Father Seraphim Rose on "Traditionalist" groups

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Tue 28 November 2006 9:56 am

Pensees wrote:
michigan wrote:
I think anyone who has read "The Soul After Death" would agree that Fr. Seaphim never claimed that the "toll houses" were dogma, or that the metaphor should be taken literally.

Father Seraphim did believe literally that there are demons who reside in the air to tempt and torment the souls of the departed, but that "toll house" is only the best human terminology we can provide. There is a long line of patristic and liturgical texts in favor of toll houses, and anyone who would accuse Father Seraphim of being a heretic or neo-Gnostic has no sense of history.

Peace.

Have you ever read anything against Fr Seraphim Rose in order to have an understanding of some of the criticisms?

michigan · Post by **michigan** » Tue 28 November 2006 11:56 am

I haven't; I'm just going by my interpretation of his writings.

Pensees · Post by **Pensees** » Wed 29 November 2006 2:15 am

Anastasios wrote:
Have you ever read anything against Fr Seraphim Rose in order to have an understanding of some of the criticisms?

Are these the same criticisms that are answered at the end of The Soul After Death?

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Wed 29 November 2006 2:21 pm

Pensees wrote:
Anastasios wrote:
Have you ever read anything against Fr Seraphim Rose in order to have an understanding of some of the criticisms?

Are these the same criticisms that are answered at the end of The Soul After Death?

No.

Pensees · Post by **Pensees** » Sat 2 December 2006 1:44 am

Please direct me to these criticisms, I hope they do not claim that Father Seraphim was a neo-gnostic.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 2 December 2006 4:04 am

I haven't read the entire thread, but long story short, Fr. Seraphim changed radically over the years he was Orthodox. He went from only thinking of ROCOR and a few others as Orthodox (e.g., he wouldn't give communion to "world Orthodoxy," said that all Seminaries except Jordanville were modernist, etc.), to thinking that the traditionalists had gone way too far and regretted having given them support/ideas. As in most of the other stances he took, this one too was controversial. But this has all been debated ad nauseum...

Pensees · Post by **Pensees** » Sun 3 December 2006 2:17 am

Justin Kissel wrote:
As in most of the other stances he took, this one too was controversial.

Hasn't that stance only been controversial among those who chose to break off from the already existing Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions?

Peace.