Orthodox view of private revelation, stigmata, visions, seers, etc.

[marciadietrich]

Hi all,

Probably a couple of weeks ago I did a web search (or clicked a link) based on someone's signature here about an Orthodox saint (Sephraim?) and found a page comparing that Orthodox saint to St. Francis de Assisi. The comparison was at times harsh, seemed to think possible demonic origin of his stigmata.

Now I do have a certain, well, suspicion about much private revelation, Marian, stigmata and such. Not that I believe it has any Satanic origin, but tend to believe it is either psychologically induced and especially many messages are likely the personal views of the seer's or the person/s who 'experienced' the apparition. Afterall people would be more excited to hear a message from Mary than from Jane or John Unknown. Probably most of the time the prayers and devotions are sincere and helpful, and not contrary to Catholic thought, but I tend to think not directly from Mary herself or God. Rather indirectly via the faith of the person/s involved.

So what is the Orthodox view on these things? A tendency to discount most of this sort of thing? Are there any cases of private revelation/apparitions/stigmata or related in Orthodoxy? If so is it accepted or not?

Many thanks...
Marcia

 

[marciadietrich]

St. Seraphim of Sarov ... that was the Orthodox Saint being contrasted with St. Francis, sorry for any confusion.

 

[Rilian]

I think stigmata is unknown in the East. I don't know that private revelation is discounted, many people have had visions of the uncreated light, experiences with God, miracles and so on. I guess we test their validity against the wider experience of the church to see if they seem authentic. That's my best guess.

I think I know which article you are talking about in regards to St. Francis and I don't agree with what it was saying (assuming I am thinking of the same one).

 

[grov]

The views of Orthodox toward various phenomenon tend to gravitate in 3 directions, as I understand it:
1. Psychosomatic - things such as stigmata are generally viewed as the extraordinary capability of the human psyche to create bodily effects based on ecstatic stimulation.
2. Demonic - many phenomenon are first presumed to be from deceptive sources, and are exorcised or tested in some way - monks are known to demand that extraordinary visitors "say the prayer" before being accepted as who they represent themselves to be.
3. Truly miraculous - if something meets criteria as making sense and/or persists after being exorcised, it is certainly possible that God is working miracles amongst His people. As an example of "making sense" - if a Eucharist takes on the appearance of flesh and blood, the first impulse is to believe that something is seriously amiss, whereas an emanation of uncreated light is less likely to cause negative alarm.

Orthodox experience profound miracles quite often, especially around certain ascetic monks - many have been known to read souls, some to bi-locate, many to experience transfiguration... you'll find a preponderance of experience with light, divine protections associated with holy images or icons, healings and other miracles accompanying physical contact with saints or their relics, emanations of fragrant scents or myhrr from saints relics or from icons, etc.

St. Seraphim is revered in Orthodoxy as a profoundly gifted saint. He often read people's souls, telling them things that noone could know, and telling them of imminent events to their great benefit. He told one guy where his stolen horse could be found.

This coming Monday, an icon from the 13th century will be brought to St. Seraphim's Cathedral in Dallas, TX. St. Seraphim himself, as a young boy stricken with serious illness, was miraculously healed before this same icon. We can't wait to go see it.

George

 

[marciadietrich]

Rilian, I'm pretty sure you are thinking of the one I saw, because it was harsh IMO.

1. Psychosomatic - things such as stigmata are generally viewed as the extraordinary capability of the human psyche to create bodily effects based on ecstatic stimulation.

Hi George,

That I definately agree with. We have a great power over our own bodies via our mind, for the positive or the negative.

2. Demonic - many phenomenon are first presumed to be from deceptive sources, and are exorcised or tested in some way - monks are known to demand that extraordinary visitors "say the prayer" before being accepted as who they represent themselves to be.

What prayer is that? Something invoking Jesus' name?

3. Truly miraculous - if something meets criteria as making sense and/or persists after being exorcised, it is certainly possible that God is working miracles amongst His people. As an example of "making sense" - if a Eucharist takes on the appearance of flesh and blood, the first impulse is to believe that something is seriously amiss, whereas an emanation of uncreated light is less likely to cause negative alarm.

