SeraphimRose:TrueStory,Private Letters

[Barbara]

One of the prominent Orthodox Ethos fans, Timothy Honeycutt, wrote a review which I haven't read yet of this book, published in the year 2000.
I guess this World Orthodox publicist finally discovered the biography, or else too many people brought it to his attention.

But from the remarks, it's clear that Timothy has talked his way out of any balanced approach to Fr Seraphim Rose by putting a brave face on even this most compromising information. The book is so detailed that no reasonable person can refute it. But Seraphim Rose worshipers will always find a way to gloss over the facts inconvenient to their cult of personality.

I realize many people do not agree with my approach ; a previous thread in which i brought up the relevant information from this book was locked due to the acrimony stirred up by the mere topic, it seemed.

I'll limit myself to saying that after a list of glowing responses by Timothy's followers, one David bravely summed up in 3 words how I think about Fr Seraphim Rose :
"Homosexual. No thanks."

[eish]

Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

And for someone to commit the act upon a woman that is not his wife is worse than committing it with men. But for someone to commit it upon his own wife is worse than committing it upon a woman who is not his wife. From these then, we conclude that, the married couple which falls into that which is against nature, is penanced more heavily than a sodomist committing it upon another man or upon a woman who is not his wife.

The Church invites all sodomites to repent and to join her.

Indeed, not only homosexuals but all sodomites are under the condemnation of this vile sin. In our days, thanks to coordinated propaganda from both the open media and pornography, the average “Christian” on the street practices sodomy inside and outside of marriage and thinks nothing of it. The “right wing” may condemn sodomy between homosexuals but they will immediately get indignant at the mention of “heterosexual” sodomy, at least once it is made clear that all of the acts are included. The particular act which contemporary “heterosexuals” love oh so very much is, in fact, condemned by the Church more strongly and penanced more severely than the other act which they are willing to condemn as sodomy (which it is) and disgusting (also true).

The Church invites all of them to repentance. Repentance and, with the Grace and assistance of God, holiness. If we reject the idea that homosexuals can repent and become saints, we reject the idea that anyone in our society can do so.

We have our saint (and my memory is just awful with names, we really need a searchable database) who raped and murdered a girl whom he cured, dumped her in a well, and finally lived in repentance and weeping in an open grave. That was after baptism, after monasticism, after becoming an experienced spiritual elder. He obtained forgiveness, and worked miracles again.

From the very same polemical book against the sainthood of Seraphim of Platina (emphasis mine):

Long before he became a monk, he gave up certain things, including what the Church considers to be immoral actions. From my research, I learned that Eugene quit that behavior around 1960, when he embraced Orthodoxy and the rules of the Church, even before he joined that faith, in 1962, and a decade before he became a monk.

As quoted this review which also points out the problem with the attack:

it becomes clear that the things Ms. Scott objects to are the omission of any overt reference to Father Seraphim’s pre-Chrismation homosexual behavior and the characterization of him in his college days as an angry young man (Scott p xii).

But instead of an angry young man, Ms. Scott, through interviews with Father Seraphim’s college friends, presents a young man in pain who didn’t convert to Orthodoxy and embrace that rigidity without needing to

(Note: I had to assume that the broken tags/characters were for slanted text or perhaps scare quotes.)

Now, if you just wanted to talk about the over-emphasis on St. Seraphim, that I could agree with. Some people read him and seemingly little else, only want to quote him, and don't care if other fathers disagree or give more nuance to an issue. That should not be the case. But we sin greatly if we condemn people for the sins they had repented of. Doubly so if it was before they became Christians. We don't condemn St. Cyprian for his witchcraft, now do we?

[Barbara]

I had no idea about ANY of that in the 1st part of your post, eish. REALLY ? EW !! Very important facts that may be little known.

Now when you say "St Seraphim" toward the end of your post, are you talking about Fr Seraphim Rose ? It sounds like it from the rest, but I wanted to make sure.

Incidentally, I wonder whether Cathy Scott has kept up over the years with developments related to her reposed uncle. If so, what does she think about the situation today ? She MUST NOT have been generally conservative at the time she wrote that book. One can tell that, too, because of her attitude toward Orthodoxy as a rigid, forbidding-sounding doctrinaire path.

What if Cathy Scott has changed her ideas in the quarter century since that time ?

Would anyone have a way to know if so ? Maybe someone should contact her just to see ? Perhaps encourage her to look into this religion which did change her uncle, on that much I will agree !

[eish]

REALLY ? EW !!

I'm old enough to remember when we thought the things people accept as normal today (and even indispensable, according to Dyer...) were gross and disgusting. So are you. They've been normalised very successfully. (And I'm not even all that old.)

Now when you say "St Seraphim" toward the end of your post, are you talking about Fr Seraphim Rose ?

