MP Professor A. A. Kostryukov on the Canonization of Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)

May 21, 2026

 

On May 2, 2026, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia blessed the process of preparing for the church glorification, in the rank of venerable fathers, of Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose). We asked Doctor of Historical Sciences, Candidate of Theology, Chief Research Fellow of the Department of Contemporary History of the Russian Orthodox Church, and Professor of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University, Andrei Alexandrovich Kostryukov to comment on this decision.

 

 

— Andrei Alexandrovich, although the name of Hieromonk Seraphim is known to many, to some it will mean nothing. Could you remind us what makes this man interesting?

The life of Hieromonk Seraphim, Eugene Rose in the world, is very interesting and in some respects recalls the path of the ancient saint Justin the Philosopher, who sought the truth in various teachings and found it in Christ. Hieromonk Seraphim did not come to Orthodoxy immediately. He was born into an American Protestant family, but in his youth became interested in Eastern teachings, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism, and wanted to study these religions, including by coming to know them in practice. Eugene Rose had an aptitude for studying languages and therefore tried to study religious texts in their native language. But Eugene did not find the truth in any of these teachings. Only when he came to an Orthodox church did he understand that the search was over: the truth had finally been found in the Orthodox Church. Saint John (Maximovitch) and another ascetic of the Russian diaspora, Bishop Nektary (Kontzevich), who became his spiritual father, had a great influence on Eugene Rose. Conversion to Christ also changed Eugene’s life, which had previously been far from moral ideals.

In 1962, Eugene converted to Orthodoxy; in 1970 he became a monk; and in 1977 he was ordained a hieromonk in the Russian Church Abroad. For a long time, Father Seraphim lived in a skete near the settlement of Platina in California, learned Russian, studied Orthodoxy, engaged in translations, carried on extensive correspondence, and composed akathists to Saint John (Maximovitch) and Venerable Paisius Velichkovsky. Father Seraphim died in 1982 at the age of 48.

— Father Seraphim is also known as the author of many writings. Why are they important?

I must repeat what I have said more than once: it was precisely the Russian diaspora that helped us with literature and textbooks in the first years after the fall of communist rule. For almost seventy years, theological and ecclesiastical-historical scholarship in the Soviet Union had been suppressed. Textbooks and studies appeared in emigration, and in the 1990s they came to be in demand. The books of Father Seraphim (Rose) also proved useful. Let me recall that, in parallel with the revival of the Church in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there began an influx of dubious teachings. People who had grown up over the decades of Soviet godlessness thought that everything unusual was from God. And therefore, both Eastern cults and charismatic practices unacceptable to Orthodoxy gained popularity. It was not easy to resist this onslaught, and the works of Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) helped the Church considerably. These include, for example, the books The Soul After Death, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, Genesis: Creation and Early Man, and others. I remember how, during my studies, I wrote a term paper on glossolalia, the gift of “speaking in tongues,” and this was not even at the beginning, but at the end of the 1990s. There were major difficulties in finding literature on the subject; it turned out that, apart from Protestants, almost no one had studied this question in particular. Almost the only Orthodox work on this topic was the work of Father Seraphim (Rose).

— Hieromonk Seraphim is sometimes accused of radicalism, of an overly harsh attitude toward non-Christian religions and non-Orthodox confessions. How fair are these accusations?

Yes, Father Seraphim insisted that salvation is only in Orthodox Christianity. But I think there is no basis for dispute here: this is the foundation of our faith, although the Jubilee Council of 2000 did indicate that the action of grace among the non-Orthodox is a mystery of God’s Providence. Nevertheless, it is incorrect to accuse an Orthodox ascetic of having been too straightforward on this question.

Personally, I have not formed the impression that Father Seraphim was a fanatic or an obscurantist. On the contrary, he emphasized that the study of theological sciences must be joined with the raising of one’s cultural and educational level, and he warned against a “sudden leap into theology.” Along with patristic literature, he advised reading classic writers for the softening of the heart. And among such classics he named not only Orthodox authors, for example Alexander Solzhenitsyn, but also non-Orthodox ones, for example Charles Dickens.

— What was Hieromonk Seraphim’s attitude toward the Local Churches? After all, he belonged to the Russian Church Abroad, which, as is well known, at times sharply criticized both the Church of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate.

Father Seraphim indeed made quite a few sharp statements both regarding ecumenism and regarding the compromises which hierarchs were forced to make. At times Hieromonk Seraphim was unsparing. But I would not generalize. First, he was not the only one to speak this way: we have both New Martyrs and ascetics numbered among the saints who were extremely uncompromising toward compromises in matters of faith and in relation to totalitarian regimes. Second, Hieromonk Seraphim could express himself both more and less radically. It is understandable that at first, having come to the faith, he was more categorical, but gradually his views began to soften. This is evident, for example, from his letters published in Jordanville in 2005.

