Talk:Seraphim (Rose)

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(uncompromised teachings of the Church?)
m (fixing broken sig (and other minor fixes) )
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Category==
 
==Category==
Do you really think he ought to be in [[:Category:American Saints]]?  He's not been officially canonized by anyone and is still quite recent.  —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 13:36, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)
+
Do you really think he ought to be in [[:Category:American Saints]]?  He's not been officially canonized by anyone and is still quite recent.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 13:36, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)
  
 
"[H]e is (prematurely) celebrated by some Orthodox Christians as a saint" -- I think he can be considered to be in the category of "American Saints" whether or not he is officially recognized as a saint.  As you say, he is recent, so the status of his canonization may change.  I hardly think adding him to the orthodoxwiki category will effect his canonization.  Apologies if I am mistaken.  --[[User:Magda|magda]] 14:36, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 
"[H]e is (prematurely) celebrated by some Orthodox Christians as a saint" -- I think he can be considered to be in the category of "American Saints" whether or not he is officially recognized as a saint.  As you say, he is recent, so the status of his canonization may change.  I hardly think adding him to the orthodoxwiki category will effect his canonization.  Apologies if I am mistaken.  --[[User:Magda|magda]] 14:36, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)
  
: Yes, quite likely not!  :)  I was just wondering.  I can't remember where the initial bit about his being celebrated comes from, though, especially it being "in liturgy."  I wonder who has the daring to celebrate someone liturgically whom their hierarchy has not yet openly glorified?  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 14:45, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)
+
: Yes, quite likely not!  :)  I was just wondering.  I can't remember where the initial bit about his being celebrated comes from, though, especially it being "in liturgy."  I wonder who has the daring to celebrate someone liturgically whom their hierarchy has not yet openly glorified?  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 14:45, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)
  
 
::Of course, all saints must be prematurely celebrated as such for the canonization to occur in the first place. Of course, full liturgical glorfiication should only come with episcopal blessing. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
 
::Of course, all saints must be prematurely celebrated as such for the canonization to occur in the first place. Of course, full liturgical glorfiication should only come with episcopal blessing. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
Line 15: Line 15:
 
: It's possible that the article draws on sections from the book of his letters published by his niece (who interestingly enough recently showed up on Wikipedia and added edits to the article there).
 
: It's possible that the article draws on sections from the book of his letters published by his niece (who interestingly enough recently showed up on Wikipedia and added edits to the article there).
  
: I would have no problem removing the passage.  It may be more difficult to get the folks over at Wikipedia to do so, though.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 23:29, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT)
+
: I would have no problem removing the passage.  It may be more difficult to get the folks over at Wikipedia to do so, though.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 23:29, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT)
  
 
:: I can see why it would scandalize and turn off some, but I know, at least in the circles I inhabit, that this kind of testimony to the possibility for conversion is sorely needed. I really don't think it takes anything away from Fr. Seraphim's greatness, but only adds to it (or rather the manifestation of God's greatness in him). [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
 
:: I can see why it would scandalize and turn off some, but I know, at least in the circles I inhabit, that this kind of testimony to the possibility for conversion is sorely needed. I really don't think it takes anything away from Fr. Seraphim's greatness, but only adds to it (or rather the manifestation of God's greatness in him). [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
Line 32: Line 32:
 
::I wonder if there's a generational difference here, too. It seems that previously homosexuality was something unspeakable. Now, it's being talked about all the time -- flashed over T.V., voted on in polls. Many say there's no real possibility of conversion for homosexuals, and homosexuality becomes for so many ''the'' defining aspect of their identity. Fr. Seraphim proves them wrong. What do you think? Thanks, [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
 
::I wonder if there's a generational difference here, too. It seems that previously homosexuality was something unspeakable. Now, it's being talked about all the time -- flashed over T.V., voted on in polls. Many say there's no real possibility of conversion for homosexuals, and homosexuality becomes for so many ''the'' defining aspect of their identity. Fr. Seraphim proves them wrong. What do you think? Thanks, [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
  
I've de-emphasized the homosexuality material by means of cutting text and adjusting the headers.  What do y'all think?  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 15:49, 1 Jul 2005 (EDT)
+
I've de-emphasized the homosexuality material by means of cutting text and adjusting the headers.  What do y'all think?  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 15:49, 1 Jul 2005 (EDT)
  
 
::I think that's good, esp. cutting out the header. Maybe we should've left in whatever citations were there though, no? [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
 
::I think that's good, esp. cutting out the header. Maybe we should've left in whatever citations were there though, no? [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
  
The quotes didn't really seem to add much to the article, but I'll add in a citation link after the section in question.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 17:54, 1 Jul 2005 (EDT)
+
The quotes didn't really seem to add much to the article, but I'll add in a citation link after the section in question.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 17:54, 1 Jul 2005 (EDT)
  
 
::Regarding the different biographies of Fr. Seraphim, and especially his niece's discussion of him homosexuality, see http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/archives/025629.html. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
 
