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:
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.