OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 07:20:21 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be glorified?  (Read 7787 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #90 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.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,227


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #91 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.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #92 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.
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,839


« Reply #93 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.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2012, 03:21:56 PM by jah777 » Logged
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #94 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.
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,946



« Reply #95 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.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,227


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #96 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.
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,839


« Reply #97 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.
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,946



« Reply #98 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
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #99 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?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #100 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.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #101 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
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 01:22:31 AM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,453



« Reply #102 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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,453



« Reply #103 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.  Huh

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
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #104 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
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #105 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!
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,946



« Reply #106 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?
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,227


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #107 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.)
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #108 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
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,453



« Reply #109 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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,453



« Reply #110 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."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #111 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.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 03:52:50 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,453



« Reply #112 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?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #113 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.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,453



« Reply #114 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?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #115 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. Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,453



« Reply #116 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. Wink
No, just sucked the poison out.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,227


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #117 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.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,492



« Reply #118 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.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,453



« Reply #119 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. Roll Eyes

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. Roll Eyes

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
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 07:34:34 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,492



« Reply #120 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.

Logged
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #121 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:  Wink

 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...."   
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #122 on: September 08, 2012, 10:22:44 PM »

Remember when this thread was about Fr. Seraphim Rose?

Neither do I.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #123 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.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,492



« Reply #124 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.
Logged
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #125 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 Embarrassed
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,839


« Reply #126 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. 
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #127 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
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,227



« Reply #128 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
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Seraphim98
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 561



« Reply #129 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.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2012, 12:12:07 AM by Seraphim98 » Logged
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #130 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?    Smiley
« Last Edit: September 11, 2012, 01:03:57 AM by Zenovia » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #131 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?    Smiley
[/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?
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,839


« Reply #132 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.   
« Last Edit: September 11, 2012, 10:14:56 AM by jah777 » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #133 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
Logged
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #134 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?    Smiley
[/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]
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.252 seconds with 71 queries.