so basically he was encouraging them to sin.   If you read any writings by saints, you will note that everything they say and write is edifying to a person's soul.   How can Father Seraphim be a saint when he was doing the opposite?   ???   
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 05, 2012, 10:13:56 PM
He's too controversial in Orthodox circles IMO and that's why I don't see him being canonized.

I agree. some of Fr. Seraphim's teachings which remain of record are far too controversial to merit his "recognition" as a saint, the "toll houses" teaching which is outside the consensus of Orthodox Church teaching, is a leading reason that would preclude his "glorification."
Have you considered, then, de-glorifying St. Augustine of Hippo for the same reasons? (It seems that many already have.)

I'm not a big fan of the Blessed Augustine either, who was an early proponent of the false teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and and the Son, contrary to scripture.

You do know that our Bulwark of Orthodoxy, Saint Gregory Palamas also said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son but in different says.  ;)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 05, 2012, 11:08:24 PM
There are other threads on this subject, such as this one:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,39719.0.html

Regarding the OP, Fr. Seraphim's comments regarding apostasy were mostly correct, though the situation was much more dire in his time than is the case at the present.  Regarding Fr. Seraphim's criticism of other jurisdictions and his respect of the Old Calendarists, St. Nikolai of Zica refused to pray with the fathers of Vatopedi Monastery on Mt. Athos when the monastery adopted the New Calendar for a time, and he provided chrism to the Old Calendarists in Greece who refused to accept the New Calendar despite the decision of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece (this was before Old Calendarists developed into a competing Synod in Greece with its own bishops).  Regarding Fr. Seraphim's views of the Old Calendarists, if you read his Life, and particularly the book "Letters from Fr. Seraphim", you will see that he became increasingly critical of these groups as he beccame more experienced with the bitter fruits of their fanaticism and sectarianism.

If you have not read his "Life", including the final chapters regarding his blessed repose, his appearances after his repose, the accounts of those who have been healed through his intercessions; if you have not acquainted yourself with the veneration that Fr. Seraphim receives throughout the Orthodox world (Greece, Russia, Serbia,etc.); then it would be of benefit to familiarize yourself before trusting too much in your present opinion on this subject.


What you said again is problematic, since monks are prohibited through humility to talk and write about themselves, so why would he be saying anything about himself unless it was to witness for Christ because of some great miracle that happened to him?  Also why was he so involved with Church politics?   Something just doesn't sit right with me. 

Also you mentioned he is revered in Greece.  I doubt it.  Do you have any idea how many future saints they have had in the past decades, such as the Elder Ephraim who established the monasteries in this country.  There is the Elder Paissios who people are clamoring to have him declared a saint because of the many miracles through his intercession.  There is also his spiritual father the Elder Porphyrios, who was able to see through mountains.  He called this charism of his the ability of clear sight. 

Another future saint is the Elder Emilianos, who is still alive and who the Elder Paissios said has the purest soul of them all.  He was given the gift of bi-location, and could be in two places at the same time.  In addition to these well known future saints, there are countless others throughout Greece.  One such was Crazy John, a lay person who had devoted his whole life to doing charitable acts in secret...He also had other charisms such as being able to foresee events.  He used it to save the area he lived in from a devastating flood. 

Anyway I could go on and on, and somehow I just can't see Father Seraphim as having the pure soul and humility that's a perquisite for a saint.  ???

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 05, 2012, 11:43:37 PM
God knows. Maybe He will tell us.

God tells us if a person's a saint, by the miracles which occur through their intercession.  When Saint Nektarios died, there was an overpowering scent of roses in the room, and when his robe was placed on a crippled man's cot next to him, the man got up and walked.  There are so many miracles through the intercession of Saint Paissios that people are clamoring for him to be declared a saint.  Have there been any miracles through the intercession of Father Seraphim Rose?  I think not!
You think not? Who cares what you think? What do you know about Fr. Seraphim that disqualifies him from sainthood?

Now why am I so certain that Fr Seraphim Rose is not a saint?  Well forgetting the toll houses, which can be allegorical, I'm bothered by his condemning of a certain group of people,
Whom has Fr. Seraphim condemned?

rather than just condemning the ideals and values they follow.
Like you hold yourself to merely condemning the ideas others follow? You've clearly shown otherwise, thus showing your hypocrisy.

By condemning them, he was arousing hatred towards them.  Any form of passion such as hatred is a sin, so basically he was encouraging them to sin.   If you read any writings by saints, you will note that everything they say and write is edifying to a person's soul.   How can Father Seraphim be a saint when he was doing the opposite?   ???   
Prove that he did the opposite. While you're at it, prove to us that you don't encourage us to sin by your constant condemning of other people.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 05, 2012, 11:56:58 PM
There are other threads on this subject, such as this one:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,39719.0.html

Regarding the OP, Fr. Seraphim's comments regarding apostasy were mostly correct, though the situation was much more dire in his time than is the case at the present.  Regarding Fr. Seraphim's criticism of other jurisdictions and his respect of the Old Calendarists, St. Nikolai of Zica refused to pray with the fathers of Vatopedi Monastery on Mt. Athos when the monastery adopted the New Calendar for a time, and he provided chrism to the Old Calendarists in Greece who refused to accept the New Calendar despite the decision of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece (this was before Old Calendarists developed into a competing Synod in Greece with its own bishops).  Regarding Fr. Seraphim's views of the Old Calendarists, if you read his Life, and particularly the book "Letters from Fr. Seraphim", you will see that he became increasingly critical of these groups as he beccame more experienced with the bitter fruits of their fanaticism and sectarianism.

If you have not read his "Life", including the final chapters regarding his blessed repose, his appearances after his repose, the accounts of those who have been healed through his intercessions; if you have not acquainted yourself with the veneration that Fr. Seraphim receives throughout the Orthodox world (Greece, Russia, Serbia,etc.); then it would be of benefit to familiarize yourself before trusting too much in your present opinion on this subject.


What you said again is problematic, since monks are prohibited through humility to talk and write about themselves, so why would he be saying anything about himself unless it was to witness for Christ because of some great miracle that happened to him?
To my knowledge, Fr. Seraphim didn't write anything about himself. The "Life of St. Seraphim" so many reference is actually Fr. Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, by Hieromonk Damascene, a spiritual child of Fr. Seraphim. Even then, Fr. Damascene waited until after Fr. Seraphim's repose to write his work.

Also why was he so involved with Church politics?
Actually, from my reading of Fr. Damascene, I get the impression that Fr. Seraphim actively avoided church politics. Have you read something that testifies differently?

Something just doesn't sit right with me.

Also you mentioned he is revered in Greece.  I doubt it.  Do you have any idea how many future saints they have had in the past decades, such as the Elder Ephraim who established the monasteries in this country.  There is the Elder Paissios who people are clamoring to have him declared a saint because of the many miracles through his intercession.  There is also his spiritual father the Elder Porphyrios, who was able to see through mountains.  He called this charism of his the ability of clear sight. 

Another future saint is the Elder Emilianos, who is still alive and who the Elder Paissios said has the purest soul of them all.  He was given the gift of bi-location, and could be in two places at the same time.  In addition to these well known future saints, there are countless others throughout Greece.  One such was Crazy John, a lay person who had devoted his whole life to doing charitable acts in secret...He also had other charisms such as being able to foresee events.  He used it to save the area he lived in from a devastating flood. 

Anyway I could go on and on, and somehow I just can't see Father Seraphim as having the pure soul and humility that's a perquisite for a saint.  ???
And what do you know of Fr. Seraphim that leads you to judge him so?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on September 06, 2012, 12:40:07 AM
I doubt if many things woud grieve a Saint more than the realization that Christian brothers were arguing about whether or not they are a Saint.



Selam
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on September 06, 2012, 01:04:06 AM
I doubt if many things woud grieve a Saint more than the realization that Christian brothers were arguing about whether or not they are a Saint.



Selam

 Especially when some of these people insinuate that there probably is something nefarious that we don't know about him.  Shameful.  I wonder what they'll say when he's canonized?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on September 06, 2012, 01:13:04 AM
I doubt if many things woud grieve a Saint more than the realization that Christian brothers were arguing about whether or not they are a Saint.



Selam

 Especially when some of these people insinuate that there probably is something nefarious that we don't know about him.  Shameful.  I wonder what they'll say when he's canonized?

Indeed. I have seen that his own sister has written a book about him, attempting to discredit any notion of his sanctity. As interested as I would be to read it, I cannot help but to think it must be demonically inspired. Scary.


Selam
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 06, 2012, 01:54:11 AM
I doubt if many things woud grieve a Saint more than the realization that Christian brothers were arguing about whether or not they are a Saint.



Selam

 Especially when some of these people insinuate that there probably is something nefarious that we don't know about him.  Shameful.  I wonder what they'll say when he's canonized?

Indeed. I have seen that his own sister has written a book about him, attempting to discredit any notion of his sanctity. As interested as I would be to read it, I cannot help but to think it must be demonically inspired. Scary.
As much as I will resist attempts to disparage Fr. Seraphim's sanctity, I will also resist attempts to demonize his detractors as you have just done.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: simplygermain on September 06, 2012, 02:58:41 AM
I doubt if many things woud grieve a Saint more than the realization that Christian brothers were arguing about whether or not they are a Saint.



Selam

 Especially when some of these people insinuate that there probably is something nefarious that we don't know about him.  Shameful.  I wonder what they'll say when he's canonized?

Indeed. I have seen that his own sister has written a book about him, attempting to discredit any notion of his sanctity. As interested as I would be to read it, I cannot help but to think it must be demonically inspired. Scary.
As much as I will resist attempts to disparage Fr. Seraphim's sanctity, I will also resist attempts to demonize his detractors as you have just done.

Agreed.
Unfortunately we miss the mark most often when we attempt to resolve with extremes.

As a part of the OP, does anyone besides myself here have an icon or pic in their corner?

I spoke to a few friends who were able to go for the feast. Waiting to hear back from the trip. Some of these friends are those who were there when Father Seraphim was at Platina. In fact, three of the parishes I have been a member of were established by the monks. Many of my church family have great stories to tell about Fr. Seraphim. Last Family Camp, someone who was baptized by him as a child had a whole talk about him. It was great!
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: age234 on September 06, 2012, 08:18:16 AM
There are so many miracles through the intercession of Saint Paissios that people are clamoring for him to be declared a saint.  Have there been any miracles through the intercession of Father Seraphim Rose?  I think not!

So certain are you. Fr Seraphim has been credited with several miracles. Regardless, miracles are not a requirement for glorification. Not all saints are wonderworkers.

There have also been heavenly fragrances connected with Fr Seraphim's relics. So, I guess you're just misinformed.

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/father_seraphim_rose_spiritual_father
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: age234 on September 06, 2012, 08:25:49 AM
What you said again is problematic, since monks are prohibited through humility to talk and write about themselves, so why would he be saying anything about himself unless it was to witness for Christ because of some great miracle that happened to him?  Also why was he so involved with Church politics?   Something just doesn't sit right with me.

It's a biography, not an autobiography.

As for politics, you're clearly very misinformed about Fr Seraphim's life, so perhaps you should read his biography before making any more bizarre claims about his conduct.

Anyway I could go on and on, and somehow I just can't see Father Seraphim as having the pure soul and humility that's a perquisite for a saint.  ???

You're in a position to say so?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 06, 2012, 08:56:17 AM
Have there been any miracles through the intercession of Father Seraphim Rose?  I think not!

It is very shameful that you speak so definitively about a subject about which you are entirely ignorant.  Have you read "Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works"?  How can you comment about Fr. Seraphim without having known or at least read about him?  In this book that I just referenced, you can read about miracles through his intercessions in the chapter appropriately called "With the Saints". 

You may also find the following comments of interest, concerning how Fr. Seraphim was regarded immediately following his repose, taken from the book already mentioned:
Quote
Following his repose, many people had
visions of him which confirmed that he was among the saints, and even
Bishop Nektary of Seattle approached one of the sorrowful nuns who
looked upon the reposed Fr. Seraphim during his funeral and told her
“Don’t pray for Fr. Seraphim, pray to him.”

On the fortieth day after his repose, following the Divine Liturgy and
Pannikhida at the grave, Bishop Nektary gave a homily which ended with
the phrase: “Fr. Seraphim was a righteous man, possibly a saint.”  As
Fr. Damascene relates, “Bishop Nektary was well qualified to make such
a statement, having been in close contact with saints both in Russian
and the free world.  The priest who was translating his sermon into
English, however, hesitated in repeating this phrase, particularly the
last world.  Calculating that such a bold affirmation might be risky
since other Church leaders had not yet expressed their opinion, this
priest asked Bishop Nektary if he had really meant what he said.
Hitting the ground with his staff, the Bishop repeated, in Russian, ‘A
Saint!’ – and the confused priest was obliged to render this word in
English.

”Having led a procession from the hillock of Fr. Seraphim’s grave, the
Bishop was about to enter the church, still holding a censer in his
hand.  Abruptly he turned around and, with great feeling, loudly began
to sing the glorification hymn to monk-saints: ‘We glorify thee, our
holy Father Seraphim, and we honor thy holy memory:  instructor of
monks, and converser with the angels.’  The monks, clergy and pilgrims
joined in the singing, and the sorrow of being separated from Fr.
Seraphim was again transformed into joy.”

Bishop Nektary of Seattle, who knew Fr. Seraphim very well in this life and considered him a saint after his repose, was a spiritual child of St. Nektary of Optina.  Do you claim that Bishop Nektary did not know what he was talking about?  Or, do you know better than Bp. Nektary?  Rather it seems clear that your insistence that Fr. Seraphim is not a saint comes from either your ignorance about his life, his intercessions after his repose, and the veneration he receives throughout the Orthodox world.

Also you mentioned he is revered in Greece.  I doubt it.  Do you have any idea how many future saints they have had in the past decades, such as the Elder Ephraim who established the monasteries in this country. 

You obviously did not reference the link that I provided.  Fr. Peter Alban Heers, a priest who serves in Thessaloniki in Greece and frequents Mt. Athos, has a very good podcast on the subject of the veneration of Fr. Seraphim in Greece and throughout the world.  Please listen to this or read the transcript if you want to be at least a little informed concerning this subject:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/postcards/fr._seraphim_rose_in_greece

Concerning Elder Ephraim, Fr. Seraphim is much revered in Elder Ephraim’s monasteries.  If you have regard for these monasteries, go and ask them about Fr. Seraphim and his veneration in Greece and on Mt. Athos.

Quote
Anyway I could go on and on, and somehow I just can't see Father Seraphim as having the pure soul and humility that's a perquisite for a saint.  ???

Yet, you have shown that you hardly know anything about Fr. Seraphim’s life, the miracles that have resulted from his intercessions, and the veneration that he receives by faithful Orthodox Christians throughout the world. 

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 06, 2012, 11:30:44 PM
There are other threads on this subject, such as this one:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,39719.0.html

Regarding the OP, Fr. Seraphim's comments regarding apostasy were mostly correct, though the situation was much more dire in his time than is the case at the present.  Regarding Fr. Seraphim's criticism of other jurisdictions and his respect of the Old Calendarists, St. Nikolai of Zica refused to pray with the fathers of Vatopedi Monastery on Mt. Athos when the monastery adopted the New Calendar for a time, and he provided chrism to the Old Calendarists in Greece who refused to accept the New Calendar despite the decision of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece (this was before Old Calendarists developed into a competing Synod in Greece with its own bishops).  Regarding Fr. Seraphim's views of the Old Calendarists, if you read his Life, and particularly the book "Letters from Fr. Seraphim", you will see that he became increasingly critical of these groups as he beccame more experienced with the bitter fruits of their fanaticism and sectarianism.

If you have not read his "Life", including the final chapters regarding his blessed repose, his appearances after his repose, the accounts of those who have been healed through his intercessions; if you have not acquainted yourself with the veneration that Fr. Seraphim receives throughout the Orthodox world (Greece, Russia, Serbia,etc.); then it would be of benefit to familiarize yourself before trusting too much in your present opinion on this subject.


What you said again is problematic, since monks are prohibited through humility to talk and write about themselves, so why would he be saying anything about himself unless it was to witness for Christ because of some great miracle that happened to him?
To my knowledge, Fr. Seraphim didn't write anything about himself. The "Life of St. Seraphim" so many reference is actually Fr. Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, by Hieromonk Damascene, a spiritual child of Fr. Seraphim. Even then, Fr. Damascene waited until after Fr. Seraphim's repose to write his work.

Also why was he so involved with Church politics?
Actually, from my reading of Fr. Damascene, I get the impression that Fr. Seraphim actively avoided church politics. Have you read something that testifies differently?

Something just doesn't sit right with me.

Also you mentioned he is revered in Greece.  I doubt it.  Do you have any idea how many future saints they have had in the past decades, such as the Elder Ephraim who established the monasteries in this country.  There is the Elder Paissios who people are clamoring to have him declared a saint because of the many miracles through his intercession.  There is also his spiritual father the Elder Porphyrios, who was able to see through mountains.  He called this charism of his the ability of clear sight. 

Another future saint is the Elder Emilianos, who is still alive and who the Elder Paissios said has the purest soul of them all.  He was given the gift of bi-location, and could be in two places at the same time.  In addition to these well known future saints, there are countless others throughout Greece.  One such was Crazy John, a lay person who had devoted his whole life to doing charitable acts in secret...He also had other charisms such as being able to foresee events.  He used it to save the area he lived in from a devastating flood. 

Anyway I could go on and on, and somehow I just can't see Father Seraphim as having the pure soul and humility that's a perquisite for a saint.  ???
And what do you know of Fr. Seraphim that leads you to judge him so?

It's not judging, it's called discernment.  Big difference! I'm relating the books I read by him, to the books by other saints, and his writings  turned me off.   I didn't find them edifying and I was trying to explain why.   I'm not condemning him, after all he is human and we're all faulty, I'm merely questioning whether he had the perquisite humility and purity of heart of a saint.   ???
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 06, 2012, 11:53:48 PM
I doubt if many things woud grieve a Saint more than the realization that Christian brothers were arguing about whether or not they are a Saint.



Selam

Post of the month
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 06, 2012, 11:56:40 PM
Have there been any miracles through the intercession of Father Seraphim Rose?  I think not!

It is very shameful that you speak so definitively about a subject about which you are entirely ignorant.  Have you read "Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works"?  How can you comment about Fr. Seraphim without having known or at least read about him?  In this book that I just referenced, you can read about miracles through his intercessions in the chapter appropriately called "With the Saints". 

You may also find the following comments of interest, concerning how Fr. Seraphim was regarded immediately following his repose, taken from the book already mentioned:
Quote
Following his repose, many people had
visions of him which confirmed that he was among the saints, and even
Bishop Nektary of Seattle approached one of the sorrowful nuns who
looked upon the reposed Fr. Seraphim during his funeral and told her
“Don’t pray for Fr. Seraphim, pray to him.”

On the fortieth day after his repose, following the Divine Liturgy and
Pannikhida at the grave, Bishop Nektary gave a homily which ended with
the phrase: “Fr. Seraphim was a righteous man, possibly a saint.”  As
Fr. Damascene relates, “Bishop Nektary was well qualified to make such
a statement, having been in close contact with saints both in Russian
and the free world.  The priest who was translating his sermon into
English, however, hesitated in repeating this phrase, particularly the
last world.  Calculating that such a bold affirmation might be risky
since other Church leaders had not yet expressed their opinion, this
priest asked Bishop Nektary if he had really meant what he said.
Hitting the ground with his staff, the Bishop repeated, in Russian, ‘A
Saint!’ – and the confused priest was obliged to render this word in
English.

”Having led a procession from the hillock of Fr. Seraphim’s grave, the
Bishop was about to enter the church, still holding a censer in his
hand.  Abruptly he turned around and, with great feeling, loudly began
to sing the glorification hymn to monk-saints: ‘We glorify thee, our
holy Father Seraphim, and we honor thy holy memory:  instructor of
monks, and converser with the angels.’  The monks, clergy and pilgrims
joined in the singing, and the sorrow of being separated from Fr.
Seraphim was again transformed into joy.”

Bishop Nektary of Seattle, who knew Fr. Seraphim very well in this life and considered him a saint after his repose, was a spiritual child of St. Nektary of Optina.  Do you claim that Bishop Nektary did not know what he was talking about?  Or, do you know better than Bp. Nektary?  Rather it seems clear that your insistence that Fr. Seraphim is not a saint comes from either your ignorance about his life, his intercessions after his repose, and the veneration he receives throughout the Orthodox world.

Also you mentioned he is revered in Greece.  I doubt it.  Do you have any idea how many future saints they have had in the past decades, such as the Elder Ephraim who established the monasteries in this country. 

You obviously did not reference the link that I provided.  Fr. Peter Alban Heers, a priest who serves in Thessaloniki in Greece and frequents Mt. Athos, has a very good podcast on the subject of the veneration of Fr. Seraphim in Greece and throughout the world.  Please listen to this or read the transcript if you want to be at least a little informed concerning this subject:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/postcards/fr._seraphim_rose_in_greece

Concerning Elder Ephraim, Fr. Seraphim is much revered in Elder Ephraim’s monasteries.  If you have regard for these monasteries, go and ask them about Fr. Seraphim and his veneration in Greece and on Mt. Athos.

Quote
Anyway I could go on and on, and somehow I just can't see Father Seraphim as having the pure soul and humility that's a perquisite for a saint.  ???

Yet, you have shown that you hardly know anything about Fr. Seraphim’s life, the miracles that have resulted from his intercessions, and the veneration that he receives by faithful Orthodox Christians throughout the world. 



You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places.  In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying.  Forget it!  As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.

Now I'm not condemning him, but he is not a saint...so you can scream all you want.  Besides, what do you care what my opinion is.  If he is a saint, (which I'm sure he is not), God will show it to the world by performing mass miracles through his intercession.  His  body also won't corrupt.  There might  even be a flow and scent of myrhh from the coffin.  This has happened quite often with the Grand Duchess Saint Elizabeth, and with Saint Demetrius the New Martyr of Tripoli.  

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 07, 2012, 12:07:48 AM
There are other threads on this subject, such as this one:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,39719.0.html

Regarding the OP, Fr. Seraphim's comments regarding apostasy were mostly correct, though the situation was much more dire in his time than is the case at the present.  Regarding Fr. Seraphim's criticism of other jurisdictions and his respect of the Old Calendarists, St. Nikolai of Zica refused to pray with the fathers of Vatopedi Monastery on Mt. Athos when the monastery adopted the New Calendar for a time, and he provided chrism to the Old Calendarists in Greece who refused to accept the New Calendar despite the decision of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece (this was before Old Calendarists developed into a competing Synod in Greece with its own bishops).  Regarding Fr. Seraphim's views of the Old Calendarists, if you read his Life, and particularly the book "Letters from Fr. Seraphim", you will see that he became increasingly critical of these groups as he beccame more experienced with the bitter fruits of their fanaticism and sectarianism.

If you have not read his "Life", including the final chapters regarding his blessed repose, his appearances after his repose, the accounts of those who have been healed through his intercessions; if you have not acquainted yourself with the veneration that Fr. Seraphim receives throughout the Orthodox world (Greece, Russia, Serbia,etc.); then it would be of benefit to familiarize yourself before trusting too much in your present opinion on this subject.


What you said again is problematic, since monks are prohibited through humility to talk and write about themselves, so why would he be saying anything about himself unless it was to witness for Christ because of some great miracle that happened to him?
To my knowledge, Fr. Seraphim didn't write anything about himself. The "Life of St. Seraphim" so many reference is actually Fr. Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, by Hieromonk Damascene, a spiritual child of Fr. Seraphim. Even then, Fr. Damascene waited until after Fr. Seraphim's repose to write his work.

Also why was he so involved with Church politics?
Actually, from my reading of Fr. Damascene, I get the impression that Fr. Seraphim actively avoided church politics. Have you read something that testifies differently?

Something just doesn't sit right with me.

Also you mentioned he is revered in Greece.  I doubt it.  Do you have any idea how many future saints they have had in the past decades, such as the Elder Ephraim who established the monasteries in this country.  There is the Elder Paissios who people are clamoring to have him declared a saint because of the many miracles through his intercession.  There is also his spiritual father the Elder Porphyrios, who was able to see through mountains.  He called this charism of his the ability of clear sight.  

Another future saint is the Elder Emilianos, who is still alive and who the Elder Paissios said has the purest soul of them all.  He was given the gift of bi-location, and could be in two places at the same time.  In addition to these well known future saints, there are countless others throughout Greece.  One such was Crazy John, a lay person who had devoted his whole life to doing charitable acts in secret...He also had other charisms such as being able to foresee events.  He used it to save the area he lived in from a devastating flood.  

Anyway I could go on and on, and somehow I just can't see Father Seraphim as having the pure soul and humility that's a perquisite for a saint.  ???
And what do you know of Fr. Seraphim that leads you to judge him so?

It's not judging, it's called discernment. Big difference! I'm relating the books I read by him, to the books by other saints, and his writings  turned me off.
And what makes you think you have the discernment to judge that the problem was with him and not within you? Are you a saint?

I didn't find them edifying and I was trying to explain why.   I'm not condemning him, after all he is human and we're all faulty, I'm merely questioning whether he had the perquisite humility and purity of heart of a saint.   ???
It doesn't sound to me as if you're questioning anything. You seem pretty damn certain to me.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 07, 2012, 12:20:33 AM
You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places.  In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying.  Forget it!  As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.

Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future

Now I'm not condemning him, but he is not a saint...so you can scream all you want.  Besides, what do you care what my opinion is.  If he is a saint, (which I'm sure he is not), God will show it to the world by performing mass miracles through his intercession.  His  body also won't corrupt.  There might  even be a flow and scent of myrhh from the coffin.  This has happened quite often with the Grand Duchess Saint Elizabeth, and with Saint Demetrius the New Martyr of Tripoli.   

Sorry, didn't know you were God and knew who was in heaven...
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Gorazd on September 07, 2012, 12:35:17 AM
celticfan,

I guess that Zenovia did not mean he is not in heaven, but that he is not a saint in the sense of being a suitable intercessor and model of emulation for the faithful.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jckstraw72 on September 07, 2012, 01:23:21 AM
i just returned from 2 months at Platina, where I was privileged to pray at Fr. Seraphim's grave every day, speak with Fr. Damascene at length about him, read some of his unpublished works, and also meet and speak with several others who knew him very well. I was there when the Russian bishop of Tobinsk came with a group of pilgrims to serve Liturgy at Fr. Seraphim's monastery and to venerate his grave, and I was there when a Serbian abbot (who has named a kellia of one of his monasteries after Fr. Seraphim), a Georgian abbot, and a Bulgarian bishop came to pay their respects to him on the day of his repose. It was an amazing and grace-filled summer. I am even more in awe of the life and works of this righteous struggle than I was before - having lived in the same monastery as him (although the life there was far more ascetic in his time) and learned many new things about him. he is a bright and shining example for us, if we have eyes to see it. its one thing to feel no particular connection to him, but it is quite sad when us Americans, for whom he sacrificed himself so much, disparage him and his holy memory. i think i can pretty safely say that no one on this forum has given even 1/100th of what Fr. Seraphim gave of himself, and yet we reject him, and so many doing so on the basis of ignorance of his life and teachings, and ignorance of what other holy Saints and elders have taught. Lord have mercy on us all!

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jckstraw72 on September 07, 2012, 01:30:11 AM
You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places.  In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying.  Forget it!  As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.


that says pretty clearly that you haven't read much then. have you read God's Revelation to the Human Heart? how is a talk about preparing your heart to experience God NOT edifying?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 07, 2012, 01:52:42 AM
You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places.  In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying.  Forget it!  As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.


that says pretty clearly that you haven't read much then. have you read God's Revelation to the Human Heart? how is a talk about preparing your heart to experience God NOT edifying?
Whom are you quoting here? Zenovia? Or celticfan quoting Zenovia?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jckstraw72 on September 07, 2012, 02:00:45 AM
my bad, just zenovia
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 07, 2012, 02:02:43 AM
You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places.  In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying.  Forget it!  As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.


that says pretty clearly that you haven't read much then. have you read God's Revelation to the Human Heart? how is a talk about preparing your heart to experience God NOT edifying?

I hope you quote Zenovia, because I agree with you jckstraw72.  ;)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 07, 2012, 08:30:10 AM
You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places.  In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying.  Forget it!  As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.

Now I'm not condemning him, but he is not a saint...so you can scream all you want.  Besides, what do you care what my opinion is.  If he is a saint, (which I'm sure he is not), God will show it to the world by performing mass miracles through his intercession.  His  body also won't corrupt.  There might  even be a flow and scent of myrhh from the coffin.  This has happened quite often with the Grand Duchess Saint Elizabeth, and with Saint Demetrius the New Martyr of Tripoli.

