The “problematic” Saint Seraphim Rose

Father Anders Åkerström | Sunday of the 318 Fathers

 

 Icon from the glorification of the ROCA under Metropolitan Agafangel, 2024.

In May of 2026, several news sites reported that the part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia that united with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007 (ROCOR-MP) intends to glorify Father Seraphim Rose (1934-1982) as a saint. Father Seraphim was an American monk and founder of the Monastery of St. Herman in Platina, California. He is very well known, primarily in the West, through his books on the faith of the Orthodox Church. The fact that he was already glorified in 2024 by the part of the ROCOR that did not unite with the Moscow Patriarchate has not been mentioned in the news summaries I have seen.

It is truly interesting to see some of the strong reactions to this news, for example on the site Public Orthodoxy, a digital debate and article platform run by the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University, NY. The site functions as a forum where scholars, priests, and laypeople discuss Orthodox Christianity in relation to contemporary political and academic questions. But it is equally interesting to see how others—more conservative, often converts—are upset that anyone would question the glorification, probably because the writings of St. Seraphim Rose were what first drew them to the Orthodox Church in the first place and eventually led to their conversion.

So on the one hand, we have those who are upset that someone wants to glorify Father Seraphim Rose because of his criticism of the contemporary Orthodox Church, and on the other hand, those who are upset that people refuse to see and understand his sanctity and the fact that his message relevant today.

Another very interesting detail is that the Monastery of St. Herman in Platina, which owns the rights to Father Seraphim Rose’s book, began in 2003 to edit his texts in order to tone down views that were clearly problematic in the new ecclesiastical context.

After Father Seraphim Rose reposed in 1982, the monastery in Platina left ROCOR, so that its abbot, Father Herman (Podmoshensky) could avoid being sentenced in a canonical court for the accusations made against him. First the monastery went to a vagante bishop, but when Father Herman was no longer abbot, they were received into the Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA, to which they still belong.

 

Photo 1: Saint Seraphim, after his repose, with Fr. Alexey Young, Archimandrite Chrysostomos and Hieromonk Auxentios (now the Bishop of Etna and Portland) from the monastery of St. Gregory Palamas in Etna, CA. Photo 2: Bishop Chrysostomos (with spade) at Father Seraphim Rose’s funeral.

 

Since the criticism that Father Seraphim Rose put forth in his books would not be appreciated in their “new context”, the Serbian Orthodox Church, they chose to re-write parts of his texts to tone down the criticism.

In other circumstances, this would be called historical revisionism. Editing someone’s views in their books for ideological reasons is of course nothing new. An extreme and dangerous example where ideological forces have tried to deny or distort historical facts is the Holocaust, where people have attempted, against all scientific and historical evidence, to diminish its significance. Father Seraphim Rose’s texts have been treated in a similar way, because his stark message did not fit their own narrative.

Of particular interest is how conservative Orthodox Christians today have managed to reinterpret Father Seraphim’s thoughts on “the Royal Path” within the Orthodox faith, and claim that it is the path they themselves are following: not straying too far to the left (towards modernism and ecumenism) or too far to the right (which would be fanaticism and Old Calendarism). (See The Royal Path - True Orthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy i The Orthodox Word, Vol. XII, No. 5 (70), s. 143-149.)

But that is not quite how Father Seraphim himself used this term. During his active years as a writer in ROCOR—from January 1965 until his death in 1982—and especially in his perhaps most famous book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future from 1975, he used the expression in another way, at least when it comes to what he meant by “fanaticism from the right”.

To Father Seraphim, the “Royal Path” was indeed the Orthodox path between two spiritual extremes: neither liberal laxity nor fanatic excess. He takes the expression from the Desert Fathers, in particular St. John Cassian and St. Dorotheos of Gaza, though he does not name them explicitly, as today’s conservatives like to do. To whom he is referring is, however, quite clear when one reads his letters or speaks with those who were actually present at the time.