Why a different reaction between those two phenomenon? For me I tend to balk at Eucharist miracles because to me they seem contrary to the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation which says it isn't a hunk of flesh, but rather the body of Christ in a miraculous entirety along with the blood, soul and divinity of Christ. But I would be skeptical on light as well, even if it appeared to be uncreated ... I take that undcreated to mean the light being from an object that wouldn't be lit normally or independent of both objects and any light source in the room.

Orthodox experience profound miracles quite often, especially around certain ascetic monks - many have been known to read souls, some to bi-locate, many to experience transfiguration... you'll find a preponderance of experience with light, divine protections associated with holy images or icons, healings and other miracles accompanying physical contact with saints or their relics, emanations of fragrant scents or myhrr from saints relics or from icons, etc.

I admit to being skeptical of all of the above. For example, reading souls sounds like the guys who supposedly talk to people's dead relatives on TV - or palm readers. It is knowing human nature, throwing out some generalizations to get things started, some good guessing and an ability to read people's reactions.

I suppose another question would be on what level is this sort of thing considered, is it purely up to the individual to decide to adhere to these things or not? Is someone considered lacking faith or unusual by other Orthodox for not accepting these things?

This coming Monday, an icon from the 13th century will be brought to St. Seraphim's Cathedral in Dallas, TX. St. Seraphim himself, as a young boy stricken with serious illness, was miraculously healed before this same icon. We can't wait to go see it.

Should be a wonderful icon to see. Thanks for your detailed reply.

Marcia

 

[Rilian]

I take that undcreated to mean the light being from an object that wouldn't be lit normally or independent of both objects and any light source in the room.

I think what this actually goes back to is the Orthodox understanding of the essence and energies of God, and how we experience his energies. This is an important part of how theosis (i.e. deification) is viewed. The uncreated light is the energy of God we access and participate in. It is uncreated, because like God it is pre-existent. It is believed for instance that the uncreated light was what was seen during the Transfiguration of Christ, but there are multiple other instances of this such as when Moses came down from Sinai and had to veil his face.

It is believed in Orthodoxy that matter can carry spiritual energies, they can become sacramental when infused with God. St. Seraphim struggled to acquire the Holy Spirit, which is the objective of all Orthodox life, a life of ascesis. In the encounter between Motovolov and St. Seraphim showed the fruits of this acquisition. His very face was transformed and shown forth with the brilliant luminesence of the uncreated light. It is why he is such a highly venerated saint, because his very physical presence was transformed by his holiness.

 

[marciadietrich]

So uncreated light means light that was never a part of the creation process but something that is a part of God himself that we aquire in the process of sanctification? Is this a kind of grace? Or more accurately said to be accessed by grace?

Will have to read more on theosis, I know a bit but might not be Orthodox view. Thanks

Marcia

 

[grov]

You asked:
"What prayer is that? Something invoking Jesus' name?"

I think it was one that would indicate an acceptance of the deity of Christ and the Virgin Birth. I saw it in several episodes of the Lives of the Saints. If I have time tomorrow I'll look up what sort of demand they made.

You asked
"Why a different reaction between those two phenomenon? For me I tend to balk at Eucharist miracles because to me they seem contrary to the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation which says it isn't a hunk of flesh, but rather the body of Christ in a miraculous entirety along with the blood, soul and divinity of Christ. But I would be skeptical on light as well, even if it appeared to be uncreated ..."
Because for the Orthodox the "real presence" will always be a mystery in this life. We don't accept attempts to measure the physical qualities of the eucharist to see if they might be Body and Blood of Christ (no theories of transubstantiation are necessary). Via the Eucharistic Liturgy we've progressed to a higher dimension, and we partake of His presence in a different place where it just doesn't make any sense to ask whether the Body and Blood are physically in the chalice - they most certainly are, because we've moved heavenward. In that place, we're more likely to see the uncreated light than we are to see earthly flesh and blood. A fleshly manifestation in the chalice wouldn't make sense - it's the wrong expression if we're where I think we are at this point during a Divine Liturgy.

You said:
"I take that uncreated to mean the light being from an object that wouldn't be lit normally or independent of both objects and any light source in the room. "
Yes - we mean the light that was there in Genesis before the sun and moon were created.