I am not asking you to accept anything, but I am encouraging you to learn more about Fr. Seraphim, his life, the wide veneration he receives throughout the Orthodox world, and the opinions concerning him of other holy and God-loving people before trusting too much in your own opinion on the matter.  It would not bother me if you simply said that you were not particularly drawn to him, or that you personally do not consider him a saint.  The problem is that, while having never read his Life, while being unaware of the wide veneration he receives throughout the world, while being unaware of the miracles that have occurred after his repose and the many signs of his sanctity; that despite your admitted ignorance concerning all of this you consider your own uniformed opinion to be equivalent to a divine revelation from God concerning the matter.  Again, you have not simply expressed doubts or your own personal view on the subject, but have claimed categorically and definitively that "he is not a saint" and that you are "sure he is not" a saint, as if despite all the evidence and testimony to the contrary, and despite your ignorance concerning him, God has chosen you to reveal to us the final state of Fr. Seraphim's soul.   
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Shlomlokh on September 07, 2012, 09:25:11 AM
Isn't our friend Zenovia the one who was hell-bent on saying that only monastics can attain to holiness or some such thing? ;) If so, why all the ruckus about the Blessed Seraphim of Platina? He lived a a very full monastic life with much fruit beared after his repose.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: age234 on September 07, 2012, 09:43:09 AM
If he is a saint, (which I'm sure he is not), God will show it to the world by performing mass miracles through his intercession.  His  body also won't corrupt.  There might  even be a flow and scent of myrhh from the coffin.  This has happened quite often with the Grand Duchess Saint Elizabeth, and with Saint Demetrius the New Martyr of Tripoli.  

It doesn't work this way. Glorification does not depend solely upon miracles or heavenly scents—although people have reported both in connection with Fr Seraphim. (Which you would know if you read more about him.)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Punch on September 07, 2012, 11:45:42 AM
A Prophet is not without honor, except in his own land and among his own people.  So said the Lord about His own people.  Father Seraphim's treatment by the pseudodox of this country is probably what speaks the loudest as to his position as a Saint.

i just returned from 2 months at Platina, where I was privileged to pray at Fr. Seraphim's grave every day, speak with Fr. Damascene at length about him, read some of his unpublished works, and also meet and speak with several others who knew him very well. I was there when the Russian bishop of Tobinsk came with a group of pilgrims to serve Liturgy at Fr. Seraphim's monastery and to venerate his grave, and I was there when a Serbian abbot (who has named a kellia of one of his monasteries after Fr. Seraphim), a Georgian abbot, and a Bulgarian bishop came to pay their respects to him on the day of his repose. It was an amazing and grace-filled summer. I am even more in awe of the life and works of this righteous struggle than I was before - having lived in the same monastery as him (although the life there was far more ascetic in his time) and learned many new things about him. he is a bright and shining example for us, if we have eyes to see it. its one thing to feel no particular connection to him, but it is quite sad when us Americans, for whom he sacrificed himself so much, disparage him and his holy memory. i think i can pretty safely say that no one on this forum has given even 1/100th of what Fr. Seraphim gave of himself, and yet we reject him, and so many doing so on the basis of ignorance of his life and teachings, and ignorance of what other holy Saints and elders have taught. Lord have mercy on us all!


Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 07, 2012, 11:50:57 AM
A Prophet is not without honor, except in his own land and among his own people.  So said the Lord about His own people.  Father Seraphim's treatment by the pseudodox of this country is probably what speaks the loudest as to his position as a Saint.


Frankly, I have not yet formed an opinion on this matter regarding him while I certainly respect the fact that his published works have inspired many to inquire about Orthodoxy and to join the faith. However, it is 'below the belt' and unfair to deride those who do not as of yet support glorification or who do not accept all of his controversial theological positions as 'pseudodox' or worse.  In fact it is just as wrong as those who would ridicule the traditionalist churches and even ROCOR as being hyperdox etc....
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: recent convert on September 07, 2012, 11:54:10 AM
It seems that there is little ground for agreeing that he is a saint for the sake of consensus and seeing his theology as fallible. The 3rd Rome is not part of my Christian faith.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 07, 2012, 12:06:15 PM
It seems that there is little ground for agreeing that he is a saint for the sake of consensus and seeing his theology as fallible. The 3rd Rome is not part of my Christian faith.

Russia? Why not? Aren't you Orthodox?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 07, 2012, 12:09:19 PM
It seems that there is little ground for agreeing that he is a saint for the sake of consensus and seeing his theology as fallible. The 3rd Rome is not part of my Christian faith.

Russia? Why not? Aren't you Orthodox?

Come on, you know what he means.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: recent convert on September 07, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
It seems that there is little ground for agreeing that he is a saint for the sake of consensus and seeing his theology as fallible. The 3rd Rome is not part of my Christian faith.

Russia? Why not? Aren't you Orthodox?
I could care less either way about some political ideology & am willing to let those who beleive it do so. Others feel less so also:   http://cathedraunitatis.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/constantinople-denounces-third-rome-theory/
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: 88Devin12 on September 07, 2012, 12:16:47 PM
It seems that there is little ground for agreeing that he is a saint for the sake of consensus and seeing his theology as fallible. The 3rd Rome is not part of my Christian faith.

Russia? Why not? Aren't you Orthodox?
I could care less either way about some political ideology & am willing to let those who beleive it do so. Others feel less so also:   http://cathedraunitatis.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/constantinople-denounces-third-rome-theory/

Who cares what +Bartholomew thinks about Russia? Honestly?

May we also bring up the ridiculous & false mythology that St. Andrew founded the Church of Constantinople?

He has bordered far too close to ecumenism in recent years. He's tried to exercise too much power over the entirety of Orthodox Christendom. His jurisdiction doesn't extend nearly as far as he'd like to think. His jurisdiction is stuck where it was hundreds of years ago. He needs to spend his time trying to convert the Turkish people and the return of Old Calendarists instead of trying to play buddy-buddy with the Pope and extending his power beyond his jurisdictional boundaries.

And this is coming from someone who has had the pleasure of seeing him and kissing his hand. I respect +Bartholomew because of his position as first among equals, but not because of what he has said and done.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: recent convert on September 07, 2012, 12:22:42 PM
Reply to #78 ^^^ (quote function problem): I do not even care what Patriarch Bartholomew thinks about it or even agree with the vehemence of his denunciation. Nonetheless, I agree with him on the basis that it has no ultimate meaning in Christian faith & is seen as useless (to be kind) by some of us.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: 88Devin12 on September 07, 2012, 12:25:51 PM
Reply to #78 ^^^ (quote function problem): I do not even care what Patriarch Bartholomew thinks about it or even agree with the vehemence of his denunciation. Nonetheless, I agree with him on the basis that it has no ultimate meaning in Christian faith & is seen as useless (to be kind) by some of us.

That is true, but I don't really think anyone reasonable has argued that it does. The Patriarch of Constantinople (I wished he'd drop the Ecumenical title) is the first among equals, unless he falls into heresy and causes his church to schism off, that isn't going to change.

However I do think that Moscow's place should allow it to rank up there with the current Pentarchy.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 07, 2012, 12:58:56 PM
I am sceptical about considering Fr. Seraphim Rose a saint. Let us discuss pros and cons of a glorification in this thread.


One con is that he accused Orthodox hierarchs of mass apostasy and considered uncanonical jurisdctions to be more Orthodox than canonical ones...

Returning to the OP, I think most Orthodox Christians greatly revere St. John of San Francisco as a saint.  Yet, some who hold St. John in the greatest esteem are also quite severe in their criticism of Fr. Seraphim (Rose), while Fr. Seraphim is often fiercely criticized for teaching and believing things which were taught and believed just as well by St. John.  In fact, much of what Fr. Seraphim is criticized for he learned directly from St. John.

There are plenty of threads already on the toll house teaching, and I do not wish to start up the discussion here, but I have noticed with interest that entire books have been written against “Fr. Seraphim’s teaching concerning the tollhouses” (Fr. Michael Azkoul of HOCNA and Abp. Lazar who was very close with HOCNA but joined a different schismatic group), yet the authors of these works completely ignore the fact that Fr. Seraphim’s detailed discussion of the toll house teaching comes entirely from an Homily by St. John of San Francisco.  These authors will not criticize St. John in their writings because everyone knows that he is a great saint, but they do criticize Fr. Seraphim because Fr. Seraphim exposed their fanaticism and sectarianism during his life (he predicted that Holy Transfiguration Monastery would go into schism from ROCOR more than 10 yrs before it happened, he predicted that the Old Calendarists would break into numerous competing factions at a time when there were only two such factions, he spoke against the scholasticism and fanaticism of Azkoul and Abp Lazar who was then a deacon, and he exposed their problematic approach to Orthodoxy).  In order to criticize Fr. Seraphim’s teaching, one has to speak of St. John’s teaching on the subject, yet what is overlooked in venerating St. John becomes an obstacle to considering Fr. Seraphim a saint?

Regarding Fr. Seraphim’s criticism of other jurisdictions, St. John of San Francisco encouraged the fathers at Platina to speak out against the ecumenistic excesses of Patriarch Athenagoras in their “Orthodox Word” publication (this is mentioned in published letters from Fr. Seraphim).  St. John himself wrote the following excellent article on “Decline of the Patriarchate of Constantinople”:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/decline.aspx

At the end of this article, St. John states:
Quote
In sum, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in theory embracing almost the whole universe and in fact extending its authority only over several dioceses, and in other places having only a higher superficial supervision and receiving certain revenues for this, persecuted by the government at home and not supported by any governmental authority abroad: having lost its significance as a pillar of truth and having itself become a source of division, and at the same time being possessed by an exorbitant love of power—represents a pitiful spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the history of the See of Constantinople.

Are St. John’s comments not similar to what Fr. Seraphim is being criticized for?

What saints have not been critical of the spirit of compromise that one sees today in practically every jurisdiction?  Has Zenovia, who claims to regard Elder Paisios as a saint, not heard of his criticism of priests who go around without their cassocks?  Was not Elder Philotheos (Zervakos) critical of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece until his last breath regarding the adoption of the New Calendar?  If one actually reads the lives and writings of the contemporary saints and elders, and actually reads the life and writings of Fr. Seraphim, one will see their common mind and struggles. 
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 07, 2012, 01:04:35 PM
It seems that there is little ground for agreeing that he is a saint for the sake of consensus and seeing his theology as fallible. The 3rd Rome is not part of my Christian faith.

Russia? Why not? Aren't you Orthodox?

Come on, you know what he means.

Honestly, I didn't. So calm down.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jckstraw72 on September 07, 2012, 02:36:16 PM
I am sceptical about considering Fr. Seraphim Rose a saint. Let us discuss pros and cons of a glorification in this thread.


One con is that he accused Orthodox hierarchs of mass apostasy and considered uncanonical jurisdctions to be more Orthodox than canonical ones...

Returning to the OP, I think most Orthodox Christians greatly revere St. John of San Francisco as a saint.  Yet, some who hold St. John in the greatest esteem are also quite severe in their criticism of Fr. Seraphim (Rose), while Fr. Seraphim is often fiercely criticized for teaching and believing things which were taught and believed just as well by St. John.  In fact, much of what Fr. Seraphim is criticized for he learned directly from St. John.

There are plenty of threads already on the toll house teaching, and I do not wish to start up the discussion here, but I have noticed with interest that entire books have been written against “Fr. Seraphim’s teaching concerning the tollhouses” (Fr. Michael Azkoul of HOCNA and Abp. Lazar who was very close with HOCNA but joined a different schismatic group), yet the authors of these works completely ignore the fact that Fr. Seraphim’s detailed discussion of the toll house teaching comes entirely from an Homily by St. John of San Francisco.  These authors will not criticize St. John in their writings because everyone knows that he is a great saint, but they do criticize Fr. Seraphim because Fr. Seraphim exposed their fanaticism and sectarianism during his life (he predicted that Holy Transfiguration Monastery would go into schism from ROCOR more than 10 yrs before it happened, he predicted that the Old Calendarists would break into numerous competing factions at a time when there were only two such factions, he spoke against the scholasticism and fanaticism of Azkoul and Abp Lazar who was then a deacon, and he exposed their problematic approach to Orthodoxy).  In order to criticize Fr. Seraphim’s teaching, one has to speak of St. John’s teaching on the subject, yet what is overlooked in venerating St. John becomes an obstacle to considering Fr. Seraphim a saint?

Regarding Fr. Seraphim’s criticism of other jurisdictions, St. John of San Francisco encouraged the fathers at Platina to speak out against the ecumenistic excesses of Patriarch Athenagoras in their “Orthodox Word” publication (this is mentioned in published letters from Fr. Seraphim).  St. John himself wrote the following excellent article on “Decline of the Patriarchate of Constantinople”:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/decline.aspx

At the end of this article, St. John states:
Quote
In sum, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in theory embracing almost the whole universe and in fact extending its authority only over several dioceses, and in other places having only a higher superficial supervision and receiving certain revenues for this, persecuted by the government at home and not supported by any governmental authority abroad: having lost its significance as a pillar of truth and having itself become a source of division, and at the same time being possessed by an exorbitant love of power—represents a pitiful spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the history of the See of Constantinople.

Are St. John’s comments not similar to what Fr. Seraphim is being criticized for?

What saints have not been critical of the spirit of compromise that one sees today in practically every jurisdiction?  Has Zenovia, who claims to regard Elder Paisios as a saint, not heard of his criticism of priests who go around without their cassocks?  Was not Elder Philotheos (Zervakos) critical of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece until his last breath regarding the adoption of the New Calendar?  If one actually reads the lives and writings of the contemporary saints and elders, and actually reads the life and writings of Fr. Seraphim, one will see their common mind and struggles.  


God bless you! Fr. Seraphim was chosen, as a laymen (Eugene at the time) by St. John to write homilies for publications of the diocese. It was well known that St. John had a special interest in Eugene and Eugene learned theology directly from St. John and others hand-picked by St. John in the theological courses they taught over the course of several years (Fr. Herman even believes that St. John put the courses together especially for Eugene). St. John blessed the founding of the Fr. Herman Brotherhood and he appeared to Fr. Seraphim many times throughout his monastic life. They are of the same spirit and Fr. Seraphim's entire Orthodox life was guided by the prayers of St. John.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Gorazd on September 07, 2012, 02:42:02 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 07, 2012, 02:51:00 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.

+1
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Ionnis on September 07, 2012, 02:52:09 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.

Indeed!  God protect His All-Holiness Bartholomew and the Ecumenical Throne!

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 07, 2012, 03:02:18 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.

St. John of San Francisco did not say that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was "dead", nor did Fr. Seraphim, nor did I.  What St. John spoke of was its decline.  We should all hope that Constantinople does have a future, and that the decline will be reversed and the Patriarch will again be a great defender of Orthodoxy as were many of his holy predecessors, rather than a source of scandal.

This issue is not an EP vs. MP one.  The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece is among the most outspoken regarding the unjustifiable compromises of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. 
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Jonathan Gress on September 07, 2012, 03:02:46 PM
I asked a hieromonk in our jurisdiction about whether he thought Fr Seraphim should be venerated as a saint. He was formerly a seminarian in Jordanville, and knew people who themselves remembered Fr Seraphim. For what it's worth, he thought of Fr Seraphim as a good monk, but not of the same caliber as other saints. I suppose one should read his life and compare it with that of unambiguous saints, like St John of Kronstadt, or St John of San Francisco.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 07, 2012, 03:06:22 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.

St. John of San Francisco did not say that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was "dead", nor did Fr. Seraphim, nor did I.  What St. John spoke of was its decline.  We should all hope that Constantinople does have a future, and that the decline will be reversed and the Patriarch will again be a great defender of Orthodoxy as were many of his holy predecessors, rather than a source of scandal.

This issue is not an EP vs. MP one.  The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece is among the most outspoken regarding the unjustifiable compromises of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. 

Methinks the so-called great united Church of America is located in a galaxy far, far away my friends.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: augustin717 on September 07, 2012, 03:10:49 PM
I came across fr. Seraphim's books, translated into Romanian, probably in the late nineties; he is quite well known among a subset of the orthodox there, but that's a small subset of all the orthodox population. In Timisoara which is a metropolitan see I can only think of a small little chapel where some of the people will certainly know about him and have a high regard for him too.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 07, 2012, 03:15:53 PM
I came across fr. Seraphim's books, translated into Romanian, probably in the late nineties; he is quite well known among a subset of the orthodox there, but that's a small subset of all the orthodox population. In Timisoara which is a metropolitan see I can only think of a small little chapel where some of the people will certainly know about him and have a high regard for him too.

Frankly, almost ANY published work which we discuss here with the greatest of 'online urgency' is likely only well known among a subset of any group of Orthodox - either in the New or the Old Worlds. Excepting scripture and praybooks.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: augustin717 on September 07, 2012, 03:17:52 PM
I came across fr. Seraphim's books, translated into Romanian, probably in the late nineties; he is quite well known among a subset of the orthodox there, but that's a small subset of all the orthodox population. In Timisoara which is a metropolitan see I can only think of a small little chapel where some of the people will certainly know about him and have a high regard for him too.

Frankly, almost ANY published work which we discuss here with the greatest of 'online urgency' is likely only well known among a subset of any group of Orthodox - either in the New or the Old Worlds. Excepting scripture and praybooks.
True enough.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 07, 2012, 03:20:16 PM
Frankly, almost ANY published work which we discuss here with the greatest of 'online urgency' is likely only well known among a subset of any group of Orthodox - either in the New or the Old Worlds. Excepting scripture and praybooks.

The same could be said regarding any saint, council, book of Scripture, etc.  If you were to mention the name of a saint, Ecumenical Council, book of Scripture, etc., probably very few among the laity would be able to tell you anything about them.  "Common knowledge" among the masses is a very poor criteria for truth.  However, while it may be unremarkable that "many" Orthodox may not know anything about Fr. Seraphim (or other saints), it is remarkable that so many abroad venerate him as a saint.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: age234 on September 07, 2012, 03:52:30 PM
Returning to the OP, I think most Orthodox Christians greatly revere St. John of San Francisco as a saint.  Yet, some who hold St. John in the greatest esteem are also quite severe in their criticism of Fr. Seraphim (Rose), while Fr. Seraphim is often fiercely criticized for teaching and believing things which were taught and believed just as well by St. John.  In fact, much of what Fr. Seraphim is criticized for he learned directly from St. John.

Exactly. I'd like someone to show us some innovations that Fr. Seraphim taught that are unattested to in other Orthodox saints and well-regarded teachers. These "controversial" teachings were known (if not common) in the Russian church at the time, including among our saints.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Gorazd on September 07, 2012, 03:53:56 PM
There is no such thing as a decline of the EP. Overcoming Western capitvity in Orthodox theology in the 20th century was done to a very large extent by two institutions affiliated with the EP: St. Serge in Paris and the Theological Faculty of Thessaloniki.

In Western Europe, many new parishes are under the EP. The Paris jurisdiction alone has grown from 90 to 122 parishes from 2004 to 2011, which is a 35.5% increase. Greek parishes are thriving as well. In Frankfurt, where I live, two wonderful Orthodox church buildings under the EP were constructed in recent years, aking account of parish growth. Surely, some Greeks are moving to Germany to find a job, but there have been many converts, too. Of course, we could always do more. But with God's help, it will be done.

As for "ecumenism", all I can say is that neither Patriarchs Bartholomew, nor Dimitrios or Athinagoras, have denied any dogma of the Orthodox Church. They just approach non-Orthodox Christians with Christian love, not "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 07, 2012, 04:15:13 PM
There is no such thing as a decline of the EP. Overcoming Western capitvity in Orthodox theology in the 20th century was done to a very large extent by two institutions affiliated with the EP: St. Serge in Paris and the Theological Faculty of Thessaloniki.

In Western Europe, many new parishes are under the EP. The Paris jurisdiction alone has grown from 90 to 122 parishes from 2004 to 2011, which is a 35.5% increase. Greek parishes are thriving as well. In Frankfurt, where I live, two wonderful Orthodox church buildings under the EP were constructed in recent years, aking account of parish growth. Surely, some Greeks are moving to Germany to find a job, but there have been many converts, too. Of course, we could always do more. But with God's help, it will be done.

As for "ecumenism", all I can say is that neither Patriarchs Bartholomew, nor Dimitrios or Athinagoras, have denied any dogma of the Orthodox Church. They just approach non-Orthodox Christians with Christian love, not "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism.


Amen x3.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 07, 2012, 04:31:52 PM
There is no such thing as a decline of the EP. Overcoming Western capitvity in Orthodox theology in the 20th century was done to a very large extent by two institutions affiliated with the EP: St. Serge in Paris and the Theological Faculty of Thessaloniki.

In Western Europe, many new parishes are under the EP. The Paris jurisdiction alone has grown from 90 to 122 parishes from 2004 to 2011, which is a 35.5% increase. Greek parishes are thriving as well. In Frankfurt, where I live, two wonderful Orthodox church buildings under the EP were constructed in recent years, aking account of parish growth. Surely, some Greeks are moving to Germany to find a job, but there have been many converts, too. Of course, we could always do more. But with God's help, it will be done.

As for "ecumenism", all I can say is that neither Patriarchs Bartholomew, nor Dimitrios or Athinagoras, have denied any dogma of the Orthodox Church. They just approach non-Orthodox Christians with Christian love, not "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism.

For an explanation regarding St. John's comments on the decline of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, please read St. John's words if you haven't done so.  He is not referring to numerical decline.  New parishes and numbers are not relevant to the subject.

Are you accusing St. John the Wonderworkder of "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism?  Do you accuse Patriarch Anthimos of Constantinople of "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism (see the Encyclical of 1848: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx)?  Is the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece who criticized the Patriarch's ecumenism guilty of such sectarianism?  Was Elder Paisios guilty of this, or any of the other recent Elders who have expressed similar criticisms without breaking communion with the Church?

Anti-ecumenist sectarianism certainly exists, and Fr. Seraphim (Rose) is one of the most outspoken critics against such sectarianism.  This is largely why Abp Lazar (deacon Lev at the time) and Holy Transfiguration Monastery (now in HOCNA) turned against him.  I'm sure you realize, however, that the patriarchs of Constantinople since Patriarch Meletios have done quite a lot more than "just approach non-Orthodox Christians with Christian love".  There are many ways to show Christian love to the non-Orthodox without breaking the canons by having joint "Ecumenical prayer services", without unilaterally lifting anathemas which our Fathers proclaimed against the Latins (Pat. Athenagoras), without receiving the Pope of Rome in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy as if he were an Orthodox bishop (Pat. Bartholomew's reception of Pope Benedict at the Phanar), without denying that the Orthodox Church alone is the Church and body of Christ (not a "sister church" or "other lung" of the body of Christ), etc.

Love does not scandalize.  Compromise with the Orthodox faith and tradition scandalizes.  To claim that the Fathers who spoke against the heresies of Roman Catholicism lacked love in doing so is to fail to understand the nature of genuine love and its inseperability from truth.  It was rather out of great love for the Popes of Rome and for their salvation that the saints and Fathers regularly exposed the Papal heresies, and continue today to do so.  Unfortunately, the Patriarch does not seem to have the love of the saints and Fathers in this respect, but has a vision for the "brotherhood of man" and a kingdom of this world.

I do not claim that Patriarch Batholomew is a heretic or a teacher of heresies, but he seems to like to stand just close enough to the line that it is difficult to see whether indeed he has stepped over it or not.  He has also seems to want to replace the gospel of salvation through Christ for a gospel of Environmentalism and human rights.  This is a love for man's earthly comfort that lacks proper love for a man's soul.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Gorazd on September 07, 2012, 04:54:00 PM
Are you accusing St. John the Wonderworkder of "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism?  Do you accuse Patriarch Anthimos of Constantinople of "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism (see the Encyclical of 1848: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx)?  Is the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece who criticized the Patriarch's ecumenism guilty of such sectarianism?  Was Elder Paisios guilty of this, or any of the other recent Elders who have expressed similar criticisms without breaking communion with the Church?
I am not accusing anyone, but I am telling everyone not to exaggerate. Btw, you are lumping a lot of different statements and people together, without taking into account the nuances.

I'm sure you realize, however, that the patriarchs of Constantinople since Patriarch Meletios have done quite a lot more than "just approach non-Orthodox Christians with Christian love".  There are many ways to show Christian love to the non-Orthodox without breaking the canons by having joint "Ecumenical prayer services", without unilaterally lifting anathemas which our Fathers proclaimed against the Latins (Pat. Athenagoras), without receiving the Pope of Rome in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy as if he were an Orthodox bishop (Pat. Bartholomew's reception of Pope Benedict at the Phanar), without denying that the Orthodox Church alone is the Church and body of Christ (not a "sister church" or "other lung" of the body of Christ), etc.
If you really want, open a thread each and we can discuss these occurences in detail. Or even better, use forum search and you will see that it already has been done ad nauseam. Just let me point out that the canon against joint prayers originally addressed anti-trinitarians, and that the lifting of anathemata was mutual. As for ecclesiology, the position of the EP as state by its Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) is: "We know where the Church is, but we do not know where it is not." 

I do not claim that Patriarch Batholomew is a heretic or a teacher of heresies, but he seems to like to stand just close enough to the line that it is difficult to see whether indeed he has stepped over it or not.
Absolutely incorrect. He did not step any further than St. Mark of Ephesus.


 He has also seems to want to replace the gospel of salvation through Christ for a gospel of Environmentalism and human rights.  This is a love for man's earthly comfort that lacks proper love for a man's soul.
Now that is a serious insult and I would like you to apologise.

Go and read the Patriarchal Encyclical, and you will see that the Patriarch's environmentalism is not a replacement for the gospel, but deeply motivated by his love and care for our souls.
http://goarch.org/news/patriarchindiction2012
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Jonathan Gress on September 07, 2012, 04:54:30 PM
There is no such thing as a decline of the EP. Overcoming Western capitvity in Orthodox theology in the 20th century was done to a very large extent by two institutions affiliated with the EP: St. Serge in Paris and the Theological Faculty of Thessaloniki.

In Western Europe, many new parishes are under the EP. The Paris jurisdiction alone has grown from 90 to 122 parishes from 2004 to 2011, which is a 35.5% increase. Greek parishes are thriving as well. In Frankfurt, where I live, two wonderful Orthodox church buildings under the EP were constructed in recent years, aking account of parish growth. Surely, some Greeks are moving to Germany to find a job, but there have been many converts, too. Of course, we could always do more. But with God's help, it will be done.

As for "ecumenism", all I can say is that neither Patriarchs Bartholomew, nor Dimitrios or Athinagoras, have denied any dogma of the Orthodox Church. They just approach non-Orthodox Christians with Christian love, not "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism.

For an explanation regarding St. John's comments on the decline of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, please read St. John's words if you haven't done so.  He is not referring to numerical decline.  New parishes and numbers are not relevant to the subject.

Are you accusing St. John the Wonderworkder of "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism?  Do you accuse Patriarch Anthimos of Constantinople of "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism (see the Encyclical of 1848: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx)?  Is the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece who criticized the Patriarch's ecumenism guilty of such sectarianism?  Was Elder Paisios guilty of this, or any of the other recent Elders who have expressed similar criticisms without breaking communion with the Church?

Anti-ecumenist sectarianism certainly exists, and Fr. Seraphim (Rose) is one of the most outspoken critics against such sectarianism.  This is largely why Abp Lazar (deacon Lev at the time) and Holy Transfiguration Monastery (now in HOCNA) turned against him.  I'm sure you realize, however, that the patriarchs of Constantinople since Patriarch Meletios have done quite a lot more than "just approach non-Orthodox Christians with Christian love".  There are many ways to show Christian love to the non-Orthodox without breaking the canons by having joint "Ecumenical prayer services", without unilaterally lifting anathemas which our Fathers proclaimed against the Latins (Pat. Athenagoras), without receiving the Pope of Rome in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy as if he were an Orthodox bishop (Pat. Bartholomew's reception of Pope Benedict at the Phanar), without denying that the Orthodox Church alone is the Church and body of Christ (not a "sister church" or "other lung" of the body of Christ), etc.

Love does not scandalize.  Compromise with the Orthodox faith and tradition scandalizes.  To claim that the Fathers who spoke against the heresies of Roman Catholicism lacked love in doing so is to fail to understand the nature of genuine love and its inseperability from truth.  It was rather out of great love for the Popes of Rome and for their salvation that the saints and Fathers regularly exposed the Papal heresies, and continue today to do so.  Unfortunately, the Patriarch does not seem to have the love of the saints and Fathers in this respect, but has a vision for the "brotherhood of man" and a kingdom of this world.

