A Lecture by Fr. Seraphim Rose

[joasia]

Excellent source material, Joanna.

So you accept a secondary source book which by Saint Herman's Monasterys' own admission was influenced by Father Herman [hence they re-wrote it into the new version "Father Seraphim Rose His Life and Works," WHICH I ALREADY REFERENCED, supporting my argument, but you reject the primary sources I gave?

As I mentioned, my source was written by Fr. Damascene also and previous to yours. So, technically, my source is the primary and yours the secondary.

What is your definition of "primary"? That which you want to hear? And why does this have to be an arguement?

Also, he was baptised by the Methodists who immerse in the name of the Holy Trinity. Entry into the Orthodox Church then, only requires Chrismation in order to bring to life that which was dormant.

[Incognito1583]

As I mentioned, my source was written by Fr. Damascene also and previous to yours. So, technically, my source is the primary and yours the secondary.

Nothing in your quotes disproves anything I said, and nothing in your quotes says Fr. Seraphim denied grace in the MP. The quotes and sources I gave [Fr. Seraphim's lecture, "The Orthodox Word," OrthodoxWiki], show Fr. Seraphim did not deny grace in the MP. I even quoted Fr. Seraphim himself with full references. We both quoted Fr. Damascenes book, but only I quoted Fr. Seraphim in reference to the subject. And as I said before, "Not of This World," was revised due to the influence of Fr. Herman on it -- according to the monastery itself. That "Not of This World," was written before the later edition, is irrelevant. My edition is from the same author and more reliable. And the quotes I gave are probaly in your edition aswell.

What is your definition of "primary"? That which you want to hear? And why does this have to be an arguement?

In the context I used it, Primary Source refers to the oldest and/or original material. I quoted from Fr. Seraphim himself. The issue of "The Orthodox Word" I cited, was written two years before his death. Again, had it not adequently represented his views, he would not have permitted it to be published. Don't take my word for it. Read the issue yourself.

Also, he was baptised by the Methodists who immerse in the name of the Holy Trinity. Entry into the Orthodox Church then, only requires Chrismation in order to bring to life that which was dormant.

That is not the traditional position.

I'm not arguing this anymore. I have given my arguments and sources, and they remain unrefuted.

My belief about Fr. Seraphim regarding the MP comes from what I have read. I could be wrong. I freely admit this. Contact his monastery and Fr. Ambrose and talk to them about it. They should know more about this subject.

[joasia]

Incognito,

I think that the situation, back then, can be understood as a compilation of complex circumstances. Met. Sergei(in sorrowful memory), allowed death and persecution of his fellow clergy brothers, sisters and laity. That is a plain fact.

In my quote, of Fr. Seraphim(memory eternal), he does voice his view that the hiearchy was leading the people to the "devil's kingdom". And the whole quote offers a strong expression against the united activities of the MP and government. Perhaps the compilation of all his quotes will help to understand that he did uphold the Orthodox faith and that he would not dare to question the action of the Holy Spirit, as that is blasphemy, but that he did also point out the evil movements that developed in the MP.

All through history, there have been Orthodox hierachs who have persecuted their own. Just reading the History of Eusebius lists many.

And so far, what I've read about Fr. Seraphim's views of Grace applies to the individual efforts of those clergy(mainly priest, but some bishops) who struggled during those most excruciating times. I will not question the work of Grace in their lives. I do not dare to temp God. But, the path that the MP is taking is due to their own ambitions. It reminds me of the history of the roller-coaster of the hiearchs in the first centuries.

So can we agree, that Fr. Seraphim was adament against ecumenism(expressed by all his writings and this video), but still held out for some form of Grace that God retained for those who were struggling in such difficult circumstances(which we should even feel shame for thinking that we can discuss their struggles in the comfort of our homes, in front of the computer, here - they weren't just killed, they were tortured.)?

If you're looking for the perfect Orthodox stance, then that would have to be love. We all need to remember that. Loving or having compassion(which is a form of love) leads to loving His creation which leads to loving Him. We have to consider the situation and uphold the truth that God gave us, but have compassion for those who struggle. But, we can't compromise the faith. It's a truely spiritual balancing act. One side tips over too much and everything falls over. Then we have to pick up the pieces and start all over again.

