Thank your for letting others hear your voice of reason. In his very short life as an Orthodox Christian, Fr Seraphim Rose became an important figure for a particular strain of the Orthodox ideal, which he and others seem to believe is true Orthodoxy. As such, he has also become a figure who accents divisiveness within the Orthodox Church(es). This is evident in the way that he is either fawned over or simply avoided in different forms of Orthodoxy. Canonization will probably serve to strengthen this divide.
I appreciate your concern. I suppose this means that those of us who want to do something different with the memory of Fr Seraphim have all the more responsibility to foreground what we view as dispositive, i.e. the things I mentioned above, since truthfully his glorification is indeed the recognition of a very vibrant grassroots cultus (not the case, for example, in many recent American glorifications which to me seem much more obviously and purely political, indeed, redolent of ethnophyletism -- "see! our jurisdiction also has a saint!").
Just so you know where I am coming from, I have on my own stack translated a fair amount of otherwise untranslated writings by Paul Evdokimov and Olivier Clement. I also wrote this little irritated throwaway piece about Orthodox anti-ecumenism from the perspective of a grizzled old convert https://www.chansonetoiles.com/p/orthodox-anti-ecumenism-then-and
Splitting hairs like you do reminds me of my time at Vineyard where people would argue how Christian a band was based on the number of times they said “Christ”.
The emotional register of your response — the open irritation and contempt — is itself quite revealing. Do you really think this way of speaking is organically connected to the tradition you are trying to defend, and to the kind of spirituality you hope his canonization will promote?
According to you, what is the difference between rejecting modernity and repentance? Or maybe a better question is whether you think some rejection of modern virtues is a dimension of repentance. A modern virtue might be "sexual diversity" for example, of which Fr Seraphim did repent through faith in Christ and the ascetic life.
BTW, I generally agree that the current convert craze seems to bend toward ideological virtue signaling more than faithfulness to Christ, and that the way this often appears (online, anyway) is a consistent deference to Fr Seraphim and a idealogical vision of Orthodox Christianity in America. I don't think that exclusively happens, and I also am not convinced that is the majority case for converts. Much of this seems more of an online phenomenon than an on the ground reality which, in my limited experience, seems to be reasonably stable.
Regarding the canonization of Father Seraphim Rose and your article on the cults some Saints inspire. I think that however these cults develop and what shape they take is not a direct result of the canonization. Human beings will how did you say it at the end “ socialize ideology” something like that whatever human beings will do all sorts of stuff but the church and each of us personally can not possibly know the future or how events today will shape it- that is in God’s hands. Nothing can actually be proven to be the result of or the cause of something else there are just way too many variables think about it ……. You see with your own eyes someone slap another in the face what caused that action what will be the result some people won’t even develop a welt or redness on their face due to biological abnormalities you might say well I know I’ll hear the sound but will you? What if there is a louder noise. Only God knows all. We do what we can to tell the Truth and let the Truth take care of itself that’s our faith I think
Thank you, this is an important point. Yet canonization is not merely the retrospective “recognition of a fact”; it functions, among other things, as a form of ecclesial pedagogy. Through the elevation of a particular figure, the Church does not simply acknowledge holiness but actively proposes a concrete configuration of Christian life as normative, exemplary, and worthy of imitation. In this sense, it would be naïve to claim that our present ecclesial consciousness and the already existing patterns of veneration will not decisively shape the kind of cult that is likely to crystallize around a newly canonized saint.
At the same time, it must be said frankly that the Orthodox Church has rarely excelled in this pedagogical dimension; we do not have a strong habit of thinking ahead about the pastoral and ideological consequences of our liturgical and canonical decisions. If, however, given what we know about the current state of church life, we can with reasonable confidence foresee that a distorted or problematic cult will almost inevitably emerge around a particular name, then the Synod has at its disposal a very simple and entirely legitimate instrument: it can defer the canonization for twenty or thirty years. No dogmatic catastrophe follows from such a postponement; on the contrary, it may create a space for more sober discernment and for a certain purification and maturation of ecclesial consciousness.