I do not claim that Patriarch Batholomew is a heretic or a teacher of heresies, but he seems to like to stand just close enough to the line that it is difficult to see whether indeed he has stepped over it or not.  He has also seems to want to replace the gospel of salvation through Christ for a gospel of Environmentalism and human rights.  This is a love for man's earthly comfort that lacks proper love for a man's soul.

Are you quite sure that Fr Seraphim's "anti-sectarianism" is the main reason that HTM opposed him? There were many HTM teachings that Fr Seraphim condemned, such as acceptance of evolution or opposition to the toll-house doctrine, which didn't have anything to do with ecclesiology or the proper attitude of the True Orthodox towards World Orthodoxy. In fact, my understanding, which has been confirmed earlier in this thread, is that Fr Seraphim's ecclesiology was stricter in his earlier publications. Could it be that his later, laxer position is at least partly due to the fact that a strict ecclesiology had become associated with the hated HTM, which he originally opposed on quite different grounds?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jckstraw72 on September 07, 2012, 07:16:55 PM
There is no such thing as a decline of the EP. Overcoming Western capitvity in Orthodox theology in the 20th century was done to a very large extent by two institutions affiliated with the EP: St. Serge in Paris and the Theological Faculty of Thessaloniki.

In Western Europe, many new parishes are under the EP. The Paris jurisdiction alone has grown from 90 to 122 parishes from 2004 to 2011, which is a 35.5% increase. Greek parishes are thriving as well. In Frankfurt, where I live, two wonderful Orthodox church buildings under the EP were constructed in recent years, aking account of parish growth. Surely, some Greeks are moving to Germany to find a job, but there have been many converts, too. Of course, we could always do more. But with God's help, it will be done.

As for "ecumenism", all I can say is that neither Patriarchs Bartholomew, nor Dimitrios or Athinagoras, have denied any dogma of the Orthodox Church. They just approach non-Orthodox Christians with Christian love, not "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism.

For an explanation regarding St. John's comments on the decline of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, please read St. John's words if you haven't done so.  He is not referring to numerical decline.  New parishes and numbers are not relevant to the subject.

Are you accusing St. John the Wonderworkder of "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism?  Do you accuse Patriarch Anthimos of Constantinople of "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism (see the Encyclical of 1848: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx)?  Is the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece who criticized the Patriarch's ecumenism guilty of such sectarianism?  Was Elder Paisios guilty of this, or any of the other recent Elders who have expressed similar criticisms without breaking communion with the Church?

Anti-ecumenist sectarianism certainly exists, and Fr. Seraphim (Rose) is one of the most outspoken critics against such sectarianism.  This is largely why Abp Lazar (deacon Lev at the time) and Holy Transfiguration Monastery (now in HOCNA) turned against him.  I'm sure you realize, however, that the patriarchs of Constantinople since Patriarch Meletios have done quite a lot more than "just approach non-Orthodox Christians with Christian love".  There are many ways to show Christian love to the non-Orthodox without breaking the canons by having joint "Ecumenical prayer services", without unilaterally lifting anathemas which our Fathers proclaimed against the Latins (Pat. Athenagoras), without receiving the Pope of Rome in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy as if he were an Orthodox bishop (Pat. Bartholomew's reception of Pope Benedict at the Phanar), without denying that the Orthodox Church alone is the Church and body of Christ (not a "sister church" or "other lung" of the body of Christ), etc.

Love does not scandalize.  Compromise with the Orthodox faith and tradition scandalizes.  To claim that the Fathers who spoke against the heresies of Roman Catholicism lacked love in doing so is to fail to understand the nature of genuine love and its inseperability from truth.  It was rather out of great love for the Popes of Rome and for their salvation that the saints and Fathers regularly exposed the Papal heresies, and continue today to do so.  Unfortunately, the Patriarch does not seem to have the love of the saints and Fathers in this respect, but has a vision for the "brotherhood of man" and a kingdom of this world.

I do not claim that Patriarch Batholomew is a heretic or a teacher of heresies, but he seems to like to stand just close enough to the line that it is difficult to see whether indeed he has stepped over it or not.  He has also seems to want to replace the gospel of salvation through Christ for a gospel of Environmentalism and human rights.  This is a love for man's earthly comfort that lacks proper love for a man's soul.

Are you quite sure that Fr Seraphim's "anti-sectarianism" is the main reason that HTM opposed him? There were many HTM teachings that Fr Seraphim condemned, such as acceptance of evolution or opposition to the toll-house doctrine, which didn't have anything to do with ecclesiology or the proper attitude of the True Orthodox towards World Orthodoxy. In fact, my understanding, which has been confirmed earlier in this thread, is that Fr Seraphim's ecclesiology was stricter in his earlier publications. Could it be that his later, laxer position is at least partly due to the fact that a strict ecclesiology had become associated with the hated HTM, which he originally opposed on quite different grounds?

although Fr. Seraphim differed with them on issues such as evolution and the toll houses, it was foremostly (is that a word?) their attitude to those subjects and those that disagreed with them that he found fault with. Fr. Seraphim taught that a loving heart is an essential characteristic of Orthodoxy, and not the cold calculation that so often comes with always wanting to be right. He didn't moderate his ecclesiological position because of theological issues with HTM, but rather because he came to realize that their pharisaical attitude about such theological topics is the same that supports and furthers their separatist views. it was their lack of Christian warmth and love that showed him that they were not of the same spirit as him, as he initially thought they were.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Jonathan Gress on September 08, 2012, 01:21:33 AM
There is no such thing as a decline of the EP. Overcoming Western capitvity in Orthodox theology in the 20th century was done to a very large extent by two institutions affiliated with the EP: St. Serge in Paris and the Theological Faculty of Thessaloniki.

In Western Europe, many new parishes are under the EP. The Paris jurisdiction alone has grown from 90 to 122 parishes from 2004 to 2011, which is a 35.5% increase. Greek parishes are thriving as well. In Frankfurt, where I live, two wonderful Orthodox church buildings under the EP were constructed in recent years, aking account of parish growth. Surely, some Greeks are moving to Germany to find a job, but there have been many converts, too. Of course, we could always do more. But with God's help, it will be done.

As for "ecumenism", all I can say is that neither Patriarchs Bartholomew, nor Dimitrios or Athinagoras, have denied any dogma of the Orthodox Church. They just approach non-Orthodox Christians with Christian love, not "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism.

For an explanation regarding St. John's comments on the decline of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, please read St. John's words if you haven't done so.  He is not referring to numerical decline.  New parishes and numbers are not relevant to the subject.

Are you accusing St. John the Wonderworkder of "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism?  Do you accuse Patriarch Anthimos of Constantinople of "anti-ecumenist" sectarianism (see the Encyclical of 1848: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx)?  Is the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece who criticized the Patriarch's ecumenism guilty of such sectarianism?  Was Elder Paisios guilty of this, or any of the other recent Elders who have expressed similar criticisms without breaking communion with the Church?

Anti-ecumenist sectarianism certainly exists, and Fr. Seraphim (Rose) is one of the most outspoken critics against such sectarianism.  This is largely why Abp Lazar (deacon Lev at the time) and Holy Transfiguration Monastery (now in HOCNA) turned against him.  I'm sure you realize, however, that the patriarchs of Constantinople since Patriarch Meletios have done quite a lot more than "just approach non-Orthodox Christians with Christian love".  There are many ways to show Christian love to the non-Orthodox without breaking the canons by having joint "Ecumenical prayer services", without unilaterally lifting anathemas which our Fathers proclaimed against the Latins (Pat. Athenagoras), without receiving the Pope of Rome in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy as if he were an Orthodox bishop (Pat. Bartholomew's reception of Pope Benedict at the Phanar), without denying that the Orthodox Church alone is the Church and body of Christ (not a "sister church" or "other lung" of the body of Christ), etc.

Love does not scandalize.  Compromise with the Orthodox faith and tradition scandalizes.  To claim that the Fathers who spoke against the heresies of Roman Catholicism lacked love in doing so is to fail to understand the nature of genuine love and its inseperability from truth.  It was rather out of great love for the Popes of Rome and for their salvation that the saints and Fathers regularly exposed the Papal heresies, and continue today to do so.  Unfortunately, the Patriarch does not seem to have the love of the saints and Fathers in this respect, but has a vision for the "brotherhood of man" and a kingdom of this world.

I do not claim that Patriarch Batholomew is a heretic or a teacher of heresies, but he seems to like to stand just close enough to the line that it is difficult to see whether indeed he has stepped over it or not.  He has also seems to want to replace the gospel of salvation through Christ for a gospel of Environmentalism and human rights.  This is a love for man's earthly comfort that lacks proper love for a man's soul.

Are you quite sure that Fr Seraphim's "anti-sectarianism" is the main reason that HTM opposed him? There were many HTM teachings that Fr Seraphim condemned, such as acceptance of evolution or opposition to the toll-house doctrine, which didn't have anything to do with ecclesiology or the proper attitude of the True Orthodox towards World Orthodoxy. In fact, my understanding, which has been confirmed earlier in this thread, is that Fr Seraphim's ecclesiology was stricter in his earlier publications. Could it be that his later, laxer position is at least partly due to the fact that a strict ecclesiology had become associated with the hated HTM, which he originally opposed on quite different grounds?

although Fr. Seraphim differed with them on issues such as evolution and the toll houses, it was foremostly (is that a word?) their attitude to those subjects and those that disagreed with them that he found fault with. Fr. Seraphim taught that a loving heart is an essential characteristic of Orthodoxy, and not the cold calculation that so often comes with always wanting to be right. He didn't moderate his ecclesiological position because of theological issues with HTM, but rather because he came to realize that their pharisaical attitude about such theological topics is the same that supports and furthers their separatist views. it was their lack of Christian warmth and love that showed him that they were not of the same spirit as him, as he initially thought they were.

Possibly ecclesiology was the prime locus of disagreement, but since these seems to be the main "beef" that conservative World Orthodox have with the True Orthodox, it wouldn't surprise me if this aspect of Fr Seraphim's teaching has been exaggerated beyond its original significance.

Anyway, for a True Orthodox interpretation of Fr Seraphim's life, Vladimir Moss has an essay about him in his book:

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/361_ESSAYS_IN_TRUE_ORTHODOX_CHRISTIANITY_VOL_1_1_.pdf
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2012, 02:40:28 AM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2012, 02:42:09 AM
Have there been any miracles through the intercession of Father Seraphim Rose?  I think not!

It is very shameful that you speak so definitively about a subject about which you are entirely ignorant.  Have you read "Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works"?  How can you comment about Fr. Seraphim without having known or at least read about him?  In this book that I just referenced, you can read about miracles through his intercessions in the chapter appropriately called "With the Saints". 

You may also find the following comments of interest, concerning how Fr. Seraphim was regarded immediately following his repose, taken from the book already mentioned:
Quote
Following his repose, many people had
visions of him which confirmed that he was among the saints, and even
Bishop Nektary of Seattle approached one of the sorrowful nuns who
looked upon the reposed Fr. Seraphim during his funeral and told her
“Don’t pray for Fr. Seraphim, pray to him.”

On the fortieth day after his repose, following the Divine Liturgy and
Pannikhida at the grave, Bishop Nektary gave a homily which ended with
the phrase: “Fr. Seraphim was a righteous man, possibly a saint.”  As
Fr. Damascene relates, “Bishop Nektary was well qualified to make such
a statement, having been in close contact with saints both in Russian
and the free world.  The priest who was translating his sermon into
English, however, hesitated in repeating this phrase, particularly the
last world.  Calculating that such a bold affirmation might be risky
since other Church leaders had not yet expressed their opinion, this
priest asked Bishop Nektary if he had really meant what he said.
Hitting the ground with his staff, the Bishop repeated, in Russian, ‘A
Saint!’ – and the confused priest was obliged to render this word in
English.

”Having led a procession from the hillock of Fr. Seraphim’s grave, the
Bishop was about to enter the church, still holding a censer in his
hand.  Abruptly he turned around and, with great feeling, loudly began
to sing the glorification hymn to monk-saints: ‘We glorify thee, our
holy Father Seraphim, and we honor thy holy memory:  instructor of
monks, and converser with the angels.’  The monks, clergy and pilgrims
joined in the singing, and the sorrow of being separated from Fr.
Seraphim was again transformed into joy.”

Bishop Nektary of Seattle, who knew Fr. Seraphim very well in this life and considered him a saint after his repose, was a spiritual child of St. Nektary of Optina.  Do you claim that Bishop Nektary did not know what he was talking about?  Or, do you know better than Bp. Nektary?  Rather it seems clear that your insistence that Fr. Seraphim is not a saint comes from either your ignorance about his life, his intercessions after his repose, and the veneration he receives throughout the Orthodox world.

Also you mentioned he is revered in Greece.  I doubt it.  Do you have any idea how many future saints they have had in the past decades, such as the Elder Ephraim who established the monasteries in this country. 

You obviously did not reference the link that I provided.  Fr. Peter Alban Heers, a priest who serves in Thessaloniki in Greece and frequents Mt. Athos, has a very good podcast on the subject of the veneration of Fr. Seraphim in Greece and throughout the world.  Please listen to this or read the transcript if you want to be at least a little informed concerning this subject:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/postcards/fr._seraphim_rose_in_greece

Concerning Elder Ephraim, Fr. Seraphim is much revered in Elder Ephraim’s monasteries.  If you have regard for these monasteries, go and ask them about Fr. Seraphim and his veneration in Greece and on Mt. Athos.

Quote
Anyway I could go on and on, and somehow I just can't see Father Seraphim as having the pure soul and humility that's a perquisite for a saint.  ???

Yet, you have shown that you hardly know anything about Fr. Seraphim’s life, the miracles that have resulted from his intercessions, and the veneration that he receives by faithful Orthodox Christians throughout the world. 



You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places.  In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying.  Forget it!  As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.

Now I'm not condemning him, but he is not a saint...so you can scream all you want.  Besides, what do you care what my opinion is.  If he is a saint, (which I'm sure he is not), God will show it to the world by performing mass miracles through his intercession.  His  body also won't corrupt.  There might  even be a flow and scent of myrhh from the coffin.  This has happened quite often with the Grand Duchess Saint Elizabeth, and with Saint Demetrius the New Martyr of Tripoli.  


Yes, we have already discussed your rather bizarre requirements of canonization.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44882.0.html
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 08, 2012, 03:42:44 AM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.

+1
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Dimitrios-Georgios on September 08, 2012, 04:24:53 AM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
+1!
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Gorazd on September 08, 2012, 08:13:39 AM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 08, 2012, 09:07:01 AM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

I fail to see how being a careful steward of God's creation is heterodox or contrary to tradition. Yes, we are given dominion over the entirety of God's creation,but we surely are not charged to squander it's resources and waste its beauty. This argument is always tainted with America's internal political divisions as if being a protector of the natural world and being in favor of capitalism and growth are somehow mutually exclusive goals. Bah. (Sorry for the digression into politics...I try to avoid this, but some won't let it go when the subject of the EP comes up.)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: augustin717 on September 08, 2012, 03:24:09 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

That's the vulgata of touchstone and salvo and aoi monomakhos etc
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2012, 03:36:41 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

I fail to see how being a careful steward of God's creation is heterodox or contrary to tradition. Yes, we are given dominion over the entirety of God's creation,but we surely are not charged to squander it's resources and waste its beauty. This argument is always tainted with America's internal political divisions as if being a protector of the natural world and being in favor of capitalism and growth are somehow mutually exclusive goals. Bah. (Sorry for the digression into politics...I try to avoid this, but some won't let it go when the subject of the EP comes up.)
That, however, wasn't the spirit in which it was given, as demonstrated by the reference to headscarves and watches.  Some won't let it go when the subject of the PoM comes up-and if His Beatitude doesn't come up, they interject him.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2012, 03:38:38 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

That's the vulgata of touchstone and salvo and aoi monomakhos etc
says the Pravda of the "Danube Canal of Thought."
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 08, 2012, 03:52:14 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

I fail to see how being a careful steward of God's creation is heterodox or contrary to tradition. Yes, we are given dominion over the entirety of God's creation,but we surely are not charged to squander it's resources and waste its beauty. This argument is always tainted with America's internal political divisions as if being a protector of the natural world and being in favor of capitalism and growth are somehow mutually exclusive goals. Bah. (Sorry for the digression into politics...I try to avoid this, but some won't let it go when the subject of the EP comes up.)
That, however, wasn't the spirit in which it was given, as demonstrated by the reference to headscarves and watches.  Some won't let it go when the subject of the PoM comes up-and if His Beatitude doesn't come up, they interject him.
And you can't let your hatred of the EP go long enough to engage in a healthy discussion of his message and his place in the Church.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2012, 04:30:14 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

I fail to see how being a careful steward of God's creation is heterodox or contrary to tradition. Yes, we are given dominion over the entirety of God's creation,but we surely are not charged to squander it's resources and waste its beauty. This argument is always tainted with America's internal political divisions as if being a protector of the natural world and being in favor of capitalism and growth are somehow mutually exclusive goals. Bah. (Sorry for the digression into politics...I try to avoid this, but some won't let it go when the subject of the EP comes up.)
That, however, wasn't the spirit in which it was given, as demonstrated by the reference to headscarves and watches.  Some won't let it go when the subject of the PoM comes up-and if His Beatitude doesn't come up, they interject him.
And you can't let your hatred of the EP go long enough to engage in a healthy discussion of his message and his place in the Church.
I do not have a hatred of the EP, nor did I bring His All Holiness up.  I do have a hatred of the Gospel of Liberalism masquerading as the Gospel of Christ.

His All-Holiness' "message" and his place in the Church:these had what to do with whether St. Seraphim is a saint again?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Jonathan Gress on September 08, 2012, 04:32:27 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

I fail to see how being a careful steward of God's creation is heterodox or contrary to tradition. Yes, we are given dominion over the entirety of God's creation,but we surely are not charged to squander it's resources and waste its beauty. This argument is always tainted with America's internal political divisions as if being a protector of the natural world and being in favor of capitalism and growth are somehow mutually exclusive goals. Bah. (Sorry for the digression into politics...I try to avoid this, but some won't let it go when the subject of the EP comes up.)
That, however, wasn't the spirit in which it was given, as demonstrated by the reference to headscarves and watches.  Some won't let it go when the subject of the PoM comes up-and if His Beatitude doesn't come up, they interject him.
And you can't let your hatred of the EP go long enough to engage in a healthy discussion of his message and his place in the Church.
I do not have a hatred of the EP, nor did I bring His All Holiness up.  I do have a hatred of the Gospel of Liberalism masquerading as the Gospel of Christ.

His All-Holiness' "message" and his place in the Church:these had what to do with whether St. Seraphim is a saint again?

This is a bit rich coming from the guy who says sodomy within marriage is permitted.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2012, 05:04:18 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

I fail to see how being a careful steward of God's creation is heterodox or contrary to tradition. Yes, we are given dominion over the entirety of God's creation,but we surely are not charged to squander it's resources and waste its beauty. This argument is always tainted with America's internal political divisions as if being a protector of the natural world and being in favor of capitalism and growth are somehow mutually exclusive goals. Bah. (Sorry for the digression into politics...I try to avoid this, but some won't let it go when the subject of the EP comes up.)
That, however, wasn't the spirit in which it was given, as demonstrated by the reference to headscarves and watches.  Some won't let it go when the subject of the PoM comes up-and if His Beatitude doesn't come up, they interject him.
And you can't let your hatred of the EP go long enough to engage in a healthy discussion of his message and his place in the Church.
I do not have a hatred of the EP, nor did I bring His All Holiness up.  I do have a hatred of the Gospel of Liberalism masquerading as the Gospel of Christ.

His All-Holiness' "message" and his place in the Church:these had what to do with whether St. Seraphim is a saint again?

This is a bit rich coming from the guy who says sodomy within marriage is permitted.
So you cast a no vote for St. Seraphim being a saint?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 08, 2012, 05:49:13 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

I fail to see how being a careful steward of God's creation is heterodox or contrary to tradition. Yes, we are given dominion over the entirety of God's creation,but we surely are not charged to squander it's resources and waste its beauty. This argument is always tainted with America's internal political divisions as if being a protector of the natural world and being in favor of capitalism and growth are somehow mutually exclusive goals. Bah. (Sorry for the digression into politics...I try to avoid this, but some won't let it go when the subject of the EP comes up.)
That, however, wasn't the spirit in which it was given, as demonstrated by the reference to headscarves and watches.  Some won't let it go when the subject of the PoM comes up-and if His Beatitude doesn't come up, they interject him.
And you can't let your hatred of the EP go long enough to engage in a healthy discussion of his message and his place in the Church.
I do not have a hatred of the EP, nor did I bring His All Holiness up.  I do have a hatred of the Gospel of Liberalism masquerading as the Gospel of Christ.

His All-Holiness' "message" and his place in the Church:these had what to do with whether St. Seraphim is a saint again?
You tell me. You're the one who fed the tangent on the EP and his place in the Church. ;)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2012, 06:22:14 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

I fail to see how being a careful steward of God's creation is heterodox or contrary to tradition. Yes, we are given dominion over the entirety of God's creation,but we surely are not charged to squander it's resources and waste its beauty. This argument is always tainted with America's internal political divisions as if being a protector of the natural world and being in favor of capitalism and growth are somehow mutually exclusive goals. Bah. (Sorry for the digression into politics...I try to avoid this, but some won't let it go when the subject of the EP comes up.)
That, however, wasn't the spirit in which it was given, as demonstrated by the reference to headscarves and watches.  Some won't let it go when the subject of the PoM comes up-and if His Beatitude doesn't come up, they interject him.
And you can't let your hatred of the EP go long enough to engage in a healthy discussion of his message and his place in the Church.
I do not have a hatred of the EP, nor did I bring His All Holiness up.  I do have a hatred of the Gospel of Liberalism masquerading as the Gospel of Christ.

His All-Holiness' "message" and his place in the Church:these had what to do with whether St. Seraphim is a saint again?
You tell me. You're the one who fed the tangent on the EP and his place in the Church. ;)
No, just sucked the poison out.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 08, 2012, 06:34:40 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

I fail to see how being a careful steward of God's creation is heterodox or contrary to tradition. Yes, we are given dominion over the entirety of God's creation,but we surely are not charged to squander it's resources and waste its beauty. This argument is always tainted with America's internal political divisions as if being a protector of the natural world and being in favor of capitalism and growth are somehow mutually exclusive goals. Bah. (Sorry for the digression into politics...I try to avoid this, but some won't let it go when the subject of the EP comes up.)
That, however, wasn't the spirit in which it was given, as demonstrated by the reference to headscarves and watches.  Some won't let it go when the subject of the PoM comes up-and if His Beatitude doesn't come up, they interject him.

While I am loyal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for a variety of reasons, most of which probably are a result of the actions of the Phanar in taking under its omophor the Greek Catholics led by +Orestes (Chornock) in the late 1930's, I have never been disrespectful of the PM online or in person - to the best of my recollection.

My frustration here is the same as it is in politics - a field from which I 'fled' in disgust some years ago - religion - whether it is Orthodoxy or whatever - just seems to be a 'zero sum' game to many -  if A says the sky is blue, than to B, the sky must be black - even if it is a shade of gray. Reality matters little in the face of strongly held opinion. Facts are irrelevant to the outcome of an argument.

I have plenty of opinions about various practices across the board in our Faith - some are strongly held and others not so much, some are probably 'snarky', hopefully most are not so. Most of them add little to the discussion or the issues at hand. For the most part, this board is not as stridently opinionated as are some others - some of which invite frenzied comments and others which block comment. When this board  wanders into the netherworld of 'blather', I guess I just tend to overcompensate and hope that we can steer things back to a more reasoned and informative course, rather than just go endlessly back and forth.

Unlike Macbeth, I suppose that I think there is more to life than the idiot's words who, strutting upon the stage, tells a story full of fury which in the end signifies nothing. All too often our discussions end that way and surely leave the outsider with a skewed and erroneous conclusion as to what Orthodoxy is truly all about.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Opus118 on September 08, 2012, 07:12:32 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

That's the vulgata of touchstone and salvo and aoi monomakhos etc

Now I understand what you meant by touchstonistas. Those that may taint Orthodoxy based on a preferred political/economic ideology. I could explain why I am concluding this but I dearly respect the separation of politics and religion.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2012, 07:24:46 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

That's the vulgata of touchstone and salvo and aoi monomakhos etc

Now I understand what you meant by touchstonistas. Those that may taint Orthodoxy based on a preferred political/economic ideology.

Yeah, Augustine717's Gospel according to Marx doesn't do that. ::)

I could explain why I am concluding this but I dearly respect the separation of politics and religion.
Quote

The Green Bible includes the
following distinctive features:
Green-Letter Edition: Verses and passages that speak to God's care for creation highlighted in green
Contributions by Brian McLaren, Matthew Sleeth,
N. T. Wright, Desmond Tutu, and many others
A green Bible index and personal study guide
Recycled paper, using soy-based ink with a cotton/linen cover
http://www.greenletterbible.com/
yeah, no mixing of politics and religion there. ::)

Quote
Time: Conservative Bible Project 'Insane' but 'Green Bible' Evangelical-friendly
A year ago Time magazine's David Van Biema wrote up a short, favorable take on the so-called Green Bible, an edition based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) that placed "green references" in "a pleasant shade of forest green, much as red-letter editions of the Bible encrimson the words of Jesus." But wait, there's more, The Green Bible also includes "supplementary writings" several of which "cite the Genesis verse in which God gives humanity 'dominion' over the earth" and "Others [which] assert that eco-neglect violates Jesus' call to care for the least among us: it is the poor who inhabit the floodplains."
 
Even though The Green Bible is risible both from a commercial standpoint as a marketing ploy and theologically as a bastardization of the real heart of Christian doctrine, neither charge was entertained as a valid criticism by the Time staffer. Van Biema even hinted that evangelicals, 54 percent of whom "agreed that 'stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost'" might embrace the translation despite strong reservations from conservative theologians...Both the Green Bible and the nascent Conservative Bible project have room for both scorn and thoughtful criticism. It would be helpful for Sullivan to admit as much to escape the charge of being a hypocrite who should first remove the log from her magazine's eye before picking the speck out of those of conservative online activists.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/10/05/time-conservative-bible-project-insane-green-bible-evangelical-friendl#ixzz25vLNfEf8
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Opus118 on September 08, 2012, 07:33:29 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

That's the vulgata of touchstone and salvo and aoi monomakhos etc

Now I understand what you meant by touchstonistas. Those that may taint Orthodoxy based on a preferred political/economic ideology. I could explain why I am concluding this but I dearly respect the separation of politics and religion.
Quote

The Green Bible includes the
following distinctive features:
Green-Letter Edition: Verses and passages that speak to God's care for creation highlighted in green
Contributions by Brian McLaren, Matthew Sleeth,
N. T. Wright, Desmond Tutu, and many others
A green Bible index and personal study guide
Recycled paper, using soy-based ink with a cotton/linen cover
http://www.greenletterbible.com/
yeah, no mixing of politics and religion there.

I actually love the typical rejoinder of your sort (political persuasion) that the exception proves the rule. We should just let the reader make the judgement and leave it at that.

As you know I am an admirer of your craft.

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 08, 2012, 08:38:33 PM
You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places.  In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying.  Forget it!  As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.


that says pretty clearly that you haven't read much then. have you read God's Revelation to the Human Heart? how is a talk about preparing your heart to experience God NOT edifying?

No I haven't read much of Father Seraphim, because I didn't feel at all edified by what I did read.  He was always too condemning of other Christian faiths, something that I have never found in the writings of saints since their purpose has always been to edify others and bring them closer to God, rather than looking for failings in others.  If you can give me a quote from the book you mentioned, I would certainly appreciate it.

As for his book on the Toll Houses, I found it places our existence after death within conceptual boundaries which structuralizes our  ascent towards Theosis, in a manner which seems reminiscent of purgatory.  This doesn't mean I'm fully denying the concept, since it is probably allegorical, (as is purgatory), but it is expressing things  in a manner that is not in conformity with Orthodox Theology.

Now I find the following you said faulty: "How is a talk about preparing your heart to experience God NOT edifying?"  Well, how can one prepare their hearts, when it is not us but God  Who prepares our heart when we turn to him in prayer and repentance?  Isn't the preparation of our heart and soul what we know as God's Grace?

See this is the whole problem, and I noticed it in the interview as well.  Father Damascene kept saying how they would talk about their past experiences with different faiths, so that the attainment of Theosis became more or less an intellectual persuit...something I think that would have freaked out Saint Gregory Palamas.  Also the monks I know are never to talk about themselves since it would denote pride, and purity of heart and Theosis can only be attained through humility.

