Private revelations from God/Christ in the East and West

[EIF5A]

I’m not sure if it’s in the right forum…but here’s my question…

The western Church tradition contains private revelations of God/Christ to saints (e.g., St. Faustina, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Emma Galgani). Why is there less emphasis on private revelations of God in the eastern tradition?

If God truly spoke to these saints, wouldn’t they be useful for spiritual growth? Do they (the Orthodox, for instance) not believe that God spoke to them?

My personal interest in this question is that I came to believe in the Catholic Church after reading some of the writings and how they fit neatly with Scripture. My hesitation with the papacy and Real Presence were alleviated because I believed God spoke to them.

But because the eastern tradition, which I believe is also guided by the Holy Spirit, does not accept what I believe in (e.g., papal claims), and because I based my belief after reading the writings of saints, I’m constantly worried and doubtful that my foundation of faith in the Church is wrong.

On a similar note, has any private revelation from the west spoken about the east or vice-versa? Did God ever say to a western saint anything about the east?

Are both traditions equally valid and acceptable to God?

Sorry…I realize my train of thought is convoluted…

 

[dzheremi]

I’m not sure if it’s in the right forum…but here’s my question…

The western Church tradition contains private revelations of God/Christ to saints (e.g., St. Faustina, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Emma Galgani). Why is there less emphasis on private revelations of God in the eastern tradition?

Among other reasons, there is the fact that there is to be no new revelation. Consider that St. Jude tells us that the faith was once delivered to the saints.

If God truly spoke to these saints, wouldn’t they be useful for spiritual growth? Do they (the Orthodox, for instance) not believe that God spoke to them?

By “them”, do you mean the particular Roman Catholic saints you mentioned earlier, or Roman Catholics in general, or…? Orthodox do not believe in post-Schism RC saints, so you’d be unlikely to find any who would affirm anything they supposedly received via “revelations” that are also not accepted by the Orthodox Church. To believe otherwise would effectively place a person outside the bounds of Orthodoxy, in the same way that a Roman Catholic who believed in the Anglican “branch theory” (y’know, we’re all one church somehow, even if we have wildly different and conflicting ideas on everything that this means) would be betraying his or her own ecclesiology. At the same time, however, it should be noted that Orthodoxy does not theologize outside of itself, i.e., while we know what it means to be Orthodox and have some very developed ideas about that, whatever else is out there is not for us to make definitive proclamations about. We know that the Holy Spirit may move those who are outside of the Church, but in terms of affirming any particular vision or any particular person…you won’t find that.

My personal interest in this question is that I came to believe in the Catholic Church after reading some of the writings and how they fit neatly with Scripture. My hesitation with the papacy and Real Presence were alleviated because I believed God spoke to them.

But because the eastern tradition, which I believe is also guided by the Holy Spirit, does not accept what I believe in (e.g., papal claims), and because I based my belief after reading the writings of saints, I’m constantly worried and doubtful that my foundation of faith in the Church is wrong.

What does this necessarily have to do with belief in private revelations, though? Certainly there are those in the RC communion (particularly Eastern/Oriental Catholics) who do not believe in any RC-approved apparition, and yet remain Catholic just the same. I can’t provide you spiritual advice, but I will say that the belief in any particular church is probably better informed by its dogmatic stances (those things that it absolutely requires of a believer) than by optional beliefs like private revelation. So if your comfort with any particular piece of dogma rests on acceptance of private revelation…um…I’d talk to an RC priest about that, not anybody here.

On a similar note, has any private revelation from the west spoken about the east or vice-versa? Did God ever say to a western saint anything about the east?

There is the infamous incident at Fatima, Portugal (IIRC) where St. Mary apparently called for the “conversion of Russia”, though various theories abound as to what exactly that means (e.g., to RCism or away from Communism to a diferent political philosophy). As for the East speaking about the West, I don’t know of any, but given how private revelations are viewed in the East, I have a hard time seeing why that would matter. It is possible to read stories of our fathers the monks (ancient and modern) wherein the demons would tempt them by revelation, and so the fathers ran from them, knowing it better to reject a possible angel than to accept a demon just because they might like what it had told them…

Are both traditions equally valid and acceptable to God?

