Great and Holy Council, 2013?

[Cavaradossi]

So any decision the council finds, does not necessarily bind them all as one, because each Church is an independent head from each other. Who can accept or reject a councils findings.

For example “Contraception”. How could a headless council rule here? Will contraception be allowed only to those independent church heads **who do not believe **it is evil, and rejected by those independent church heads **who believe it **is evil? So all is well because each head can or cannot accept contraception? This is a displayed unity?

Can you give a mocked idea of how this council would address and rule on contraception when their are two oppossing Church’s pro and anti?

As far as the Pope is concerned the Popes does not meddle with any one Bishops Church’s. These bishops all have a freedom of autonomy from the Popes. The Pope is the cause of these independent bishops and Church’s in unity, although possessing different languages, cultures and rites. So I would agree with you, there is a difference in approach of councils from the West that does not apply without a headship of unity.

You are completely off base here. I would kindly ask that you refrain from speculating on the internal affairs of the Orthodox Church when you are not familiar with Orthodoxy in the slightest.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I don’t understand your theology here, if a man beholds the uncreated light of God, this man can speak infallible, on matter of Truth?

No, even the seer of uncreated light cannot speak infallibly. Our language is incapable of proclaiming the fullness of truth. Theosis is the “tongues of angels”. 1 Corinthians 13:1-2

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”

In theosis, the mysteries of God are revealed. The glorified one may write or speak, and in doing so, we get a glimpse of God’s mysteries. This, however, does not mean such things are infallible. Human words cannot fully explain the mysteries of God.

Did not Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Charles Russel and others pretend to possess this same concept of theology?

Those individuals claimed to have divine experience, yet were being deceived. This is known as prelest, a state by which man believes himself close to God through either his own imaginings or demonic deception. Theosis is a only given to a select few (Matthew 22:14), and in nearly every instance, it is preceded by a life of praying the psalms, praying unceasingly (typically via the Jesus prayer), the state of illumination, and the guidance of an elder.

Does not holy orders, sacraments possess revealed Truth and the “uncreated energies of God”? because from these the heavenly light is given with grace.

Certainly, in fact, the sacraments or mysteries lead man to theoria and theosis. The reception of a sacrament alone, however, does not glorify (as in bring them into a state of theosis) the individual. The one pursuing illumination must strive for such a thing, and the grace-filled mysteries are his means.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8996993]You are completely off base here. I would kindly ask that you refrain from speculating on the internal affairs of the Orthodox Church when you are not familiar with Orthodoxy in the slightest.

This forum is the purpose for addressing such issues. If my inquiries ( speculation?) are to difficult for you or appear to be out of line? Then this is the place to point them out and offer your position. I would welcome your clarification and Orthodox position.

I assure you, when Orthodox many times produce Catholic subjects out of order, you will find me addressing them. I would not try and silent another’s view or misunderstanding, but clarify the misunderstanding, prayerfully with charity.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mark of Ephesus;8997067]No, even the seer of uncreated light cannot speak infallibly. Our language is incapable of proclaiming the fullness of truth. Theosis is the “tongues of angels”. 1 Corinthians 13:1-2

Maybe Iam misunderstanding you here; You addressed earlier that this particular “enlightenment” or uncreated lighted filled person is how Orthodox arrive at Truth? Now we move to “language” of this enlightenment is incapable of proclaiming the fullness of Truth?

I lost track of your theology (theosis) here, when you state that the “seer of the uncreated light cannot speak infallibly”? What is the purpose of this “seer” of uncreated light? Is it a personal enlightement or does this “seer” address the Church at large?

In theosis, the mysteries of God are revealed. The glorified one may write or speak, and in doing so, we get a glimpse of God’s mysteries. This, however, does not mean such things are infallible. Human words cannot fully explain the mysteries of God

.

So the language of men cannot penetrate the mysteries of God, nor can the language of angels? So in “theosis” the mysteries of God are revealed, but does not reveal the mysteries of God as to be “infallible”?

How do you define Infallible here?