But look let's face it, I'm just a lay person, and really not up to these deep theological concepts, so pay me no heed.  I'm just being honest and trying the best to express how I feel and why I feel that way.   Anyway in Christianity everything is faith, so how about a quote from Saint Nektarios:  ;)

 CHRISTIANITY

"...Christian religion is not a certain philosophic system, about which learned men, trained in metaphysical studies, argue and then either espouse or reject, according to the opinion each one has formed. It is faith, established in the souls of men, which ought to be spread to the many and be maintained in their consciousnesses...."   
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Shanghaiski on September 08, 2012, 10:22:44 PM
Remember when this thread was about Fr. Seraphim Rose?

Neither do I.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 08, 2012, 10:27:54 PM
You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places.  In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying.  Forget it!  As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.


that says pretty clearly that you haven't read much then. have you read God's Revelation to the Human Heart? how is a talk about preparing your heart to experience God NOT edifying?

No I haven't read much of Father Seraphim, because I didn't feel at all edified by what I did read.  He was always too condemning of other Christian faiths, something that I have never found in the writings of saints since their purpose has always been to edify others and bring them closer to God, rather than looking for failings in others.
So you don't like having your universalist world view challenged by someone who calls a heresy exactly what it is? It seems that a lot of saints did that.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Opus118 on September 09, 2012, 12:43:02 AM
Remember when this thread was about Fr. Seraphim Rose?

Neither do I.

And neither do I. We do have the honor of reading Ialmisry's posts in his prime and I believe that sincerely.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 09, 2012, 10:33:32 PM
You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places.  In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying.  Forget it!  As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.



that says pretty clearly that you haven't read much then. have you read God's Revelation to the Human Heart? how is a talk about preparing your heart to experience God NOT edifying?

No I haven't read much of Father Seraphim, because I didn't feel at all edified by what I did read.  He was always too condemning of other Christian faiths, something that I have never found in the writings of saints since their purpose has always been to edify others and bring them closer to God, rather than looking for failings in others.
So you don't like having your universalist world view challenged by someone who calls a heresy exactly what it is? It seems that a lot of saints did that.

Not being a fundamentalist, doesn't necessarily mean ones a universalist...whatever that means.  So tell me in your mind what constitutes a heresy, because in mine, it's a belief formed out of self pride, which alters Christian teachings in a way which hinders people from attaining God's Grace.  An example would be the modernist 'everything is relative' concepts that are so popular today...even among so called 'Orthodox Christians.

Anyway I don't really want to discuss Father Seraphim Rose any further because it's not fair to him.  The thread was about whether he should be glorified, and I stated my opinion.  In order to explain why I had that opinion, I was forced to denigrate him in some way which is sinful and I apologize for it :-[. 
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 10, 2012, 08:47:14 AM
Zenovia, thank you for expressing yourself more clearly and humbly.  I understand if you do not want to discuss this further, but if you are willing I would like for you to elaborate on a couple of objections you have repeated regarding Fr. Seraphim.  You mentioned:

He was always too condemning of other Christian faiths, something that I have never found in the writings of saints since their purpose has always been to edify others and bring them closer to God, rather than looking for failings in others.


It would be helpful if you could provide specific quotes from him expressing views that you object to, but if you can’t do that, could you at least elaborate on what you understand regarding Fr. Seraphim’s views about other Christian faiths, and what you object to about these views?

Also the monks I know are never to talk about themselves since it would denote pride, and purity of heart and Theosis can only be attained through humility.

Another objection that you mention above is that supposedly Fr. Seraphim spoke of himself in a way that is not appropriate for a monastic.  Could you provide quotes regarding this as well, or at least elaborate on what you are referring to exactly? 

In another thread, you mention your great esteem for Abbess Aemiliane.  Since you are familiar with her interview (http://silouanthompson.net/2009/04/interview-sister-aemiliane/), where she certainly does talk about herself, I would like to understand what you object to regarding Fr. Seraphim’s words about himself and how such speech differs from that of Abbess Aemiliane in this example. 

You also mentioned some other holy elders who you do esteem as saints (Elders Paisios, Porphyrios, etc.), yet there are certainly examples of these elders speaking about themselves, so I would like you to clarify your comments so I understand exactly what you are objecting to in Fr. Seraphim.  In “Wounded by Love” and other books on Elder Porphyrios, there are many quotes where he described specific experiences he had.  This is also the case with Elder Paisios.  In fact, most of what we know regarding the experiences of the saints in prayer are only known to us because they decided at some point to speak of these things to their spiritual children.  Elder Sophrony of Essex even went so far as to write a spiritual autobiography (“We Shall See Him as He Is”), which is rather unusual.  It is true that monks (and Christians in general) should not speak boastfully or pridefully about their own labors, experiences, and achievements, but most of the saints have at some point described their experiences and practices to spiritual children for their edification.  I would like to better understand what specifically about Fr. Seraphim’s words you object to in this context. 
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jckstraw72 on September 10, 2012, 10:33:54 AM
here is what a Bulgarian bishop had to say about him in honor of the 30th anniversary of his repose: https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10103288309977334&saved
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Shlomlokh on September 10, 2012, 09:27:03 PM
here is what a Bulgarian bishop had to say about him in honor of the 30th anniversary of his repose: https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10103288309977334&saved
I love Bishop Daniil. Met him this summer. He tonsured a friend of mine and I. He's fresh out of a monastery, if memory serves me.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Seraphim98 on September 11, 2012, 12:10:49 AM
Deep in my preconvert years I came across one of Fr. Seraphim's books in which he concluded that much in the Charismatic movement (of which I was a new, active, and adamantly convinced participant of the time) was essentially a form of Christian shamanism. It absolutely infuriated me…who did those Orthodox think they were to make such exclusive claims for themselves when they only had a bunch of dead ritual for a faith…that's pretty much how it affected me.  Decades later I encountered an excerpt from the same book, the section on Charismatics and did not recognize the source at first. Whoever the writer was seemed to me to be firm but fair and person of profound insight. The things he laid out as problematic for the Charismatics I had seen firsthand over those decades…at least 95 percent of his criticisms struck me as entirely accurate and prescient even given that the arc of troubles he described was still well in the future when this chapter was written.  I thought it a very fair and thought provoking summary of what had gone wrong with the Charismatic movement…only when I went back to discover the author did I realize this was the same guy and the same chapter that had made me so angry as a young man.

That perspective as much as anything else solidified my appreciation for Orthodoxy's iron about who and what it is, however carefully wrapped in velvet it may be from time to time.  A few years later Monk Damascene's biography of Fr. Seraphim came out which was supplemented a few years later by a book on him by his niece.  Between them emerged the portrait…dare one say icon of a terrific ascetic struggle…an affront to our age.

I won't say every iota of Fr. Seraphim's teaching/theologizing was unimpeachable…I'm in no position to say. I will say his tone could come across as rigid and harsh at first reading…but as my experience shows, like a fine wine his opinions and presentation improve with age.  If Fr. Seraphim is universally glorified in the Orthodox Church, I don't think it will be because of his teaching prowess…even if everyone thought well of it. Rather I think it is in his personal struggle to live the faith of the fathers without compromise, his labors to immerse himself in the wisdom of the fathers, to show us how to approach them and to bring to American Orthodoxy translations of many precious Russian spiritual works, and for his vast labors in providing spiritual reading for persecuted Christians in the Soviet Union…for that…for his struggle for holiness, for his labors in Christ's vineyard that eventually contributed to his ill health and bodily death…for that podvig, it is entirely conceivable that he will one day be recognized as one of the first home grown American saints.  The reverence he receives overseas will in time penetrate here. Dispute some aspects of his teaching about the toll houses as one may, there is no disputing the depth, and vigor of his life and labors for the Lord.  May it please the Lord to glorify him and number him among the saints.  

Indeed I sometimes think he helped me find my way to Orthodoxy by way of "apology" for having once made me so angry. And I hope he has forgiven my earnest but mistaken youthful misjudgment. We need souls like Fr. Seraphim, people not afraid to stand without wavering in the face of modernities infatuation with unbounded narcissistic affirmations.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 11, 2012, 12:43:46 AM
Zenovia, thank you for expressing yourself more clearly and humbly.  I understand if you do not want to discuss this further, but if you are willing I would like for you to elaborate on a couple of objections you have repeated regarding Fr. Seraphim.  You mentioned:

He was always too condemning of other Christian faiths, something that I have never found in the writings of saints since their purpose has always been to edify others and bring them closer to God, rather than looking for failings in others.


It would be helpful if you could provide specific quotes from him expressing views that you object to, but if you can’t do that, could you at least elaborate on what you understand regarding Fr. Seraphim’s views about other Christian faiths, and what you object to about these views?
[/quote]

I had read two books by Father Seraphim about thirty years ago, so I can't give you the quotes or specifics, but I do recall him saying some things about the Catholic Church, and to be honest I dislike elitism in any faith.  Why not just exentuate our beliefs without mentioning another Church, because by doing so wouldn't you be denigrating it?  

I recall  that he mentioned the Jews, and I do know that they have imposed their values on our society, but nobody is forcing people to follow or to emulate them.  People are doing it on their own volition as far as I can tell, so why even mention them?  Wouldn't saying something about them be arousing passions against them, and wouldn't that be detrimental to someone's soul?  

Quote
Also the monks I know are never to talk about themselves since it would denote pride, and purity of heart and Theosis can only be attained through humility.

In another thread, you mention your great esteem for Abbess Aemiliane.  Since you are familiar with her interview (http://silouanthompson.net/2009/04/interview-sister-aemiliane/), where she certainly does talk about herself, I would like to understand what you object to regarding Fr. Seraphim’s words about himself and how such speech differs from that of Abbess Aemiliane in this example.  
[/quote]

I never heard Abbess Aemiliane speak about herself other than her testimony on being saved by the Elder Aemilianos.  In order to give her testimony, she has to go into her experiences during and after the miracle.  I had a discussion about that with my daughter who knows her quite well, and I insisted that it's obligatory to give testimonies of miraculous cures, etc.  She told me though that the Abbess was given a special blessing to do so from her spiritual father.

Quote
Quote
You also mentioned some other holy elders who you do esteem as saints (Elders Paisios, Porphyrios, etc.), yet there are certainly examples of these elders speaking about themselves, so I would like you to clarify your comments so I understand exactly what you are objecting to in Fr. Seraphim.  In “Wounded by Love” and other books on Elder Porphyrios, there are many quotes where he described specific experiences he had.  This is also the case with Elder Paisios.  In fact, most of what we know regarding the experiences of the saints in prayer are only known to us because they decided at some point to speak of these things to their spiritual children.  Elder Sophrony of Essex even went so far as to write a spiritual autobiography (“We Shall See Him as He Is”), which is rather unusual.  It is true that monks (and Christians in general) should not speak boastfully or pridefully about their own labors, experiences, and achievements, but most of the saints have at some point described their experiences and practices to spiritual children for their edification.  I would like to better understand what specifically about Fr. Seraphim’s words you object to in this context.  


I read the interview by Father Damascene that was posted, and he's the one that said that Father Seraphim Rose spoke about himself quite often.  The way I took it was that he spoke about his life before becoming a monk.  As for the Elders Porphyrios and the Elder Paissios, I don't believe they ever spoke about their life before becoming monks.   I never read anything about their childhood other than the Godfather of Elder Paissios was a saint.   These two elders were also given a great many charisms, and there were times they would mention them, but if these things denoted  pride in anyway, they wouldn't have the charisms would they?  

Also in the Bible, when Christ cured someone and He was asked if it was his parents that sinned, He said that the man was blind so that He could cure him.  By the same token, if God has given these Elders these great charisms, then wouldn't  God want them to be known?    :)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jckstraw72 on September 11, 2012, 09:03:02 AM
Zenovia, thank you for expressing yourself more clearly and humbly.  I understand if you do not want to discuss this further, but if you are willing I would like for you to elaborate on a couple of objections you have repeated regarding Fr. Seraphim.  You mentioned:

He was always too condemning of other Christian faiths, something that I have never found in the writings of saints since their purpose has always been to edify others and bring them closer to God, rather than looking for failings in others.


It would be helpful if you could provide specific quotes from him expressing views that you object to, but if you can’t do that, could you at least elaborate on what you understand regarding Fr. Seraphim’s views about other Christian faiths, and what you object to about these views?

I had read two books by Father Seraphim about thirty years ago, so I can't give you the quotes or specifics, but I do recall him saying some things about the Catholic Church, and to be honest I dislike elitism in any faith.  Why not just exentuate our beliefs without mentioning another Church, because by doing so wouldn't you be denigrating it?  

I recall  that he mentioned the Jews, and I do know that they have imposed their values on our society, but nobody is forcing people to follow or to emulate them.  People are doing it on their own volition as far as I can tell, so why even mention them?  Wouldn't saying something about them be arousing passions against them, and wouldn't that be detrimental to someone's soul?  

Quote
Also the monks I know are never to talk about themselves since it would denote pride, and purity of heart and Theosis can only be attained through humility.

In another thread, you mention your great esteem for Abbess Aemiliane.  Since you are familiar with her interview (http://silouanthompson.net/2009/04/interview-sister-aemiliane/), where she certainly does talk about herself, I would like to understand what you object to regarding Fr. Seraphim’s words about himself and how such speech differs from that of Abbess Aemiliane in this example.  
[/quote]

I never heard Abbess Aemiliane speak about herself other than her testimony on being saved by the Elder Aemilianos.  In order to give her testimony, she has to go into her experiences during and after the miracle.  I had a discussion about that with my daughter who knows her quite well, and I insisted that it's obligatory to give testimonies of miraculous cures, etc.  She told me though that the Abbess was given a special blessing to do so from her spiritual father.

Quote
Quote
You also mentioned some other holy elders who you do esteem as saints (Elders Paisios, Porphyrios, etc.), yet there are certainly examples of these elders speaking about themselves, so I would like you to clarify your comments so I understand exactly what you are objecting to in Fr. Seraphim.  In “Wounded by Love” and other books on Elder Porphyrios, there are many quotes where he described specific experiences he had.  This is also the case with Elder Paisios.  In fact, most of what we know regarding the experiences of the saints in prayer are only known to us because they decided at some point to speak of these things to their spiritual children.  Elder Sophrony of Essex even went so far as to write a spiritual autobiography (“We Shall See Him as He Is”), which is rather unusual.  It is true that monks (and Christians in general) should not speak boastfully or pridefully about their own labors, experiences, and achievements, but most of the saints have at some point described their experiences and practices to spiritual children for their edification.  I would like to better understand what specifically about Fr. Seraphim’s words you object to in this context.  


I read the interview by Father Damascene that was posted, and he's the one that said that Father Seraphim Rose spoke about himself quite often.  The way I took it was that he spoke about his life before becoming a monk.  As for the Elders Porphyrios and the Elder Paissios, I don't believe they ever spoke about their life before becoming monks.   I never read anything about their childhood other than the Godfather of Elder Paissios was a saint.   These two elders were also given a great many charisms, and there were times they would mention them, but if these things denoted  pride in anyway, they wouldn't have the charisms would they?  

Also in the Bible, when Christ cured someone and He was asked if it was his parents that sinned, He said that the man was blind so that He could cure him.  By the same token, if God has given these Elders these great charisms, then wouldn't  God want them to be known?    :)
[/quote]

what article is this? i find it very strange that Fr. Damascene would have said something like that. I spent 2 months at St. Herman's this summer and had much time to talk to him and others who knew him very well. They said the exact opposite -- that he hardly spoke at all and certainly not about himself. His first Godson, Fr. John Campbell (Jordanville), told me that Eugene, and then Fr. Seraphim never spoke about himself. Could you provide the link to the article you're speaking of?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 11, 2012, 10:14:35 AM
I had read two books by Father Seraphim about thirty years ago, so I can't give you the quotes or specifics, but I do recall him saying some things about the Catholic Church, and to be honest I dislike elitism in any faith.  Why not just exentuate our beliefs without mentioning another Church, because by doing so wouldn't you be denigrating it?

These and other comments lead me to wonder about your familiarity with the lives of the saints.  In several posts you have rightly exalted St. Nektarios, but you have done so in order to attempt to draw a contrast to Fr. Seraphim in some ways.  You recall (but without specific quotes) that Fr. Seraphim said things about the Roman Catholic Church that were denigrating, and this is one reason why you do not consider him a saint.  What do you think, then, of what St. Nektarios said about the Roman Catholic Church?  Do you know that he wrote an entire book on the Great Schism? 

The saints, in their great love for mankind, earnestly desire the salvation of all.  As such, they speak out about heresies which cut people off from the grace of God and which keep man from the possibility of theosis.  Salvation is to be found only in the One Church, and that truth is defended by the saints not because they were elitist but because this is true.  They could have kept silent about such truths, but doing so would only hinder people from leaving schisms and heresies to be united to the true Church which is the Ark of Salvation.

Since you do not seem to be familiar with St. Nektarios’ words concerning the Roman Catholic Church, here are some quotes from him that can be found in the book The Church Fathers on Love in Truth, published in Thessalonika, Greece by “Orthodox Kypseli Publications”.  St. Nektarios’ complete book on the Schism has not yet been translated into English:

Quote
St. Nektarios said… “Neither the Papist nor the Protestant church can be considered as the True church of Christ.  The first was altered by a number of innovations and the accursed despotism (Primacy) due to which resulted the schism from the Orthodox.  The same goes for the Protestants whose innumerable innovations lead to total anarchy and chaos.  Only the Orthodox church maintained the teachings of Christ flawlessly without a single innovation.  Only in the Orthodox church does unity exist.  The unity which the Savior was petitioning from the Father saying, ‘Holy Father keep them in your Name those you gave me so they can be one just like we are one. (John 17:11…)’.” (p.20)

“Those that are not reborn by the divine grace in the only ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, they do not consist of (comprise) any church, neither visible nor invisible.”

These are just a couple of quotes from St. Nektarios, but so many of our saints and fathers clearly and openly taught that Roman Catholics and Protestants have no sacraments, no theosis, and no salvation.  Read St. Mark of Ephesus’ clear declaration that “Latins are heretics”, or the many words form St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain that Latins (Roman Catholics) are heretics and do not have true baptisms or sacraments, or the words of St. Paisius (Velichkovsky) to an Eastern Rite Catholic priest instructing him to enter the Orthodox Church lest he repose outside of the Orthodox Church and be counted among the unbelievers, or the words of St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) in the article concerning the “Impossibility of Salvation for the Heterodox and Heretics”, or the scathing words of St. Justin (Popovich) of Chilije concerning heretical Roman Catholicism.  Read what St. Theophan the Recluse wrote concerning Protestantism (from the book “Preaching Another Christ”), or what Elder Cleopa of Romania said concerning Protestantism (“The Truth of Our Faith”).  None of the Orthodox saints or Fathers spoke of Roman Catholicism or Protestantism as in any way leading man towards salvation and theosis.  In fact, they taught the exact opposite, and they did so with hope for the salvation of all in the Orthodox Church. 

I read the interview by Father Damascene that was posted, and he's the one that said that Father Seraphim Rose spoke about himself quite often.  The way I took it was that he spoke about his life before becoming a monk.  As for the Elders Porphyrios and the Elder Paissios, I don't believe they ever spoke about their life before becoming monks.   I never read anything about their childhood other than the Godfather of Elder Paissios was a saint.   These two elders were also given a great many charisms, and there were times they would mention them, but if these things denoted  pride in anyway, they wouldn't have the charisms would they?

I really cannot comment on your objections to Fr. Seraphim speaking about himself without a quote and a link so that I can see what was said and the context.  As “jckstraw72” also suggested, the Life of Fr. Seraphim (which you say you haven’t read) does say the opposite; that Fr. Seraphim would not speak of his former life.  You are correct that in general monastics are not to speak about their former life in the world.  As I understand it, this is particularly the case when a monastic is young and inexperienced because such speech could encourage fantasy about one’s former life similar to the fantasies that the Israelites had of Egypt when they were passing through the desert.  Such thought and speech is like putting one’s hand to the plow and looking back, and can lead to half-heartedness, a weakening of resolve, and possibly the abandonment of monastic vows and a return to the world.  Refraining from such speech and thought helps a monastic understand that they have died to the world, they have abandoned their former lives, and they now live only for Christ. 

Monastics (and non-monastics) are also not supposed to speak openly about their struggles, experiences, and progress as this could lead to pride and delusion.  While this is the case, the lives of the saints are filled with examples of experienced saints speaking of their life in the world as well as their ascetic practices and experiences, with humility, if such words could be helpful and edifying to their spiritual children.  You mention that you don’t believe that Elder Porphyrios or Elder Paisios spoke of their lives before becoming monks, but that is actually not true.  In both of their lives you can find direct quotes from them where they tell stories from their childhood and their life before monasticism for the sake of instructing and edifying the listener.  If you have the recently published (in English) book on Elder Paisios by Hieromonk Isaac, flip through the first part of the book regarding the Elder’s childhood and see how many stories are direct quotes from Elder Paisios about his childhood.

So, monastics may speak of themselves and their former life in a way that is prideful, sinful, and could lead to temptation; and monastics may speak of themselves in such a way that is humble and only for the purpose of helping a person in need.  Without the quotes from Fr. Seraphim that you are referring to, I cannot comment more specifically on your allegations in this context.

In conclusion, I sincerely recommend that you familiarize yourself with the life of Fr. Seraphim and with the lives of the many glorified saints of our Church.  There is so much to learn from them, and we should constantly strive to think, feel, believe, and act as they did.  If our minds are in conformity with theirs, then our minds will be in conformity with Christ’s; and if our minds are in conformity with Christ’s, they will be in conformity with the minds of the saints and Fathers of the Church.  Then we will understand what makes for true sanctity, and we ourselves will be well on our way towards theosis.   
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jckstraw72 on September 11, 2012, 11:29:37 AM
as for how Fr. Seraphim treated other Christians -- a distinction needs to be made between CatholicISM and Catholics -- 2 different things. Here is what he says about how to treat the heterodox http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/howtotreattheheterodox.aspx
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 11, 2012, 05:22:28 PM
Zenovia, thank you for expressing yourself more clearly and humbly.  I understand if you do not want to discuss this further, but if you are willing I would like for you to elaborate on a couple of objections you have repeated regarding Fr. Seraphim.  You mentioned:

He was always too condemning of other Christian faiths, something that I have never found in the writings of saints since their purpose has always been to edify others and bring them closer to God, rather than looking for failings in others.


The link is in one of the above posts.

It would be helpful if you could provide specific quotes from him expressing views that you object to, but if you can’t do that, could you at least elaborate on what you understand regarding Fr. Seraphim’s views about other Christian faiths, and what you object to about these views?

I had read two books by Father Seraphim about thirty years ago, so I can't give you the quotes or specifics, but I do recall him saying some things about the Catholic Church, and to be honest I dislike elitism in any faith.  Why not just exentuate our beliefs without mentioning another Church, because by doing so wouldn't you be denigrating it?  

I recall  that he mentioned the Jews, and I do know that they have imposed their values on our society, but nobody is forcing people to follow or to emulate them.  People are doing it on their own volition as far as I can tell, so why even mention them?  Wouldn't saying something about them be arousing passions against them, and wouldn't that be detrimental to someone's soul?  

Quote
Also the monks I know are never to talk about themselves since it would denote pride, and purity of heart and Theosis can only be attained through humility.

In another thread, you mention your great esteem for Abbess Aemiliane.  Since you are familiar with her interview (http://silouanthompson.net/2009/04/interview-sister-aemiliane/), where she certainly does talk about herself, I would like to understand what you object to regarding Fr. Seraphim’s words about himself and how such speech differs from that of Abbess Aemiliane in this example.  

I never heard Abbess Aemiliane speak about herself other than her testimony on being saved by the Elder Aemilianos.  In order to give her testimony, she has to go into her experiences during and after the miracle.  I had a discussion about that with my daughter who knows her quite well, and I insisted that it's obligatory to give testimonies of miraculous cures, etc.  She told me though that the Abbess was given a special blessing to do so from her spiritual father.

Quote
Quote
You also mentioned some other holy elders who you do esteem as saints (Elders Paisios, Porphyrios, etc.), yet there are certainly examples of these elders speaking about themselves, so I would like you to clarify your comments so I understand exactly what you are objecting to in Fr. Seraphim.  In “Wounded by Love” and other books on Elder Porphyrios, there are many quotes where he described specific experiences he had.  This is also the case with Elder Paisios.  In fact, most of what we know regarding the experiences of the saints in prayer are only known to us because they decided at some point to speak of these things to their spiritual children.  Elder Sophrony of Essex even went so far as to write a spiritual autobiography (“We Shall See Him as He Is”), which is rather unusual.  It is true that monks (and Christians in general) should not speak boastfully or pridefully about their own labors, experiences, and achievements, but most of the saints have at some point described their experiences and practices to spiritual children for their edification.  I would like to better understand what specifically about Fr. Seraphim’s words you object to in this context.  


I read the interview by Father Damascene that was posted, and he's the one that said that Father Seraphim Rose spoke about himself quite often.  The way I took it was that he spoke about his life before becoming a monk.  As for the Elders Porphyrios and the Elder Paissios, I don't believe they ever spoke about their life before becoming monks.   I never read anything about their childhood other than the Godfather of Elder Paissios was a saint.   These two elders were also given a great many charisms, and there were times they would mention them, but if these things denoted  pride in anyway, they wouldn't have the charisms would they?  

Also in the Bible, when Christ cured someone and He was asked if it was his parents that sinned, He said that the man was blind so that He could cure him.  By the same token, if God has given these Elders these great charisms, then wouldn't  God want them to be known?    :)
[/quote]

what article is this? i find it very strange that Fr. Damascene would have said something like that. I spent 2 months at St. Herman's this summer and had much time to talk to him and others who knew him very well. They said the exact opposite -- that he hardly spoke at all and certainly not about himself. His first Godson, Fr. John Campbell (Jordanville), told me that Eugene, and then Fr. Seraphim never spoke about himself. Could you provide the link to the article you're speaking of?
[/quote]
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 11, 2012, 05:29:01 PM
Have there been any miracles through the intercession of Father Seraphim Rose?  I think not!

It is very shameful that you speak so definitively about a subject about which you are entirely ignorant.  Have you read "Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works"?  How can you comment about Fr. Seraphim without having known or at least read about him?  In this book that I just referenced, you can read about miracles through his intercessions in the chapter appropriately called "With the Saints". 

You may also find the following comments of interest, concerning how Fr. Seraphim was regarded immediately following his repose, taken from the book already mentioned:
Quote
Following his repose, many people had
visions of him which confirmed that he was among the saints, and even
Bishop Nektary of Seattle approached one of the sorrowful nuns who
looked upon the reposed Fr. Seraphim during his funeral and told her
“Don’t pray for Fr. Seraphim, pray to him.”

On the fortieth day after his repose, following the Divine Liturgy and
Pannikhida at the grave, Bishop Nektary gave a homily which ended with
the phrase: “Fr. Seraphim was a righteous man, possibly a saint.”  As
Fr. Damascene relates, “Bishop Nektary was well qualified to make such
a statement, having been in close contact with saints both in Russian
and the free world.  The priest who was translating his sermon into
English, however, hesitated in repeating this phrase, particularly the
last world.  Calculating that such a bold affirmation might be risky
since other Church leaders had not yet expressed their opinion, this
priest asked Bishop Nektary if he had really meant what he said.
Hitting the ground with his staff, the Bishop repeated, in Russian, ‘A
Saint!’ – and the confused priest was obliged to render this word in
English.

”Having led a procession from the hillock of Fr. Seraphim’s grave, the
Bishop was about to enter the church, still holding a censer in his
hand.  Abruptly he turned around and, with great feeling, loudly began
to sing the glorification hymn to monk-saints: ‘We glorify thee, our
holy Father Seraphim, and we honor thy holy memory:  instructor of
monks, and converser with the angels.’  The monks, clergy and pilgrims
joined in the singing, and the sorrow of being separated from Fr.
Seraphim was again transformed into joy.”

Bishop Nektary of Seattle, who knew Fr. Seraphim very well in this life and considered him a saint after his repose, was a spiritual child of St. Nektary of Optina.  Do you claim that Bishop Nektary did not know what he was talking about?  Or, do you know better than Bp. Nektary?  Rather it seems clear that your insistence that Fr. Seraphim is not a saint comes from either your ignorance about his life, his intercessions after his repose, and the veneration he receives throughout the Orthodox world.

Also you mentioned he is revered in Greece.  I doubt it.  Do you have any idea how many future saints they have had in the past decades, such as the Elder Ephraim who established the monasteries in this country. 

You obviously did not reference the link that I provided.  Fr. Peter Alban Heers, a priest who serves in Thessaloniki in Greece and frequents Mt. Athos, has a very good podcast on the subject of the veneration of Fr. Seraphim in Greece and throughout the world.  Please listen to this or read the transcript if you want to be at least a little informed concerning this subject:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/postcards/fr._seraphim_rose_in_greece

Concerning Elder Ephraim, Fr. Seraphim is much revered in Elder Ephraim’s monasteries.  If you have regard for these monasteries, go and ask them about Fr. Seraphim and his veneration in Greece and on Mt. Athos.

