Father Seraphim Rose

[jgress]

Thank you, Kybihetz. I agree with what you say. The hieromonk who was talking about Fr Seraphim's reputation to me was certainly not trying to slander him; he stressed that he believed Fr Seraphim was a good monk. He didn't believe he was a saint, however, and he was concerned about those who did. But this was mainly out of concern that some people were 'lowering the bar' for sanctity. Since the holiness of a true saint seems too far beyond our reach, we may be tempted to attribute sainthood to someone like Fr Seraphim, whose life seems more within our ability to grasp. Part of this arises from the fact that our world today is so much less holy than in former times, so someone who in the old days would have been considered just a good monk is now considered a saint.

[Pravoslavnik]

Amen, Kybihetz. Well said. I was once told a firsthand account of Father Seraphim Rose quietly weeping for the sins of his youth during a Platina vigil service--at a time in his life when my spiritual Father considered Hieromonk Seraphim to be a model of kindness, diligence, and piety. One of the saints once said that we should not judge any man on the basis of his former sins, because we may not know the repentance of any man.

Code: Select all

     Is it not, in fact, a sin to slander a priest or a monk-- to condemn someone, particularly without offering some specific evidence or grounds for such judgment?  Could an impression be false, based upon some ethnic or other prejudice,  distorted perception, or even prelest?  There were monks at Sarov, for example, who were critical of St. Seraphim of Sarov during his later years.

     Finally, I know for a fact that Father Seraphim Rose did NOT view the Hexameron as comprised, literally, of six twenty-four hour days, as measured in our earth time.  He quoted St. Augustine on this particular subject.  Father Seraphim Rose was not familiar with the later writings of MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder, and others, on the implications of the space-time continuum and Einstein's theory of relativity for the Genesis text.  Instead, Father Seraphim and Father Alexey Young took a keen interest in the scientifically flawed work of Henry Morris and the Young Earth Creationist "school."  They were looking for ways to understand St. Basil's writings in the context of modern paleontology.  

    My own view is that Kalomiros was correct on this issue in his written discussion with Father Seraphim Rose on the subject of the Hexameron.  (However, Kalomiros, himself, had not heard at the time about Gerald Schroeder's possible "solution" to the problem in terms of relativistic time frames in the space-time continuum.) 

     I have always disagreed with Cyprian's unscientific, dogmatic view that Darwinian evolutionary theory is an Orthodox theological "heresy."  There is a lengthy discussion on this subject on an old thread here on the St. Euphrosynos Cafe, including fairly detailed scientific commentaries in my debate with Cyprian.

[jgress]

Thanks for the reference to Gerald Schroeder, Pravo. I'll look him up. And thanks for correcting any misunderstandings about Fr Seraphim's views on the six-day creation.

I suppose that we should distinguish between 'evolutionary theory' and 'evolutionism'. The former is just a scientific theory about how species came to be. The latter is more of a philosophy, a kind of modern Epicureanism that preaches the eternity of matter in flux, with no place for God, creation from nothing or universal providence. The former may be reconcilable with our faith, the latter is not. Often, however, it is hard to separate the two. On the one hand, many believers in evolutionary theory are also believers in evolutionism, and consider them to be two sides of the same coin. On the other hand, the story of Genesis itself is full of spiritual significance, and denying even the factual basis of the story may undermine the spiritual significance. For example, one of the Fathers (I think St Gregory the Theologian) considered it significant that Adam was formed from clay without natural generation, since this is a type of our supernatural generation through baptism. But if our first human ancestors were naturally born from non-human parents, then what happens to the type?

[Cyprian]

When I read the Hexameron (which was a few years ago) I also read Kalomiros and portions of Fr Seraphim's work as part of an investigation of the topic, and I thought both Fr Seraphim and Kalomiros were proof-texting St Basil. I don't remember Kalomiros's arguments at all anymore, but I remember at the time they struck me as totally contrived. While Fr Seraphim's positions are obviously a lot more Orthodox than Kalomiros's, I still felt that he was trying to argue things in to St Basil that weren't there. It didn't seem to me that St Basil was trying to write a tract on science. It seemed to me that St Basil was using the science of his day for purposes of analogy, such as the whole bit about the cunning squid, not that we intended his writings to be a scientific treatise. But again, it's been some time and perhaps I am glossing over Fr Seraphim. I'd love to sit down and read the whole work, but at several hundred pages, and with stacks of patristic writings and spiritual writings to read ahead in the queue, I doubt it will be anytime soon. Wish I had more time to read

Greetings, father.

When I was referring to Fr. Seraphim Rose's accurate presentation of the patristic witness regarding the Hexaemeron, I was referring to the Hexaemeron itself, meaning, literally, the six days (i.e. of creation). I was not specifically referring to his presentation regarding St. Basil's nine homilies about the Hexaemeron, although I don't recall any qualms with his interpretations of those homilies either. I do distinctly recall having qualms with Dr. Alexander Kalomiros' interpretation of St. Basil's homilies.

It's been a while since I've read St. Basil's homilies on the Hexaemeron as well, and I have read the entirety of the book Creation, Genesis, and Early Man, which is a posthumous compilation of Fr. Seraphim's views, edited and released subsequent to his repose, on the subject. I took some notes, and I will have to see if I can dig them up.