Isn’t that a question for God, not for man? No, both are not equally acceptable, insofar as one is contrary to the common tradition of the early, undivided Church, but I wouldn’t necessarily claim this observation to be God’s own words through my fingertips,

Hmm. It occurs to me that this is a very fitting way to end a post on this topic, so…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Among other reasons, there is the fact that there is to be no new revelation. Consider that St. Jude tells us that the faith was once delivered to the saints.

So the East received no new private revelation last 1000-1600 years? The fact there is no new “PUBLIC” revelation has little to do with private revelation and Gods will. Indicative by the Copt Church “apparitions” Egypt 69. Does the East differentiate the two? Where can this be read?

By “them”, do you mean the particular Roman Catholic saints you mentioned earlier, or Roman Catholics in general, or…? Orthodox do not believe in post-Schism RC saints, so you’d be unlikely to find any who would affirm anything they supposedly received via “revelations” that are also not accepted by the Orthodox Church. To believe otherwise would effectively place a person outside the bounds of Orthodoxy,

Two way street, The West is taught not to take there focus off their own salvation in the Church. In fact its taught in grammar school, at least it was.

in the same way that a Roman Catholic who believed in the Anglican “branch theory” (y’know, we’re all one church somehow, even if we have wildly different and conflicting ideas on everything that this means) would be betraying his or her own ecclesiology.,

Not sure what your saying or what this has to do with anything relating to the OP?

whatever else is out there is not for us to make definitive proclamations about. We know that the Holy Spirit may move those who are outside of the Church, but in terms of affirming any particular vision or any particular person…you won’t find that. ,

Oh, so your saying there is private revelation now, your just being silent and discerning but not investigating? I’m not following this paragraph as opposed to your first. So you affirm there is PRIVATE revelations from the HS, how do you know its not demonic as you suggest below, you don’t investigate nor as you say does the East pay any attention to it which removes focus, which I agree with?

So the East doesn’t affirm nor does it have the investigative procedure of the West. So how can the truth be discerned in the East? In other words this sounds like a minus not a plus.

What does this necessarily have to do with belief in private revelations, though? Certainly there are those in the RC communion (particularly Eastern/Oriental Catholics) who do not believe in any RC-approved apparition, ,

Two way street again. You have the statistics on this or just general sweeping statements with a very wide brush.

and yet remain Catholic just the same. I can’t provide you spiritual advice, but I will say that the belief in any particular church is probably better informed by its dogmatic stances (those things that it absolutely requires of a believer) than by optional beliefs like private revelation. So if your comfort with any particular piece of dogma rests on acceptance of private revelation…um…I’d talk to an RC priest about that, not anybody here. ,

In fact its what the West teaches. And there is no Dogma which rests on accepting private revelation. Couldn’t imagine what your talking about here. Read below

There is the infamous incident at Fatima, Portugal (IIRC) where St. Mary apparently called for the “conversion of Russia”, though various theories abound as to what exactly that means (e.g., to RCism or away from Communism to a diferent political philosophy). As for the East speaking about the West, I don’t know of any, but given how private revelations are viewed in the East, I have a hard time seeing why that would matter. It is possible to read stories of our fathers the monks (ancient and modern) wherein the demons would tempt them by revelation, and so the fathers ran from them, knowing it better to reject a possible angel than to accept a demon just because they might like what it had told them…,

Surely your not suggesting approved revelations would be demonic. I love the way you combined all that in this paragraph.

Isn’t that a question for God, not for man? No, both are not equally acceptable, insofar as one is contrary to the common tradition of the early, undivided Church, but I wouldn’t necessarily claim this observation to be God’s own words through my fingertips,

Hmm. It occurs to me that this is a very fitting way to end a post on this topic, so…

Here I’ll show you what I believe is a better way as per the CCC

67 “Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.”

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

Just to get you up to speed…

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a1.htm

Do you have one from the “Coptic” Church specifically in relation? Or do you feel its more appropriate each individual should explain as per his/her own understanding?