I agree that deferment is a solid decision that has in the past been used very often in many different situations even those regarding eternal salvation! “The church is comfortable with mystery.” Orthodoxy traditionally does not spell out and define every single aspect of our faith and for good reason- God is beyond our understanding. My own name Saint, Saint Anna of Kashin, is an example of how canonization can be so complicated. We can not foresee the future but I agree that the Church does have a sound alternative in postponing a judgement on Sainthood and letting time itself to do its perfect work. Thank you friend. Here in the US we seem to be a very impatient people who demand complete clarification now and have a very hard time with practicing humility. I honestly wonder if Father Seraphim Rose would choose for himself beatification. I did not know him but it seems to me from many of the lives of the Saints I have read about that they would have been somewhat dismayed by public accolades …..
"His image will be weaponized as a banner for a certain ideological, culture‑war Orthodoxy in America. My worry is not only what he was, but what his image will authorize."
Your comment here isn't speculative, it's already the case in the circles where Seraphim is popular. I was driven away from him by this kind of leveraging of his thought in the context of a controlling and abusive parish setting. More of my take if you're interested
“Former clergy?” That is genuinely amusing. It looks as if you are busy constructing a new mythology not only around Fr Seraphim Rose, but also around me personally — facts optional, as long as the story works.
I have to say, I rather enjoy seeing you construct this little mythology about me and about Fordham. All of this obviously matters a great deal to you, despite your best efforts to persuade the rest of the world that you couldn’t care less.
Thank your for letting others hear your voice of reason. In his very short life as an Orthodox Christian, Fr Seraphim Rose became an important figure for a particular strain of the Orthodox ideal, which he and others seem to believe is true Orthodoxy. As such, he has also become a figure who accents divisiveness within the Orthodox Church(es). This is evident in the way that he is either fawned over or simply avoided in different forms of Orthodoxy. Canonization will probably serve to strengthen this divide.
I appreciate your concern. I suppose this means that those of us who want to do something different with the memory of Fr Seraphim have all the more responsibility to foreground what we view as dispositive, i.e. the things I mentioned above, since truthfully his glorification is indeed the recognition of a very vibrant grassroots cultus (not the case, for example, in many recent American glorifications which to me seem much more obviously and purely political, indeed, redolent of ethnophyletism -- "see! our jurisdiction also has a saint!").
I would like to see aspects of Fr Seraphim foregrounded that specifically counter the risk you discuss, such as I mention in this note https://substack.com/@chansonetoiles/note/c-254688104 as well as the ecumenism (of a rather traditional type) that emerges in his later writing and counsel, discussed here https://www.chansonetoiles.com/p/orthodoxy-of-the-heart.
Just so you know where I am coming from, I have on my own stack translated a fair amount of otherwise untranslated writings by Paul Evdokimov and Olivier Clement. I also wrote this little irritated throwaway piece about Orthodox anti-ecumenism from the perspective of a grizzled old convert https://www.chansonetoiles.com/p/orthodox-anti-ecumenism-then-and
Splitting hairs like you do reminds me of my time at Vineyard where people would argue how Christian a band was based on the number of times they said “Christ”.
Very low Protestant.
The emotional register of your response — the open irritation and contempt — is itself quite revealing. Do you really think this way of speaking is organically connected to the tradition you are trying to defend, and to the kind of spirituality you hope his canonization will promote?
Claiming it’s emotive is more low prot. You rail against ideological capture and yet demonstrate the hallmarks.
Adorable.
According to you, what is the difference between rejecting modernity and repentance? Or maybe a better question is whether you think some rejection of modern virtues is a dimension of repentance. A modern virtue might be "sexual diversity" for example, of which Fr Seraphim did repent through faith in Christ and the ascetic life.
BTW, I generally agree that the current convert craze seems to bend toward ideological virtue signaling more than faithfulness to Christ, and that the way this often appears (online, anyway) is a consistent deference to Fr Seraphim and a idealogical vision of Orthodox Christianity in America. I don't think that exclusively happens, and I also am not convinced that is the majority case for converts. Much of this seems more of an online phenomenon than an on the ground reality which, in my limited experience, seems to be reasonably stable.