[Cyprian]

Cyprian,

You are right to warn me against judging Fr Seraphim.

Greetings jgrees.

Actually that was not my intent. I was only speaking for myself, since I was only ten years old when Fr. Seraphim reposed, and knew absolutely nothing of Orthodoxy in my youth. All my views about him are formulated from his writings, which there seems to be some dispute about, since there appears to be two different versions of some of them, and, secondly, from recollections of people who personally knew him while he was alive. I am simply saying that there are others who lived at the same time and personally knew Fr. Seraphim, who are better qualified to judge his ascetical efforts. I do not know anything about you, including your age, so I have no idea what is the basis for your views regarding him.

As I said, whether he was truly saved or not is not for me to judge. I pray to God he is saved.

Why wouldn't he be saved? He was a good and obedient monk. If he was not saved, God help the rest of us wretched sinners!

My understanding of his sanctity, on the other hand, should be within my capacity to judge, in that a Christian should be able to discern the truly virtuous and spiritual from those who fall short.

Certainly, I agree that God bestows gifts of the Spirit upon his servants, according to His pleasure, as He sees fit. We need not pretend that we are left helpless, without any guide in spiritual matters of discernment. But not every gift of the Spirit, including discernment, is meted out equally to all. [cf. 1 Cor 12] I believe that if God wants Fr. Seraphim glorified as a saint, He will manifest him as such, and in the meantime, we don't need to start any heated campaigns, either for or against.

My understanding has been informed by two sources: the biography Fr Seraphim: His Life and Work (i.e. not the older, discredited edition); and the evidence from a hieromonk I know who used to be at Jordanville. The biography, as you may know, only portrays him in the most complimentary light. My monastic friend, however, knew many fathers at Jordanville who themselves remembered Fr Seraphim, and they did not believe his ascetic life was anything exceptional. I would not extrapolate anything from this evidence other than that Fr Seraphim's level of sanctity is not beyond doubt.

If God sees fit to manifest His servant Fr. Seraphim as a saint, He will remove all doubts. So I can agree that we should not prematurely pass judgment either way. I simply wish to say that if someone has a legitimate criticism of his life or teachings, they should bring it to light in the proper manner. Not speculation, feelings, innuendo, and hearsay from unnamed sources. If someone has a legitimate complaint about his views or writings, simply state them.

[Cyprian]

If Fr Seraphim did not insist on the literal interpretation of the six-day creation (i.e. six 24-hour periods), then I stand corrected.

I will try to find the exact quote for you where Fr. Seraphim seeks to persuade, but is not insistent. It might take me a while, but I will look.

If St Ephraim believed in this, then his views should be heard with respect...

Not only St. Ephraim, but many of the great luminaries, such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory the Theologian, for example, among many more, taught that the days were literal 24 hour days. You can find St. Ephraim's Commentary on Genesis online, where he writes about the 12 hour days and nights.

...but they should be measured against other patristic sources that permit a more allegorical interpretation, such as St Basil the Great, or St Augustine.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Both St. Basil and St. Augustine believed the six days to be literal days.

I never meant to imply that the Boston monastery, or the HOCNA jurisdiction, has ceased being True Orthodox. I do not believe this, even if I don't always agree with the views they promote.

The Boston Monastery (HTM) and HOCNA departed from True Orthodoxy many years ago, and they confess a number of heretical teachings. If I regarded them as True Orthodox, I would have never fled from them. That is why I am greatly scandalized by bishops from HOTCA refering to them as a "True Orthodox Christians" and as a "True Orthodox Jurisdiction" in official documents.

And as regards evolutionism, they have lately come out more firmly against it, at least judging by Met Ephraim's published sermons.

Yes, they have been forced to backpedal and recant, thanks in part to the efforts of Fr. Seraphim and Platina, who rightfully opposed their nonsense.

I am not prepared to call evolutionism itself a heresy, however. Fr Seraphim wanted it to be labeled heresy, but recognized that it had not been so labeled.

I'm with Fr. Seraphim. It needs to be labeled a heresy, because it is a very pernicious one, that deprives those who believe in it from communion with the Holy Spirit.

If an evolutionist denies the Creator or creation, then yes, I call that heresy. But if he says that evolution is simply a description of the mechanism of creation, it is hard for me to see what is intrinsically heretical about that.

Ah, but when you ask these heretics to explain in detail this "evolution" as a "mechanism of creation," they fall into all sorts of confusion, contradictions, and blasphemies in opposition to the truth. Countless times I tried to get one of these heretical proponents of evolution who meddle on this forum to answer some of the most basic questions about the origin of Adam. Every time he wiggled this way and that, trying to change the subject in order to skirt away from answering the questions, until eventually he was shamed into silence.

[Pravoslavnik]

Oh no, here we go again...

Code: Select all

   Rather than re-posting my detailed, specific answers to all of Cyprian's previous questions on the subjects of Darwinian evolutionary theory, St. Basil's [i][u]Hexameron[/u][/i], and the implications of the relativistic time frames of the cosmos for the [i][u]Genesis [/u][/i]account of creation, I will refer those interested to our previous, lengthy discussion of this subject here in the archives of the St. Euphrosynos Cafe.


 The old St. Euphrosynos Cafe thread was entitled "Kallistos Ware Preaches Evolution Heresy," and was started by Cyprian.

  Here's the link:  http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8759