Seraphim & the Occultist

[JM]

I’m reading a bio of Rasputin by Douglas Smith and he repeats the story of how Seraphim of Sarov was canonized. According to Douglas, and I have heard this story before from another source, the Orthodox Church examined life and teachings of Seraphim but refused to canonize him. The Tzar received a prophecy from a French occultist named Monsieur Phillippe who stated that if he prayed to St. Seraphim of Sarov he would have the heir he so desperately desired, the problem was, the Church rejected Seraphim’s canonization.

How was the problem solved?

According to Douglas:

“…Nicholas, to the anger of the Holy Synod, the church’s governing body, overrode the decision (“The Emperor can do anything,” an angry Alexandra insisted) and ordered that Seraphim be canonized.” p.46

And that folks is how Seraphim of Sarov became recognized as a Saint according to Douglas.

Is there any truth to this or is this just another example of Church – State relations gone awry?

Yours in the Lord,

jm
Another source for the story:

Born to Rule by Julia P. Gelardibor

 

[JM]

Icon of Seraphim.

 

[Lyrasong]

This is the first I’d heard that Saint Seraphim’s canonization was ever disputed or refused. My Orthodox parish had a strong devotion to him; his only known criticism being that he had knelt before a Westernized portrait of the Theotokos. There are others available now, I believe, but Valentine Zander wrote a good life of Seraphim.

 

[The Liturgist]

Is there any truth to this

No.

St. Seraphim of Sarov has been a well loved figure throughout Russian Orthodoxy, even while he was alive, and is also someone of great relevance to the West. Later Russian figures like Ignatius Brianchaninov and John of Kronstadt took inspiration from Seraphim. He is an exemplary figure for us to follow, more relevant I think than even Francis of Assisi.

Conversely, Rasputin was in a state of ecclesiastical disobedience; he was what the Russians call a “cassock bearer”, basically someone who had been a novice monk but left the monastery to do his own thing and to assume an unauthorized and unsanctioned ministry. He was a spiritual fraud who was vigorously and very properly opposed by the Russian Orthodox hierarchy, who tried without success to warn the Czar about what kind of person he was.

Sadly, he was successful for too long in his deception and this directly contributed to the Revolution and the mass-slaughter of Christians that would follow, including the Czar and his family, who were brutally murdered by the Soviets.

 

[JM]

No.

St. Seraphim of Sarov has been a well loved figure throughout Russian Orthodoxy, even while he was alive, and is also someone of great relevance to the West. Later Russian figures like Ignatius Brianchaninov and John of Kronstadt took inspiration from Seraphim. He is an exemplary figure for us to follow, more relevant I think than even Francis of Assisi.

Conversely, Rasputin was in a state of ecclesiastical disobedience; he was what the Russians call a “cassock bearer”, basically someone who had been a novice monk but left the monastery to do his own thing and to assume an unauthorized and unsanctioned ministry. He was a spiritual fraud who was vigorously and very properly opposed by the Russian Orthodox hierarchy, who tried without success to warn the Czar about what kind of person he was.

Sadly, he was successful for too long in his deception and this directly contributed to the Revolution and the mass-slaughter of Christians that would follow, including the Czar and his family, who were brutally murdered by the Soviets.

I found two sources so far and stopped looking for more. Do you have a source that contradicts the idea? I fear Orthodoxy is often too quick to accept dreams as doctrine.

When Dreams Become Doctrine

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[The Liturgist]

I found two sources so far and stopped looking for more. Do you have a source that contradicts the idea? I fear Orthodoxy is often too quick to accept dreams as doctrine.

When Dreams Become Doctrine

Yours in the Lord,

jm

You claim to have two sources, but rather than providing any reference to your second source, you link to an inflammatory article* authored by someone named “JM” (yourself presumably?) on what you evidently know to be a deeply controversial subject within the Orthodox community, a subject which is not regarded by most Eastern Orthodox (of the minority who are even aware of it) as doctrine but rather as interpretation, which many, such as Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, reject outright, and which is generally not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox, and which has direct parallels in Western theology (specifically, soteriology in the West before the refinement of the doctrine of Purgatory, which is a doctrine) in what looks to me like an attempt to smear our Orthodox brethren.