Those individuals claimed to have divine experience, yet were being deceived. This is known as prelest, a state by which man believes himself close to God through either his own imaginings or demonic deception. Theosis is a only given to a select few (Matthew 22:14), and in nearly every instance, it is preceded by a life of praying the psalms, praying unceasingly (typically via the Jesus prayer), the state of illumination, and the guidance of an elder.

Interesting; So Theosis is only given to a select few? are these few selected are inspired of the Holy Spirit or something other?

Certainly, in fact, the sacraments or mysteries lead man to theoria and theosis. The reception of a sacrament alone, however, does not glorify (as in bring them into a state of theosis) the individual. The one pursuing illumination must strive for such a thing, and the grace-filled mysteries are his means.

I follow this reasoning. So from the mysteries of God can lead man into different levels of enlightenment and understandings?

This “Theosis” state of the selected individual becomes a spiritual discipline in the mysteries of God. Not one who can preside over a Church Council?

 

[dcointin]

There are plenty of things at stake. Ecumenism is just another attack on hesychasm. Many of our own clergy have neglected and suppressed the teaching of such a thing. This is what gives the Orthodox their strength - the foundation on which our faith is built. Ecumenism, in its acceptance of various spiritual traditions, leaves no room for such a thing.

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).

Ecumenicism is recognizing the areas where our faith is the same as a basis for dialogue and mutual understanding. I have no idea why you think that’s an attack on hesychasm of all things. The Coptic Orthodox today share the same Christology as we do, and any indepth conversation with them will reveal that the difference is one of terminology and emphasis, not dogma. Beware of triumphalism my friend, it’s a powerful temptation for us.

 

[Nicea325]

Ecumenicism is recognizing the areas where our faith is the same as a basis for dialogue and mutual understanding. I have no idea why you think that’s an attack on hesychasm of all things. The Coptic Orthodox today share the same Christology as we do, and any indepth conversation with them will reveal that the difference is one of terminology and emphasis, not dogma. Beware of triumphalism my friend, it’s a powerful temptation for us.

I agree,but I yet to get a response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
It certainly can’t be accomplished by compromising the truth, which at its root is what ecumenism is all about. Look at all of these “joint statements” coming out these days which do nothing but attempt to compromise on the truth.

Nicea325:
Who ever said the Truth needs to be compromised? **May you please show me where the Truth was compromised under any ancient council? **Or do we not consider any council as ecumenical? What “joint statements” and coming from who?

 

[dcointin]

That’s easy. Follow the grace-filled monks.

But even putting that aside, the great miracle at Chalcedon should be evidence enough for all [Catholics and Orthodox alike] that the Monophysites are in error :

omhksea.org/2011/07/the-miracle-of-saint-euphemia-the-great-martyr/

Have you ever read about Padre Pio?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Maybe Iam misunderstanding you here; You addressed earlier that this particular “enlightenment” or uncreated lighted filled person is how Orthodox arrive at Truth? Now we move to “language” of this enlightenment is incapable of proclaiming the fullness of Truth?

Ultimately, words cannot fully articulate the uncreated light, but they can be used to convey a portion of the truth. For us that have not reached glorification, the words of those who have serve as God-given guides.

I lost track of your theology (theosis) here, when you state that the “seer of the uncreated light cannot speak infallibly”? What is the purpose of this “seer” of uncreated light? Is it a personal enlightement or does this “seer” address the Church at large?

God grants such a thing when it is beneficial (to either the recipient, the faithful, or both). Very often, the vision of uncreated light is given so that the individual may instruct others, but it is only granted to assist in salvation.

So the language of men cannot penetrate the mysteries of God, nor can the language of angels? So in “theosis” the mysteries of God are revealed, but does not reveal the mysteries of God as to be “infallible”?

The experience of theosis is indeed the only place where “infallibility” is witnessed. Truth is communicated in fullness without error or compromise.

How do you define Infallible here?

Devoid of error and complete in its expression of truth. From an Orthodox perspective, mankind is not capable of producing such a thing.

Interesting; So Theosis is only given to a select few? are these few selected are inspired of the Holy Spirit or something other?