You said:
"I admit to being skeptical of all of the above. For example, reading souls sounds like the guys who supposedly talk to people's dead relatives on TV - or palm readers. It is knowing human nature, throwing out some generalizations to get things started, some good guessing and an ability to read people's reactions. "
Me too. I was protestant until a couple years ago, but recently was accepted into the Orthodox Church with my family after a period of catechumenate. Some protestants I'd previously associated with were all too ready to accept such phenomenon without question. But in Orthodoxy I found what I feel is a mature approach. By "reading souls" I meant a gift of knowledge concerning a living individual. I've seen so-called prophets use the generalizations you mention to convince the gullible.

George

 

[Matrona]

I admit to being skeptical of all of the above. For example, reading souls sounds like the guys who supposedly talk to people's dead relatives on TV - or palm readers. It is knowing human nature, throwing out some generalizations to get things started, some good guessing and an ability to read people's reactions.

Soul reading isn't like John Edwards if that's what you were thinking. Actually, soul reading concerns only the living, when a spiritual father is able to discern the state of souls around him. A Russian priest known as Father Arseny had this gift. There's a book called Father Arseny: Priest, Prisoner, Spiritual Father that goes into detail about his life under the Stalinist oppression and I recommend it highly.

I suppose another question would be on what level is this sort of thing considered, is it purely up to the individual to decide to adhere to these things or not? Is someone considered lacking faith or unusual by other Orthodox for not accepting these things?

Believing in miracles like these are up to the individual.

 

[marciadietrich]

Thanks for the additional information. Much appreciated.

 

[Theophorus]

From some of my readings of the desert fathers, they were highly skeptical of visions and what not. They always seemed to test any manifestation, with the sign of the cross or making the entity confess Christ etc.

They warn against using the imagination and this is, as you might have read, was the problem with St. Francis. The feeling is that it can become a weakness to be preyed upon.

The most common miracles I have heard about are that of experiencing the uncreated light; one monk spoke of being in its presence and then looking outside thinking it was night with a full moon, when in reality it was daytime;

and clairavoyance. Some elders have the ability to "know" certain things though they are not physically present. I have read accounts of people being apprehensive in the presence of certain monks or starets for fear of having their hidden sins exposed.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

This coming Monday, an icon from the 13th century will be brought to St. Seraphim's Cathedral in Dallas, TX. St. Seraphim himself, as a young boy stricken with serious illness, was miraculously healed before this same icon. We can't wait to go see it.

George

Are you in Dallas, too? I will be there for sure!

Mary

 

[grov]

Are you in Dallas, too? I will be there for sure!

Mary

We're in Weatherford - a couple hours west of Dallas. But we're trying to arrange to be at St. Seraphim's to see the icon. You'll know if we show up - probably the only family with a greyish dad, beautiful mom, and 6 kids.

George

 

[The Virginian]

I think that there's something we sometimes forget, whenever we begin to discuss "miracles". As beings created by God, with our sensory perceptions there are things which we're quite used to beholding. These things we call normal; however, when we begin to consider God, His actions and the things which surround Him, we begin to inquire into that which we do not commonly perceive. To God, all that He does is, I suppose, rather mundane, compared to what His essence is like. Think about it, an entire cosmos created by the power of a word.

The Psalmist recorded of my namesake Moses, that he understood the ways of God, i.e., why God did the things which He did. In other words when the Israelites saw water flowing from a rock; and were awed, it was no big deal to Moses (When you've seen the hind parts of the glory of God, everything else is, well, just plain vanilla.

When you read the biographies of any of the American saints ( Herman, Innocent, and Tikon, and more recently St. John Maximovitch of Shanghi and San Francisco, St. Raphael Hawaweeny of Brooklyn, you will find that they were given the gift of clairavoyance. As with St. Anthony of Egypt, this grace comes with the result of hard faught spiritual battles. Today however we tend to want to see miracles as a matter of course, like it's our Christian birthright. Not so!

While "miraculous" things occur around Orthodox Christians, these phenomenon are, if you will, a sideshow. The real spiritual action is happening everyday in the "mundane" lives of those engaged in the ascetic struggles of the Christian life, for the very air we move through is replete with powers of wickedness. They have all been defeated by the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that the source of our hope and faith may be the unparalled life given to us because of the love of our God for us.

I'm beginning to become more and more convienced in my belief, that we Christians use the word "miracle" in the wrong manner, considering all which we affirm about God.


"...AND IF I HAVE NOT lOVE, I AM BECOME AS TINKLING
BRASS OR A LOUD SOUNDING CYMBAL...."