Discuss Religious, Moral and Ethical topics that are offtopic to other forums and that are within the boundaries of Christian morality and good taste, i.e., no pictures or videos of killings. Any politically charged material must be posted in the private Political and Social Issues forum; please PM admin for access. All rules apply. No promotion of Non-Orthodox-Christian beliefs. No baiting, flaming, or ad hominems. No polemics.
I think a lot of Russians today like Father Seraphim because he became "Russianized," in that he learned the language, culture, etc. Most Russians today do not care about Orthodoxy, they only care for preserving their nation. It is their desire to see all Americans become Russianized like Father Seraphim. I believe the greatest veneration of Father Seraphim comes from people in the MP. That doesn't say alot.
And I have seen people on this website call the schismatic Matthew a saint. Newsflash: people do NOT decide who is a saint. God does.
I have read everything about Father Seraphim and read many of his own books. I have never seen any evidence he is a saint. Now, if he is incorrupt today this would change my perspective. I'm open minded.
Additionally, Tsar Nicholas II is not a saint. He didn't die for Orthodoxy. He was murdered for being an emperer. There is a difference. Just because he was an emperer and wealthy, does not make him a saint. Again, God decides who are saints, not men. Orthodox have a habit of esteeming the rich of the world. But as the Bible says, "God is no respector of persons".
I do not know if Fr. Seraphim Rose is a Saint but I know a few people who believe he is. I do believe he was a just and good Orthodox Priest, which is what is needed today.
I agree with you that God is the decider when it comes to sainthood. The Church only officially recognizes after the fact.
Now the other subject about the schismatic bishop Matthew, I have a problem.
Since God can make anything possible why was it that He refused bishop Matthew from satisfying the canonical requirement of needing 2 other Bishops to celebrate the Mystery of Consecration?
Bishop Mathew could not find even ONE Bishop let alone the TWO that are required by the Holy Councils of the Church!
That means there are only two possible viewpoints on this subject.
Either Bishop Matthew was the ONLY CANONICAL GRACED ORTHODOX BISHOP left in the World when he consecrated single-handedly OR he was completely deceived by the enemy and those consecrations never happened.
It is my opinion that the Lord prevented a canonical consecration from happening in 1948 for vicar-bishop Matthew was indeed spiritually deceived.
Now the other subject about the schismatic bishop Matthew
Please tell me from who did he seperate to become schismatic?
Bishop Mathew could not find even ONE Bishop let alone the TWO...
Bishop Matthew could not find one bishop that was still loyal to the 1935 confession of faith in greece. Can you name me one bishop in 1948, besides Bishop Matthew that believed the Apostolic Succesion of the GOC should continue and was available to co-consecrate with Bishop Matthew? Just one.
Either Bishop Matthew was the ONLY CANONICAL GRACED ORTHODOX BISHOP left in the World when he consecrated single-handedly
Bishop Matthew was the only bishop still loyal to the GOC confession of faith, therefore making him the only canonical graced Orthodox Bishop IN GREECE, as is well documented, Bishop Matthew, tried to contact bishops outside of greece but because of various reasons, nothing materialized.
It is my opinion that the Lord prevented a canonical consecration from happening in 1948 for vicar-bishop Matthew was indeed spiritually deceived.
The consecration Bishop matthew performed was canonical as economia was applied which for this exact situation is allowed. Secondly, have you seen Bishop Matthew's consecration certificate? I have, he was not a vicar-bishop as you claim so please do not repeat things if you dont know if they are true please, it hurts your credibility and makes you a slanderer.
Bishop Matthew did not have legitimate grounds for departing from the Church. The Church was never built on a calendar. It is built on REAL dogmas. The old calendar is not a dogma of the Church. His position was fanatical. And just because the Kiousis Synod might commune some new calendarists, does not mean they have lost grace. Again, the Church is not built on a calendar. These are fanatical positions. And it sounds like the heresy of Donatism reborn.
I dont think you have all the information, It is not the 13 day difference that places someone outside of the church, but it is the un-Orthodox heretical teachings that are built on that foundation of 13 days, that places someone outside the church. The new calendar is a calendar of ecumenism, created for the purpose of synchrinizing the pan-heresy of ecumenism, therefore those that are using the ecumenistic new calendar are supporting ecumenism and it anti-Orthodox and heretical teachings. The reason the new calendar was introduced was to give substance to the ecumenistic charter of 1920, the basis for the calendar change was ecumenism. Also Bishop Matthew didnt depart from the church, he stayed loyal to what the church believed, it was met chrysostomos who left the church, and even at the end of his life realized he was wrong and the cause of the schism, that is why he directed his followers to go under the omophorion of the bishops, bshop matthew consecrated, if met chrysostomos really believed bishop matthew was schismatic, he would not have directed his spiritual children to go under his omophorion, that would have been spiritual suicide.