Yes, it is of the Holy Spirit. The apostles experienced theosis at Pentecost (“tongues of fire”). Even those of the Old Testament experienced such things. Job 19:26 and Job 42:5 :

“And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God”

“I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now my eye seeth thee”

Theosis is sometimes only temporary (i.e. when it is beneficial). Moses, for instance, experienced it for forty-days and forty-nights while on Mt. Sinai.

I follow this reasoning. So from the mysteries of God can lead man into different levels of enlightenment and understandings?

This “Theosis” state of the selected individual becomes a spiritual discipline in the mysteries of God. Not one who can preside over a Church Council?

Well, such an individual could speak at Church council (as was seen in the past). It is simply unlikely that such individuals would be honored at the proposed “Great and Holy Council of 2013”. Theosis is much rarer than before (not that it was ever common). We are simply faithless and do much dishonor to the memory of our forefathers in the Faith. That is why so many of the hierarchs have given way to world’s ideologies (such as ecumenism). Until the Orthodox (myself included) repent of our worldliness and one again embrace the hesychasm of our fathers, no such council would be beneficial.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Ecumenicism is recognizing the areas where our faith is the same as a basis for dialogue and mutual understanding. I have no idea why you think that’s an attack on hesychasm of all things. The Coptic Orthodox today share the same Christology as we do, and any indepth conversation with them will reveal that the difference is one of terminology and emphasis, not dogma. Beware of triumphalism my friend, it’s a powerful temptation for us.

Pray for me.

I cannot, however, accept the Orthodoxy of those who would anathematize the Council of Chalcedon. Our glorified monks (and saints) speak loud and clearly - the Monophysites are not Orthodox.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mark of Ephesus;9001902]Ultimately, words cannot fully articulate the uncreated light, but they can be used to convey a portion of the truth. For us that have not reached glorification, the words of those who have serve as God-given guides.

**God grants such a thing when it is beneficial **(to either the recipient, the faithful, or both). **Very often, the vision of uncreated light is given so that the individual may instruct others, **but it is only granted to assist in salvation.

The experience of theosis is indeed the only place where “infallibility” is witnessed. Truth is communicated in fullness without error or compromise.

Devoid of error and complete in its expression of truth. From an Orthodox perspective, mankind is not capable of producing such a thing.

Your commentary reveals God permitting and granting one to speak Truth and to instruct others with Truth “communicated in fullness without error or compromise”, “to assist in salvation”?

Yet it would appear a contradiction when you believe the Orthodox perspective reveals mankind incapable of producing such thing? When you have your “enlightened one” speaking Truth and revealing Truth “infallibly” to assist in salvation?

While I would agree with you that man is incapable of “producing” anything infallible, but God uses his instruments, His Church to speak “infallibly” what God has already revealed infallibly.

The Holy Spirit has spoken through the apostles “infallibly” at Pentecost and inspiring the apostles to write the New Testament “infallibly.” How difficult is it for the Holy Spirit to speak and inspire those successors to the Apostles and call to memory the gospel to teach and preach the gospel today infallibly?

Theosis is sometimes only temporary (i.e. when it is beneficial). Moses, for instance, experienced it for forty-days and forty-nights while on Mt. Sinai.

So Theosis is never capable of teaching the faith and morals “infallibly”, because man is producing Theosis from disciplines it cannot be infallible? I am not addressing Theosis here, I am addressing the man enlightened by Theosis.

Well, such an individual could speak at Church council (as was seen in the past). It is simply unlikely that such individuals would be honored at the proposed “Great and Holy Council of 2013”. Theosis is much rarer than before (not that it was ever common). We are simply faithless and do much dishonor to the memory of our forefathers in the Faith. That is why so many of the hierarchs have given way to world’s ideologies (such as ecumenism). Until the Orthodox (myself included) repent of our worldliness and one again embrace the hesychasm of our fathers, no such council would be beneficial

.

So Theosis is out of the equation when it comes to a Holy Council? If you claim Theosis was used before by the Church Fathers, and is a gift for the Church, what prevents Theosis from being used in the Church?

