Seraphim Rose: A philosophical icon
The scroll reads: "Evolutionism is the key to the philosophy of antichrist"
 |
Sr. Vassa: There's no ontological impediment to priestesses
Is the male-only priesthood a discipline or essential to the nature of being a priest? Sr. Vassa (again unflinchingly taking up a contentious topic by climbing up the ladder to the highest platform and then jumping into the deep end head first) dives right in and says there is no reason beyond personal preference to not have female clergy. You know, when people ask me about women in priesthood, they say, 'Sister, why can't women be priests?' And I say, 'Women CAN be priests. We don't WANT them to be priests.' Because you see, God can do anything, and the Church, by divine authority, uh, can do anything, but, the Church doesn't want to - and that's a legitimate reason. What I don't like is when we TRY to pretend that there are other reasons for this, because it's legitimate not to want something, and there are reasons not to want this - right? - but, we shouldn't pretent that there's some... reason, that, for example, the maleness...
This could be profound if only it had an actual context to give it significance. The fact that this is a Romanian icon sheds some light on the iconographer's possible intention, but I am not sure all or even most of Fr Seraphim's views ought to be regarded as canonical (in the informal sense of "normative") among Orthodox Christians. That said, I do not doubt the man's sanctity - I have been to venerate his tomb myself. My parish is very close to the monastery.
ReplyDeleteFr. Seraphim (Rose), outside of the ROCOR posturing, held to patristic views normative of the Holy Mountain and Russian Orthodoxy. His views are Orthodox.
DeleteFr. Seraphim (Rose), outside of the ROCOR posturing, held to patristic views normative of the Holy Mountain and Russian Orthodoxy. His views are Orthodox.
DeleteIt has enough context to give it significance. St. Paisios of Mount Athos:
ReplyDelete"Christ was born of a human being, the Panagia. Are we to believe that His ancestors were apes? What blasphemy! And those who support this theory don't realize that they are blaspheming. They throw a stone and do not check to see how many heads they have cracked."
I don't know what is more humiliating: to be formed from mindless dirt or to come from a long line of irrational primates.
Deletemindless dirt?? what about the Divine Spirit breathed into the mindless dirt?......
DeleteFr. Seraphim Rose was wrong about evolution; St. Paisios is wrong about evolution. Since the human genome has been sequenced, doubting human evolution is like doubting that the sun is at the center of our solar system (though I am sure there are still some poor souls out there who have such doubts).
ReplyDeleteWhen evolution reconciled with Newtonian physics and the second and third laws of thermodynamics we will talk. My religion is not empiricism or evolution. Science is a tool, not an ideological weapon.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteEvolution is theologically impossible. It is to admit that death preceded Adam. But what then is the significance of Christ conquering death as the second Adam (as St. Paul says in scripture) if it was not Adam himself who brought mortality, death, frailty and sin into the world? Evolution then becomes a non-sequitur if you give priority to theology. As in, if you put God first.
Delete