And what is more, my post specifically addressed the mainline Russian Orthodox church, and in your response, which is a red herring, you attack all Orthodox. Your reply can be interpreted as equally critical of Bulgarians, Greeks, Romanians, Serbians, Cypriots, Georgians, Antiochians, the Oriental Orthodox, and other Orthodox who were not involved in the decision to glorify Seraphim of Sarov, not to mention Russian Old Believers, who tend to accept toll houses, but do not regard Seraphim as a saint (since he was part of the mainstream Orthodox church, although he was probably connected with the Old Rite, an edinovertsy in Russian parlance, and if you actually did want to talk about something the Russian Orthodox hierarchy had issues with, it was in admitting that; the lestovka Seraphim is depicted as wearing was far more controversial than any aspect of his life).

At any rate, I have been unable to find any credible articles backing your claim that the glorification of Seraphim of Sarov was suggested to the Czar by an obscure French occultist. On the contrary, most of the material I have found on the subject identifies as the main champion for his glorification the much more prominent figure of Metropolitan Seraphim Chichagov, one of the most celebrated Russian Orthodox martyrs of the 20th century, who was killed by an NKVD firing squad in 1937.

Which takes us to my next point: given the particularly brutal violence suffered by the Orthodox at the hands of the Turks, the Soviets and most recently Islamic fundamentalists, and the relatively small size of the Orthodox community in North America, it seems a bit distasteful for someone to engage in firery polemics specifically targeting the Orthodox churches (as opposed to the more general polemics one often finds that criticize the Roman Catholic church and also reiterate that criticism in passing with regards to the Orthodox).

If one must criticize a particular denomination, there are a lot of denominations more worthy of polemics right now than the various varieties of Orthodox. Mine for example (the United Church of Christ has become toxic and corrupt), or the Episcopal Church, or the ELCA, the PCUSA and the other “mainline” Protestant churches, the liberal faction in the UMC bent on causing a schism so they can ignore the majority vote of the traditional members of their church in the US, Africa and Asia, or the increasingly failed state churches and state-supported churches of Northern Europe (such as the Scandinavian Lutherans, the Church of Scotland, the Evangelical Church in Germany, and so on).

*The article in question aside from being entirely unrelated to this thread, also substantially misquotes Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky. What Fr. Michael actually wrote concerning toll-houses and Theodora was as follows:

“With regard to the images in the accounts of the toll-houses, Metropolitan Macarius in his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology remarks: “One must firmly remember the instruction which the angel made to St. Macarius of Alexandria when he had just begun telling him of the toll-houses: ‘Accept earthly things here as the weakest kind of depiction of heavenly things.’ One must picture the toll-houses as far as possible in a spiritual sense, which is hidden under the more or less sensuous and anthropomorphic features.”

Excerpt From
Orthodox Dogmatic Theology
Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky
‎Orthodox Dogmatic Theology

 

[JM]

Toll Houses.

Yes, I wrote that article.

the Controversy Over Images

 

[The Liturgist]

Toll Houses.

Yes, I wrote that article.

the Controversy Over Images

Ok what does that have to do with the OP or the premise of this thread? Because it seems to me right now this thread consists chiefly of assorted criticisms of our Orthodox brethren.

 

[JM]

Ok what does that have to do with the OP or the premise of this thread? Because it seems to me right now this thread consists chiefly of assorted criticisms of our Orthodox brethren.

I'm sorry your feelings are hurt "The Liturgist." I was simply asking a question and providing more information about how things accomplished in some churches. I understand that by questioning the process used to "recognize" Seraphim as a saint may have upset you, causing you to point at other denominations exclaiming "they are sinners to!" I'm not sure what I can do for you.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: I enjoy liturgy as well! I'm a big Book of Common Prayer fan.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm sorry your feelings are hurt "The Liturgist." I was simply asking a question and providing more information about how things accomplished in some churches. I understand that by questioning the process used to "recognize" Seraphim as a saint may have upset you, causing you to point at other denominations exclaiming "they are sinners to!" I'm not sure what I can do for you.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: I enjoy liturgy as well! I'm a big Book of Common Prayer fan.