Ecumenism is not an ideology to surrender too, Ecumenism is a pause to stop, listen and be still and know God is God. For party oppositions to turn about face and face each other with Truth and not lies. We cannot put our light under a basket, the light is for all to see.

Ecumenism does not mean to adopt another’s ideology but to listen and learn each others position, so that Evangelization can begin it’s True path without declaring war. If opposition persists, at least Truth was heard. After all Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word, not resisting or refusing to hear.

I fear those who oppose Ecumensim “peace to communicate” are protecting something dark, and fear the light will expose them. Ecumensim allows the light to be shown on all ideologies, not to accept them.

We are not living in the same days as our Early Fathers, they have layed down the path of faith to follow. So we carry the substance of the gospel into new ages, new languages new peoples so that they can hear the Gospel in their hearing and understanding so as to see with the True Light of God, what God has revealed in the Son.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Yet it would appear a contradiction when you believe the Orthodox perspective reveals mankind incapable of producing such thing? When you have your “enlightened one” speaking Truth and revealing Truth “infallibly” to assist in salvation?

The seer of uncreated light cannot fully convey that truth in human language. This does not mean that we should disregard his writings. Quite the opposite. Such words are the closest understanding we have of Truth without actually seeing it for ourselves.

The Holy Spirit has spoken through the apostles “infallibly” at Pentecost and inspiring the apostles to write the New Testament “infallibly.” How difficult is it for the Holy Spirit to speak and inspire those successors to the Apostles and call to memory the gospel to teach and preach the gospel today infallibly?

How can the New Testament be infallible? Clearly the writers of the New Testament were with the grace of God, but even assuming that human language is somehow capable of conveying the fullness of divine truth, would you suggest that the Holy Spirit dictated each and every word as it was recorded?

So Theosis is never capable of teaching the faith and morals “infallibly”, because man is producing Theosis from disciplines it cannot be infallible? I am not addressing Theosis here, I am addressing the man enlightened by Theosis.

No, man does not produce theosis. It is a divine gift given to only a select few. Many of the great saints throughout the Church were never bestowed with the vision of the uncreated light.

So Theosis is out of the equation when it comes to a Holy Council? If you claim Theosis was used before by the Church Fathers, and is a gift for the Church, what prevents Theosis from being used in the Church?

Theosis occurs even to this day. In Arizona for example, there is a very holy elder who has seen the uncreated light. If you were to confess to him, he could tell you everything you have ever done before you opened your mouth. There are more on Athos, and indeed various monasteries across the globe. You can find hermits who have experienced such things (youtube.com/watch?v=Ap7kreDRzgQ). If you listen to these individuals speak on ecumenism, you will find they condemn it on all grounds - calling it the “heresy of heresies”. Despite this, many leaders in the Church disregard their words. They have agendas and are modernists at heart.

Ecumenism is not an ideology to surrender too, Ecumenism is a pause to stop, listen and be still and know God is God. For party oppositions to turn about face and face each other with Truth and not lies. We cannot put our light under a basket, the light is for all to see.

Ecumenism does not mean to adopt another’s ideology but to listen and learn each others position, so that Evangelization can begin it’s True path without declaring war. If opposition persists, at least Truth was heard. After all Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word, not resisting or refusing to hear.

And what are the fruits of ecumenism? Has anyone converted? Has anyone been shown the error of their ways? No, because ecumenism aims at no such thing. It is self-indulgent, rooted in the concept of religious syncretism. It is a platform for common prayer and the dilution of the Faith.

I fear those who oppose Ecumensim “peace to communicate” are protecting something dark, and fear the light will expose them. Ecumensim allows the light to be shown on all ideologies, not to accept them.

We are not living in the same days as our Early Fathers, they have layed down the path of faith to follow. So we carry the substance of the gospel into new ages, new languages new peoples so that they can hear the Gospel in their hearing and understanding so as to see with the True Light of God, what God has revealed in the Son.

Without obedience to the Fathers, we are truly lost. It is the modernist spirit of the ecumenical movement that seeks to undermine their teachings.

 

[Mickey]

And what are the fruits of ecumenism? Has anyone converted? Has anyone been shown the error of their ways? No, because ecumenism aims at no such thing. It is self-indulgent, rooted in the concept of religious syncretism. It is a platform for common prayer and the dilution of the Faith.