Quote
Anyway I could go on and on, and somehow I just can't see Father Seraphim as having the pure soul and humility that's a perquisite for a saint.  ???

Yet, you have shown that you hardly know anything about Fr. Seraphim’s life, the miracles that have resulted from his intercessions, and the veneration that he receives by faithful Orthodox Christians throughout the world. 



You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places.  In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying.  Forget it!  As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.

Now I'm not condemning him, but he is not a saint...so you can scream all you want.  Besides, what do you care what my opinion is.  If he is a saint, (which I'm sure he is not), God will show it to the world by performing mass miracles through his intercession.  His  body also won't corrupt.  There might  even be a flow and scent of myrhh from the coffin.  This has happened quite often with the Grand Duchess Saint Elizabeth, and with Saint Demetrius the New Martyr of Tripoli.  


Yes, we have already discussed your rather bizarre requirements of canonization.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44882.0.html

These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos.  Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church. ;)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 11, 2012, 06:53:07 PM
I had read two books by Father Seraphim about thirty years ago, so I can't give you the quotes or specifics, but I do recall him saying some things about the Catholic Church, and to be honest I dislike elitism in any faith.  Why not just exentuate our beliefs without mentioning another Church, because by doing so wouldn't you be denigrating it?

These and other comments lead me to wonder about your familiarity with the lives of the saints.  In several posts you have rightly exalted St. Nektarios, but you have done so in order to attempt to draw a contrast to Fr. Seraphim in some ways.  You recall (but without specific quotes) that Fr. Seraphim said things about the Roman Catholic Church that were denigrating, and this is one reason why you do not consider him a saint.  What do you think, then, of what St. Nektarios said about the Roman Catholic Church?  Do you know that he wrote an entire book on the Great Schism? 

The saints, in their great love for mankind, earnestly desire the salvation of all.  As such, they speak out about heresies which cut people off from the grace of God and which keep man from the possibility of theosis.  Salvation is to be found only in the One Church, and that truth is defended by the saints not because they were elitist but because this is true.  They could have kept silent about such truths, but doing so would only hinder people from leaving schisms and heresies to be united to the true Church which is the Ark of Salvation.

Since you do not seem to be familiar with St. Nektarios’ words concerning the Roman Catholic Church, here are some quotes from him that can be found in the book The Church Fathers on Love in Truth, published in Thessalonika, Greece by “Orthodox Kypseli Publications”.  St. Nektarios’ complete book on the Schism has not yet been translated into English:

Quote
St. Nektarios said… “Neither the Papist nor the Protestant church can be considered as the True church of Christ.  The first was altered by a number of innovations and the accursed despotism (Primacy) due to which resulted the schism from the Orthodox.  The same goes for the Protestants whose innumerable innovations lead to total anarchy and chaos.  Only the Orthodox church maintained the teachings of Christ flawlessly without a single innovation.  Only in the Orthodox church does unity exist.  The unity which the Savior was petitioning from the Father saying, ‘Holy Father keep them in your Name those you gave me so they can be one just like we are one. (John 17:11…)’.” (p.20)

“Those that are not reborn by the divine grace in the only ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, they do not consist of (comprise) any church, neither visible nor invisible.”

These are just a couple of quotes from St. Nektarios, but so many of our saints and fathers clearly and openly taught that Roman Catholics and Protestants have no sacraments, no theosis, and no salvation.  Read St. Mark of Ephesus’ clear declaration that “Latins are heretics”, or the many words form St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain that Latins (Roman Catholics) are heretics and do not have true baptisms or sacraments, or the words of St. Paisius (Velichkovsky) to an Eastern Rite Catholic priest instructing him to enter the Orthodox Church lest he repose outside of the Orthodox Church and be counted among the unbelievers, or the words of St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) in the article concerning the “Impossibility of Salvation for the Heterodox and Heretics”, or the scathing words of St. Justin (Popovich) of Chilije concerning heretical Roman Catholicism.  Read what St. Theophan the Recluse wrote concerning Protestantism (from the book “Preaching Another Christ”), or what Elder Cleopa of Romania said concerning Protestantism (“The Truth of Our Faith”).  None of the Orthodox saints or Fathers spoke of Roman Catholicism or Protestantism as in any way leading man towards salvation and theosis.  In fact, they taught the exact opposite, and they did so with hope for the salvation of all in the Orthodox Church. 

I read the interview by Father Damascene that was posted, and he's the one that said that Father Seraphim Rose spoke about himself quite often.  The way I took it was that he spoke about his life before becoming a monk.  As for the Elders Porphyrios and the Elder Paissios, I don't believe they ever spoke about their life before becoming monks.   I never read anything about their childhood other than the Godfather of Elder Paissios was a saint.   These two elders were also given a great many charisms, and there were times they would mention them, but if these things denoted  pride in anyway, they wouldn't have the charisms would they?

I really cannot comment on your objections to Fr. Seraphim speaking about himself without a quote and a link so that I can see what was said and the context.  As “jckstraw72” also suggested, the Life of Fr. Seraphim (which you say you haven’t read) does say the opposite; that Fr. Seraphim would not speak of his former life.  You are correct that in general monastics are not to speak about their former life in the world.  As I understand it, this is particularly the case when a monastic is young and inexperienced because such speech could encourage fantasy about one’s former life similar to the fantasies that the Israelites had of Egypt when they were passing through the desert.  Such thought and speech is like putting one’s hand to the plow and looking back, and can lead to half-heartedness, a weakening of resolve, and possibly the abandonment of monastic vows and a return to the world.  Refraining from such speech and thought helps a monastic understand that they have died to the world, they have abandoned their former lives, and they now live only for Christ. 

Monastics (and non-monastics) are also not supposed to speak openly about their struggles, experiences, and progress as this could lead to pride and delusion.  While this is the case, the lives of the saints are filled with examples of experienced saints speaking of their life in the world as well as their ascetic practices and experiences, with humility, if such words could be helpful and edifying to their spiritual children.  You mention that you don’t believe that Elder Porphyrios or Elder Paisios spoke of their lives before becoming monks, but that is actually not true.  In both of their lives you can find direct quotes from them where they tell stories from their childhood and their life before monasticism for the sake of instructing and edifying the listener.  If you have the recently published (in English) book on Elder Paisios by Hieromonk Isaac, flip through the first part of the book regarding the Elder’s childhood and see how many stories are direct quotes from Elder Paisios about his childhood.

So, monastics may speak of themselves and their former life in a way that is prideful, sinful, and could lead to temptation; and monastics may speak of themselves in such a way that is humble and only for the purpose of helping a person in need.  Without the quotes from Fr. Seraphim that you are referring to, I cannot comment more specifically on your allegations in this context.

In conclusion, I sincerely recommend that you familiarize yourself with the life of Fr. Seraphim and with the lives of the many glorified saints of our Church.  There is so much to learn from them, and we should constantly strive to think, feel, believe, and act as they did.  If our minds are in conformity with theirs, then our minds will be in conformity with Christ’s; and if our minds are in conformity with Christ’s, they will be in conformity with the minds of the saints and Fathers of the Church.  Then we will understand what makes for true sanctity, and we ourselves will be well on our way towards theosis.   


When monks and priests interpret writings of saints, they have a tendency of putting in their own prejudices and beliefs, so since I'm not reading Saint Nektarios' writings first hand, I'll have to take what you're saying with a grain of salt.    If I recall correctly, the Elder Paissios was shocked, not only on how his words were being misinterpreted, but how many things were attributed to him that he had never said.

Right now you're telling me that at a time when Christianity was fighting for its life in Greece and all of Europe because of communism, that Saint Nektarios concerned himself in bashing the RCC and the Protestants rather than with the survival of Christianity in Greece?  I know that Saint Nektarios loved his Church and considered it a martyred Church, I also know that he had theological discourses with a Catholic Cardinal and said that they were wrong in something, what though I don't know?  I'm assuming the correspondence was either in French or Latin, and  it would be nice if the letters could be published in English, so we would have a true idea of Saint Nektarios' theological views, rather than   interpretations from some fundamentalist and/or provincial mind sets.   

The priesthood in Greece at that time was merely an occupation, and it was only when Saint Nektarios became the head of the Rizarios School,  and punished himself when the students misbehaved by not eating for three days, that inspired  them to become true priests.  In other words, Saint Nektarios saved the Church in Greece from atheist communism.

I also know Saint Nektarios quite well, since he has performed countless miracles for me... the greatest of which  was to bring two people I loved dearly into God's saving Grace.  So since you have no idea what my connection is with Saint Nektarios, I'd prefer it you didn't lecture me.  I'm  close to other saints as well.... :angel:
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 12, 2012, 12:01:42 AM
When monks and priests interpret writings of saints, they have a tendency of putting in their own prejudices and beliefs, so since I'm not reading Saint Nektarios' writings first hand, I'll have to take what you're saying with a grain of salt.

I did not provide you with an interpretation of St. Nektarios’ words, but direct quotations.  In these quotations, you read St. Nektarios’ words first hand.  I also referenced many other saints who taught similarly, and in doing so I referred to their actual writings and not to what others have said about their writings.  I would hope that you would not take the writings of the saints with a grain of salt, which is rather dismissive.

  If I recall correctly, the Elder Paissios was shocked, not only on how his words were being misinterpreted, but how many things were attributed to him that he had never said.

Yes, but this case with Elder Paisios had to do with stories circulating about him, or thing supposedly said or prophesied by him.  With regard to the quotation I gave from St. Nektarios and the references I made to the same teaching from other saints, these are writings of the saints that are not disputed.  These words do not come to us from oral tradition with an unknown chain of communication, but are rather from the very pens of the saints.   

Right now you're telling me that at a time when Christianity was fighting for its life in Greece and all of Europe because of communism, that Saint Nektarios concerned himself in bashing the RCC and the Protestants rather than with the survival of Christianity in Greece?

Communism was not the only challenge to Orthodoxy at that time, but there were also the Latinizing influences.  To say that St. Nektarios “bashed” Roman Catholics and Protestants is unbecoming.  He spoke the truth concerning them for the edification and salvation of those who might read his words, and for the sake of maintaining the purity of Holy Orthodoxy free from heresies, schisms, and innovations.

  I also know Saint Nektarios quite well, since he has performed countless miracles for me... the greatest of which  was to bring two people I loved dearly into God's saving Grace.  So since you have no idea what my connection is with Saint Nektarios, I'd prefer it you didn't lecture me.  I'm  close to other saints as well.... :angel:

You also do not know of my reverence for St. Nektarios, the many ways that he has helped me at critical times, or how I overcame cancer through his heavenly intercessions.  Yet, while he has interceded for and helped our family greatly, this fact does not imply that I know anything about what St. Nektarios believed and taught.  I had to read his writings to understand his teaching.  If St. Nektarios has appeared to you and revealed that he actually believed quite differently regarding Roman Catholicism than what he wrote and published, then that would be interesting, but I would tend to think that it is not St. Nektarios appearing to you if this is the case.

Don’t take my word for anything, but also do not depend so much on your own ideas about the lives and teachings of the saints without first familiarizing yourself with them.   
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 12, 2012, 01:22:19 AM
When monks and priests interpret writings of saints, they have a tendency of putting in their own prejudices and beliefs, so since I'm not reading Saint Nektarios' writings first hand, I'll have to take what you're saying with a grain of salt.

I did not provide you with an interpretation of St. Nektarios’ words, but direct quotations.  In these quotations, you read St. Nektarios’ words first hand.  I also referenced many other saints who taught similarly, and in doing so I referred to their actual writings and not to what others have said about their writings.  I would hope that you would not take the writings of the saints with a grain of salt, which is rather dismissive.
[/quote]

If the quotes are not in Church Greek, then they are interpretations of Saint Nektarios writings, because they are going from one language where words have certain concepts, into another language where words have different concepts.  Add to that the translator who has his own ideas and prejudices, and then the editor....and guess what?  The end product is a wee bit different.  I'll explain it further down.

Quote
 If I recall correctly, the Elder Paissios was shocked, not only on how his words were being misinterpreted, but how many things were attributed to him that he had never said.

Yes, but this case with Elder Paisios had to do with stories circulating about him, or thing supposedly said or prophesied by him.  With regard to the quotation I gave from St. Nektarios and the references I made to the same teaching from other saints, these are writings of the saints that are not disputed.  These words do not come to us from oral tradition with an unknown chain of communication, but are rather from the very pens of the saints.
[/quote]

I explained how easily words can be misinconstrued.  As I said, I know that Saint Nektarios felt that the Orthodox Church was being martyred, and that he had theological discourses with a Catholic theologian and told him that they were  in error in something.  Does this sound like a man that would say what you posted?  I think not!  

Quote
Right now you're telling me that at a time when Christianity was fighting for its life in Greece and all of Europe because of communism, that Saint Nektarios concerned himself in bashing the RCC and the Protestants rather than with the survival of Christianity in Greece?

Communism was not the only challenge to Orthodoxy at that time, but there were also the Latinizing influences.  To say that St. Nektarios “bashed” Roman Catholics and Protestants is unbecoming.  He spoke the truth concerning them for the edification and salvation of those who might read his words, and for the sake of maintaining the purity of Holy Orthodoxy free from heresies, schisms, and innovations.
[/quote]

Then you have no knowledge of Greece, because there was no Latinizing influence.  The only people that remained Catholic from the time of the Fourth Crusade, were on a few islands, and since the people on those islands are more devout, I would say the influence is good.  Now here's the problem with the Greek monks and bishops. They are assuming the influence of the secular ideas of the Enlighenment was coming from the Catholic Church, in the same way that they assume the heresy of Barlaam that St. Gregory Palamas was fighting, was the same as the scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas.  This is why I take their Saint's quotes about the Catholics with a grain of salt.

  As for the Protestants, there were American missionary schools throughout Anatolia to serve the Orthodox Christians.  This was not a problem for the Orthodox at the time, because they were striving to have intercommunion with the Anglicans/Episcopalians.  See, now you just learned something....

Quote
 I also know Saint Nektarios quite well, since he has performed countless miracles for me... the greatest of which  was to bring two people I loved dearly into God's saving Grace.  So since you have no idea what my connection is with Saint Nektarios, I'd prefer it you didn't lecture me.  I'm  close to other saints as well.... :angel:

You also do not know of my reverence for St. Nektarios, the many ways that he has helped me at critical times, or how I overcame cancer through his heavenly intercessions.  Yet, while he has interceded for and helped our family greatly, this fact does not imply that I know anything about what St. Nektarios believed and taught.  I had to read his writings to understand his teaching.  If St. Nektarios has appeared to you and revealed that he actually believed quite differently regarding Roman Catholicism than what he wrote and published, then that would be interesting, but I would tend to think that it is not St. Nektarios appearing to you if this is the case.

Don’t take my word for anything, but also do not depend so much on your own ideas about the lives and teachings of the saints without first familiarizing yourself with them.    

[/quote]

Saint Nektarios has never appeared to me, so I'm not prelest.  Give it up! ;)  
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: LBK on September 12, 2012, 06:11:30 AM
Quote
Then you have no knowledge of Greece, because there was no Latinizing influence. 

Zenovia, your statements are increasingly embarrassing in their ignorance. There was a significant Latinizing influence among the Orthodox in many regions of Greece during the Venetian period, notably in the Peloponnese, in the eastern half of the mainland, Crete, the Dodecanese islands, the Ionian islands, and, yes, even Corfu (Kerkyra), where St Nektarios hailed from. This is reflected in many ways to this day, such as in the decorative styles of churches, the westernising of iconography and perpetuation of non-canonical images such as the "NT Trinity", and of kneeling at the epiklesis and at other times during the Liturgy.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 12, 2012, 06:35:20 AM
These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos.  Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church. ;)

Can you prove that in any way?

BTW how can Athos glorify anyone since there are no bishops?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: primuspilus on September 12, 2012, 07:28:36 AM
Zenovia honey, please stop. I leave for a month and come back and you comments are still embarrassingly incorrect.

PP
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 12, 2012, 10:39:51 AM
Again, this thread is about Fr. Seraphim.  So far, Zenovia, it appears that your problem with him is entirely personal and based only on your own prejudices and theories that have developed without proper attention to the life and teachings of Fr. Seraphim, or the lives and teachings of the many glorified saints of the Church.  If you want to draw attention to specific quotes from Fr. Seraphim that you find problematic, then perhaps there would be something worth discussing, but you really need to first familiarize yourself with Fr. Seraphim and his writings before making such absolute declarations regarding him and the state of his soul before God.

Then you have no knowledge of Greece, because there was no Latinizing influence.

There is a lot that you could read on this subject, but if you are interested you can start with the following paper by Christos Yannaras entitled “Orthodoxy and the West”. 

http://jbburnett.com/resources/yannaras/yannaras_orth&west.pdf

Here are just a few words from this paper, starting with p.8

Quote
Greek Orthodox theology, since the eighteenth and even seventeenth centuries, but especially since the establishment of modern Greece as a free nation, certainly has encountered the West, yet not so much to hold dialogue with it and to strengthen it with a strong Orthodox consciousness, as to accept its influence passively and uncritically. Often it has absorbed, even unchanged, the criteria, the methodology and many particular viewpoints of Western theology.

The encounter of Greek Orthodox theology in recent times with the West is a subject worthy of study in itself. Here it can be touched only briefly, even though it represents an essential aspect of our topic. One could say that, from the last centuries of Turkish occupation until today, Greek intellectuals have shown an unbounded and almost child-like admiration of all the developments of Western rationalism. Emerging from the intellectual darkness of Ottoman oppression, the Greeks looked to the West as a beacon of civilization and science. Whatever ideas of progress they were able to conceive were automatically patterned on Western models. During the last centuries of Otto-man rule Church intellectuals such as, for example, Vikentios Damodos, Nikiphoros Theotokis, Evgenios Voulgaris, Neophytos Vamvas and others endeavoured to bring about a religious rebirth among the enslaved Greek people, bringing into the sphere of Greek life and thought the problematics of Western Christianity. In their works and sermons one can find unchanged many typical ideas of pietism, natural theology, the religion of feeling, ‘Christianity as culture’ (Kulturchristentum), and in general of Western theology as it was under the influence of the Enlightenment. 

With the establishment of a university in the free Greek nation and the rise of academic theology, the influence of Western theology increased and dominated. In the university theology took on the form of an autonomous science organized according to Western prototypes alone. From the beginning Greek Orthodox academic theology was a mixture of pietism and rationalism. Theology, organized on conceptual, demonstrative and apologetic models, was sharply separated from the life and piety of the Church. Formally it did not cease to be Orthodox, obedient to the letter of dogmatic formulations. However, the separation of dogmatic formulations from the experience and spirituality of the Church, accompanied by a uncritical acceptance of the spirit and methodology of Western theology, was precisely the most serious betrayal of the character of Orthodox theology.

The Western or Latin captivity of Orthodox theology in Greece has also been discussed at length by Fr. John Romanides, Fr. George Florovsky, Met Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, and others; should you wish to learn more about this as well.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 12, 2012, 11:58:59 AM
More, briefly, on St. Nektarios and Western influences in Greece:

Quote
Saint Nektarios also found time to write a large number of works on theology, ethics and Church history, in order to strengthen the Church of Greece in the holy tradition of the Fathers, which was often unknown in those days because of Western influences.

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/nektarios/
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 12, 2012, 02:25:29 PM
Quote
Then you have no knowledge of Greece, because there was no Latinizing influence. 

Zenovia, your statements are increasingly embarrassing in their ignorance. There was a significant Latinizing influence among the Orthodox in many regions of Greece during the Venetian period, notably in the Peloponnese, in the eastern half of the mainland, Crete, the Dodecanese islands, the Ionian islands, and, yes, even Corfu (Kerkyra), where St Nektarios hailed from. This is reflected in many ways to this day, such as in the decorative styles of churches, the westernising of iconography and perpetuation of non-canonical images such as the "NT Trinity", and of kneeling at the epiklesis and at other times during the Liturgy.

Well if you consider things of that type Latinizing, then why not  eliminate the bell towers, they were never Greek.  Now to be serious, Saint Nektarios was not from Corfu, he was from a northern town of Greece that was still under the Ottomans.  As for the Latins, well the Morea (Peloponesus) had three hundred and fifty crusader castles and surprise, surprise, the Franks are gone...well partially, they intermarried.

As for Latinizing in it's real sense, it seems the Greek monks and bishops can't make a distinction between the Latin Church and the secular concepts that were a product of the Enlightment.  Whether it's from provincialism and ignorance, or from paranoia and fear, the fact that the Enlightment was directly opposed  to the Catholic Church tends to elude them.   If again they believe these ideals are an outshoot of the Latin culture, then I hate to break it to them, but the Enlightenment was a development from the Rennaissance, and the Rennaisance was a rebirth of Classical Greece which  came in from the Italian colonies...So there you have it.  The Latins are not to blame, the Greeks are.   ;D
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 12, 2012, 02:55:50 PM
More, briefly, on St. Nektarios and Western influences in Greece:

Quote
Saint Nektarios also found time to write a large number of works on theology, ethics and Church history, in order to strengthen the Church of Greece in the holy tradition of the Fathers, which was often unknown in those days because of Western influences.

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/nektarios/

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church. .  The arguments the Greeks were using against the Orthodox Church in Greece, were the same as the ones being used against the Roman Church in places like Portugal and Spain.  The ideals of the French revolution, and later the ideals of the Communist revolution came out of the Enlightenment, and they were in direct opposition to the Catholic Church.    As an example,  during the terror in France, half the people killed were Catholic priests.  

This is reason I said that I take what the Greek monks and bishops write with a grain of salt,  since they  have no idea of Western history they tend to misinterpret the writings of saints in a way that reflects their own contemporary prejudices.   :)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 12, 2012, 03:25:13 PM
These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos.  Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church. ;)

Can you prove that in any way?

BTW how can Athos glorify anyone since there are no bishops?

Who cares.

I trust the Mt. Athos monks over many of the bishops out there.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 12, 2012, 03:55:06 PM
Quote
Again, this thread is about Fr. Seraphim.  So far, Zenovia, it appears that your problem with him is entirely personal and based only on your own prejudices and theories that have developed without proper attention to the life and teachings of Fr. Seraphim, or the lives and teachings of the many glorified saints of the Church.  If you want to draw attention to specific quotes from Fr. Seraphim that you find problematic, then perhaps there would be something worth discussing, but you really need to first familiarize yourself with Fr. Seraphim and his writings before making such absolute declarations regarding him and the state of his soul before God.

My problem is not with Father Seraphim, but with those who have turned him into some sort of personality cult and are insistent on having him glorified.  They are putting something in their hands, when it is not they but God that should decide.  If Father Seraphim is truly a saint, then the focus of those who follow him should be on Christ and not on him,  because when they put their focus on him, he is being discredited by their very action.

If Father Seraphim has truly achieved sanctity in the eyes of God, and has shown himself  to be pure hearted and virtuous above and beyond all others, then they need not to do anything.  The clamoring of the people who have experienced miracles through his intercession, will be enough. 

Then you have no knowledge of Greece, because there was no Latinizing influence.

Quote
There is a lot that you could read on this subject, but if you are interested you can start with the following paper by Christos Yannaras entitled “Orthodoxy and the West”. 

http://jbburnett.com/resources/yannaras/yannaras_orth&west.pdf

Here are just a few words from this paper, starting with p.8

Quote
Greek Orthodox theology, since the eighteenth and even seventeenth centuries, but especially since the establishment of modern Greece as a free nation, certainly has encountered the West, yet not so much to hold dialogue with it and to strengthen it with a strong Orthodox consciousness, as to accept its influence passively and uncritically. Often it has absorbed, even unchanged, the criteria, the methodology and many particular viewpoints of Western theology.

The encounter of Greek Orthodox theology in recent times with the West is a subject worthy of study in itself. Here it can be touched only briefly, even though it represents an essential aspect of our topic. One could say that, from the last centuries of Turkish occupation until today, Greek intellectuals have shown an unbounded and almost child-like admiration of all the developments of Western rationalism. Emerging from the intellectual darkness of Ottoman oppression, the Greeks looked to the West as a beacon of civilization and science. Whatever ideas of progress they were able to conceive were automatically patterned on Western models. During the last centuries of Otto-man rule Church intellectuals such as, for example, Vikentios Damodos, Nikiphoros Theotokis, Evgenios Voulgaris, Neophytos Vamvas and others endeavoured to bring about a religious rebirth among the enslaved Greek people, bringing into the sphere of Greek life and thought the problematics of Western Christianity. In their works and sermons one can find unchanged many typical ideas of pietism, natural theology, the religion of feeling, ‘Christianity as culture’ (Kulturchristentum), and in general of Western theology as it was under the influence of the Enlightenment. 

With the establishment of a university in the free Greek nation and the rise of academic theology, the influence of Western theology increased and dominated. In the university theology took on the form of an autonomous science organized according to Western prototypes alone. From the beginning Greek Orthodox academic theology was a mixture of pietism and rationalism. Theology, organized on conceptual, demonstrative and apologetic models, was sharply separated from the life and piety of the Church. Formally it did not cease to be Orthodox, obedient to the letter of dogmatic formulations. However, the separation of dogmatic formulations from the experience and spirituality of the Church, accompanied by a uncritical acceptance of the spirit and methodology of Western theology, was precisely the most serious betrayal of the character of Orthodox theology.

The Western or Latin captivity of Orthodox theology in Greece has also been discussed at length by Fr. John Romanides, Fr. George Florovsky, Met Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, and others; should you wish to learn more about this as well.

[/quote]

Again you're combining the concepts that came in from the Enlightment and which affected certain Protestant churches, specifically Germany,  as being part of the Latin Church.  There is a big difference between the secular concepts of the Enlightment that the intellectuals in Greece had accepted, with the structural conceptual dogmas of the RCC that has always been part and parcel of the Latin culture.   You have to learn to differentiate one from the other.  As I said, the Latin Church itself was being attacked, inwardly and outwardly by the concepts formed from the Enlightenment.  As a matter of fact, I believe the Pope made himself infallible in matters of the Chuch so as to combat these ideas that were coming in with his bishops. 

If some of these Latin concepts entered the Orthodox Church, which is unlikely from their viewpoints, then it was just a normal development and  not deliberate.  :)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: orthonorm on September 12, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
Zenovia, please fix the quote tags in the future.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 12, 2012, 04:38:50 PM
These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos.  Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church. ;)

Can you prove that in any way?

BTW how can Athos glorify anyone since there are no bishops?

Who cares.

I trust the Mt. Athos monks over many of the bishops out there.

But they can't glorify anyone or prepare the chrism. They also cannot ordain anyone. We are not Protestants. Bishops are required.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 12, 2012, 05:39:30 PM
The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism.   Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis.  The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother. 

While I understand the distinction you are trying to make between “Westernization” and “Latinization”, the claims of Latinization in Greek theology pertain to the influence specifically of Latin theological concepts, rationalistic approaches to theology, and pietistic devotion (to name just a few) which marked a departure from the theology of Fathers the centrality of hesychia and theosis.

My problem is not with Father Seraphim, but with those who have turned him into some sort of personality cult and are insistent on having him glorified.  They are putting something in their hands, when it is not they but God that should decide.  If Father Seraphim is truly a saint, then the focus of those who follow him should be on Christ and not on him,  because when they put their focus on him, he is being discredited by their very action.

Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified.  As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint.  The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world.  You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.   
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 12, 2012, 05:47:20 PM
These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos.  Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church. ;)

Can you prove that in any way?

BTW how can Athos glorify anyone since there are no bishops?

Who cares.

I trust the Mt. Athos monks over many of the bishops out there.

But they can't glorify anyone or prepare the chrism. They also cannot ordain anyone. We are not Protestants. Bishops are required.

Did I ever say we didn't need bishops, Michał Kalina? No I did not, never implied it.

We also aren't Latins we can celebrate particular holy people as being saints without glorification first. It begins when that person is venerated by the people where he lived and died. His memory is kept alive by the people who pray for his her soul and who ask him for intercession. Those persons who are great in their Christian spirit, glorious in their service to the Church, served as beacons illumining the world leave behind themselves a memory which is not confined to a narrow circle of people, but which becomes known throughout the whole Church, both locally and universally. Thus, it is only God who can make a saint.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 12, 2012, 08:08:09 PM
Zenovia, please fix the quote tags in the future.

Thanks.

I'm having a hard time with the quotes. I'm trying to do the best I can and it's a very difficult process, so you'll have to bear with me.   :-[
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 12, 2012, 09:01:22 PM
The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism. 

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards?  Certainly not mine.