 

[EIF5A]

It is possible to read stories of our fathers the monks (ancient and modern) wherein the demons would tempt them by revelation, and so the fathers ran from them, knowing it better to reject a possible angel than to accept a demon just because they might like what it had told them…

In a particular private revelation, God tells St. Catherine that (I’m paraphrasing) a revelation from God should espouse feeling of deep humility and unworthiness. And Jesus tells St. Gemma Galgani to say “Blessed be Jesus and Mary.”

Also, if a revelation causes someone to repent and understand their sinfulness, why would a demon do that? I suppose a demon can trick someone into believing that a certain thing will happen in the future and entice someone with false revelations and pride in knowing “hidden knowledge”.

IMHO, I think it’s possible to “miss” beneficial revelations by being overly skeptical, especially if approved by the Catholic Church…which probably won’t mean much if one is Orthodox…

But again, I still remain very confused about all spiritual matters…

 

[GaryTaylor]

In a particular private revelation, God tells St. Catherine that (I’m paraphrasing) a revelation from God should espouse feeling of deep humility and unworthiness. And Jesus tells St. Gemma Galgani to say “Blessed be Jesus and Mary.”

Also, if a revelation causes someone to repent and understand their sinfulness, why would a demon do that? I suppose a demon can trick someone into believing that a certain thing will happen in the future and entice someone with false revelations and pride in knowing “hidden knowledge”.

IMHO, I think it’s possible to “miss” beneficial revelations by being overly skeptical, especially if approved by the Catholic Church…which probably won’t mean much if one is Orthodox…

But again, I still remain very confused about all spiritual matters…

True but nothing can occur in the future which adds to the deposit of faith. So while its also true that such an event might deepen ones faith and understanding of public revelation, or point back too it, its also true that it should confirm and point back to the public revelation of Jesus Christ as its priority, not distract from it. To me anyway this is where for example Fatima and also Catherine of Sienna come into play for deeper contemplation on the self and spiritual life, prayer, consistency in worship etc. Thus your rooting within the Church as a priority.

As far as demonic increasing ones faith in salvation in understanding of public revelation I agree, I don’t see where the two are consistent with each other.

Or the CCC…

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.27

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

Anyway, so yes there’s a discernment process in correct understanding of priority.

 

[dzheremi]

So the East received no new private revelation last 1000-1600 years? The fact there is no new “PUBLIC” revelation has little to do with private revelation and Gods will. Indicative by the Copt Church “apparitions” Egypt 69. Does the East differentiate the two? Where can this be read?

Zeitoun has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. That was an apparition only; it didn’t “reveal” anything (it didn’t speak at all). And I don’t know about making the kind of distinction you’re asking about. It might be out there, but I haven’t read it. I don’t concern myself with revelations either way, but what little I have been able to find (as at Orthodox Wiki, which is fine for illustrative purposes, since I don’t think OO and EO differ on this point) simply says “no new revelation”, without distinguishing between different types.

Oh, so your saying there is private revelation now, your just being silent and discerning but not investigating? I’m not following this paragraph as opposed to your first. So you affirm there is PRIVATE revelations from the HS, how do you know its not demonic as you suggest below, you don’t investigate nor as you say does the East pay any attention to it which removes focus, which I agree with?

I’m saying that we can’t say it’s impossible for the Holy Spirit to work as He wishes within whatever community He wishes (as He is, after all, God, and thus never bound by jurisdiction), but recognizing this fact does not mean that we affirm any vision or any other thing that is claimed to occur outside of the Orthodox Church.

So the East doesn’t affirm nor does it have the investigative procedure of the West. So how can the truth be discerned in the East? In other words this sounds like a minus not a plus.

If I recall correctly, HH Pope Kyrillos VI formed some kind of committee to look into Zeitoun, but I don’t know if that’s standard procedure or how that compares to the West. It doesn’t really matter either way.

Two way street again. You have the statistics on this or just general sweeping statements with a very wide brush.

Why are being so weirdly confrontational about this subject? This question wasn’t even to you. I was trying to assure the OP that they don’t need to worry about private revelations since you don’t technically need to believe in any of them in order to be RC. To the best of my understanding this is still RC teaching. No statistics are needed to reinforce this point, since it’s not about how many may or may not believe in something.