:yup:

Without obedience to the Fathers, we are truly lost. It is the modernist spirit of the ecumenical movement that seeks to undermine their teachings.

:yup:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mark of Ephesus;9004813]The seer of uncreated light cannot fully convey that truth in human language. This does not mean that we should disregard his writings. Quite the opposite. Such words are the closest understanding we have of Truth without actually seeing it for ourselves.

Does your seer reveal a new Truth? I don’t understand how you have your seer who cannot convey truth in human language, yet writes? with words the closest understandings we have to Truth?

Why do we need these seer, if Jesus is Truth and has already revealed Truth so that all can understand and come to faith?

What truth does your seer reveal that Jesus has not already revealed?

How can the New Testament be infallible?

Do you question the infallibility of the New Testament?

Clearly the writers of the New Testament were with the grace of God, but even assuming that human language is somehow capable of conveying the fullness of divine truth, would you suggest that the Holy Spirit dictated each and every word as it was recorded?

According to Sacred Tradition the Holy Spirit inspired these to write the infallible teachings of Jesus Christ, in human words that convey that Truth that is heard and interpreted from the teacher (Church) of these writings, thus we have both written and Oral Traditions handed down to convey the revelations of God to every age.

I did not say human language is capable of conveying the “Fullness of divine Truth”? Jesus is Truth and Jesus revealed Truth. Are you implying that Orthodoxy possesses a truth that is revealed outside of Jesus Christ, from your seer’s?

What truth does a seer possess or communicates outside of what Jesus already revealed?

No, man does not produce theosis. It is a divine gift given to only a select few. Many of the great saints throughout the Church were never bestowed with the vision of the uncreated light.

St.Steven vision saw Jesus siting at the right hand of God, St.Peter was given a vision from heaven to allow the Gentiles into the Church, Saul later St.Paul confessed to speaking directly to Jesus in a vision, St.Bernadett saw a vision of heaven, 3 Portuguese children was given a vision from heaven. All of these revealed an already revealed Truth of Jesus Christ all their messages simply put “repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ”.

Can you give an account of a past “Seer’s” vision and the message of truth it conveyed?

Theosis occurs even to this day. In Arizona for example, there is a very holy elder who has seen the uncreated light. If you were to confess to him, he could tell you everything you have ever done before you opened your mouth. There are more on Athos, and indeed various monasteries across the globe. You can find hermits who have experienced such things (youtube.com/watch?v=Ap7kreDRzgQ). If you listen to these individuals speak on ecumenism, you will find they condemn it on all grounds - calling it the “heresy of heresies”. Despite this, many leaders in the Church disregard their words. They have agendas and are modernists at heart.

Before I could listen to anyone seer’s vision and opinions of ecumenism? Have these visions ever held up to the scrutiny of the Church so as to prove their authenticity? or do you take these visions as truth without signs and wonders which should qualify them?

And what are the fruits of ecumenism? Has anyone converted? Has anyone been shown the error of their ways? No, because ecumenism aims at no such thing. It is self-indulgent, rooted in the concept of religious syncretism. It is a platform for common prayer and the dilution of the Faith.

Fruits of ecumenism? A path has been set just like this forum to communicate our faith. Without this ecumenical forum, you and I would of probably never would of communicated in our lives. Conversions? Yes, many some include whole community Church’s due to ecumenical efforts. The error of ones way need not be shown by anyone, God is the one who judges the hearts of men, when they hear the Truth via ecumenical efforts, it is the Truth that sets man free, so that no man may boast.

I disagree ecumenism is a platform for one man’s truth to face another man’s truth in peace, without blood shed. The common prayer is to pray God reveal Truth to both of these so that man can grow together in knowledge and understanding of one another.

Before love can be reached, Lovers need to meet first, ecumenism is a platform to reach out and “snatch those out of the fire”. Love is never luke warm.

I meet you here through this ecumenical forum not to convert you, but to see your point of view and pray you see and understand mine before discounting them away. There is no need to fear, If you have Truth.