My feelings are not hurt (why would they be?). Let me repeat my question: what does your post on the Iconoclast controversy have to do with the OP or this thread?

 

[JM]

My feelings are not hurt (why would they be?). Let me repeat my question: what does your post on the Iconoclast controversy have to do with the OP or this thread?

My article points to a previous pattern of corruption by the state.

 

[The Liturgist]

My article points to a previous pattern of corruption by the state.

And how is that different from incidents of state interference in many other denominations, such as the forcible merger of the Lutheran congregations in Prussia into the reformed, Calvinist, Prussian state church?*


*An echo of which exists in the US today in the form of my former denomination, the UCC, which has serious problems and its literal antithesis, the LCMS, a bastion of ecclesiastical health, but not owing to the Calvinism of the former nor the Lutheranism of the latter, but rather the mistake of the UCC in voluntarily treading into politics, always a bad idea given the way politics will of its own inclination inevitably seek to tread on the church.

 

[prodromos]

Toll Houses.

Yes, I wrote that article.

How do you conclude that the doctrine is based on the visions?

the Controversy Over Images

Dura-Europos synagogue - Wikipedia

 

[JM]

How do you conclude that the doctrine is based on the visions?

Dura-Europos synagogue - Wikipedia

Using reason one can conclude the Gnostic doctrine of Toll Houses finds its current expression in the 10th century visions of Gregory of Thrace. The finally broad acceptance is based on a dream. Like all traditional doctrines not found in scripture they gain momentum over the centuries and find approval in state funded and run churches.

Why is this an issue?

This is a pet doctrine of according to some, however, not all Orthodox agree. I quoted a well respected Orthodox dogmatic work that claims Toll Houses are Orthodox.

But are they? Not according to scripture.

 

[JM]

And how is that different from incidents of state interference in many other denominations, such as the forcible merger of the Lutheran congregations in Prussia into the reformed, Calvinist, Prussian state church?*


*An echo of which exists in the US today in the form of my former denomination, the UCC, which has serious problems and its literal antithesis, the LCMS, a bastion of ecclesiastical health, but not owing to the Calvinism of the former nor the Lutheranism of the latter, but rather the mistake of the UCC in voluntarily treading into politics, always a bad idea given the way politics will of its own inclination inevitably seek to tread on the church.

All liberal mainstream "churches," who, like the Catholic Church in China, sold out.

Separating the wheat from the chaff.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is a pet doctrine of according to some, however, not all Orthodox agree. I quoted a well respected Orthodox dogmatic work that claims Toll Houses are Orthodox.

You misquoted it, actually, as I pointed out above by quoting the passage directly from the translation by Fr. Seraphim Rose (who did believe in toll houses, but not to the extent of say, Elder Ephrem).

But, more importantly, toll houses are entirely tangential to the OP. You raised a point about the history behind the canonization of Seraphim of Sarov, which I refuted, but then since then we have taken irrelevant segues into icons and tollhouses and other points of Byzantine and Oriental theology which really don’t connect in any way to the OP. So I find myself questioning what any of this has to do with church history: it seems to me we risk diverging from the original point concerning what is, lets face it, a relatively obscure moment in the history of a denomination most Western Christians aren’t even aware of, to instead a sort of generic attack on EO theology in a such a way as to be only loosely connected to Church History, and, forgive me for repeating myself, but I wish you wouldn’t do that.

In my experience, learned the hard way, its a bad idea to allow oneself to develop a particular anger at a particular denomination, because then we can risk becoming “holier than thou” and neglecting our own mistakes or problems in our own church that are festering unnoticed due to our anger at another particular church over some aspect of their doctrine or praxis.

 

[prodromos]

Using reason one can conclude the Gnostic doctrine of Toll Houses finds its current expression in the 10th century visions of Gregory of Thrace. The finally broad acceptance is based on a dream.

You know for a fact that the visions predate the hymns of the liturgy which make reference to the tollhouses?

 

[JM]

You misquoted it, actually, as I pointed out above by quoting the passage directly from the translation by Fr. Seraphim Rose (who did believe in toll houses, but not to the extent of say, Elder Ephrem).