Surely your not suggesting approved revelations would be demonic.

You may read my posts however you want. I wasn’t born yesterday; I know better than to answer things like this. I don’t believe the Orthodox monks have anything to do with “approved” revelation of the RCC one way or another.

Do you have one from the “Coptic” Church specifically in relation? Or do you feel its more appropriate each individual should explain as per his/her own understanding?

Do I have one what? I don’t know what you’re asking for here. I answered the OP’s question according to what I have been taught in the Orthodox Church. We do not live by revelations or miracles.

 

[dzheremi]

In a particular private revelation, God tells St. Catherine that (I’m paraphrasing) a revelation from God should espouse feeling of deep humility and unworthiness. And Jesus tells St. Gemma Galgani to say “Blessed be Jesus and Mary.”

Also, if a revelation causes someone to repent and understand their sinfulness, why would a demon do that? I suppose a demon can trick someone into believing that a certain thing will happen in the future and entice someone with false revelations and pride in knowing “hidden knowledge”.

IMHO, I think it’s possible to “miss” beneficial revelations by being overly skeptical, especially if approved by the Catholic Church…which probably won’t mean much if one is Orthodox…

This is all fine and well (I’m not going to comment on particular RC revelations), but recall what the section of my post that you have quoted says: It is better to reject an angel than to accept a demon just because you like what it says. So any person who feels they have had such a revelation may draw strength from it, or it more make them more humble, etc. It doesn’t really matter, in the sense that personal feelings about something are not a good barometer of whether or not something is true. All kinds of things have happened in the COC which are believed to be miracles (weeping icons, instantaneous healings, visitations by heavenly beings, etc.), but the most important thing is that they are not looked to as establishing a given practice, whether thought to be good or bad. In other words, you will not find any particular devotional practice rooted in what Jesus Christ told St. Pishoy while St. Pishoy was carrying Him in the desert, even though the whole Church believes that miracle to be a real historical event. Do you see the difference? In the RCC, these revelations are taken to be evidence that “God” or St. Mary or whomever wants this or that devotion to be practiced among the faithful (or sometimes confirms a particular point of RC doctrine, such as the apparitions of St. Mary when she supposedly said “I am the Immaculate Conception” or whatever), whereas for the Orthodox, if a miracle happens to a person, it is a cause of great rejoicing, but isn’t really seen as “proof” of anything beyond the fact that God takes care of those who trust in Him. If I went to my priest tomorrow and said that I had a revelation from God that I should do this or that, I have no doubt he’d definitely be more concerned than joyful. Spirits are not to be trifled with, so it’s better to be cautious, and if we “miss out” on something according to the RCC perspective, that’s fine.

 

[Zekariya]

An angel gave the desert father, St Pachomios the Great, a Rule of monastic life. You can read about him here: oca.org/saints/lives/2013/05/15/101384-venerable-pachomius-the-great-founder-of-coenobitic-monasticism

I am not a fan of private revelations that say [or are portrayed as], “If you do x then y will happen.”

 

[dzheremi]

An angel gave the desert father, St Pachomios the Great, a Rule of monastic life. You can read about him here: oca.org/saints/lives/2013/05/15/101384-venerable-pachomius-the-great-founder-of-coenobitic-monasticism

I am not a fan of private revelations that say [or are portrayed as], “If you do x then y will happen.”

This is a true and good distinction. I should not have written in absolutes as though such a thing has never happened, when I meant to write against the form of revelation you have described here (x then y). While St. Pachomios’ rule may be an exception, perhaps a better way to put it is to say something like “A supposed revelation cannot introduce any new practice that is contrary to or overturns what is established”, e.g., St. Pachomios’ cenobitism is acceptable, but things like the “Sacred Heart” devotion are not, as St. Athanasius warns us in his Epistula Ad Adelphium: “We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that “the Word was made flesh,” we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God.” (And of course Catholics would deny that this in any way conflicts with the practice, but that is immaterial from the Orthodox point of view.)