Without obedience to the Fathers, we are truly lost. It is the modernist spirit of the ecumenical movement that seeks to undermine their teachings.

Obedience to the Father is to proclaim the gospel in season and out of season. It is fear of Truth and fear of being persecuted for proclaiming Truth that undermines the Fathers teachings. Because one has true peace, true love and Truth in ones heart and is willing to sacrifice himself inorder to share this pearl of Grace with ones friends and enemies is not undermining the Fathers but following them while carrying ones Cross.

We approach ecumenical efforts differently, I approach ecumenism with anyone willing to listen to my hope in Jesus without fear. You approach ecumenism with fear as it will undermine your faith.

I conclude if you have Truth, what is it you fear from ecumenical efferts?

 

[Mickey]

Does your seer reveal a new Truth?

There is one Truth. These saints reveal the truth of Christ in the uncreated light.

Why do we need these seer

Why do we need saints?

What truth does your seer reveal that Jesus has not already revealed?

These saints are blessed to experience the same uncreated light that Christ revealed on Mount Tabor…the same uncreated light that shone in the face of Moses.

Are you implying that Orthodoxy possesses a truth that is revealed outside of Jesus Christ, from your seer’s?

It is the uncreated light of Christ that certain saints have experienced.

What truth does a seer possess or communicates outside of what Jesus already revealed?

It is the same uncreated light of Christ that these saints have experienced.

It is very sad that you feel the need to repeatedly use the word “seer” (instead of saint) in a derogatory manner regarding the Divine Energies and the Uncreated Light.

I would think that your insults are not appreciated here… by Orthodox and Eastern Catholics alike.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Does your seer reveal a new Truth?

No. As Mickey said, there is but one Truth. When an individual becomes glorified (i.e. becomes a “see-r” of uncreated light), he is endowed with knowledge of the truth as were the apostles on Pentecost

I don’t understand how you have your seer who cannot convey truth in human language, yet writes? with words the closest understandings we have to Truth?

Why do we need these seer, if Jesus is Truth and has already revealed Truth so that all can understand and come to faith?

What truth does your seer reveal that Jesus has not already revealed?

Jesus is the fullness of Truth, there is no revelation outside of him. Those who behold the uncreated light do not see anything new. They behold God himself, and in doing so, faith and hope pass away - only love remains. You see, our concepts of God, Sacred Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, the councils of the Church all serve as a means to an end. As wondrous as they are, they do not convey truth in fullness. Texts, councils, etc. present and defend the means by which we are purified, illumined, and (God willing) glorified.

Do you question the infallibility of the New Testament?

Looking over my posts on this thread, I seem to have only created more confusion. If infallibility implies something is certainly true, then no. I would say the Bible conveys “infallible” truths (as do the councils). If infallibility implies the fullness of truth (which is how I have heard some use it), then yes, I do not believe the Bible to be infallible (as human words cannot convey Truth in fullness). If infallibility implies it was revealed directly from God (I have also heard others use it this way), then yes, I do not believe it to be infallible.

I sincerely apologize for being so ambiguous with my interpretation of the word “infallible”. I hope that clears up what I was getting at.

According to Sacred Tradition the Holy Spirit inspired these to write the infallible teachings of Jesus Christ, in human words that convey that Truth that is heard and interpreted from the teacher (Church) of these writings, thus we have both written and Oral Traditions handed down to convey the revelations of God to every age.

What exactly do you mean by inspired? Do you believe the Holy Spirit dictated the words themselves?

I did not say human language is capable of conveying the “Fullness of divine Truth”? Jesus is Truth and Jesus revealed Truth. Are you implying that Orthodoxy possesses a truth that is revealed outside of Jesus Christ, from your seer’s?

Absolutely not. The Truth revealed (i.e. the uncreated light) is God himself.

Can you give an account of a past “Seer’s” vision and the message of truth it conveyed?

St. Paul was temporarily blinded by the uncreated light and consequently spoke divine truths. Pentecost (“tongues of fire”) glorified the apostles. The experience of theosis does not bring new revelation, rather it confirms and conveys truth concerning God. Someone who has undergone theosis no longer needs doctrines or dogmas because truth is now evident and understood. This is why Orthodoxy is empirical rather than metaphysical.