Quote
  Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis.  The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother. 

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period.  When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile.  The Enlightenment was  a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote
Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified.  As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint.  The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world.  You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.   


If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world,  I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint. :)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 12, 2012, 09:09:04 PM
The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism. 

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards?  Certainly not mine.

Quote
  Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis.  The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother. 

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period.  When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile.  The Enlightenment was  a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote
Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified.  As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint.  The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world.  You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.   


If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world,  I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint. :)
Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 12, 2012, 09:15:08 PM
These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos.  Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church. ;)

Can you prove that in any way?

BTW how can Athos glorify anyone since there are no bishops?

Who cares.

I trust the Mt. Athos monks over many of the bishops out there.

But they can't glorify anyone or prepare the chrism. They also cannot ordain anyone. We are not Protestants. Bishops are required.

Did I ever say we didn't need bishops, Michał Kalina? No I did not, never implied it.

We also aren't Latins we can celebrate particular holy people as being saints without glorification first. It begins when that person is venerated by the people where he lived and died. His memory is kept alive by the people who pray for his her soul and who ask him for intercession. Those persons who are great in their Christian spirit, glorious in their service to the Church, served as beacons illumining the world leave behind themselves a memory which is not confined to a narrow circle of people, but which becomes known throughout the whole Church, both locally and universally. Thus, it is only God who can make a saint.

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints.  Saint Nektarios was rare in that there were so many miracles attriuted to him from the first day of his death, that he was declared a saint in twenty five years. :angel:
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 12, 2012, 09:25:14 PM
The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism. 

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards?  Certainly not mine.

Quote
  Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis.  The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother. 

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period.  When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile.  The Enlightenment was  a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote
Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified.  As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint.  The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world.  You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.   


If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world,  I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint. :)
Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest.  So how about you?  Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity? ???
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 12, 2012, 09:45:42 PM
The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism. 

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards?  Certainly not mine.

Quote
  Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis.  The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother. 

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period.  When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile.  The Enlightenment was  a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote
Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified.  As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint.  The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world.  You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.   


If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world,  I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint. :)
Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest.  So how about you?  Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity? ???

(http://static4.fjcdn.com/comments/Guys+watch+out+Looks+like+we+got+a+badass+brony+_5efa0412c5ba6c5c8014a3313650dc0b.jpg)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 13, 2012, 02:22:02 AM
The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism. 

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards?  Certainly not mine.

Quote
  Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis.  The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother. 

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period.  When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile.  The Enlightenment was  a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote
Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified.  As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint.  The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world.  You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.   


If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world,  I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint. :)
Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest.  So how about you?  Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity? ???
Why must you oppose the two against each other?

Zenovia, when your "discernment" contradicts the wisdom of the Church, I don't care how you rationalize it. You have truly set yourself up as wiser than the Church, which is indeed the definition of prelest. In fact, your self-justification and comparison of yourself to others can only lead you deeper into prelest.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 13, 2012, 04:03:17 AM
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints.  

100 years? Who set that?

The Polish Church in 2001 (or 03 or something like that) glorified several dozens op people most of whom had died no earlier than 60 years prior to glorification.

And some of them had had sex!  :o
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: LBK on September 13, 2012, 05:13:03 AM
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints.  

100 years? Who set that?

The Polish Church in 2001 (or 03 or something like that) glorified several dozens op people most of whom had died no earlier than 60 years prior to glorification.

And some of them had had sex!  :o

Indeed! We also have the thousands of saints glorified in recent years by the Russian church, the New Martyrs and Confessors, who suffered, and, in the case of the martyrs, died for their faith during the Soviet period of 1917-1991. There are also those who suffered in the European concentration camps of the Second World War. These saints span the whole spectrum of stations in life: clergy, monastics, children and youths, married and single laymen and women, of noble ancestry and peasant stock.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: primuspilus on September 13, 2012, 06:20:37 AM
Quote
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints. 
There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jmbejdl on September 13, 2012, 07:26:05 AM
Quote
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints. 
There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

Indeed - and much longer than 100 years also. Several Romanian saints who were glorified in the early '90s for instance after up to about 500 years.

James
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: LBK on September 13, 2012, 08:35:07 AM
Quote
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints. 
There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

Yup. St John of Shanghai and San Francisco's earthly life ended in 1966, he was officially glorified as a saint in 1993, a mere 27 years later. St Matrona of Moscow died in 1952, she was officially glorified in 1999, 37 years later. I'm sure I could uncover more examples.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Basil 320 on September 13, 2012, 08:46:06 AM
Quote
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints.  
There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

I don't know from where it emanates, but the "100 year" practice is a very old, ancient perhaps, practice, the theory being that no one alive at the time of "Recognition," could have known the saint, eliminating any possibility that someone could tell of a scandal related to the life of the saint on Earth.  It was never a hard and fast rule because Orthodox Christian saintly recognition emanates from the local people who knew the saint and respect his resting place; saintly recognition starts at the local level.



Unrelated to this comment, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras released an encyclical in the early 1950's about the process of the "Recognition" of a saint that has received general acceptance.  I don't know where to find it, neither do I recall anything about what it says, however.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Shanghaiski on September 13, 2012, 05:43:25 PM
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints.  

100 years? Who set that?

The Polish Church in 2001 (or 03 or something like that) glorified several dozens op people most of whom had died no earlier than 60 years prior to glorification.

And some of them had had sex!  :o

Must not be an Orthodox Church, then. It takes at least 1,000 years in unpurgatory for people who have had sex to become saints. I know this because I never fast and never lie. Besides that, Mount Athos.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Asteriktos on September 13, 2012, 05:56:04 PM
Quote
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints. 
There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

Yup. St John of Shanghai and San Francisco's earthly life ended in 1966, he was officially glorified as a saint in 1993, a mere 27 years later. St Matrona of Moscow died in 1952, she was officially glorified in 1999, 37 years later. I'm sure I could uncover more examples.

St. Justin Popovich was about 31 years  ;D
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Jonathan Gress on September 13, 2012, 06:19:04 PM
Quote
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints.  
There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

I don't know from where it emanates, but the "100 year" practice is a very old, ancient perhaps, practice, the theory being that no one alive at the time of "Recognition," could have known the saint, eliminating any possibility that someone could tell of a scandal related to the life of the saint on Earth.  It was never a hard and fast rule because Orthodox Christian saintly recognition emanates from the local people who knew the saint and respect his resting place; saintly recognition starts at the local level.



Unrelated to this comment, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras released an encyclical in the early 1950's about the process of the "Recognition" of a saint that has received general acceptance.  I don't know where to find it, neither do I recall anything about what it says, however.

I guess you can see why the custom of waiting 100 years was observed at least part of the time. Not every ROCOR bishop supported St John's glorification, for example: Abp Anthony of Los Angeles refused to allow icons of St John in his churches until his retirement. There are still people at Jordanville who remember Fr Seraphim personally, and not all of them think that highly of him, at least going by what a former seminarian told me. A premature glorification might cause friction.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Shanghaiski on September 13, 2012, 06:31:39 PM
It can be difficult for people who knew someone personally to move from that to veneration, even if they're agreeable to it. If a holy person was a family member, he or she remains such, even as an officially glorified saint, and it can be a challenge to contemplate that. I know of one instance where a man back in the old country was indeed a holy person, noted for almsgiving, preaching, and even being warned of his death, but his descendants don't see anything extraordinary about him to venerate him. He's just grandpa. I wonder how many other people there are like this who don't manage to be venerated as saints, even though they were holy, just because no one thought of it.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: LBK on September 13, 2012, 07:56:35 PM
Quote
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints. 
There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

Yup. St John of Shanghai and San Francisco's earthly life ended in 1966, he was officially glorified as a saint in 1993, a mere 27 years later. St Matrona of Moscow died in 1952, she was officially glorified in 1999, 37 years later. I'm sure I could uncover more examples.

St. Justin Popovich was about 31 years  ;D

St Luke the Surgeon of Simferopol' and the Crimea: Died 1961, glorified 1995. 34 years.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 13, 2012, 08:34:05 PM
The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism. 

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards?  Certainly not mine.

Quote
  Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis.  The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother. 

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period.  When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile.  The Enlightenment was  a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote
Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified.  As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint.  The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world.  You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.   


If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world,  I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint. :)
Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest.  So how about you?  Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity? ???
Why must you oppose the two against each other?

Zenovia, when your "discernment" contradicts the wisdom of the Church, I don't care how you rationalize it. You have truly set yourself up as wiser than the Church, which is indeed the definition of prelest. In fact, your self-justification and comparison of yourself to others can only lead you deeper into prelest.

Oh so you are now my judge?  Sorry sir, my discernment doesn't contradict the wisdom of the Church, only the failings of certain people within the Church...and that includes many bishops. 

Now to get into this further, there is such a thing as a personality cult, and especially towards those that wear the frock.  Saint Nektarios once said to a woman who said she loved him, that if she loved him then he hated her because she was to love Christ and love him only as a brother in Christ.  There is a big difference you know?  On a whole, saints  are usually very inconsequential individuals, or they are intensely disliked because of their integrity, and that's why they are calumniated during their lives.  God allows it in order to humble them.  One thing they never do is attract people to themselves since their only focus is Christ. 

Now if an individual is known to others and loved by others, not because of his manifold virtues and the charisms (such as miraculous cures)given to him by God because of his virtues, but simply because he drew them to himself,  then I would hesitate before I called that person a Saint. :(
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 13, 2012, 08:49:04 PM
Quote
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints. 
There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

Yup. St John of Shanghai and San Francisco's earthly life ended in 1966, he was officially glorified as a saint in 1993, a mere 27 years later. St Matrona of Moscow died in 1952, she was officially glorified in 1999, 37 years later. I'm sure I could uncover more examples.

St. Justin Popovich was about 31 years  ;D

St Luke the Surgeon of Simferopol' and the Crimea: Died 1961, glorified 1995. 34 years.

Glorifying saints in such a short time could be something recent.  I know that when people were clamoring for Saint Nektarios to be glorified because of the on going miracles through his intercession, the Greek Church was pressured to glorify him in twenty five years.  At the time it was considered highly unusual.  I heard people say in and around the 1960's, that it usually takes about one hundred years.

Glorifying saints in such a short time could be because of our mass communication, and the way knowledge is  passed from one person to another?  ??? 
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 13, 2012, 09:33:26 PM
It can be difficult for people who knew someone personally to move from that to veneration, even if they're agreeable to it. If a holy person was a family member, he or she remains such, even as an officially glorified saint, and it can be a challenge to contemplate that. I know of one instance where a man back in the old country was indeed a holy person, noted for almsgiving, preaching, and even being warned of his death, but his descendants don't see anything extraordinary about him to venerate him. He's just grandpa. I wonder how many other people there are like this who don't manage to be venerated as saints, even though they were holy, just because no one thought of it.

There are many people like this.  I heard my mother tell of this woman who the kids would throw stones at in the old country, because they considered her crazy.  Well one day a highly educated captain saw her elevated in the air as she was walking to church to receive the Eucharist.  I guess God was trying to tell them something.

I have some family members like this as well, even though it's doubtful they would be of the status we consider gloryfied.  My great grandfather in his old age was the caretaker of a church dedicated to our Theotokos.  One day it was late and he told my grandmother not to go home but to sleep in the church.  Well she saw him suddenly get up and asked him what he was doing.  He said he was going to light the candle in front of her icon, because whenever it goes out he hears a  woman's voice calling him.

I also had a grandaunt who had some frightening experiences with demons attacking her house at night which were exactly the same experieces as  those of a well known Catholic saint.  I never met her, but I do know that she was very poor, and that she did donate a crystal chandelier to the Church.  My granddaughter was baptized in that church and one of the pictures taken is of a crystal chandelier.   I can't help but think it's the same chandelier donated by my grandaunt. ;)

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 13, 2012, 09:42:09 PM
The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism. 

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards?  Certainly not mine.

Quote
  Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis.  The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother. 

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period.  When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile.  The Enlightenment was  a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote
Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified.  As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint.  The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world.  You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.   


If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world,  I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint. :)
Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest.  So how about you?  Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity? ???
Why must you oppose the two against each other?

Zenovia, when your "discernment" contradicts the wisdom of the Church, I don't care how you rationalize it. You have truly set yourself up as wiser than the Church, which is indeed the definition of prelest. In fact, your self-justification and comparison of yourself to others can only lead you deeper into prelest.

Oh so you are now my judge?  Sorry sir, my discernment doesn't contradict the wisdom of the Church, only the failings of certain people within the Church...and that includes many bishops.
Says you.

Now to get into this further, there is such a thing as a personality cult, and especially towards those that wear the frock.  Saint Nektarios once said to a woman who said she loved him, that if she loved him then he hated her because she was to love Christ and love him only as a brother in Christ.  There is a big difference you know?  On a whole, saints  are usually very inconsequential individuals, or they are intensely disliked because of their integrity, and that's why they are calumniated during their lives.  God allows it in order to humble them.  One thing they never do is attract people to themselves since their only focus is Christ. 

Now if an individual is known to others and loved by others, not because of his manifold virtues and the charisms (such as miraculous cures)given to him by God because of his virtues, but simply because he drew them to himself,  then I would hesitate before I called that person a Saint. :(
Are you saying that Fr. Seraphim was loved merely because he drew others to himself?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 13, 2012, 09:56:55 PM
Quote
Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare  them saints.  
There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

I don't know from where it emanates, but the "100 year" practice is a very old, ancient perhaps, practice, the theory being that no one alive at the time of "Recognition," could have known the saint, eliminating any possibility that someone could tell of a scandal related to the life of the saint on Earth.  It was never a hard and fast rule because Orthodox Christian saintly recognition emanates from the local people who knew the saint and respect his resting place; saintly recognition starts at the local level.



Unrelated to this comment, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras released an encyclical in the early 1950's about the process of the "Recognition" of a saint that has received general acceptance.  I don't know where to find it, neither do I recall anything about what it says, however.

I disagree with you on the scandal part, since God allows saints to be calumniated in order to lessen their pride, so if there was any scandal, it would have been known long before their death.  More than likely it's so people won't be fooled into believing someone is a saint because what they said and did happened to appeal to their contemporary mindset, or to their basest instincts.  Also satan has been known to do things that might seem miraculous to some.

I'm surprised that anyone would object to Saint  John of Shanghai and San Francisco being glorified considering his many virtues and charisms, but I shouldn't be.  Many a bishop, priest, monk and nun suffered from what we know as 'envy'.   ???
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 13, 2012, 10:19:24 PM
The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism. 

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards?  Certainly not mine.

Quote
  Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis.  The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother. 

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period.  When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile.  The Enlightenment was  a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote
Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified.  As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint.  The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world.  You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.   


If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world,  I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint. :)
Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest.  So how about you?  Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity? ???
Why must you oppose the two against each other?

Zenovia, when your "discernment" contradicts the wisdom of the Church, I don't care how you rationalize it. You have truly set yourself up as wiser than the Church, which is indeed the definition of prelest. In fact, your self-justification and comparison of yourself to others can only lead you deeper into prelest.

Oh so you are now my judge?  Sorry sir, my discernment doesn't contradict the wisdom of the Church, only the failings of certain people within the Church...and that includes many bishops.
Says you.

Now to get into this further, there is such a thing as a personality cult, and especially towards those that wear the frock.  Saint Nektarios once said to a woman who said she loved him, that if she loved him then he hated her because she was to love Christ and love him only as a brother in Christ.  There is a big difference you know?  On a whole, saints  are usually very inconsequential individuals, or they are intensely disliked because of their integrity, and that's why they are calumniated during their lives.  God allows it in order to humble them.  One thing they never do is attract people to themselves since their only focus is Christ. 

Now if an individual is known to others and loved by others, not because of his manifold virtues and the charisms (such as miraculous cures)given to him by God because of his virtues, but simply because he drew them to himself,  then I would hesitate before I called that person a Saint. :(
Are you saying that Fr. Seraphim was loved merely because he drew others to himself?

I don't know, you tell me?  As for me,  I haven't seen any signs from God or heard of any virtues of his being above and beyond those of other monks.  All I've read so far is that this person said good words, and that person said good words, and that he is venerated in this place and that place, as if trying to impress into me that I should  want him to be glorified because they are saying so.   

Look I don't want to denigrate Father Seraphim it's not fair to him.  I read his books, and I do not find them on the spiritual level of a glorified saint, so I'm forced to question as to why so many on the forum insist on having him glorified?   This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love.  I did not find that in his writings.   :-\
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 14, 2012, 12:08:28 AM
The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism. 

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards?  Certainly not mine.

Quote
  Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis.  The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother. 

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period.  When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile.  The Enlightenment was  a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote
Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified.  As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint.  The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world.  You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.   


If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world,  I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint. :)
Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest.  So how about you?  Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity? ???
Why must you oppose the two against each other?

Zenovia, when your "discernment" contradicts the wisdom of the Church, I don't care how you rationalize it. You have truly set yourself up as wiser than the Church, which is indeed the definition of prelest. In fact, your self-justification and comparison of yourself to others can only lead you deeper into prelest.

Oh so you are now my judge?  Sorry sir, my discernment doesn't contradict the wisdom of the Church, only the failings of certain people within the Church...and that includes many bishops.
Says you.

Now to get into this further, there is such a thing as a personality cult, and especially towards those that wear the frock.  Saint Nektarios once said to a woman who said she loved him, that if she loved him then he hated her because she was to love Christ and love him only as a brother in Christ.  There is a big difference you know?  On a whole, saints  are usually very inconsequential individuals, or they are intensely disliked because of their integrity, and that's why they are calumniated during their lives.  God allows it in order to humble them.  One thing they never do is attract people to themselves since their only focus is Christ. 

Now if an individual is known to others and loved by others, not because of his manifold virtues and the charisms (such as miraculous cures)given to him by God because of his virtues, but simply because he drew them to himself,  then I would hesitate before I called that person a Saint. :(
Are you saying that Fr. Seraphim was loved merely because he drew others to himself?

I don't know, you tell me?  As for me,  I haven't seen any signs from God or heard of any virtues of his being above and beyond those of other monks.  All I've read so far is that this person said good words, and that person said good words, and that he is venerated in this place and that place, as if trying to impress into me that I should  want him to be glorified because they are saying so.   

Look I don't want to denigrate Father Seraphim it's not fair to him.  I read his books, and I do not find them on the spiritual level of a glorified saint, so I'm forced to question as to why so many on the forum insist on having him glorified?
Zenovia, I think the loudest voice on this thread is yours insisting that Fr. Seraphim NOT be glorified. I really don't hear anyone here clamoring for his glorification anywhere near as loudly.

This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love.  I did not find that in his writings.   :-\
Then you need to read more.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: LBK on September 14, 2012, 12:46:52 AM
Quote
Glorifying saints in such a short time could be something recent.

Not at all, Zenovia, it is, in fact, the ancient practice. Long, long before any formal procedures of investigation and assessment of prospective saints were introduced into church practice, declaration of sainthood was by popular acclaim, and very often occurred within a few years of a saint's death, where he or she were not martyred. This was certainly the case for many early saints, such as the Cappadocian Fathers, St Nicholas of Myra, and many others.

A very important detail supporting this practice was the recording of a physical description of a prospective saint, so that, should that person be proclaimed a saint, the painting of icons would be made easier. This accounts for the great consistency in the physical appearance in icons of certain saints, across many centuries, irrespective of geographic or national provenance.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: primuspilus on September 14, 2012, 07:17:09 AM
Quote
This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love.  I did not find that in his writings
Ummm, what? You cant be serious. Zenovia, please cite some references for your claims. While you're doing that, read up on St. Justinian and the whole loving others thing.

PP
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 14, 2012, 07:39:26 AM
I had read two books by Father Seraphim about thirty years ago, so I can't give you the quotes or specifics…

This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love.  I did not find that in his writings.   :-\

You continue to proclaim your certainty that Fr. Seraphim is not a saint, and claim that his writings do not express sufficient compassion, love towards others, and absence of self-love which should characterize the writings of the saints.  And yet all of these judgments are based on impressions you had after reading two books by Fr. Seraphim thirty years ago?  What books were they? 

Please do us all a favor and refrain from further judgments concerning him until you have taken the time to read his biography and to familiarize yourself more with his life, his writings, and the miracles that have occurred through his intercessions following his repose.     
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 14, 2012, 12:15:26 PM
This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love.  I did not find that in his writings.   :-\

I doubt all the Saints were famous for their love towards others and compassion because some of them were hermits (or saloites) who lived quite solitarily.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 14, 2012, 12:46:23 PM
Quote
This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love.  I did not find that in his writings
Ummm, what? You cant be serious. Zenovia, please cite some references for your claims. While you're doing that, read up on St. Justinian and the whole loving others thing.

PP

Look I gave you my opinion as to how I feel about Father Serafim being glorified, and yet you people keep trying to convince me I'm wrong.  Why?  After all I do have a right to my opinion.  If I'm wrong, (which I know I'm not), then God will show it by having manifold miracles occur through the intercession of Father Seraphim.   When they do occur and God should prove me wrong, then those who have been the recipients of those miracles will be clamoring to have him glorified.  What's the rush?

As for citing references, how can I cite something when my interpretation will be different than yours.  If it was not so, then wouldn't you have reached the same conclusion as me? ???
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 14, 2012, 12:56:39 PM
The problem is that you do not present opinion here. You describe many of things we hear for a first time as customs, traditions or Tradition. Some of them clearly contradict the Tradition. That's the problem.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 14, 2012, 01:05:00 PM
Look I gave you my opinion as to how I feel about Father Serafim being glorified, and yet you people keep trying to convince me I'm wrong.  Why?  After all I do have a right to my opinion.  If I'm wrong, (which I know I'm not), then God will show it by having manifold miracles occur through the intercession of Father Seraphim.   When they do occur and God should prove me wrong, then those who have been the recipients of those miracles will be clamoring to have him glorified.  What's the rush?

Nobody is trying to convince you that you are wrong, and nobody has objected to you stating your opinion.  What I and others have objected to (as has been pointed out numerous times) is your claim to know for certain that Fr. Seraphim is definitely not a saint.  I and others have questioned the basis of this certainty, and in response you said that you have never read his biography and only read two books by him 30 yrs ago.  You never knew him personally, are completely unaware of how he is venerated throughout the world, and are unaware of how God has worked miracles in response to his intercessions.  So, without being able to provide quotes from his biography or writings that illustrate a reasonable basis for your objection, and without being able to give any adequate explanation for your absolute certainty that Fr. Seraphim is definitely not a saint, the only basis you can claim is divine revelation or such a high esteem of your own "intuition" that you regard such "intuition" as equal in authority to divine revelation.  This is not a sound approach to the subject, but an entirely delusional one.  
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: primuspilus on September 14, 2012, 01:07:41 PM
Quote
Look I gave you my opinion as to how I feel about Father Serafim being glorified, and yet you people keep trying to convince me I'm wrong
Nobody is bashing you for your opinion. Nobody is trying to convince you you're wrong of your opinion. However, when you give information that is totally incorrect, you're going to be checked on it (as everyone else has had done to them at one point or another). I also happen to be of a mind that Fr. Seraphim at this present time, should not be glorified.

PP
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 14, 2012, 01:08:25 PM
This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love.  I did not find that in his writings.   :-\

I doubt all the Saints were famous for their love towards others and compassion because some of them were hermits (or saloites) who lived quite solitarily.

They had to be, because in order to achieve Theosis one must become like God, and God is pure Love.  From what I gathered, most  saints which have been glorified lived in two 'existences'.   It seems their purity of heart had broken  the barrier that separates the two worlds, our world and the heavenly world.    For someone to be that pure, a  person has to be completely free of 'oneself'.  I should think the natural consequence of someone who has ceased to be self absorbed, would be a love for everyone and everything. ..and the purpose of a monastic is really  to pray for the world. :)

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 14, 2012, 01:21:27 PM
This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love.  I did not find that in his writings.   :-\

Regarding Fr. Seraphim's lack of self-love, perhaps you will find these words of interest from Hieromonk Ambrose (Young) who was formerly known as Fr. Alexey. 
Quote
A year or so before his repose, I drove Fr. Seraphim someplace where he was going to give a talk. We got out of the car and, as he was walking in front of me, he turned and said, “You know, this is really not for me.” Now this is interesting because many think that he was really coming into his own, so to speak, in the last years of his life. And surely, in a sense, that’s true. But there was also a part of him that never really loved it at all, because he wanted to just be in the monastery. He did the work of missionary outreach because he knew God was calling him to it. It was his duty.

Also, he kept his eyes fixed on Christ by not paying much attention to himself. Fr. Damascene spoke about this very well in his remarks when he said that Fr. Seraphim had essentially ceased to have a private life, that he didn’t belong to himself. That was really true.

...I remember once asking Fr. Seraphim what was his favorite food, and he didn’t answer me. He didn’t even say, “I don’t have any”; he just changed the subject! Once, when he was coming to visit our home, someone had found out from Fr. Herman that there was, after all, something Fr. Seraphim liked. I don’t now recall what it was, but my wife fixed this for him—and I thought, “This will really please him.” So a place was put in front of him with what we believed was his favorite food, and he never paid any attention to it. He didn’t even seem to notice that the plate was in front of him. That was it.

So Fr. Seraphim did his duty in every single moment, and he kept his eyes fixed on Christ and on others, not on himself. And I believe that now, as a result of a life lived so unselfishly in that way, he does indeed now rest serenely and eternally in the arms of Christ, ‘Whom he spiritually beheld day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year, here on this mountain. Because of his example, we not only have a model, but we have an inspiration, and we have the encouragement to do just a little bit more than we’re doing now.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/rem_frseraphim.aspx

Do you think the above depiction of Fr. Seraphim is wrong, or that Hieromonk Ambrose made up these things?  What basis, aside from your mysterious divine revelation, do you have for claiming that Fr. Seraphim was self-centered or filled with self-love?

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 14, 2012, 01:22:13 PM
Look I gave you my opinion as to how I feel about Father Serafim being glorified, and yet you people keep trying to convince me I'm wrong.  Why?  After all I do have a right to my opinion.  If I'm wrong, (which I know I'm not), then God will show it by having manifold miracles occur through the intercession of Father Seraphim.   When they do occur and God should prove me wrong, then those who have been the recipients of those miracles will be clamoring to have him glorified.  What's the rush?

Nobody is trying to convince you that you are wrong, and nobody has objected to you stating your opinion.  What I and others have objected to (as has been pointed out numerous times) is your claim to know for certain that Fr. Seraphim is definitely not a saint.  I and others have questioned the basis of this certainty, and in response you said that you have never read his biography and only read two books by him 30 yrs ago.  You never knew him personally, are completely unaware of how he is venerated throughout the world, and are unaware of how God has worked miracles in response to his intercessions.  So, without being able to provide quotes from his biography or writings that illustrate a reasonable basis for your objection, and without being able to give any adequate explanation for your absolute certainty that Fr. Seraphim is definitely not a saint, the only basis you can claim is divine revelation or such a high esteem of your own "intuition" that you regard such "intuition" as equal in authority to divine revelation.  This is not a sound approach to the subject, but an entirely delusional one.  

There you go again.  You say no one is objecting to me stating my opinion, and then you go on trying to bully me into accepting your view by saying my opinion is delusional.   You then tell me he is venerated throughout the world, and yet there is a great deal of controversy about him which only means that many people do not see things the way you do.  Of course in your mind, you find these people inconsequential or maybe delusional or who knows what?    Look, why don't you just stop pushing and insisting on him being glorified, and leave it to God and the Holy Spirit.  What are you afraid of?  If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Now how about some testimonies?   We have loads of testimonies for Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco.  Prove me wrong...or rather, let God prove me wrong.  :(  
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 14, 2012, 01:29:21 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 14, 2012, 01:32:29 PM
Quote
Look I gave you my opinion as to how I feel about Father Serafim being glorified, and yet you people keep trying to convince me I'm wrong
Nobody is bashing you for your opinion. Nobody is trying to convince you you're wrong of your opinion. However, when you give information that is totally incorrect, you're going to be checked on it (as everyone else has had done to them at one point or another). I also happen to be of a mind that Fr. Seraphim at this present time, should not be glorified.