See, I tried to hard not to disparage particular RC devotions that it blinded me to an obvious counterexample to what I had already written…ughhhh, I hate topics like this that are inevitably going to get me banned. Hahaha.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Zeitoun has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. That was an apparition only; it didn’t “reveal” anything (it didn’t speak at all). And I don’t know about making the kind of distinction you’re asking about. It might be out there, but I haven’t read it. I don’t concern myself with revelations either way, but what little I have been able to find (as at Orthodox Wiki, which is fine for illustrative purposes, since I don’t think OO and EO differ on this point) simply says “no new revelation”, without distinguishing between different types…

You must concern yourself, your here “elaborating” on it? Fact its an apparition for two years consistent is an “only”? In other words a miracle from God. I don’t see where we need to split hairs here. I understand the BVM didn’t speak there. Does that give this a different degree or value?

I’m saying that we can’t say it’s impossible for the Holy Spirit to work as He wishes within whatever community He wishes (as He is, after all, God, and thus never bound by jurisdiction), but recognizing this fact does not mean that we affirm any vision or any other thing that is claimed to occur outside of the Orthodox Church…

Amen, so that’s an affirmation.

If I recall correctly, HH Pope Kyrillos VI formed some kind of committee to look into Zeitoun, but I don’t know if that’s standard procedure or how that compares to the West. It doesn’t really matter either way…

I was under the impression its an approved “miracle” of the Coptic Church is this incorrect?

Why are being so weirdly confrontational about this subject?..

Sorry, I don’t know how you feel. But thanks for sharing I feel privileged. CAF is questions and answers. Your welcome to PM about this kind of conversation though.

This question wasn’t even to you.

Again CAF, is it possible I missed a rule or something?

I was trying to assure the OP that they don’t need to worry about private revelations since you don’t technically need to believe in any of them in order to be RC. To the best of my understanding this is still RC teaching…

Amen and yes its why I posted the data.

No statistics are needed to reinforce this point, since it’s not about how many may or may not believe in something. .

Then its an opinion, correct?

You may read my posts however you want. I wasn’t born yesterday; I know better than to answer things like this. I don’t believe the Orthodox monks have anything to do with “approved” revelation of the RCC one way or another…

I’m attempting to read them as they were indeed meant to be.

I answered the OP’s question according to what I have been taught in the Orthodox Church. We do not live by revelations or miracles.

Amen, by the supplied link and info, Rome doesn’t either.

So the investigative process of 69-Egypt, was there one? Two years there must be something with all those healings and conversion’s. Wow that’s something. So its approved, or is that the right word for the Coptic Church? Surely it was considered real by the elect? Or does the situation here indicate they don’t need to comment, elaborate or investigate as not to distract from the deposit of faith. Follow? I’m trying to understand the procedure of what apparently occurred. BTW on line it does say “approved” but the sight wasn’t official Coptic Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is the info, I referred to.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitoun_apparitions

 

[dzheremi]

You must concern yourself, your here “elaborating” on it? Fact its an apparition for two years consistent is an “only”?

What else would it be?

In other words a miracle from God. I don’t see where we need to split hairs here. I understand the BVM didn’t speak there. Does that give this a different degree or value?

What do you mean “degree of value”? We don’t rate these things. There is no “Blue Book of Miracle Values”.

Amen, so that’s an affirmation.

If you want it to be, I guess.

I was under the impression its an approved “miracle” of the Coptic Church is this incorrect?

Not sure how to answer this. If I recall correctly, the committee did testify that it was, in their estimation, a true miracle, but I dunno what to make of that. There are many more “unapproved” miracles that aren’t submitted to scrutiny by committee (like, all of them) but are treated just the same. I don’t think we have any set way to deal with supposed miracles. Probably Zeitoun is a bit of an odd case, given its high world-wide profile, the length of time over which it continued, its social significance (even President Nasser saw it), etc. But there are many, many less famous things that happen which people say are miracles. Since these are not the basis of our faith either way, it’s generally not a problem

Then its an opinion, correct?

I guess. What does it matter either way? The point is the principle, which is a matter of fact (that no Catholic is required to believe in any particular private apparition/revelation).