Regarding the canonization of Father Seraphim Rose and your article on the cults some Saints inspire. I think that however these cults develop and what shape they take is not a direct result of the canonization. Human beings will how did you say it at the end “ socialize ideology” something like that whatever human beings will do all sorts of stuff but the church and each of us personally can not possibly know the future or how events today will shape it- that is in God’s hands. Nothing can actually be proven to be the result of or the cause of something else there are just way too many variables think about it ……. You see with your own eyes someone slap another in the face what caused that action what will be the result some people won’t even develop a welt or redness on their face due to biological abnormalities you might say well I know I’ll hear the sound but will you? What if there is a louder noise. Only God knows all. We do what we can to tell the Truth and let the Truth take care of itself that’s our faith I think
Thank you, this is an important point. Yet canonization is not merely the retrospective “recognition of a fact”; it functions, among other things, as a form of ecclesial pedagogy. Through the elevation of a particular figure, the Church does not simply acknowledge holiness but actively proposes a concrete configuration of Christian life as normative, exemplary, and worthy of imitation. In this sense, it would be naïve to claim that our present ecclesial consciousness and the already existing patterns of veneration will not decisively shape the kind of cult that is likely to crystallize around a newly canonized saint.
At the same time, it must be said frankly that the Orthodox Church has rarely excelled in this pedagogical dimension; we do not have a strong habit of thinking ahead about the pastoral and ideological consequences of our liturgical and canonical decisions. If, however, given what we know about the current state of church life, we can with reasonable confidence foresee that a distorted or problematic cult will almost inevitably emerge around a particular name, then the Synod has at its disposal a very simple and entirely legitimate instrument: it can defer the canonization for twenty or thirty years. No dogmatic catastrophe follows from such a postponement; on the contrary, it may create a space for more sober discernment and for a certain purification and maturation of ecclesial consciousness.
I agree that deferment is a solid decision that has in the past been used very often in many different situations even those regarding eternal salvation! “The church is comfortable with mystery.” Orthodoxy traditionally does not spell out and define every single aspect of our faith and for good reason- God is beyond our understanding. My own name Saint, Saint Anna of Kashin, is an example of how canonization can be so complicated. We can not foresee the future but I agree that the Church does have a sound alternative in postponing a judgement on Sainthood and letting time itself to do its perfect work. Thank you friend. Here in the US we seem to be a very impatient people who demand complete clarification now and have a very hard time with practicing humility. I honestly wonder if Father Seraphim Rose would choose for himself beatification. I did not know him but it seems to me from many of the lives of the Saints I have read about that they would have been somewhat dismayed by public accolades …..
"His image will be weaponized as a banner for a certain ideological, culture‑war Orthodoxy in America. My worry is not only what he was, but what his image will authorize."
Your comment here isn't speculative, it's already the case in the circles where Seraphim is popular. I was driven away from him by this kind of leveraging of his thought in the context of a controlling and abusive parish setting. More of my take if you're interested
https://substack.com/home/post/p-196942879
I don't think my experiences or feelings are at all unique. You are absolutely right about the political elements of the canonization.
What works by or about Fr. Seraphim have you read? I notice you don’t quote any primary or secondary sources.
If we’re going by the book/protocol, what about the posthumous miracles?
It just came back to me…
“Hey, have you had any accidents on the construction site?”
“Nope, not a single one yet…”
“You will.”
https://substack.com/@stevenberger/note/c-255023146?r=1nm0v2&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
⏳🕯️📿 Pray for Translators and 📯Watchmen:
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/5bcbf35c-9433-442b-86a5-0a179573889b
🌐⛪☦️🕊️ Grace and peace to you, Christ is RISEN!
“Former clergy?” That is genuinely amusing. It looks as if you are busy constructing a new mythology not only around Fr Seraphim Rose, but also around me personally — facts optional, as long as the story works.
I have to say, I rather enjoy seeing you construct this little mythology about me and about Fordham. All of this obviously matters a great deal to you, despite your best efforts to persuade the rest of the world that you couldn’t care less.