He uses the expression especially in relation to the crisis of the Orthodox Church during the 20th century concerning ecumenism and ecclesiastical compromise, and in particular with regard to what he observed in Orthodox jurisdictions during his lifetime. According to him, the “Royal Path” leads:

• on the one hand, not to modernism, ecumenism and adaptation to the world (as with the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the US and in Constantinople),
• but on the other hand, not to a self-righteous, harsh, and sectarian “zealot” mindset where correctness and canonicity become a sort of spiritual pride (as with the group centered around the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, which ROCOR had received and with which Father Seraphim had countless conflicts).

Who, then, according to him, follows the “Royal Path”, and who is “to the right” or “to he left”?

It is here that the book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future and Father Seraphim’s   views in general become too “difficult to digest” for the writers at Public Orthodoxy. Father Seraphim explicitly identifies those who follow the Royal Path and are the true Orthodox Christians of today: “[it is they who] have taken strong stands against the apostasy of our times: the Catacomb Church of Russia, the Russian Church Outside of Russia, the True Orthodox Christians (Old Calendarists) of Greece.” Those who stand “to the left” are also clearly identified in the book and mentioned by name.

When the monastery in Platina came to belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church, it became very difficult to explain why “their own Church” did not follow the “Royal Path”. So, the text had to be re-written, and from 2004 onwards the list was removed. His views on the Moscow Patriarchate were equally problematic for the Serbian Orthodox Church and had to be toned down or omitted. Of course, this also became very problematic for ROCOR in 2007 when it united with the Moscow Patriarchate.

 

 

Needless to say, the same theological problem exists in Saint John (Maximovitch), Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco, whom ROCOR glorified in 1993 and who has become immensely popular in many Orthodox jurisdictions. His criticism of the Moscow Patriarchate is simply ignored, and his ecclesiastical views are something one simply does not talk about. One also tends to forget that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, in an official statement, called him a schismatic and denied his sanctity in 1993.

An article of particular interest at “Public Orthodoxy” is “Canonization and the Act of Betrayal: Father Seraphim Rose and ROCOR’s Ecclesiological Trap” by Sergei Chapnin, which at its core is a criticism of the decision to initiate the glorification of Father Seraphim Rose as a saint.

Mr. Chapnin argues along four main lines in his article:

1. He considers Father Seraphim to have been a symbol of an anti-ecumenist and isolationist ecclesiology that does not accord with how most Orthodox Churches think today.

He believes that Father Seraphim represented a harsh, “zealot” standpoint in which modernity, Western culture, and dialogue with other Christians were seen as spiritual degeneration. Mr. Chapnin therefore claims that glorification would legitimize an extreme and polarizing direction within today’s Orthodoxy, something he cannot accept and wishes to warn against.

2. He considers that ROCOR, risks returning to its earlier “schismatic” self-understanding, something he does not want to see.

A central point for Mr. Chapnin is that ROCOR, during the lifetime of Father Seraphim, stood outside full communion with large parts of world Orthodoxy. Mr. Chapnin therefore thinks that glorification would imply a kind of rehabilitation of ROCOR’s earlier anti-ecumenist and separatist identity, and this is deeply problematic to him.

3. The glorification would become a statement in Church politics.

The article claims that it is not only a question of personal sanctity, but of the direction in which the Church wishes to move. According to Mr. Chapnin, the process implicitly signals support for militant traditionalism and a distancing from more “open” and “liberal” Orthodox voices, and this is something Public Orthodoxy does not appreciate.

4. Finally, he has moral and historical objections with regard to the circle around the Platina monastery.

The author also touches on controversies involving people close to Father Seraphim, especially the accusations against Fr. Herman and the leadership of the St. Herman of Alaska Monastery.

In our view, as conservative Greek Orthodox Christians who follow the Old Calendar, the article quite clearly seems to be written from a modernist and pro-ecumenist ecclesiastical perspective, and we have four main objections:

1. The article assumes that anti-ecumenism is something negative, while ecumenism is the only correct path.

For Old Calendarists, this is the main problem. What Mr. Chapnin describes as “extremism”, we instead regard as faithfulness to the patristic tradition. We do not view Father Seraphim as radical, but rather as a defender of classic Orthodox self-understanding: that the Church is unique, true, and not merely one branch among other branches on the “Christian tree”.

From this perspective, his critique against Father Seraphim is an indirect critique of:

• Saint Justin Popović, the Serbian saint who is respected by so many
• Archimandrite Philotheos Zervakos, whom many in Greece regard as holy
• Many Athonite Fathers
• The older tradition of ROCOR, before the reunification with the Moscow Patriarchate, represented by Saint Philaret (the third First-Hierach of the ROCOR), who is also being proposed for glorification by the ROCOR (MP)

2.  Needless to say, ROCOR’s isolation from other Orthodox Churches during the 1960s is not viewed as a schism, but as a righteous protest against the development at the time, just as happened in Greece after 1924, when the Greek State Church introduced the so-called New Calendar.

Mr. Chapnin seems to assume that ROCOR’s earlier broken communion was a problem in and of itself. Our analysis, from a traditionalist Orthodox perspective, would rather ask: why did the separation occur and who is responsible for it?

We answer that the ROCOR reacted against:

• Soviet control of the Moscow Patriarchate
• Ecumenism, whereby the Orthodox Church is no longer unique but merely one church among many
• Modernist reforms
• Compromises with worldly powers (so-called “Sergianism”)

In this light, Father Seraphim becomes a witness of resistance against apostasy rather than an expression of sectarianism, as Mr. Chapnin claims.

3. Sanctity is not defined first and foremost by “acceptability” or “admissibility”.

According to our traditionalist position, modern Orthodox academic environments—especially those connected to the Fordham University Orthodox Christian Studies Center or to Sankt Ignatios College here in Sweden—tend to judge saints on the basis of academic and cultural acceptability or admissibility rather than ascetic life, repentance and spiritual fruit.

For us who recognize Father Seraphim’s sanctity, what is central instead is:

• His asceticism
• His repentance from nihilism
• His mission among Westerners
• His defense of patristic Orthodoxy
• The strong popular veneration surrounding him

It should be noted as well that in Orthodox tradition, popular veneration has often preceded official glorification.

4. The article reflects the deeper conflict within modern Orthodoxy.

From our traditionalist perspective, this is not only about Father Seraphim, but about two competing visions of Orthodoxy:

• On the one hand, those who believe that the Church must clearly protect her boundaries; and on the other hand, those who believe that the Church should be dialogical and open to contemporary currents and therefore should be modernized.
• On the one hand, those who believe that ecumenism opens the door to relativism; and on the other hand, those who believe that ecumenism is a pastoral necessity in a fragmented world.
• On the one hand, those who believe that patristic continuity must be emphasized; and on the other hand, those who believe that contemporary relevance in a pluralistic world must be sought.
• On the one hand, those who believe that asceticism and confession must be central to the life of the Orthodox Church; and on the other hand, those who believe that academic and social legitimacy is the most important thing to establish.

Therefore, for us Old Calendarists, Mr. Chapnin’s article in fact becomes almost an indirect argument for the importance of Father Seraphim: if he is able to provoke modernist circles to such a degree, it shows that his message still challenges the zeitgeist and is just as relevant today as when it was written in 1975.

In conclusion, if one considers Father Seraphim to be a holy person and believes that his message to the Church is important, then one cannot “tone down”, ignore or edit out the context to which he belonged, nor the groups within the Orthodox Church to which he directs us if we wish to be truly Orthodox Christians.

As of today, in 2026, the groups that belong to Saint Seraphim’s community are: ROCA under Metropolitan Agafangel, the Greek Orthodox church that follows the Patristic Calendar (Old Calendarists) under Archbishop Kallinikos, and the Bulgarian-Orthodox church under Metropolitan Photii.

Other churches that now find holiness in Father Seraphim’s example and wish to glorify him should therefore reflect on his words about where the true Church is—and why they are not included.

 

 

Swedish original:

https://www.ortodoxakyrkan.se/post/den-obekv%C3%A4me-heligel-seraphim-rose

English translation provided by the author.