PP

But I didn't give information that was incorrect, I merely gave my opinion and that's the way it should have been taken.  I said Father Seraphim is not a saint, and everyone jumped on me.  If they believe he is a saint, then why do they care if I say otherwise, I'm only a human being and an inconsequential one at that.  Am I supposed to beware of saying such things because some might find them offensive?  What is so offensive on a thread about whether someone should be glorified or not,  when a poster  says they should not be...unless you people prefer a less straight forward answer.  Sorry, that's not me.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jah777 on September 14, 2012, 01:34:59 PM
There you go again.  You say no one is objecting to me stating my opinion, and then you go on trying to bully me into accepting your view by saying my opinion is delusional.   You then tell me he is venerated throughout the world, and yet there is a great deal of controversy about him which only means that many people do not see things the way you do.  Of course in your mind, you find these people inconsequential or maybe delusional or who knows what?    Look, why don't you just stop pushing and insisting on him being glorified, and leave it to God and the Holy Spirit.  What are you afraid of?  If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Now how about some testimonies?   We have loads of testimonies for Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco.  Prove me wrong...or rather, let God prove me wrong.  :(  

You do not seem to understand.  I do not insist upon the bishops glorifying him, nor do I insist that you must believe that Fr. Seraphim is a saint.  I only object to your claim to know for sure that he is not a saint.  You keep judging Fr. Seraphim and the state of his soul before God yet you have given no reasonable basis for this certain knowledge of yours.  If you are interested in testimonies concerning Fr. Seraphim's intercessions, read his biography by Fr. Damascene and search around on the internet.  I have repeatedly encouraged you to learn about his life before judging his soul, but you seem only interested in proclaiming your delusional certainty.  Perhaps God has proven you wrong and will continue to prove you wrong, but you do not have eyes to see or ears to hear.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: orthonorm on September 14, 2012, 01:36:55 PM
Between this thread and the one about the "youngsters", Zenovia is making me rethink all the terrible things I've thought about her as I scrolled past her many posts.

More to come.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 14, 2012, 02:01:19 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

 Michael, tell Mount Athos that miracles are not a perquisite for glorifycation.  We're not Protestants.  The veneration of saints comes from the people that need the intercession of the saint.  What you said is nothing but Protestant foolishness.  The Protestants rebelled against the RCC, and then tossed out the very things that made Europe Christian. 

Do you think an evil pagan world could have ever become Christian had it not been for the saints, and the miracles God had given them?   I once read  that the miracles performed by Christ's disciples alone, were almost as many as His own.   :)     
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 14, 2012, 02:25:43 PM
This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love.  I did not find that in his writings.   :-\

Regarding Fr. Seraphim's lack of self-love, perhaps you will find these words of interest from Hieromonk Ambrose (Young) who was formerly known as Fr. Alexey. 
Quote
A year or so before his repose, I drove Fr. Seraphim someplace where he was going to give a talk. We got out of the car and, as he was walking in front of me, he turned and said, “You know, this is really not for me.” Now this is interesting because many think that he was really coming into his own, so to speak, in the last years of his life. And surely, in a sense, that’s true. But there was also a part of him that never really loved it at all, because he wanted to just be in the monastery. He did the work of missionary outreach because he knew God was calling him to it. It was his duty.

Also, he kept his eyes fixed on Christ by not paying much attention to himself. Fr. Damascene spoke about this very well in his remarks when he said that Fr. Seraphim had essentially ceased to have a private life, that he didn’t belong to himself. That was really true.

...I remember once asking Fr. Seraphim what was his favorite food, and he didn’t answer me. He didn’t even say, “I don’t have any”; he just changed the subject! Once, when he was coming to visit our home, someone had found out from Fr. Herman that there was, after all, something Fr. Seraphim liked. I don’t now recall what it was, but my wife fixed this for him—and I thought, “This will really please him.” So a place was put in front of him with what we believed was his favorite food, and he never paid any attention to it. He didn’t even seem to notice that the plate was in front of him. That was it.

So Fr. Seraphim did his duty in every single moment, and he kept his eyes fixed on Christ and on others, not on himself. And I believe that now, as a result of a life lived so unselfishly in that way, he does indeed now rest serenely and eternally in the arms of Christ, ‘Whom he spiritually beheld day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year, here on this mountain. Because of his example, we not only have a model, but we have an inspiration, and we have the encouragement to do just a little bit more than we’re doing now.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/rem_frseraphim.aspx

Do you think the above depiction of Fr. Seraphim is wrong, or that Hieromonk Ambrose made up these things?  What basis, aside from your mysterious divine revelation, do you have for claiming that Fr. Seraphim was self-centered or filled with self-love?



I never said he was self centered or filled with self love.  Those are your words not mine.  I  believe he wasn't completely free of self love...big difference?  As for what you posted, it only reaffirms my belief that you people have created a personality cult.  I have found nothing more in Father Seraphims sacrifices, then the sacrifice that is expected of every monk.  The only difference then has to be his personality.

I think you all better read some biographies on saints in order to know what true sacrifice and heroic virtue is, such as Chondropoulos' book on Saint Nektarios:  A Saint of Our Era (Century) or read about about Saint John Kronstadt who never slept and gave up everything and ended up almost being beaten to death, or Father Arseny, who spent thirty years in the Gulag and was kept alive by a criminal whose life he has saved.  Read up on the life of Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, and how he walked in snow barefoot, or Saint Xenia who for thirty years roamed the poorest section of Saint Petersburg without socks, and prayed morning until night for the soul of her husband.

Look, I don't want to continue this, because I'm being forced to denigrate Father Seraphim when that is not my intent.  I only want you people to try to differentiate between his sacrifices and the sacrifices of our glorified saints.   >:(
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: primuspilus on September 14, 2012, 02:37:15 PM
Like I said, nobody is attacking anyone for you having an opinion. Im simply stating that if you state something factually incorrect (like if you said St. John of Damascus was a was a Russian) you're going to get corrected on that. Now if that makes you want to throw yourself on the cross, then so be it.

PP

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Jonathan Gress on September 14, 2012, 02:40:39 PM
This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love.  I did not find that in his writings.   :-\

Regarding Fr. Seraphim's lack of self-love, perhaps you will find these words of interest from Hieromonk Ambrose (Young) who was formerly known as Fr. Alexey. 
Quote
A year or so before his repose, I drove Fr. Seraphim someplace where he was going to give a talk. We got out of the car and, as he was walking in front of me, he turned and said, “You know, this is really not for me.” Now this is interesting because many think that he was really coming into his own, so to speak, in the last years of his life. And surely, in a sense, that’s true. But there was also a part of him that never really loved it at all, because he wanted to just be in the monastery. He did the work of missionary outreach because he knew God was calling him to it. It was his duty.

Also, he kept his eyes fixed on Christ by not paying much attention to himself. Fr. Damascene spoke about this very well in his remarks when he said that Fr. Seraphim had essentially ceased to have a private life, that he didn’t belong to himself. That was really true.

...I remember once asking Fr. Seraphim what was his favorite food, and he didn’t answer me. He didn’t even say, “I don’t have any”; he just changed the subject! Once, when he was coming to visit our home, someone had found out from Fr. Herman that there was, after all, something Fr. Seraphim liked. I don’t now recall what it was, but my wife fixed this for him—and I thought, “This will really please him.” So a place was put in front of him with what we believed was his favorite food, and he never paid any attention to it. He didn’t even seem to notice that the plate was in front of him. That was it.

So Fr. Seraphim did his duty in every single moment, and he kept his eyes fixed on Christ and on others, not on himself. And I believe that now, as a result of a life lived so unselfishly in that way, he does indeed now rest serenely and eternally in the arms of Christ, ‘Whom he spiritually beheld day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year, here on this mountain. Because of his example, we not only have a model, but we have an inspiration, and we have the encouragement to do just a little bit more than we’re doing now.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/rem_frseraphim.aspx

Do you think the above depiction of Fr. Seraphim is wrong, or that Hieromonk Ambrose made up these things?  What basis, aside from your mysterious divine revelation, do you have for claiming that Fr. Seraphim was self-centered or filled with self-love?



I never said he was self centered or filled with self love.  Those are your words not mine.  I  believe he wasn't completely free of self love...big difference?  As for what you posted, it only reaffirms my belief that you people have created a personality cult.  I have found nothing more in Father Seraphims sacrifices, then the sacrifice that is expected of every monk.  The only difference then has to be his personality.

I think you all better read some biographies on saints in order to know what true sacrifice and heroic virtue is, such as Chondropoulos' book on Saint Nektarios:  A Saint of Our Era (Century) or read about about Saint John Kronstadt who never slept and gave up everything and ended up almost being beaten to death, or Father Arseny, who spent thirty years in the Gulag and was kept alive by a criminal whose life he has saved.  Read up on the life of Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, and how he walked in snow barefoot, or Saint Xenia who for thirty years roamed the poorest section of Saint Petersburg without socks, and prayed morning until night for the soul of her husband.

Look, I don't want to continue this, because I'm being forced to denigrate Father Seraphim when that is not my intent.  I only want you people to try to differentiate between his sacrifices and the sacrifices of our glorified saints.   >:(

I bolded that part since it seems to capture the objection to Fr Seraphim's sainthood I've heard elsewhere. He did what a good monk should do, and there is no reason to think that his soul wasn't saved or that he can't hear the prayers of the faithful (you don't need to be officially glorified for that). But the kinds of saints universally observed by the Church went above and beyond merely what is expected of a good monk (which, by the way, is still a lot more than what most of us observe nowadays, I'm sure).

Fr Damascene obviously talks about Fr Seraphim as if he were a saint, but maybe we should focus on the details. As Zenovia said, what are concrete examples of Fr Seraphim's life that demonstrate his sainthood? E.g. did he work miracles of healing or clairvoyance? Did he accomplish feats of asceticism, like going without food or sleep for days on end? If he didn't, that doesn't make him a bad monk; it simply places him on a different level of virtue that we shouldn't confuse with the level found in the universally glorified saints. The issue shouldn't be Fr Seraphim himself, but rather our own tendency to "lower the bar" of sanctity, which would be an offense to those saints who actually surpassed the bar.

Perhaps our urge to venerate Fr Seraphim, or other "holy elders" we hear so much of nowadays (at least in some circles), is more of a reflection of our general loss of sanctity. We want a "saint" whose life seems a little closer to ours, a little more within our reach.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: primuspilus on September 14, 2012, 02:48:28 PM
For this part of what Zenovia said,
Quote
what are concrete examples of Fr Seraphim's life that demonstrate his sainthood?
I totally agree with that.

I just dont think Fr. Seraphim is very influential outside of the hyper-excited new convert. Which even though I am recently illumined, I never got into his works much. It just seemed a bit too much for me to swallow.

PP
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Jonathan Gress on September 14, 2012, 03:00:08 PM
For this part of what Zenovia said,
Quote
what are concrete examples of Fr Seraphim's life that demonstrate his sainthood?
I totally agree with that.

I just dont think Fr. Seraphim is very influential outside of the hyper-excited new convert. Which even though I am recently illumined, I never got into his works much. It just seemed a bit too much for me to swallow.

PP

I don't know about that. What I do know is that "hero-worshipping" is very common, especially among the conservative elements in Orthodoxy (and here I'm talking about both the True Orthodox and World Orthodox). It's as if merely following traditional Orthodox praxis to the best of one's ability, and holding fast to Orthodoxy without compromise, are not enough. We need some kind of "guru" to be our "guide", who will tell us everything to do because he has some direct hotline to God, with the result that we don't need to be responsible for our own salvation. At least, that is part of what I think is going on psychologically among all these personality cultists, including the Fr Seraphim cultists.

Also, the idea that general sanctity is so low that real sainthood and real clairvoyance are gone is perhaps too terrible for some to contemplate. We fantasize about what it was like in pre-revolutionary Russia, or on Mount Athos back when it really was a bastion of Orthodoxy, and we simply can't accept that those days are gone, since if that were true, then perhaps the last days really are upon us. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case; maybe there will be a real revival and return to higher spiritual standards.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that Fr Seraphim's life is perhaps the best that can be done in our age, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that this is all there is to it.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 14, 2012, 03:27:08 PM
Michael, tell Mount Athos that miracles are not a perquisite for glorifycation. 

They already know that.

Quote
We're not Protestants.  The veneration of saints comes from the people that need the intercession of the saint.  What you said is nothing but Protestant foolishness.  The Protestants rebelled against the RCC, and then tossed out the very things that made Europe Christian. 

Do you think an evil pagan world could have ever become Christian had it not been for the saints, and the miracles God had given them?   I once read  that the miracles performed by Christ's disciples alone, were almost as many as His own.   :)     

There are hundreds of Saints that are not known because of their miracles. What miracles did St. Joseph do? Or St. Tikhon? St. Raphael? St. Peter the Aleut?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 14, 2012, 05:47:21 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

 Michael, tell Mount Athos that miracles are not a perquisite for glorifycation.
Have you ever been to Mount Athos?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 14, 2012, 05:51:49 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

 Michael, tell Mount Athos that miracles are not a perquisite for glorifycation.
Have you ever been to Mount Athos?

I enjoyed the joke.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on September 14, 2012, 09:47:26 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

 Michael, tell Mount Athos that miracles are not a perquisite for glorifycation.
Have you ever been to Mount Athos?

Let God's will be done and don't worry about it guys.

Now, just a quick comment about Athos.
Save your money up
and GO.

If it means the next time you buy a car - leave off some features.... Save any way you can and do it at least ONCE. 

There a few places in this world where it literally feels that you walk in heaven (natural beauty) and you also feel a closeness to God and at the same time utter repentance.  There are things you'll see there that take your breath away (rooms of relics) and also very neat "crafts" such as reducing oils for incense, iconography, looming of threads, and gardens.   Plus the architecture is amazing.

Try to stay 2 weeks at least.
Some of the monks speak fluent English.

Bring some extra money for donations.  Try to donate at each monastery you visit.

I'd love to go back before I croak one day.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 15, 2012, 03:21:16 AM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

 Michael, tell Mount Athos that miracles are not a perquisite for glorifycation.
Have you ever been to Mount Athos?

Let God's will be done and don't worry about it guys.
You don't get the joke, do you?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 15, 2012, 08:51:35 AM
Jonathan's answer is really to the point.

On a similar line of thought, I vividly remember being at a youth retreat as a child at our diocesan cathedral. The priest was explaining the icons which displayed depictions of maybe one or two hundred saints throughout the church building. A little boy asked the priest - 'Father - do the pictures on the wall  have the whole 'set' of saints?' (He was of course referring to sports trading card sets - popular with boys in the United States.) The priest smiled and gave a great answer which stuck with me over all of these years. He said something like,' No, of course not. God knows all of the saints, we on earth can only figure out a very few of them!' 
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 15, 2012, 06:26:06 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated.  They are hated by the most destructive and harmful individuals because of their lack of willingness to lower their integrity.  The reason God allows these scandals to occur, is so He can lessen their pride since humility is an intricate  part of holyness.   By the same token there are  priests and monks who will tell people exactly what they want to hear.  These people in contrast to saints are very well liked. 

As an example, just recently the Bishop of Limassol of the Makrides' book fame, and who many consider to be a saint was running for the position of Arch. of Cyprus.  Someone lied about him for political reasons, and said he was seen going with some women to a nude beach.  The judge, knowing that the Bishop of Limassol couldn't drive, asked the accuser if he was the one driving the car.  When the accuser said yes, the case was dropped.  This is not an isolated case.  As I said almost all saints have been calumniated, and many a priest and monk who were anything but holy, had quite a large following and have been considered saints.

Because of this, the Church depends completely on God.  The miracles performed when they are alive can't be accepted because witches and warlocks do exist, and they too can cure, so the Church waits until the death of a saint.  The body is dug up after three years and if it is not corrupt they rebury it and dig it up again after a few years.  The first time is not enough, because bodies of evil individuals have been known to remain uncorrupted as well.  Satan is very powerful  The most importent thing for someone to be glorified are the miracles that occur through the saints intercession.   Anyway it's a long process. ;)

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 15, 2012, 06:41:02 PM
....and there are Saints whose bodies were never found having been destroyed by enemies of the faith.  Enough of the legalism and the judgmentalism here. And the concept that a saint must not have lived a life where he or she was kindly, beloved and revered while alive is just preposterous.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 15, 2012, 11:46:05 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated.  They are hated by the most destructive and harmful individuals because of their lack of willingness to lower their integrity.  The reason God allows these scandals to occur, is so He can lessen their pride since humility is an intricate  part of holyness.   By the same token there are  priests and monks who will tell people exactly what they want to hear.  These people in contrast to saints are very well liked. 

As an example, just recently the Bishop of Limassol of the Makrides' book fame, and who many consider to be a saint was running for the position of Arch. of Cyprus.  Someone lied about him for political reasons, and said he was seen going with some women to a nude beach.  The judge, knowing that the Bishop of Limassol couldn't drive, asked the accuser if he was the one driving the car.  When the accuser said yes, the case was dropped.  This is not an isolated case.  As I said almost all saints have been calumniated, and many a priest and monk who were anything but holy, had quite a large following and have been considered saints.

Because of this, the Church depends completely on God.  The miracles performed when they are alive can't be accepted because witches and warlocks do exist, and they too can cure, so the Church waits until the death of a saint.  The body is dug up after three years and if it is not corrupt they rebury it and dig it up again after a few years.  The first time is not enough, because bodies of evil individuals have been known to remain uncorrupted as well.  Satan is very powerful  The most importent thing for someone to be glorified are the miracles that occur through the saints intercession.   Anyway it's a long process. ;)
Prove it! And by citing authorities outside yourself.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 16, 2012, 01:12:19 AM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated.  They are hated by the most destructive and harmful individuals because of their lack of willingness to lower their integrity.  The reason God allows these scandals to occur, is so He can lessen their pride since humility is an intricate  part of holyness.   By the same token there are  priests and monks who will tell people exactly what they want to hear.  These people in contrast to saints are very well liked. 

As an example, just recently the Bishop of Limassol of the Makrides' book fame, and who many consider to be a saint was running for the position of Arch. of Cyprus.  Someone lied about him for political reasons, and said he was seen going with some women to a nude beach.  The judge, knowing that the Bishop of Limassol couldn't drive, asked the accuser if he was the one driving the car.  When the accuser said yes, the case was dropped.  This is not an isolated case.  As I said almost all saints have been calumniated, and many a priest and monk who were anything but holy, had quite a large following and have been considered saints.

Because of this, the Church depends completely on God.  The miracles performed when they are alive can't be accepted because witches and warlocks do exist, and they too can cure, so the Church waits until the death of a saint.  The body is dug up after three years and if it is not corrupt they rebury it and dig it up again after a few years.  The first time is not enough, because bodies of evil individuals have been known to remain uncorrupted as well.  Satan is very powerful  The most importent thing for someone to be glorified are the miracles that occur through the saints intercession.   Anyway it's a long process. ;)



You are calling Fr. Seraphim Rose...Evil?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 16, 2012, 01:14:14 AM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated.  They are hated by the most destructive and harmful individuals because of their lack of willingness to lower their integrity.  The reason God allows these scandals to occur, is so He can lessen their pride since humility is an intricate  part of holyness.   By the same token there are  priests and monks who will tell people exactly what they want to hear.  These people in contrast to saints are very well liked.  

As an example, just recently the Bishop of Limassol of the Makrides' book fame, and who many consider to be a saint was running for the position of Arch. of Cyprus.  Someone lied about him for political reasons, and said he was seen going with some women to a nude beach.  The judge, knowing that the Bishop of Limassol couldn't drive, asked the accuser if he was the one driving the car.  When the accuser said yes, the case was dropped.  This is not an isolated case.  As I said almost all saints have been calumniated, and many a priest and monk who were anything but holy, had quite a large following and have been considered saints.

Because of this, the Church depends completely on God.  The miracles performed when they are alive can't be accepted because witches and warlocks do exist, and they too can cure, so the Church waits until the death of a saint.  The body is dug up after three years and if it is not corrupt they rebury it and dig it up again after a few years.  The first time is not enough, because bodies of evil individuals have been known to remain uncorrupted as well.  Satan is very powerful  The most importent thing for someone to be glorified are the miracles that occur through the saints intercession.   Anyway it's a long process. ;)



You are calling Fr. Seraphim Rose...Evil?
I don't think she's going that far.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 16, 2012, 01:21:20 AM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated.  They are hated by the most destructive and harmful individuals because of their lack of willingness to lower their integrity.  The reason God allows these scandals to occur, is so He can lessen their pride since humility is an intricate  part of holyness.   By the same token there are  priests and monks who will tell people exactly what they want to hear.  These people in contrast to saints are very well liked.  

As an example, just recently the Bishop of Limassol of the Makrides' book fame, and who many consider to be a saint was running for the position of Arch. of Cyprus.  Someone lied about him for political reasons, and said he was seen going with some women to a nude beach.  The judge, knowing that the Bishop of Limassol couldn't drive, asked the accuser if he was the one driving the car.  When the accuser said yes, the case was dropped.  This is not an isolated case.  As I said almost all saints have been calumniated, and many a priest and monk who were anything but holy, had quite a large following and have been considered saints.

Because of this, the Church depends completely on God.  The miracles performed when they are alive can't be accepted because witches and warlocks do exist, and they too can cure, so the Church waits until the death of a saint.  The body is dug up after three years and if it is not corrupt they rebury it and dig it up again after a few years.  The first time is not enough, because bodies of evil individuals have been known to remain uncorrupted as well.  Satan is very powerful  The most importent thing for someone to be glorified are the miracles that occur through the saints intercession.   Anyway it's a long process. ;)



You are calling Fr. Seraphim Rose...Evil?
I don't think she's going that far.

Guess I misunderstood. ???
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 16, 2012, 11:32:50 AM
Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated. 

Well, no, they didn't. St. Raphael? St. Alexius Toth?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 16, 2012, 02:16:21 PM
Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated. 

Well, no, they didn't. St. Raphael? St. Alexius Toth?

St. Alexius did suffer greatly from attacks from the Romans and those Greek Catholics who did not follow him to Russian Orthodoxy. He was also anguished throughout his life from various events including the premature death of his wife and child, his shocking encounter with Archbishop Ireland and his abandonment by the Greek Catholic hierarchy in Europe, his expulsion from St. Mary's in Minneapolis by his fellow countrymen who wanted a more 'Russian' priest and by the rapid Rusification of his people upon entering Orthodoxy in the first years of the 20th century in spite of promises made to the contrary. Yet he died at peace, at man at the crossroads of a new era and caught between the secular forces of the east and west, all the while remaining faithful to the Orthodox Church and his own conscience. I doubt he harbored any thoughts that someday his memory would be such that he would be glorified as an American Saint. (I also think he too would have had to look up the word 'calumniated'. )
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jckstraw72 on September 16, 2012, 06:38:10 PM
i dont think there's any point in going any further with Zenovia on this ...
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 16, 2012, 09:36:21 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated.  They are hated by the most destructive and harmful individuals because of their lack of willingness to lower their integrity.  The reason God allows these scandals to occur, is so He can lessen their pride since humility is an intricate  part of holyness.   By the same token there are  priests and monks who will tell people exactly what they want to hear.  These people in contrast to saints are very well liked. 

As an example, just recently the Bishop of Limassol of the Makrides' book fame, and who many consider to be a saint was running for the position of Arch. of Cyprus.  Someone lied about him for political reasons, and said he was seen going with some women to a nude beach.  The judge, knowing that the Bishop of Limassol couldn't drive, asked the accuser if he was the one driving the car.  When the accuser said yes, the case was dropped.  This is not an isolated case.  As I said almost all saints have been calumniated, and many a priest and monk who were anything but holy, had quite a large following and have been considered saints.

Because of this, the Church depends completely on God.  The miracles performed when they are alive can't be accepted because witches and warlocks do exist, and they too can cure, so the Church waits until the death of a saint.  The body is dug up after three years and if it is not corrupt they rebury it and dig it up again after a few years.  The first time is not enough, because bodies of evil individuals have been known to remain uncorrupted as well.  Satan is very powerful  The most importent thing for someone to be glorified are the miracles that occur through the saints intercession.   Anyway it's a long process. ;)
Prove it! And by citing authorities outside yourself.

Michael, I can't give you an authority for everything I said, because I have a long term memory and the knowlege I stated has been gathered  over the years.  What I'm saying did not come from one source, but rather from many sources.  If you want to find out about a saints body remaining intact after three years, and then after another certain amount of years, then best to ask a monk, preferably one from the Elder Ephraims monasteries.  As for warlocks, then read up on Saint Cyprian.   :)

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 16, 2012, 09:44:09 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated.  They are hated by the most destructive and harmful individuals because of their lack of willingness to lower their integrity.  The reason God allows these scandals to occur, is so He can lessen their pride since humility is an intricate  part of holyness.   By the same token there are  priests and monks who will tell people exactly what they want to hear.  These people in contrast to saints are very well liked. 

As an example, just recently the Bishop of Limassol of the Makrides' book fame, and who many consider to be a saint was running for the position of Arch. of Cyprus.  Someone lied about him for political reasons, and said he was seen going with some women to a nude beach.  The judge, knowing that the Bishop of Limassol couldn't drive, asked the accuser if he was the one driving the car.  When the accuser said yes, the case was dropped.  This is not an isolated case.  As I said almost all saints have been calumniated, and many a priest and monk who were anything but holy, had quite a large following and have been considered saints.

Because of this, the Church depends completely on God.  The miracles performed when they are alive can't be accepted because witches and warlocks do exist, and they too can cure, so the Church waits until the death of a saint.  The body is dug up after three years and if it is not corrupt they rebury it and dig it up again after a few years.  The first time is not enough, because bodies of evil individuals have been known to remain uncorrupted as well.  Satan is very powerful  The most importent thing for someone to be glorified are the miracles that occur through the saints intercession.   Anyway it's a long process. ;)



You are calling Fr. Seraphim Rose...Evil?

What does Fr. Seraphim Rose have to do with what I wrote?  I was stating the canonization process of the Orthodox Church, not the newly innovative Orthodox Church.  ::)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 16, 2012, 09:44:58 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated.  They are hated by the most destructive and harmful individuals because of their lack of willingness to lower their integrity.  The reason God allows these scandals to occur, is so He can lessen their pride since humility is an intricate  part of holyness.   By the same token there are  priests and monks who will tell people exactly what they want to hear.  These people in contrast to saints are very well liked. 

As an example, just recently the Bishop of Limassol of the Makrides' book fame, and who many consider to be a saint was running for the position of Arch. of Cyprus.  Someone lied about him for political reasons, and said he was seen going with some women to a nude beach.  The judge, knowing that the Bishop of Limassol couldn't drive, asked the accuser if he was the one driving the car.  When the accuser said yes, the case was dropped.  This is not an isolated case.  As I said almost all saints have been calumniated, and many a priest and monk who were anything but holy, had quite a large following and have been considered saints.

Because of this, the Church depends completely on God.  The miracles performed when they are alive can't be accepted because witches and warlocks do exist, and they too can cure, so the Church waits until the death of a saint.  The body is dug up after three years and if it is not corrupt they rebury it and dig it up again after a few years.  The first time is not enough, because bodies of evil individuals have been known to remain uncorrupted as well.  Satan is very powerful  The most importent thing for someone to be glorified are the miracles that occur through the saints intercession.   Anyway it's a long process. ;)
Prove it! And by citing authorities outside yourself.

Michael, I can't give you an authority for everything I said, because I have a long term memory and the knowlege I stated has been gathered  over the years.  What I'm saying did not come from one source, but rather from many sources.  If you want to find out about a saints body remaining intact after three years, and then after another certain amount of years, then best to ask a monk, preferably one from the Elder Ephraims monasteries.  As for warlocks, then read up on Saint Cyprian.   :)


1. I'm not Michael, or Michal, or anyone bearing any variant of that name on this forum.
2. If you will not share with us those authorities who shared with you the "special knowledge" you cite on this thread, then I can only draw the conclusion that you're making this stuff up, which means you're lying to us. If you don't want this to be believed about you, then share with us your sources.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 16, 2012, 09:47:03 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.

Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated.  They are hated by the most destructive and harmful individuals because of their lack of willingness to lower their integrity.  The reason God allows these scandals to occur, is so He can lessen their pride since humility is an intricate  part of holyness.   By the same token there are  priests and monks who will tell people exactly what they want to hear.  These people in contrast to saints are very well liked. 

As an example, just recently the Bishop of Limassol of the Makrides' book fame, and who many consider to be a saint was running for the position of Arch. of Cyprus.  Someone lied about him for political reasons, and said he was seen going with some women to a nude beach.  The judge, knowing that the Bishop of Limassol couldn't drive, asked the accuser if he was the one driving the car.  When the accuser said yes, the case was dropped.  This is not an isolated case.  As I said almost all saints have been calumniated, and many a priest and monk who were anything but holy, had quite a large following and have been considered saints.

Because of this, the Church depends completely on God.  The miracles performed when they are alive can't be accepted because witches and warlocks do exist, and they too can cure, so the Church waits until the death of a saint.  The body is dug up after three years and if it is not corrupt they rebury it and dig it up again after a few years.  The first time is not enough, because bodies of evil individuals have been known to remain uncorrupted as well.  Satan is very powerful  The most importent thing for someone to be glorified are the miracles that occur through the saints intercession.   Anyway it's a long process. ;)



You are calling Fr. Seraphim Rose...Evil?