For example, analyzing the failure of the mission of the Russian Church Abroad in Alaska, Hieromonk Seraphim wrote that this mission should be taken upon itself by one of the Local Churches, the Orthodox Church in America, although the attitude toward it on the part of the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad was generally negative.

In another letter, Hieromonk Seraphim wrote that the Church Abroad should be open to all Orthodox Christians. Here Father Seraphim held the view of Saint John (Maximovitch). Hieromonk Seraphim believed that the Church Abroad should admit all Orthodox Christians to the Chalice, regardless of their calendar and other manifestations of modernism. According to Father Seraphim’s thinking, the Church Abroad was thereby to become a source of support for those who were struggling within their own Churches against unreasonable innovations.

I will quote words from one of Hieromonk Seraphim’s letters: “We must maintain living contact with the Russian clergy of the older generation, even if some of them seem too liberal to us; otherwise, we will simply lose ourselves in the jungles of zealotry, which are growing up around us.” The understanding of zealotry, that is, fanatical conservatism, as “jungles” is very telling. Elsewhere Hieromonk Seraphim called zealotry a monster and predicted that right-wing radicals in the Orthodox Church would split more and more. As we see, Father Seraphim proved to be right.

— Were there other cases of such discernment?

I think that what is at issue here is not a miraculous gift of clairvoyance, but knowledge of Church history and an understanding of historical patterns. For example, in the 1960s a group of radical Greek Old Calendarists, headed by Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos), entered the Russian Church Abroad. Before long they began drawing the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad into their radicalism as well, including its head, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). Hieromonk Seraphim directly called this group “university boys playing at Orthodoxy,” and predicted that they would not remain in the Church Abroad. And that is what happened: in 1986, the group of Archimandrite Panteleimon accused the Church Abroad of modernism and ecumenism and created its own schism, which went down in history as the “Boston” schism.

— You mentioned Father Seraphim’s work on the creation of the world. What views did he hold on the question of creation?

Here we have come to a very important point in the legacy of Hieromonk Seraphim. As far as I have been able to follow the polemics on social networks, there is an accusation against the hieromonk of interpreting the biblical words about creation literally. Yes, Father Seraphim was a creationist; he was an opponent of evolutionary views. But here is where I see the problem. In past centuries, when a saint was canonized, his attitude toward the creation of the world was not a current issue, since everyone was a creationist, except that some inclined toward a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, while others inclined toward a more or less allegorical one.

Now, however, the situation is different. In connection with the development of science, the question of creation will be raised more and more often at canonizations. After all, an ascetic who received an education in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and left a written legacy can no longer remain aloof from various theories. And now we will encounter the fact that a person who speaks in favor of one of the theories will be subjected to attacks from the other camp. Perhaps the question is already ripe for the Church to prepare an authoritative document on its attitude toward theories of the creation of the world and the origin of life? But in general, figures of the Church, including saints, often held the same opinions as the science contemporary to them. And if these opinions are now outdated, this does not diminish the authority of the saints.

Or another question: that of “Unidentified Flying Objects” (UFOs). We remember what a sensation stories about flying saucers and contacts with extraterrestrial intelligence caused in our country at the end of the 1980s. Long before this, Father Seraphim wrote that, if such phenomena do occur, they are manifestations of demonic activity, and he substantiated his view with examples from Church tradition. Now, however, such an explanation of the “UFO” phenomenon is leading to new attacks on Hieromonk Seraphim. But I am certain that if he had said that he believed in extraterrestrials, this would have caused incomparably greater indignation.

— That is, the views of Hieromonk Seraphim cannot affect his glorification?

It is known that for glorification there must be such criteria as a holy life, irreproachable faith, popular veneration, and, finally, testimony to holiness—usually, help received through the prayers of the ascetic. He was faithful to Orthodoxy; the Council of Bishops of ROCOR has stated that he lived an ascetic life. As far as I know, veneration of Father Seraphim exists; some time ago there was even information that Father Seraphim had been glorified in one of the dioceses of the Georgian Church. Although the information proved to be false, the tendency toward his glorification is clearly present. As yet there is no official canonization; the Council of Bishops of the Church Abroad has only blessed its further preparation. Therefore, polemics concerning the life path and views of Hieromonk Seraphim are still possible. The main thing is that this polemic be serious. And the final decision will be rendered by the Church.

 

Russian source:

https://pstgu.ru/news/main/professor-pstgu-a-a-kostryukov-o-kanonizatsii-ieromonakha-serafima-rouza/

Shared by:

https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/436777.html