Father Seraphim is widely regarded as a saint. The ROCOR under Met. Agafangel recently glorified him officially, so certainly under the biggest ROCOR-A & GOC-K group, he is officially called “Saint Seraphim.”. Now I'm not a big fan of the ROCOR-A from what I've seen so far, so I'm not 100% sure I trust their judgement, but I do agree on this one and I have been referring to him as a saint since before that. I know 40 years after repose is a little early to make it official in most cases, but I also understand that there is a perceived need to oppose the ludicrous New Calendarist claims that they have had so many recent saints while we have had none. (In reality the Greek state churches canonise every conservative elder almost immediately--contrary to Church norms--to fool the conservatives.)

what does she think about the situation today ?

No idea.

She MUST NOT have been generally conservative at the time she wrote that book.

I couldn't say how liberal she is or was. What I can say, is that trying to pull a “gotcha” on someone's pre-conversion sins is not the way to go. She seems to have thought that this was a refutation of Fr. Damascene's book on the life of Fr. Seraphim, which speaks to her unfamiliarity with hagiography. In general, the lives of the saints do not give details of sins unless it is relevant and necessary. There are many reasons. We portray the saints as examples, showing how they repented and what they became in order to inspire others. We also do not give more details than necessary on sins--especially sexual sins--because we don't want to teach anyone any sins they did not know and bring them into temptation thereby. (A statement which only sounds strange today because nearly the whole of society has been exposed to unspeakable degeneracy.)

Not that I trust Fr. Damascene. Remember that while Fr. Seraphim repented, Fr. Herman was later exposed to have been engaging in pederasty the whole time (without his saintly companion's knowledge). It is my understanding that the whole time while Fr. Seraphim was alive, there was something of an elder cult with visitors thinking Fr. Herman was such a great and holy monk (and they had the wrong monk in the right place). When it was exposed, most of the brotherhood left. Fr. Herman and the few remaining, incl. Fr. Damascene, defied the ROCOR synod hearing and instead joined themselves to a vagante bishop. This false bishop was himself someone kicked out of the Greek New Calendarists for pederasty (for which he had been in prison). This is no doubt the plural -s which your David referred to in “homosexuals.” He's right about the rest of them, just not Fr. Seraphim.

Given what I just told you, I'm sure you understand why I so deeply mistrust Fr. Damascene even before he took the monastery to the Serbian New Calendarists. At best I'd say he was a schismatic who followed his elder out of the Church and at worst...bad things.

Given who owns the copyrights on the works of St. Seraphim, I have to read it with care. There may have been falsifications even earlier than those we know of. However, the orthodoxy and the love of God shine through. Genesis, Creation and Early Man, is for example, a sorely needed work in our times. I believe in the sainthood of the author, who repented and was baptised as the Lord instructed us, and died in the good grace and communion of the Church before his brotherhood went off the path.

There are many, many ancient saints whose works we read even today, which we know or suspect to have been tampered with by heretics. So this isn't really all that extreme. The consensus patrum protects us against malicious edits whether they be by Fr. Damascene or Apollinarus, or anyone else.

That's my opinion on the matter.

[Barbara]

That's well-expressed, eish, and I realize that most people agree with you.
I'm just very stubborn on my point of view. [In case even one person out there agrees with me !]

Very informative what you wrote about the Greek state church lack of discernment and compulsive glorification their so-called "elders".

WHO does own the copyright to all the Platina-published books ? St Herman of Alaska Press, I would assume ? Or in some cases, individual authors like Fr Damascene ?

I know you won't answer but i do wonder what you meant by what you said, "at worst...bad things". Are you thinking of moral sins or general sleazy behavior, though - a hint ?
Would Platina change if he were NOT the Abbot anymore, do you think ? That is, if some other monk took the monastery in a more True Orthodox direction ? That's not impossible, right ?

Were you meaning that Jay Dyer actually said that xyz evil practice is indispensable ???
I wasn't sure to what you were alluding there. Jay Dyer is influential these days, I understand, as he has some part in the Alex Jones broadcasting system. Does he talk about Orthodox stuff there, just wondering, if anyone knows ?

[eish]

Dyer teaches his satellites that the writings of the saints forbidding unnatural practices are “for monks” and that men “can't function” without them, and that those who say otherwise are “incels.”

[Barbara]

WHA-A-T ?? That's what I THOUGHT you were meaning, but then afterwards I wasn't sure. Now I can see that Jay Dyer IS that bad ! That is truly frightening to hear.
Thank you for confirming that, and explaining more.
I was waiting for an answer, so I appreciate hearing this, even though it's so disgusting that he would be that awful-minded !

By the way, where did this term 'incel' come about ? It sounds creepy. I know it's trendy, but has it been around for very long ? I see it splashed around the internet but i can't even understand what the people are talking about ! Maybe i DON'T want to know anyway, but I'm asking because i saw it used in what seemed to be widely varying contexts, so it really made NO sense to me.

Thanks for your help eish !