Before I could listen to anyone seer’s vision and opinions of ecumenism? Have these visions ever held up to the scrutiny of the Church so as to prove their authenticity? or do you take these visions as truth without signs and wonders which should qualify them?

All who have seen the uncreated light confirm themselves because they speak in unity. Take any individual who has seen the uncreated light over the course of the years. They will speak the same truths concerning God as do our saints of recent memory.

Also, those undergoing such things no longer require food or sleep. They are clairvoyant and can communicate with other glorified people over great distances without words (noetically). They are often great miracle workers.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Fruits of ecumenism? A path has been set just like this forum to communicate our faith. Without this ecumenical forum, you and I would of probably never would of communicated in our lives. Conversions? Yes, many some include whole community Church’s due to ecumenical efforts. The error of ones way need not be shown by anyone, God is the one who judges the hearts of men, when they hear the Truth via ecumenical efforts, it is the Truth that sets man free, so that no man may boast.

I would have to disagree in comparing this forum (or any forum) to ecumenism. Were ecumenism simply a discussion (and somewhat of a debate) session, I would endorse it in full. That is not the extent of its activities though. No, ecumenism attempts to distort the Faith through simplification (via “joint statements”). It gathers Christians together for a common prayer (prayer, as the Fathers teach, is only appropriate amongst those you commune with).

Obedience to the Father is to proclaim the gospel in season and out of season. It is fear of Truth and fear of being persecuted for proclaiming Truth that undermines the Fathers teachings. Because one has true peace, true love and Truth in ones heart and is willing to sacrifice himself inorder to share this pearl of Grace with ones friends and enemies is not undermining the Fathers but following them while carrying ones Cross.

And yet, the ecumenical model has no precedent in the Fathers. There were no “joint statements” with Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, etc. No Father of the Church participated in common prayer with those who had fallen away.

We approach ecumenical efforts differently, I approach ecumenism with anyone willing to listen to my hope in Jesus without fear. You approach ecumenism with fear as it will undermine your faith.

I conclude if you have Truth, what is it you fear from ecumenical efferts?

I do not fear the destruction of my faith, but the possibility of the schism. Were many of the bishops of my church to enter into communion with another entity or deny Orthodox belief (as some are on the borderline of doing), myself and many other faithful Orthodox would have no other choice than to break communion with the transgressing bishops. I fear this as a possible reality (and it has happened several times throughout the history of the Church).

In addition to this, ecumenism confuses the faithful. What sort of example do priests and bishops provide for the laity when they pray with those who would deny the sacraments? The Trinity? Proper ecclesiology? They provide only scandal and instead communicate the idea that no significant differences exist.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

It is very sad that you feel the need to repeatedly use the word “seer” (instead of saint) in a derogatory manner regarding the Divine Energies and the Uncreated Light.

I would think that your insults are not appreciated here… by Orthodox and Eastern Catholics alike.

It’s my fault here. I initially used the word seer, though in hindsight, it was not the best choice of words (it carries a good bit of “baggage”). I literally meant one who sees the uncreated light (i.e. see-r)

 

[Mickey]

I literally meant one who sees the uncreated light (i.e. see-r)

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
It certainly can’t be accomplished by** compromising the truth**, which at its root is what ecumenism is all about. Look at all of these “joint statements” coming out these days which do nothing but attempt to compromise on the truth.

I am curious to know why my question has not been answered?

May somoene please show me where the Truth was compromised under any ancient council? Or do we not consider any council as ecumenical? What “joint statements” and coming from who?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

May somoene please show me where the Truth was compromised under any ancient council? Or do we not consider any council as ecumenical?

Plenty of councils compromised truth. Two big ones were Ephesus 449 and Hieria 754 (the former advocating Monophysitism and the later Iconoclasm). Both were initially called “ecumenical” but were later repudiated because they were heretical.

What “joint statements” and coming from who?

Lord have mercy!

catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=244

zenit.org/article-21012?l=english