So the investigative process of 69-Egypt, was there one? Two years there must be something with all those healings and conversion’s. Wow that’s something. So its approved, or is that the right word for the Coptic Church? Surely it was considered real by the elect? Or does the situation here indicate they don’t need to comment, elaborate or investigate as not to distract from the deposit of faith. Follow? I’m trying to understand the procedure of what apparently occurred. BTW on line it does say “approved” but the sight wasn’t official Coptic Church.

Yes, as I wrote earlier, HH Pope Kyrillos VI did put together some kind of committee, and they did investigate it and say that it was true. As to the particulars of how they did that or why they did that, I don’t know. I don’t think it matters. If they hadn’t done all that, the people in my church who saw it would still have seen it. They’d still believe it. I’m not sure what else to say. Orthodoxy does not live by approved or not approved miracles, so I’m not sure what is gained by focusing on this either way.

Perhaps this short video from Coptic Youth Channel with Fr. Mauritius Anba Bishoy about miracles will help the OP and you, Gary, to understand the Eastern attitude toward these matters.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What else would it be?.

I don’t know YOU made the comment “That was an apparition ONLY” I’m trying to understand your statements and your Church. Which led me to believe you do have some type of rating for miracles from God.

What do you mean “degree of value”? We don’t rate these things. There is no “Blue Book of Miracle Values”.

Then what’s the purpose of the above comment? Is this the prevailing attitude you are speaking of in the East?

If you want it to be, I guess.

So you don’t know either way… “we can’t say it’s impossible for the Holy Spirit to work as He wishes within whatever community” That’s a guess? I guess not.

Not sure how to answer this. If I recall correctly, the committee did testify that it was, in their estimation, a true miracle, but I dunno what to make of that. There are many more “unapproved” miracles that aren’t submitted to scrutiny by committee (like, all of them) but are treated just the same. I don’t think we have any set way to deal with supposed miracles. Probably Zeitoun is a bit of an odd case, given its high world-wide profile, the length of time over which it continued, its social significance (even President Nasser saw it), etc. But there are many, many less famous things that happen which people say are miracles. Since these are not the basis of our faith either way, it’s generally not a problem.

If you recall correctly? Odd isn’t it? Or as you say… weird.

Of course there are many more unapproved miracles throughout the Church.

You keep saying its not the basis of your faith. Its not the basis of a single Catholic I know either, and the CCC is clear, in other words “we established that point” How about we move past that unless you actually can prove this so-called Eastern prevailing attitude. And that an opposing one exists in the West.

I guess. What does it matter either way? The point is the principle, which is a matter of fact .

The point is you have an opinion and no facts to your statement. There are no statistics you can provide nor can you prove your point. Thus what you think is not a matter of fact. its a matter of your opinion. Now do you have the statistics, any scholarly work, anything? Of course you don’t.

Eastern view we are on. In particular your view and that of your Church. Unless you are now the spokesman for the EO and the rest of the East and its Church’s?

Yes, as I wrote earlier, HH Pope Kyrillos VI did put together some kind of committee, and they did investigate it and say that it was true. As to the particulars of how they did that or why they did that, I don’t know. I don’t think it matters. If they hadn’t done all that, the people in my church who saw it would still have seen it. They’d still believe it. I’m not sure what else to say. Orthodoxy does not live by approved or not approved miracles, so I’m not sure what is gained by focusing on this either way.

What was gained is we realized here the Coptic Church also has “approved” miracles. Which someone must have been paying attention to or it wouldn’t be approved. Bit contradictory also to what you assume is an Eastern view.

Sure it matters, it contrary to YOUR very statements here, immediately above for one. here for another “whatever else is out there is not for us to make definitive proclamations about.” Yet this isn’t true in this case is it? Apparently not.

Perhaps this short video from Coptic Youth Channel with Fr. Mauritius Anba Bishoy about miracles will help the OP and you, Gary, to understand the Eastern attitude toward these matters.

I don’t see were he stated anything about an Eastern attitude. Nor do I see where it differs from the CCC above.

Faith based on a miracle has been dismissed here already. You cannot prove this is an “Eastern view” So no I don’t understand. I understand you have an “opinion” of the east and west.