Anyway, that's my one cent(inflation).

Joanna

[Incognito1583]

Mary Mansur, the editor of "Orthodox America," was also a spiritual child of Father Seraphim. She lived in Platina [the town] for many years after Father Seraphim died. She might have spent more time with Father Seraphim then Alexey Young did. She might know Father Seraphim's views. Also, I believe she joined the MP with ROCOR. If Orthdoxy had a head [like a Magisteriam] we wouldn't even be concerned with Father Seraphim's views on the MP. The "head" of the Church would guide us all into the truth. Father Seraphim did not have authority given by Christ. He was a Godly monk with personal views. But God never gave him infallibility. One reason I believe Orthodoxy is divided, is because people tend to follow self-appointed "gurus" or Elders; not necessarily the God-ordained authorities.

[Pravoslavnik]

Igcognito,

Code: Select all

   Forget the gurus.  Look to the Orthodox saints.  Blessed Metropolitan Philaret was very clear about the serious spiritual problems afflicting the Sergianist "church" administration in Moscow, established and manipulated for decades by the NKVD and KGB to serve the Soviet state.  Read [i]The Sword and the Shield,[/i] by Christopher Andrew of Cambridge University, and Vasily Mitrokhin, if you want clear documentation of the longstanding KGB control of the Moscow Patriarchate.  Read Konstantin Preobrazhensky's recent monograph on the [i]KGB and Russian Emigration.[/i]

    Metropolitan Philaret' body is incorrupt, and Metropolitan Laurus (Skurla) tried to suppress this fact for several years prior to his recent, untimely death.  Laurus diametrically opposed and fought against St. Philaret's confession of the faith and his clear refusal to accept the validity of the MP administration.  But God is glorified in his saints.

     The saints give us teachings and signs to guide us in our Orthodox life.  What was important about the "confession" of St. Philaret, the New Confessor?  [i]It was the same confession of St. Cyril, Metropolitan of Kazan during his persecution by the NKVD in the 1930s.  It was the same confession of the blessed nuns of Shamordino at Solovki.  It was the same confession of St. John of San Francisco. [/i](Read St. John's monograph on the history of the ROCOR.)  [i]It was the same confession of blessed Father Seraphim Rose concerning the Satanic, chiliastic focus of the atheistic Soviet state[/i].  Study the teachings of these saints, and of Father Seraphim more carefully.  Then instruct us further in the views of the holy saints concerning Sergianism and the hypothetical grace of the neo-Soviet cut throat "church," which Vladimir Putin himself has referred to as "one of Russia's best weapons of foreign policy."

[Incognito1583]

It was the same confession of blessed Father Seraphim Rose concerning the Satanic, chiliastic focus of the atheistic Soviet state.

Once you people have found your guru, you have lost virtually all touch with reality and there is no stopping you. Can you show me ONE source showing Father Seraphim believed the MP was graceless? ONE source. Thus far, nothing has been presented that invalidates what he said in "Orthodox Word" 1980, and the other sources I gave.

I agree with Metropolitan Philaret. He was indeed a righteous confessor of the truth. I never disputed this. But keep in mind that local bishops and metropolitans are not infallible. During the Arian heresy, 97% of the bishops of the east fell into this error. Bishops and priests can be wrong.

Study the teachings of these saints, and of Father Seraphim more carefully.

I have. And I talked to one of the Father's the other day at Saint Gregory Palamas Monastery in Ohio, and he told me that based on his understanding of Fr. Seraphim's views, the latter believed the MP had grace.

I believe the MP is graceless. My point is that the evidence seems to show that Fr. Seraphim did not hold such a view.

[Incognito1583]

The Matthewites have their guru [Matthew]. They will follow him blindly, no matter how un-canonical and schismatic he might be. People who are in schism, don't believe they are in schism. Some of them care for numbers and worldly recognition, and not for the truth and unity of the Church.