Father Seraphim Rose

[Cyprian]

Your personal opinions of Fr John Romanides' writings certainly conflict drastically with many in my jurisdiction, including at least two bishops.

Yes, I am fully aware of this. But I am certainly not the only one scandalized by the promotion of Romanides and his views by clergy in your jurisdiction. I know people from your jurisdiction, as well as people belonging to the sister synod in Greece, who are as disturbed about this as I am. Take some recent public writings by Rdr. Vladimir Moss, for example. He has written a number of articles seeking to expose the errors of Romanidean theology. It is readily apparent to even the casual observer, that he is disturbed by the direction the bishops are taking here in America, promoting the ideas of Romanides along with making unwise overtures toward HOCNA, but out of discretion he chooses not to criticize Bp. Christodoulos openly, but rather Met. Ephraim of HOCNA and the subject of Bp. Christodoulos' praise, John Romanides.

If it makes you feel better, I am inclined to be skeptical about his interpretation of original sin, and certainly about the interpretation of Heaven and Hell offered by his follower, Dr Alexander Kalomiros, who, unlike Fr John, is an Old Calendarist and traditionalist.

Dr. Kalomiros was an old-calendarist, but he was not an Orthodox traditionalist, for he advocated a number of positions contrary to sacred Orthodox Tradition. Old-calendarism does not equate to Orthodox. Let's not forget, the papists remained on the old calendar for more than 500 years after the Great Schism, but that didn't make them Orthodox.

If Fr John was a heretic, well technically that's true, in that he died a new calendarist, and so at least died under the anathemas against that church, regardless of the theological status of his other teachings.

Romanides spewed forth a number of lies and slanders, which are contrary to the Faith and are unacceptable, irrespective of which calendar he followed, or which bishop he was under. The fact that he was an ecumenist and schismatic new-calendarist, and a member of the Central Committee of the World of Churches just makes it all that much more obvious that he was cut-off from the depository of grace, the Church.

But, again technically, that has nothing to do with his writings that have gained such a following, such as The Ancestral Sin.

Perhaps this writing of his has gained a following in the circles which you travel. But that doesn't mean they have been accepted by the Orthodox Church. When his Ancestral Sin was first published more than 50 years ago, it was quite controversial and caused quite a stir. So it really depends on whom you talk to. Outside of the New-calendarists, HOCNA, and HOTCA, where has it gained such a following? I'd be curious to know.

I personally don't feel comfortable with the uncritical promotion of a new calendarist's theology in our True Orthodox church, but that is less to do with the quality of the writings themselves than the fact that, because the author is a new calendarist, that has the capacity to scandalize many.

'Quality' should not be used in the same sentence as his writings. They are filled with scorn for the saints, innuendo and slander, promotion of ecumenism, bad theology, and unsupported assertions. Anyone who has become well acquainted with the writings of the saints, and then reads his nonsense, can see that they are as different as day and night. There is no Orthodox spirituality found in his writings at all, but an alien malevolent spirit.

The same goes for Met Hierotheos Vlachos. I have read both the Ancestral Sin and the Mind of the Orthodox Church, and while I found good things in both, I recognize also that they are not beyond criticism. To that extent I sympathize with your concern. But to call them heretics simply on the basis of those writings, I think, is excessive.

They were heretics long before I ever encountered their writings. Whether or not I had ever read them or not, that would not change this fact. They did not become heretics simply because I said so. They chose to remain separated from the communion of the Church, thereby depriving themselves of the Holy Spirit, and consequently the lack of guidance by the Holy Spirit is manifested in their writings, which are filled with the spirt of error, not the Spirit of Truth.

I'm not aware of Catherine's defense of Islam, but if her comments bother you especially I can have a word with her. If she doesn't like Fr Seraphim, that's her choice. If she spreads unsupported gossip about him, I will call her on that.

Mohammedism is a heresy; all heresies originate from the father of lies. So Islam is a religion originated by the devil. This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. As long as she is fine with this teaching, there is no problem.

[Cyprian]

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.

Our new moderator Jonathan can now readily see what has led to the spiritual delusion and prelest of our friend Pravoslavnik. He doesn't recommend people read the holy fathers to learn about God's creation--no, rather he jumps at the chance to advise people to read Talmudic and Zionist Jews of the likes of Gerald Schroeder and Albert Einstein! John 8:47 is seems applicable here.

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.)

Who really cares about your own view? or mine? or Talmudic-Jew Gerald Schroeder's? Tell us, what does the Church say about the matter? That's what Fr. Seraphim did, and what you always fail to do.

I have always disagreed with Cyprian's unscientific, dogmatic view that Darwinian evolutionary theory is an Orthodox theological "heresy."

I have told you on more than one occasion that there is no such thing as an Orthodox heresy. It is an oxymoronic term. Yet you insist on stubbornly clinging to it.

[Cyprian]

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.

I am anxious to see any attempts at reconciling 'evolutionary theory' with the Orthodox Faith. This ought to be interesting. I'm quite interested to hear an in-depth explanation of this 'evolutionary mechanism' by which God supposedly chose to guide His creation. One can make empty claims about God "guiding evolution" as a means of effectuating His plans for the creation of the world all they want, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Let's hear the details of how God supposedly accomplished this.