::Regarding the different biographies of Fr. Seraphim, and especially his niece's discussion of him homosexuality, see http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/archives/025629.html. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]

Revision as of 12:02, August 12, 2006

Category

Do you really think he ought to be in Category:American Saints? He's not been officially canonized by anyone and is still quite recent. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 13:36, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)

"[H]e is (prematurely) celebrated by some Orthodox Christians as a saint" -- I think he can be considered to be in the category of "American Saints" whether or not he is officially recognized as a saint. As you say, he is recent, so the status of his canonization may change. I hardly think adding him to the orthodoxwiki category will effect his canonization. Apologies if I am mistaken. --magda 14:36, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Yes, quite likely not!  :) I was just wondering. I can't remember where the initial bit about his being celebrated comes from, though, especially it being "in liturgy." I wonder who has the daring to celebrate someone liturgically whom their hierarchy has not yet openly glorified? —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 14:45, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Of course, all saints must be prematurely celebrated as such for the canonization to occur in the first place. Of course, full liturgical glorfiication should only come with episcopal blessing. Fr. John

Homosexuality issue

I'd like to weigh in on the article mentioning that Father Serafim was a homosexual in his youth before converting to Orthodoxy. First of all I'd like to question the sources. There is no mention of this in his biography from Platina. This is not what you think about when you remember Father Serafim! To my mind this is like revealing someone's confession! He overcame so much and is such a wonderful example for us! We who have great reverence for him are pretty upset! No one but God and one's father confessor has a right to information like that..and splashed all over the internet no less!

There is always a balance we have to strike between reporting significant historical facts and the good and useful traditions of hagiography (and of course the line is somewhat blurred since Fr. Seraphim is not canonized). I don't think that the homosexuality passage is something which is required for this article. Its origins are from whatever source the Wikipedia article used (as this is an import). My guess is that it's this article: http://www.pomona.edu/Magazine/PCMSP01/saint.shtml
It's possible that the article draws on sections from the book of his letters published by his niece (who interestingly enough recently showed up on Wikipedia and added edits to the article there).
I would have no problem removing the passage. It may be more difficult to get the folks over at Wikipedia to do so, though. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 23:29, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I can see why it would scandalize and turn off some, but I know, at least in the circles I inhabit, that this kind of testimony to the possibility for conversion is sorely needed. I really don't think it takes anything away from Fr. Seraphim's greatness, but only adds to it (or rather the manifestation of God's greatness in him). Fr. John
Father, I agree. I read this article the other day, having not heard anything much about him, and was inspired by his victory over this sin. I felt that it added to his testimony to God's grace. The Bible certainly is not shy about letting us know the dark side of many of the Saints. That being said, I understand the initial concern. I don't believe confession should be taken lightly and gossip is never a good thing. The fact of the matter is that now it is public knowledge and I guess should be addressed in some way. --Joe Rodgers 00:16, 30 Jun 2005 (EDT)


This could and should have been dealt with in a single line, similar to the beginning of one of the accounts of the life of St. Vladimir the Enlightener: Concerning his life before his baptism, it is best that we retain a discreet silence. Enough said.

Hi Fr. Greogry,
I would like to hear more about why you think this is the case. It has always seemed to me that we need to be honest about our saints -- their background and struggles. If we too easily place them on a pedestal, we remove their greatest triumph from them (because we fail to see the full glory of their triumph). Besides that, if this news is all over the internet, what good will it do us to hide it? Those from outside could accuse us of whitewashing. Like St. Paul, shouldn't we boast in our weaknesses that God may be glorified?
I don't think it is a scandal that Fr. Seraphim may have had a homosexual relationship befoe he became Orthodox. The article makes it clear that he left this lifestyle behind. There was repentance, acceptable to God, and no hypocrisy on his part.
I wonder if there's a generational difference here, too. It seems that previously homosexuality was something unspeakable. Now, it's being talked about all the time -- flashed over T.V., voted on in polls. Many say there's no real possibility of conversion for homosexuals, and homosexuality becomes for so many the defining aspect of their identity. Fr. Seraphim proves them wrong. What do you think? Thanks, Fr. John

I've de-emphasized the homosexuality material by means of cutting text and adjusting the headers. What do y'all think? —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 15:49, 1 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I think that's good, esp. cutting out the header. Maybe we should've left in whatever citations were there though, no? Fr. John

The quotes didn't really seem to add much to the article, but I'll add in a citation link after the section in question. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 17:54, 1 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Regarding the different biographies of Fr. Seraphim, and especially his niece's discussion of him homosexuality, see http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/archives/025629.html. Fr. John

uncompromised teachings of the Church?

The article states that Frs. Herman and Seraphim transmitted the uncompromised teachings of the Church on a number of different issues. There are many serious Orthodox writers who disagree with much of what these Fathers wrote on these topics. To maintain the wiki's NPOV standards, I would suggest that this statement be reworded without this assertion.

Kadj 06:25, May 13, 2006 (CDT)

Perhaps you have a way that this could be re-stated to maintain NPOV-MCB? --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 07:59, May 13, 2006 (CDT)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox