.
The “Orientals” are not Orthodox, and anyone who would agree with such a thing opposes not only the grace-filled monks of the age, but the fathers of the Church. St. John of Damascus states :
“The Egyptians, who are also called Schismatics and Monophysites : separated from the Orthodox Church on the pretext of the document approved at Chalcedon and known as the Tome. They have been called Egyptians, because it was the Egyptians who first started this form of heresy during the reigns of the Emperors Marcian and Valentinian; in every other way they are Orthodox. Because they were attached to Dioscoros of Alexandria, who was deposed by the Synod in Chalcedon for advocating the teachings of Eutyches, they opposed the Synod and fabricated countless charges against it to the best of their ability. We have taken up these charges in this book and sufficiently refuted them, showing them to be clumsy and stupid. Their leaders were Theodosios of Alexandria, from whom derive the Theodosians, and James [Baradaios] of Syria, from whom the Jacobites derive. Privy to them, and supporters and champions were Severos, the corrupter from Antioch, and John [Philoponos] the Tritheite, who toiled on vain things; they denied the mystery of our common salvation.They wrote many things against the God-inspired teaching of the 630 Fathers of Chalcedon, and laid many snares, so to speak, and “stumbling blocks by the path”(Psalm 139:6) for those who were perishing by their pernicious heresy. Nevertheless,even though they teach that there are particular substances, they confound the mystery of the Incarnation. We considered it necessary to discuss their impiety in brief, adding short notes in refutation of their godless and abominable heresy. I shall set forth the teachings, or rather, ravings, of their champion John, in which they take so much pride.”
When a tree produces bad fruit, there is no blasphemy is denying the presence of the Holy Spirit. How else would the Church defend herself against heresy? The vast majority of people on the globe who claim to have divine experience are, in fact, operating under a spirit of prelest. On this topic, St. Anthony of Kiev says :
“Weak faith and carelessness are expressions of irreligiousness in people. But even a pious person is not immune to spiritual sickness if he does not have a wise guide – either a living person or a spiritual writer. This sickness is called spiritual delusion, or imagining oneself to be near to God and to the realm of the divine and supernatural. Even zealous ascetics in monasteries are sometimes subject to this delusion, but of course, laymen who are zealous in external struggle undergo it much more frequently. Surpassing their acquaintances in spiritual struggles of prayer and fasting, they imagine that they are seers of divine visions, or at least of dreams inspired by grace. In every event of their lives, they see special, intentional directions from God or their guardian angel. And then they start imagining that they are God’s elect, and often try to foretell the future. The Holy Fathers armed themselves against nothing so fiercely as against this sickness – spiritual delusion”.
The biggest difference between Orthodoxy and western Christianity is its understanding of how one arrives at truth. In the west, concepts such as infallible Scripture, infallible papal declarations, and infallible councils exist. This is not the case in Orthodoxy, whose understanding is derived from theosis (the third and final stage of salvation) - where man beholds the uncreated light of God. The faithful, in such a state, may write or speak at councils (which, of course, will reflect their inner light), but this revelation alone is the source of truth. It is not a mere prayerful experience, but a miraculous occurrence that Orthodox across the globe undergo (and have undergone for thousands of years).