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?

Of course Adam was not born from non-human parents! He wasn't born at all. Sheer nonsense! Who could listen to such drivel with a straight face? Two irrational beasts gave birth to a human baby, Adam? Even Pravoslavnik would never admit to this when I questioned him. He just ran away and hid.

[Cyprian]

...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/vi ... f=6&t=8759

No, that is not where the lengthy discussion started. That is just one side thread at the end of our discussion. The original discussion is 50 pages worth and is found here:

Evolution and an Orthodox Patristic understanding of Genesis
http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewto ... f=5&t=3798

[joasia]

jgress wrote:

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.

Holiness is NOT beyond our reach. That’s why Christ sacrificed Himself on the Cross...so that we can have everlasting life in God’s Kingdom, in Paradise. How can it be out of reach? That would mean that what Christ did for us was for nothing. Anyone that attains the Grace of God through Holy Communion and preserves it, can be considered sanctified. That means that once the Grace is imparted in someone when taking Holy Communion, that if they hold unto that Grace, the Grace will become active in them, along with their free will. Like finding a treasure and doing everything to keep it. If they are determined to live by God’s Commandments, the Grace of God will work with them every day. That means that we have to make a definite decision of changing our ways. Once we are determined to want to preserve the Grace we get at Holy Communion, then we will understand, in our souls, that we will change our lives for Christ and not try to excuse our lives so that Christ accommodates us. Look at the 12 Apostles. Look at St. Mary Magdelene. Look at St. Paul. Look at St. Mary of Egypt. Look at St. Mose the black. Look at St. Pelagia. Look at St. Cyprian (with Justina). Look at St. Catherine the Great. If we lived in their times, we would see them as ordinary people....like you and me. So, if they can become saints...which means, living with the Grace of God, in them...then why can’t we? God gives all of us that opportunity. That’s why we have the Cross. It’s to remind us that God died for us, in order for us to live forever. He saw all our souls and died for us.

So how do we know, really, if Fr. Seraphim didn’t reach that level of sanctity? I’m not saying all this to justify Fr. Seraphim. He has already faced his judgement. It’s more of a question to a deeper subject. I’m saying this in the ultimate belief that I and you and all those who turn to Christ have every chance to reach sanctity. So, who is anyone to judge whether Fr. Seraphim is sanctified by the standards of a lower bar? What does it even mean? Who determines what part of the bar is lower than another?
The real determination is the state of soul in relation to the spirit. And if the spirit accepts all the conditions of God’s Commandments, then the soul is cleansed. And that is what brings a person to a true Holy Communion with God... like Adam and Eve had. You see...our true nature is to be dispassionate. All these passions and emotional struggles we have, is not our natural state. It’s not the condition we should be in. And the saints are the examples of how God created us. The saints were living the lives that we can also live. So if we want it bad enough, then holiness is possible for us. But, if we don’t become santified, by living God’s Commandments, then we don’t really want it enough.

Joanna

[Pravoslavnik]

Pravoslavnik wrote: 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.

Cyprian Wrote: Our new moderator Jonathan can now readily see what has led to the spiritual delusion and prelest of our friend Pravoslavnik. He doesn't recommend people read the holy fathers to learn about God's creation--no, rather he jumps at the chance to advise people to read Talmudic and Zionist Jews of the likes of Gerald Schroeder and Albert Einstein! John 8:47 is seems applicable here.

Cyprian,

Code: Select all

   Stop.  Listen.  Think.  You have repeatedly failed to accurately perceive what I have said on the subject of St. Basil's [i][u]Hexameron,[/u][/i] St. Augustine, and modern science.  Do not bear false witness against me.  I have always advocated the study of the Holy Fathers on the subject, and I have long believed that their mystical, Orthodox understanding of cosmogenesis is entirely consistent with  modern scientific truths.  

  The Young Earth Creationism of the Henry Morris school is not scientific-- as carefully elucidated in the book [i][u]Finding Darwin's God[/u][/i], by Professor Kenneth Miller of Brown University.  It is an outgrowth of the pseudo-scientific Protestant Fundamentalism that has caused some to insist that the dinosaurs of the Jurassic era were still alive in the Neolithic era of human history.  Absurd.  As St. Augustine correctly taught, we should not scandalize the faithful by making false statements regarding matters of natural science.  As I have said, Darwinian evolutionary theory is no more atheistic than are Newton's theories of gravity and motion.  These theories are simple naturalistic, scientific explanations of processes in the world created by God ex nihilo.

 Again, I wold refer people to our previous, detailed St. Euphrosynos Cafe discussions of these subjects.[/color]

[Anastasios]

I am trying to let Jonathan grow in to his new moderatorial role here so I am trying to avoid doing tasks that he can do, just because he is not here to immediately do them. He may be en route to the GOC parish he attends for Holy Week services and not have access to the internet at this point. I do recommend that the evolutionary posts be appended to the original Evolution thread. Perhaps a Romanides thread can be established as well. We should avoid hoping across multiple issues in the same thread. Users can do their part to avoid this by not posting off topic, and by not responding to off-topic posts.

Thanks!

Fr Anastasios