What does Fr. Seraphim Rose have to do with what I wrote?  I was stating the canonization process of the Orthodox Church, not the newly innovative Orthodox Church.  ::)

PtA corrected me, I misunderstood. I said that earlier...read up:

Guess I misunderstood. ???
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 16, 2012, 10:17:47 PM
Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated. 

Well, no, they didn't. St. Raphael? St. Alexius Toth?

St. Alexius did suffer greatly from attacks from the Romans and those Greek Catholics who did not follow him to Russian Orthodoxy. He was also anguished throughout his life from various events including the premature death of his wife and child, his shocking encounter with Archbishop Ireland and his abandonment by the Greek Catholic hierarchy in Europe, his expulsion from St. Mary's in Minneapolis by his fellow countrymen who wanted a more 'Russian' priest and by the rapid Rusification of his people upon entering Orthodoxy in the first years of the 20th century in spite of promises made to the contrary. Yet he died at peace, at man at the crossroads of a new era and caught between the secular forces of the east and west, all the while remaining faithful to the Orthodox Church and his own conscience. I doubt he harbored any thoughts that someday his memory would be such that he would be glorified as an American Saint. (I also think he too would have had to look up the word 'calumniated'. )

I just read about his life in Wikipedea, and that he was canonized by the OCA.  Is he also a saint in the other jurisdictions, and what  process did they use for his canonization?  Has there ever been an apology from any Pope for Arch, Ireland's narrow minded intolerance? I know when I was young, my Catholic friends believed than anyone outside of the RCC could not be saved.  The Orthodox priests at that time, preferred the Orthodox to attend a Protestant Church if an Orthodox one was not available, for fear of being pressured to convert.

 Later on I read that it was never a doctrine of the RCC that a person's soul was lost if they weren't a member of their Church, and that the bishop who had interpreted it that way had been excommunicated.  I'm not too certain about all this, so I might be wrong, but I do know that the RCC was fearful of Protestanism, especially in the U.S., and because of that they put a great deal of pressure on the family of anyone who converted.  :-\
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 16, 2012, 10:22:19 PM
Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated. 

Well, no, they didn't. St. Raphael? St. Alexius Toth?

St. Alexius did suffer greatly from attacks from the Romans and those Greek Catholics who did not follow him to Russian Orthodoxy. He was also anguished throughout his life from various events including the premature death of his wife and child, his shocking encounter with Archbishop Ireland and his abandonment by the Greek Catholic hierarchy in Europe, his expulsion from St. Mary's in Minneapolis by his fellow countrymen who wanted a more 'Russian' priest and by the rapid Rusification of his people upon entering Orthodoxy in the first years of the 20th century in spite of promises made to the contrary. Yet he died at peace, at man at the crossroads of a new era and caught between the secular forces of the east and west, all the while remaining faithful to the Orthodox Church and his own conscience. I doubt he harbored any thoughts that someday his memory would be such that he would be glorified as an American Saint. (I also think he too would have had to look up the word 'calumniated'. )

I just read about his life in Wikipedea, and that he was canonized by the OCA.  Is he also a saint in the other jurisdictions, and what  process did they use for his canonization?  Has there ever been an apology from any Pope for Arch, Ireland's narrow minded intolerance? I know when I was young, my Catholic friends believed than anyone outside of the RCC could not be saved.  The Orthodox priests at that time, preferred the Orthodox to attend a Protestant Church if an Orthodox one was not available, for fear of being pressured to convert.

 Later on I read that it was never a doctrine of the RCC that a person's soul was lost if they weren't a member of their Church, and that the bishop who had interpreted it that way had been excommunicated.  I'm not too certain about all this, so I might be wrong, but I do know that the RCC was fearful of Protestanism, especially in the U.S., and because of that they put a great deal of pressure on the family of anyone who converted.  :-\
I'm not sure that had anything to do with Archbishop Ireland's intolerance. IIRC, the archbishop was a Latinophile who saw no place for St. Alexis's Byzantine Rite and their married priesthood in the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: LBK on September 16, 2012, 10:51:41 PM
Quote
and that he was canonized by the OCA.

Where is your evidence for this, Zenovia?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 16, 2012, 10:54:25 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.


Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated.  They are hated by the most destructive and harmful individuals because of their lack of willingness to lower their integrity.  The reason God allows these scandals to occur, is so He can lessen their pride since humility is an intricate  part of holyness.   By the same token there are  priests and monks who will tell people exactly what they want to hear.  These people in contrast to saints are very well liked. 

As an example, just recently the Bishop of Limassol of the Makrides' book fame, and who many consider to be a saint was running for the position of Arch. of Cyprus.  Someone lied about him for political reasons, and said he was seen going with some women to a nude beach.  The judge, knowing that the Bishop of Limassol couldn't drive, asked the accuser if he was the one driving the car.  When the accuser said yes, the case was dropped.  This is not an isolated case.  As I said almost all saints have been calumniated, and many a priest and monk who were anything but holy, had quite a large following and have been considered saints.

Because of this, the Church depends completely on God.  The miracles performed when they are alive can't be accepted because witches and warlocks do exist, and they too can cure, so the Church waits until the death of a saint.  The body is dug up after three years and if it is not corrupt they rebury it and dig it up again after a few years.  The first time is not enough, because bodies of evil individuals have been known to remain uncorrupted as well.  Satan is very powerful  The most importent thing for someone to be glorified are the miracles that occur through the saints intercession.   Anyway it's a long process. ;)
Prove it! And by citing authorities outside yourself.

Michael, I can't give you an authority for everything I said, because I have a long term memory and the knowlege I stated has been gathered  over the years.  What I'm saying did not come from one source, but rather from many sources.  If you want to find out about a saints body remaining intact after three years, and then after another certain amount of years, then best to ask a monk, preferably one from the Elder Ephraims monasteries.  As for warlocks, then read up on Saint Cyprian.   :)


1. I'm not Michael, or Michal, or anyone bearing any variant of that name on this forum.
2. If you will not share with us those authorities who shared with you the "special knowledge" you cite on this thread, then I can only draw the conclusion that you're making this stuff up, which means you're lying to us. If you don't want this to be believed about you, then share with us your sources.

Obviously you not that knowlegeable in the Orthodox faith, or you wouldn't be questioning what I'm saying, but since you are, here are some links.  You do know you could have found them yourself, all you had to do was google in a few things:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"...In the Orthodox Church, incorruptibility continues to be an important element in the process of canonization (q.v.). An important distinction is made between natural mummification and supernatural incorruptibility. In The Brothers Karamazov, a novel by Dostoyevsky, the body of the newly-deceased Starets (holy monk) Zossima began to decay noticeably even during his funeral wake, which caused a great scandal in his monastery and among the townsfolk, who fully expected that he would be incorrupt..."

http://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbigthink.com%2Fideas%2Fphenomenon-incorruptible-bodies-proof-of-god%3Fpage%3Dall&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



"...There is a miracle of incorruptable holy relics (Incorruptable Bodies) of many of our Orthodox Saints in the Orthodox Church. Little or none is actually known in the non-orthodox christian realm about this great miracle proof of the truthfulness of our faith. The incorruptability of saints has been a phenomena longly known to exist, some of the incorruptable bodies of saints are still preserved already for more than 10 centuries.  The phenomenon of incorruptable bodies is a sure sign for saintship in the Church. There are dozens of orthodox christian saints whose bodies are still intact...."

http://www.pc-freak.net/blog/orthodox-christian-saints-incorruptable-bodies-a-miracle-proof-of-the-truthfulness-of-christianity/

Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 16, 2012, 11:03:25 PM
Quote
and that he was canonized by the OCA.

Where is your evidence for this, Zenovia?

I guess you're all not that  bright, so here, let me teach you how to find things.  If you go on to google, and then put in the name; Saint Alexis Toth, his biography will then come up.  If you scroll down a bit, you will find out he was canonized. See, now that's not hard is it?  ::)

Death and canonization
 
Toth was elevated to the rank of Protopresbyter later in life, continuing his efforts to convert the Eastern Catholics of North America to Eastern Orthodoxy. He died on May 7, 1909, and was honored with a special shrine at St. Tikhon's Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania. On May 29, 1994, Toth was glorified (canonized) as St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre by the Orthodox Church in America, whose establishment and membership numbers are largely traceable to his efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Toth
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif) For using an ad hominem ("I guess you're all not that  bright") you are put on post-moderation for 14 days. Please PM me if you object to this action. Second Chance
[/b]
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 16, 2012, 11:06:18 PM
Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated. 

Well, no, they didn't. St. Raphael? St. Alexius Toth?

St. Alexius did suffer greatly from attacks from the Romans and those Greek Catholics who did not follow him to Russian Orthodoxy. He was also anguished throughout his life from various events including the premature death of his wife and child, his shocking encounter with Archbishop Ireland and his abandonment by the Greek Catholic hierarchy in Europe, his expulsion from St. Mary's in Minneapolis by his fellow countrymen who wanted a more 'Russian' priest and by the rapid Rusification of his people upon entering Orthodoxy in the first years of the 20th century in spite of promises made to the contrary. Yet he died at peace, at man at the crossroads of a new era and caught between the secular forces of the east and west, all the while remaining faithful to the Orthodox Church and his own conscience. I doubt he harbored any thoughts that someday his memory would be such that he would be glorified as an American Saint. (I also think he too would have had to look up the word 'calumniated'. )

I just read about his life in Wikipedea, and that he was canonized by the OCA.  Is he also a saint in the other jurisdictions, and what  process did they use for his canonization?  Has there ever been an apology from any Pope for Arch, Ireland's narrow minded intolerance? I know when I was young, my Catholic friends believed than anyone outside of the RCC could not be saved.  The Orthodox priests at that time, preferred the Orthodox to attend a Protestant Church if an Orthodox one was not available, for fear of being pressured to convert.

 Later on I read that it was never a doctrine of the RCC that a person's soul was lost if they weren't a member of their Church, and that the bishop who had interpreted it that way had been excommunicated.  I'm not too certain about all this, so I might be wrong, but I do know that the RCC was fearful of Protestanism, especially in the U.S., and because of that they put a great deal of pressure on the family of anyone who converted.  :-\
I'm not sure that had anything to do with Archbishop Ireland's intolerance. IIRC, the archbishop was a Latinophile who saw no place for St. Alexis's Byzantine Rite and their married priesthood in the Catholic Church.

Uhhh!  Being a Latinphile does mean an intolerance of anything that is not Latin, including married priesthood.  ::)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: LBK on September 16, 2012, 11:10:28 PM
Quote
and that he was canonized by the OCA.

Where is your evidence for this, Zenovia?

I guess you're all not that  bright, so here, let me teach you how to find things.  If you go on to google, and then put in the name; Saint Alexis Toth, his biography will then come up.  If you scroll down a bit, you will find out he was canonized. See, now that's not hard is it?  ::)

Death and canonization
 
Toth was elevated to the rank of Protopresbyter later in life, continuing his efforts to convert the Eastern Catholics of North America to Eastern Orthodoxy. He died on May 7, 1909, and was honored with a special shrine at St. Tikhon's Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania. On May 29, 1994, Toth was glorified (canonized) as St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre by the Orthodox Church in America, whose establishment and membership numbers are largely traceable to his efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Toth


No need to be snarky, Zenovia. In all the confusion of tangents on this thread, I misunderstood your post as saying Fr Seraphim had been canonized by the OCA.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 16, 2012, 11:17:19 PM
If God feels that Father Seraphim has achieved the spiritual heights of a glorified saint, then God will prove it through the miraculous cures he will give through his intercession.

Miracles are not always the sign of Sainthood. Lack of miracles is not always a sign of lack of Sainthood. We are not Roman Catholics. The most important thing for glorification is veneration among the faithful.


Michael I'm going to go into this deeply.  If you had read biographies of recent saints, you will find that all saints are calumniated.  They are hated by the most destructive and harmful individuals because of their lack of willingness to lower their integrity.  The reason God allows these scandals to occur, is so He can lessen their pride since humility is an intricate  part of holyness.   By the same token there are  priests and monks who will tell people exactly what they want to hear.  These people in contrast to saints are very well liked.  

As an example, just recently the Bishop of Limassol of the Makrides' book fame, and who many consider to be a saint was running for the position of Arch. of Cyprus.  Someone lied about him for political reasons, and said he was seen going with some women to a nude beach.  The judge, knowing that the Bishop of Limassol couldn't drive, asked the accuser if he was the one driving the car.  When the accuser said yes, the case was dropped.  This is not an isolated case.  As I said almost all saints have been calumniated, and many a priest and monk who were anything but holy, had quite a large following and have been considered saints.

Because of this, the Church depends completely on God.  The miracles performed when they are alive can't be accepted because witches and warlocks do exist, and they too can cure, so the Church waits until the death of a saint.  The body is dug up after three years and if it is not corrupt they rebury it and dig it up again after a few years.  The first time is not enough, because bodies of evil individuals have been known to remain uncorrupted as well.  Satan is very powerful  The most importent thing for someone to be glorified are the miracles that occur through the saints intercession.   Anyway it's a long process. ;)
Prove it! And by citing authorities outside yourself.

Michael, I can't give you an authority for everything I said, because I have a long term memory and the knowlege I stated has been gathered  over the years.  What I'm saying did not come from one source, but rather from many sources.  If you want to find out about a saints body remaining intact after three years, and then after another certain amount of years, then best to ask a monk, preferably one from the Elder Ephraims monasteries.  As for warlocks, then read up on Saint Cyprian.   :)


1. I'm not Michael, or Michal, or anyone bearing any variant of that name on this forum.
2. If you will not share with us those authorities who shared with you the "special knowledge" you cite on this thread, then I can only draw the conclusion that you're making this stuff up, which means you're lying to us. If you don't want this to be believed about you, then share with us your sources.

Obviously you not that knowlegeable in the Orthodox faith, or you wouldn't be questioning what I'm saying, but since you are, here are some links.
Thank you for the ad hominem attack, Zenovia. When shown devoid of any real authority, you try to divert attention away from yourself by denigrating the knowledge of your questioner.

You do know you could have found them yourself, all you had to do was google in a few things:
Not my job to prove your arguments. You made the arguments, so it's up to you to put up or shut up. (It's that nasty little logic rule called burden of proof.) I'm not doing your job for you.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"...In the Orthodox Church, incorruptibility continues to be an important element in the process of canonization (q.v.). An important distinction is made between natural mummification and supernatural incorruptibility. In The Brothers Karamazov, a novel by Dostoyevsky, the body of the newly-deceased Starets (holy monk) Zossima began to decay noticeably even during his funeral wake, which caused a great scandal in his monastery and among the townsfolk, who fully expected that he would be incorrupt..."

http://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbigthink.com%2Fideas%2Fphenomenon-incorruptible-bodies-proof-of-god%3Fpage%3Dall&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=
A list of Google links. That's not a source. That's just an attempt to make me do your dirty work for you.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



"...There is a miracle of incorruptable holy relics (Incorruptable Bodies) of many of our Orthodox Saints in the Orthodox Church. Little or none is actually known in the non-orthodox christian realm about this great miracle proof of the truthfulness of our faith. The incorruptability of saints has been a phenomena longly known to exist, some of the incorruptable bodies of saints are still preserved already for more than 10 centuries.  The phenomenon of incorruptable bodies is a sure sign for saintship in the Church. There are dozens of orthodox christian saints whose bodies are still intact...."

http://www.pc-freak.net/blog/orthodox-christian-saints-incorruptable-bodies-a-miracle-proof-of-the-truthfulness-of-christianity/


A blog page is not a credible source, either.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: William on September 16, 2012, 11:40:32 PM
The Ecumenical Pariarchate is not dead. Its demise has been predicted since 1453, or even before. But that never happened. On the contrary, I believe it has the Future. An Orthodoxy that cares about people and the environment, rather than headscarves and watches.
yeah, neopaganism is the way to go.
Ummm, what?

I fail to see how being a careful steward of God's creation is heterodox or contrary to tradition. Yes, we are given dominion over the entirety of God's creation,but we surely are not charged to squander it's resources and waste its beauty. This argument is always tainted with America's internal political divisions as if being a protector of the natural world and being in favor of capitalism and growth are somehow mutually exclusive goals. Bah. (Sorry for the digression into politics...I try to avoid this, but some won't let it go when the subject of the EP comes up.)
That, however, wasn't the spirit in which it was given, as demonstrated by the reference to headscarves and watches.  Some won't let it go when the subject of the PoM comes up-and if His Beatitude doesn't come up, they interject him.

While I am loyal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for a variety of reasons, most of which probably are a result of the actions of the Phanar in taking under its omophor the Greek Catholics led by +Orestes (Chornock) in the late 1930's, I have never been disrespectful of the PM online or in person - to the best of my recollection.

My frustration here is the same as it is in politics - a field from which I 'fled' in disgust some years ago - religion - whether it is Orthodoxy or whatever - just seems to be a 'zero sum' game to many -  if A says the sky is blue, than to B, the sky must be black - even if it is a shade of gray. Reality matters little in the face of strongly held opinion. Facts are irrelevant to the outcome of an argument.

I have plenty of opinions about various practices across the board in our Faith - some are strongly held and others not so much, some are probably 'snarky', hopefully most are not so. Most of them add little to the discussion or the issues at hand. For the most part, this board is not as stridently opinionated as are some others - some of which invite frenzied comments and others which block comment. When this board  wanders into the netherworld of 'blather', I guess I just tend to overcompensate and hope that we can steer things back to a more reasoned and informative course, rather than just go endlessly back and forth.

Unlike Macbeth, I suppose that I think there is more to life than the idiot's words who, strutting upon the stage, tells a story full of fury which in the end signifies nothing. All too often our discussions end that way and surely leave the outsider with a skewed and erroneous conclusion as to what Orthodoxy is truly all about.

Sound and fury. How could you forget that?
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Zenovia on September 19, 2012, 09:51:27 PM


Also, the idea that general sanctity is so low that real sainthood and real clairvoyance are gone is perhaps too terrible for some to contemplate. We fantasize about what it was like in pre-revolutionary Russia, or on Mount Athos back when it really was a bastion of Orthodoxy, and we simply can't accept that those days are gone, since if that were true, then perhaps the last days really are upon us. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case; maybe there will be a real revival and return to higher spiritual standards.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that Fr Seraphim's life is perhaps the best that can be done in our age, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that this is all there is to it.

Actually to say real sainthood is gone is a misconception.  There was time when the monasteries of Mount Athos and throughout Greece were dying out, but that has changed in the past decades.  There are quite a few elders that seem to surpass even the saints of the past centuries in the 'gifts' God has bestowed on them.  There is a major push lately for the Elder Paissios to be glorified because of the many miracles that have come about through his intercession.  I'm reading now an interesting book by Dionysius Farasiotis that has  been translated into English titled:  The Gurus, the Young Man, and Elder Paisios.

Equal to him in magtitude was his spritual father the Elder Porphyrios.  He was able to see into the earth when looking for water, and knew exactly how far they had to dig. He was also able to see through mountains, and called these charisms; the gift of clear sight.  These saints as well as lesser ones  could read people's souls and their thoughts as well.  I know the Elder Aimilianos was able to bi-locate, and could be in two places at the same time.  Other than these great saints, there have been numerous lesser saints, which I'm sure exist in  Serbia, Russia, Romania and Bulgaria as well.  

It seems the Orthodox here are in some kind of a rush to have an American born saint, but sorry, they'll just have to wait a little longer.  There are bound to be quite a few in the making in the monasteries of the Elder Ephraim. ;)



 
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 20, 2012, 07:09:12 AM
There are quite a few elders that seem to surpass even the saints of the past centuries in the 'gifts' God has bestowed on them.

Laser beams? Adamantium claws?

Quote
It seems the Orthodox here are in some kind of a rush to have an American born saint, but sorry, they'll just have to wait a little longer. 

There are 3 already: St. James Netsvetov, St. Peter the Aleut and St. Barnabas Nastić (and the 3rd one soon: St. Olga Michael).
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Orthodox11 on September 20, 2012, 07:53:51 AM
Actually to say real sainthood is gone is a misconception.  There was time when the monasteries of Mount Athos and throughout Greece were dying out, but that has changed in the past decades.

I agree. Even from my brief stays on the Holy Mountain, I can confirm that there are many such men there, even among the simple monks who receive no special attention. I even met laity there (who for various reasons had to remain in the world, but who came to the monasteries at every possible opportunity) who I'd describe as such.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 20, 2012, 10:11:39 AM
Laser beams? Adamantium claws?

Post of the day! :laugh:
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 20, 2012, 10:16:47 AM
Actually to say real sainthood is gone is a misconception.

To say only monks with some X-men superpowers can become Saints is a misconception.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 20, 2012, 10:19:14 AM
NEVER MIND
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Basil 320 on September 20, 2012, 03:18:37 PM
There are quite a few elders that seem to surpass even the saints of the past centuries in the 'gifts' God has bestowed on them.

Laser beams? Adamantium claws?

Quote
It seems the Orthodox here are in some kind of a rush to have an American born saint, but sorry, they'll just have to wait a little longer.  

There are 3 already: St. James Netsvetov, St. Peter the Aleut and St. Barnabas Nastić (and the 3rd one soon: St. Olga Michael).

American born,  no.  Born in the Russian Empire's territory of Alaska--North American born?  Ok.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Punch on September 20, 2012, 03:27:11 PM
There are quite a few elders that seem to surpass even the saints of the past centuries in the 'gifts' God has bestowed on them.

Laser beams? Adamantium claws?

Quote
It seems the Orthodox here are in some kind of a rush to have an American born saint, but sorry, they'll just have to wait a little longer.  

There are 3 already: St. James Netsvetov, St. Peter the Aleut and St. Barnabas Nastić (and the 3rd one soon: St. Olga Michael).

American born,  no.  Born in the Russian Empire's territory of Alaska--North American born?  Ok.

Like the piece of dirt you dropped out on has anything to do with it.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Gorazd on September 20, 2012, 04:02:29 PM
American born,  no.  Born in the Russian Empire's territory of Alaska--North American born?  Ok.

St. Barnabas was born in the U, S and A.

Quote
Vojislav Nastić was born in Gary, Indiana, on January 31, 1914 into a family of Serbian emigrants.
Source: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Varnava_%28Nastic%29
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 20, 2012, 04:03:00 PM
American born,  no.  Born in the Russian Empire's territory of Alaska--North American born?  Ok.

So most adult Ukrainians are...Soviets? :laugh:
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Basil 320 on September 20, 2012, 11:24:56 PM
American born,  no.  Born in the Russian Empire's territory of Alaska--North American born?  Ok.

So most adult Ukrainians are...Soviets? :laugh:

Just to be accurate about posted information.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: mike on September 21, 2012, 05:55:15 AM
"America" is a common name for two continents. "The USA" stands for country.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Alpo on September 21, 2012, 06:24:16 AM
"America" is a common name for two continents. "The USA" stands for country.

I tried to convince myself of that for some time but then I realized that it's just LARPing. Just about everyone is using "America" as a synonym for USA.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 21, 2012, 04:09:25 PM
"America" is a common name for two continents. "The USA" stands for country.

Then why are they called (and call themselves) 'Americans'? ;)
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Shanghaiski on September 21, 2012, 07:20:17 PM
American born,  no.  Born in the Russian Empire's territory of Alaska--North American born?  Ok.

So most adult Ukrainians are...Soviets? :laugh:

I knew it!
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: Michael36 on September 24, 2012, 04:13:26 AM
i just returned from 2 months at Platina, where I was privileged to pray at Fr. Seraphim's grave every day, speak with Fr. Damascene at length about him, read some of his unpublished works, and also meet and speak with several others who knew him very well. I was there when the Russian bishop of Tobinsk came with a group of pilgrims to serve Liturgy at Fr. Seraphim's monastery and to venerate his grave, and I was there when a Serbian abbot (who has named a kellia of one of his monasteries after Fr. Seraphim), a Georgian abbot, and a Bulgarian bishop came to pay their respects to him on the day of his repose. It was an amazing and grace-filled summer. I am even more in awe of the life and works of this righteous struggle than I was before - having lived in the same monastery as him (although the life there was far more ascetic in his time) and learned many new things about him. he is a bright and shining example for us, if we have eyes to see it. its one thing to feel no particular connection to him, but it is quite sad when us Americans, for whom he sacrificed himself so much, disparage him and his holy memory. i think i can pretty safely say that no one on this forum has given even 1/100th of what Fr. Seraphim gave of himself, and yet we reject him, and so many doing so on the basis of ignorance of his life and teachings, and ignorance of what other holy Saints and elders have taught. Lord have mercy on us all!


God bless you,

I converted to the Orthodox Church in California through Death to the World and Fr. Seraphim's writings. I was also blessed to visit the monastery this summer before I moved to Phoenix (I'm hoping to visit the other man in your avatar, though I have yet to formulate an opinion on the Elder who is even *more* controversial). While I was there, I met an American convert and a man all the way from Russia who were helping to finish the winter chapel. Both were greatly influenced by Fr. Seraphim despite coming from totally different backgrounds. They both spoke of miracles that had happened only recently through the intercessions of Fr. Seraphim. I personally, while I was first passing his grave, I was struck by a very strong floral smell on my way to the book store with Brother Donald. I assumed this was incense and thought nothing of it, and only noticed that the smell was gone when I walked past it again a few minutes later. No one else was around, and the smell was very strong and only hit me as I ascended the steps. It took me nearly an hour to process what had happened, I hadn't thought anything of it, nor expected it. I think that's the way most miraculous phenomena is. There is no place like Platina, it's so peaceful, and it left a marked impression on my soul. Fr. Damascene personally set aside a good hour and a half to personally talk to me, and went out of his way to e-mail me after a tragedy that occurred in my home parish that occurred after I moved away. Platina and Blessed Fr. Seraphim are treasures of American Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 24, 2012, 07:29:14 AM
Thanks to God that Sainthood is discerned in the end through the consensus of the Church in a conciliar manner guided by the teachings of the Fathers and Holy Tradition and through online debate. Do others find the direction of this entire thread somewhat at odds with the whole concept of sainthood in the first place?

And for those who are not residents or citizens of the United States of America - For better or worse, we who do live here interchange the terms 'America' and 'USA' hence two popular patriotic ballads - 'God Bless America' and 'God Bless the USA'. Our school children 'pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America' and the school chorus still may sing 'America the Beautiful'. Our public broadcasting network has an historical/cultural series entitled ' The American Experience' while our Olympians wear USA on their uniforms.  I hope that the Almighty isn't hung up on terminology as some here seem to be. Oh yeah, one more thing, the first 'modern' sociological examination of the United States of America was written in 1831 by a representative of the French government, Alexis de Tocqueville and he titled his now famous book: 'De la démocratie en Amérique' or in our vernacular - 'Democracy in America.'
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: primuspilus on September 24, 2012, 07:33:49 AM
Quote
Do others find the direction of this entire thread somewhat at odds with the whole concept of sainthood in the first place?
I have no issue with the way the thread is developing. It is an opinion thing to me.

I personally dont think Fr. Seraphim should be considered a saint. However, if he is I will praise God and kiss his icon.

My opinion is simply that. An opinion. I dont think Im smarter or wiser than the Church, so if he is glorified, its because the Church decided it; and that is good enough for me.

PP
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: podkarpatska on September 24, 2012, 07:38:03 AM
Quote
Do others find the direction of this entire thread somewhat at odds with the whole concept of sainthood in the first place?
I have no issue with the way the thread is developing. It is an opinion thing to me.

I personally dont think Fr. Seraphim should be considered a saint. However, if he is I will praise God and kiss his icon.

My opinion is simply that. An opinion. I dont think Im smarter or wiser than the Church, so if he is glorified, its because the Church decided it; and that is good enough for me.

PP

Let me clarify my objections to the thread - I have no problem with opinions - just the tone which seems to indicate that some seem to have an insatiable desire to take things in a direction lacking in humility and civility.
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: primuspilus on September 24, 2012, 07:38:43 AM
Quote
just the tone which seems to indicate that some seem to have an insatiable desire to take things in a direction lacking in humility and civility
This I can agree with, yeah.

PP
Title: Re: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?
Post by: jckstraw72 on September 24, 2012, 08:14:28 AM
Quote
Do others find the direction of this entire thread somewhat at odds with the whole concept of sainthood in the first place?
I have no issue with the way the thread is developing. It is an opinion thing to me.

I personally dont think Fr. Seraphim should be considered a saint. However, if he is I will praise God and kiss his icon.

My opinion is simply that. An opinion. I dont think Im smarter or wiser than the Church, so if he is glorified, its because the Church decided it; and that is good enough for me.

PP

this is a wise position