But, more importantly, toll houses are entirely tangential to the OP. You raised a point about the history behind the canonization of Seraphim of Sarov, which I refuted, but then since then we have taken irrelevant segues into icons and tollhouses and other points of Byzantine and Oriental theology which really don’t connect in any way to the OP. So I find myself questioning what any of this has to do with church history: it seems to me we risk diverging from the original point concerning what is, lets face it, a relatively obscure moment in the history of a denomination most Western Christians aren’t even aware of, to instead a sort of generic attack on EO theology in a such a way as to be only loosely connected to Church History, and, forgive me for repeating myself, but I wish you wouldn’t do that.

In my experience, learned the hard way, its a bad idea to allow oneself to develop a particular anger at a particular denomination, because then we can risk becoming “holier than thou” and neglecting our own mistakes or problems in our own church that are festering unnoticed due to our anger at another particular church over some aspect of their doctrine or praxis.

We can go back and forth on this but what I wrote stands. You didn't refute anything. The Orthodox allow for pagan occult practices and that's fine just be straight about it.

My op stands, people can read it and make up their own minds.

I'm moving on now. I usually pop in to post and pop out, I usually do not engage in fruitless back and forth convos, if people are entrenched it's pointless.

Best of luck getting through the Toll Houses!

jm

 

[The Liturgist]

We can go back and forth on this but what I wrote stands. You didn't refute anything. The Orthodox allow for pagan occult practices and that's fine just be straight about it.

My op stands, people can read it and make up their own minds.

I'm moving on now. I usually pop in to post and pop out, I usually do not engage in fruitless back and forth convos, if people are entrenched it's pointless.

Best of luck getting through the Toll Houses!

jm

Dude, I’m not even a member of a church that believes in anything remotely like toll houses as a doctrine. Historically we were considered a Reformed denomination - I am well known on OCNet as a disgruntled Congregationalist with an enthusiasm for ancient-future worship and the liturgy, who is extremely upset about the political and spiritual path taken by my United Church of Christ.

Now, if you look at the “quote” you attributed to Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, of which I own an electronic copy as I have an interest in the subject matter, and then do a search for the text you attributed to it, the only thing which comes up is the text I found. So this is not a back-and-forth or a matter of opinion; the quote you attributed to the work is either not actually in it, or its in a different edition, or, perhaps you translated it on your own. It would be good if you could show me where the text says what you think it says, because I did look, and my search turned up nothing.

And I also don’t get what speculation about paganism in a given denomination has to do with Church History, and why you are fixating on a church which represents an extreme minority in the US, when there are much bigger fish to fry in this category, including things that are objectively neo-pagan, like the “Mother Goddess Rosaries” sold at herchurch, formerly Ebeneezer Lutheran Church, in the Bay Area, to the extreme chagrin of our devout Lutheran friends (because part of what became the UCC split from the LCMS in the 19th century and because I am really disgruntled about the current state of the UCC, I am kind of crushing on the Missouri Synod right now, and I should state for the record that Ebeneezer Lutheran Church is/was not a part of the LCMS).

For something to actually be literally Pagan, you have to be able to show a direct connection to the ancient polytheistic religions of Greece, Rome, Babylon, Assyria, Aramea, Egypt, Lebanon, the Germanic tribes, the Slavic tribes, et cetera. Something that became a part of the syncretic all-inclusive state religion of the Roman Empire which persecuted the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church until the Edict of Milan, and then once more under Julian the Apostate, and continued to do so outside the shrinking borders of the Roman Empire. And for something to be literally neo-Pagan, you have to be able to show a specific and intentional adoption of a Pagan worship practice, like, for instance, putting a Mother Goddess figure on a rosary in place of the Crucifix. And until the past few decades, this sort of thing was unhead of in Christianity. Some Unitarians started flirting with Paganism in the 19th century, after the outbreak of “Transcendentalism” led by prominent Unitarian ministers like Ralph Waldo Emerson, but they were not Christians. The actual incorporation of objectively defined neo-Paganism into Christian churches is a very new phenomenon, something that first appeared, I think, in the 1970s, and which has mainly happened in the mainline Protestant churches.

 

[prodromos]

My op stands, people can read it and make up their own minds.

It occurred to me that the whole point of this thread is to increase the view count on your blog. Rest assured that I won't be following anymore links in your posts.