And no a YOU TUBE film doesn’t establish and Eastern attitude. You seem to insist this is true only in the West but not the East. Yet as clearly stated and shown you cannot prove that. Certainly not true, that’s your opinion but again.

If you would like to believe Christians in the East have a different attitude than Christians in the West in relation, that’s your prerogative. But I see no facts here only opinion.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t know YOU made the comment “That was an apparition ONLY” I’m trying to understand your statements and your Church. Which led me to believe you do have some type of rating for miracles from God.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. I meant it’s only an apparition, not a “revelation” or whatever, since it didn’t, um…reveal anything.

So you don’t know either way… “we can’t say it’s impossible for the Holy Spirit to work as He wishes within whatever community” That’s a guess? I guess not.

Yeah, that’ll do. Unlike the RCC, we do not bestow “validity” or whatever on those outside of the Church. We definitely cannot say that it is impossible that the Holy Spirit may work in other communions (after all, if that were the case, how would heterodox people ever find Orthodoxy?), but we will neither be positivist about it and accepting of Catholic revelations, or other religions’ revelations, or anything else outside of Orthodoxy.

If you recall correctly? Odd isn’t it? Or as you say… weird.

Not all that weird; I wasn’t alive, or in Egypt, in 1969.

You keep saying its not the basis of your faith. Its not the basis of a single Catholic I know either, and the CCC is clear, in other words “we established that point” How about we move past that unless you actually can prove this so-called Eastern prevailing attitude. And that an opposing one exists in the West.

I’m sorry, did I say it was the basis of the RC faith? I don’t believe I did. The most I would say is that these revelations or miracles or whatever certainly established new practices and beliefs in the post-Schism Western church, such as new devotions which were unknown in earlier eras and are contrary to the Fathers. I would not expect any Catholic to agree with me on that point, but that’s fine. This is one of the ways in which we differ.

The point is you have an opinion and no facts to your statement. There are no statistics you can provide nor can you prove your point. Thus what you think is not a matter of fact. its a matter of your opinion. Now do you have the statistics, any scholarly work, anything? Of course you don’t.

Really…this still? Alright, I thought I made it clear why I mentioned that there are Catholics who do not believe in private revelations, but since you continue to harp on this non-point in the most annoying fashion imaginable, I think we’ve reached an impasse which I am not actually interested in attempting to resolve. Welcome to my ignore list. You’ve earned it.

 

[EIF5A]

The most I would say is that these revelations or miracles or whatever certainly established new practices and beliefs in the post-Schism Western church, such as new devotions which were unknown in earlier eras and are contrary to the Fathers.

Which revelations and practices are contrary to the Fathers…?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. I meant it’s only an apparition, not a “revelation” or whatever, since it didn’t, um…reveal anything. .

Right, no Blue Book of value on Gods miracles. “per your words”

Yeah, that’ll do. Unlike the RCC, we do not bestow “validity” or whatever on those outside of the Church. We definitely cannot say that it is impossible that the Holy Spirit may work in other communions (after all, if that were the case, how would heterodox people ever find Orthodoxy?), but we will neither be positivist about it and accepting of Catholic revelations, or other religions’ revelations, or anything else outside of Orthodoxy…

But your Church “did” as you say “bestow validity”.

Not all that weird; I wasn’t alive, or in Egypt, in 1969. .

You were not alive during anything spoken about on this thread, how’s that point relevant? Oh, wait…its not!

I’m sorry, did I say it was the basis of the RC faith? I don’t believe I did. The most I would say is that these revelations or miracles or whatever certainly established new practices and beliefs in the post-Schism Western church, such as new devotions which were unknown in earlier eras and are contrary to the Fathers. I would not expect any Catholic to agree with me on that point, but that’s fine. This is one of the ways in which we differ. .

Right, so now we established there is no different prevailing attitude East or West in this regard. There are “specifics” you disagree with since post schism. Yet as you said about 69, your were not alive then either?

Really…this still? Alright, I thought I made it clear why I mentioned that there are Catholics who do not believe in private revelations, but since you continue to harp on this non-point in the most annoying fashion imaginable, I think we’ve reached an impasse which I am not actually interested in attempting to resolve. Welcome to my ignore list. You’ve earned it.

Weird, you are on threats and insults now?

Really…this still…

“The point is you have an opinion and no facts to your statement. There are no statistics you can provide nor can you prove your point. Thus what you think is not a matter of fact. its a matter of your opinion. Now do you have the statistics, any scholarly work, anything? Of course you don’t.”

 

[dzheremi]

Which revelations and practices are contrary to the Fathers…?

While I had hoped to not get into this out of my respect for the sincerely-held faith of the RCs on this board, one that has already been mentioned is the “Sacred Heart” devotion. See the earlier quote of St. Athanasius the Apostolic on not worshiping the body considered separately from the Word. Again, as with any particular revelation or devotion springing from it that you could bring up, the Roman Catholic is not going to simply agree “ah, yes, this is a new thing and contrary to the Fathers” (nor would I expect them to, of course). So there is a limited currency to any particular example, because we will not only eventually have to deal with the content of the apparitions or devotions themselves, but also with competing ideas of what comports with the apostolic faith and what does not. For the Orthodox, this example is clear enough, in that it is not a devotion which is traceable to pre-Great Schism times (much less to pre-Chalcedonian Schism times, which is the standard of belief in the OO communion), and arguably violates the understanding that Orthodox have regarding this matter, which matches that of St. Athanasius the Apostolic.

I have, of course, heard other explanations from RCs regarding this particular devotion which seek to dematerialize its material aspects (e.g., that the heart is symbolic of the love of Christ, and not a devotion to the literal, physical heart of Christ’s body; the Catholic Encyclopedia goes into some detail on this point here). That’s fine as may be for those RCs who practice this devotion, but it can neither change the history of the devotion itself which speaks to its relative novelty (under “Historical Foundations” at the link, it is admitted that the history of the devotion is traced back to one Margaret Mary Alacoque, d. 1690), nor actually remove from it its physical nature which is part and parcel of the devotion. Not to mention that there is no tradition of celebrating or worshiping abstract concepts such as “love” even if they do come from Christ Jesus. We of course can endlessly speak of His mercy and love and forgiveness, but again, we do not consider them separately as “things” to be venerated, for lack of a better way to put it. We worship the whole Christ who is the only-begotten Son of God, neither divided into two natures (for us OO, anyway), nor any anatomical parts, nor feelings or emotions.

Believe me, as an adoptee of the Alexandrian tradition, including its heavily allegorical/metaphorical hermeneutic tradition, I do not object to symbolism. But it must be symbolism which is proper to the understanding of our Fathers regarding whatever it is that is symbolized. There are no Fathers who speak in support of the Sacred Heart devotion, though there are some who effectively spoke against it even before it existed, such as St. Athanasius the Apostolic.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St. Athanasius, do you have the work your speaking of?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m saying that we can’t say it’s impossible for the Holy Spirit to work as He wishes within whatever community He wishes (as He is, after all, God, and thus never bound by jurisdiction),.

After all!

but recognizing this fact does not mean that we affirm any vision (or any other thing) that is claimed to occur outside of the Orthodox Church.

Egypt 69

I fail to see St Athanasius “quotes” on this thread. I’ll be awaiting the work.

 

[EIF5A]

I’m more “comfortable” with some revelations versus others. Those that tell us to repent and seek a righteous life (something to that effect) — I feel like they’re beneficial reminders to strive for holiness.

There’s a particular revelation (I forget to which saint it was said) that said Jesus was glad (paraphrasing) to suffer for humanity. That one was approved by the Catholic Church, but I feel presumptuous believing it…

It makes me wonder why Divine apparitions are different in the two traditions. Does God reveal Himself in particular ways depending on the “disposition” of the faithful?

Devotions like the Divine Mercy — it gives me hope…but there’s this tiny nagging feeling that the chaplet is no more effective than normal route of absolution and sanctification. It almost feels like an easy way out…although Incarnation and redemption of humanity is already a “free pass”…

Is there any account in the Eastern/Orthodox tradition where a saint conversed with God?