However I can see why some would question it and I do not think we should attack people for being skeptical.
I will attack people based on their apparent motivations. There is no genuine or warranted skepticism from the authors of that article - they just feel that their self-attributed exclusive right to Orthodoxy is being threatened by the fact that the Theotokos appeared in her glory to the very church which is responsible and to thank, for the very veneration that is given to her universally as the Theotokos - Mother of God (you do remember St Cyril of Alexandria right?).
Also consider the Fatima visions.
I don’t know much about the Fatima visions, but I don’t see any relevant connection between Fatima and Zeitoun nor did you even make any, so I don’t know what your point is exactly.
As far as I know, no Orthodox church (and yes i refer to OO and EO as the Orthodox Church) has taken an official position with regards to Fatima. Here is an Orthodox apologetic article defending Fatima as genuine, and taking a polemical stance against the RC interpretation of the events in question: http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/alex_roman/marionology.htm
The denied authenticity of certain apparitions that occur within the RC church are based on valid reasoning - either St Mary is promoting some heretical RC doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception, or she is drawing attention to and hence seeking glory for herself rather than her Son. In the absence of such features, I would have no problem in accepting any apparitions or miracles within the RC church as divinely inspired - so your implicit attempt to prove a double standard has failed.
On many occasions the Coptic Church has denounced certain Marian apparitions within her own church, based on the context of these apparitions. Once a lady claimed that St Mary visited her house whilst she was sick and told her that she never needed to pray again or go to the liturgy, and that she (St Mary) would heal her and visit her (the lady’s) home weekly and serve her the Eucharist personally. The lady rang the local priest and notified him of her experience. She also told him that St Mary promised her as a sign that her (the lady) hands would start pouring oil. The priest visited her house, and indeed the ladys' hands started pouring oil in front of him. When she told him more about the apparition - how the alleged St Mary told her to stop praying and to stop attending Liturgy - he realized straight away that it was satanic and tried to persuade her of this. She being deluded refused to believe him. On his way out of her home, the priest saw a man on the street selling cooked food and who was loudly complaining that someone kept stealing his oil. It was revealed to the priest by God at that moment, that satan took the oil from this man's store and entered the lady’s house pouring it on her hands. So even the Coptic Church does not just accept purported apparitions at face value.
The main point is however, that there is NO valid reason motivating that ridiculous article at orthodoxinfo.com, nor have you proven anything by bringing up Fatima. The skepticism against Zeitoun is motivated by a presupposed idea that the OO church is not really Orthodox and that it is thus impossible for such divine revelation to occur within the church, and hence the authors of the article feel the need to strain in finding an alternative explanation. Valid skepticism is prompted by consideration of the apparent motives and purpose behind the apparitions.
But if you want to take a shot at Orthodox miracles try the bleeding Icons of Belarus http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping623.htm
Bleeding and weeping icons are too easy. The Coptic Church is replete with them.
In any event, I have decided not to (and was recommended by a friend not to) stoop as low as the authors at orthodoxinfo.com did, by even attempting to discredit an apparition made to the EO church simply for the sake of argument. It would only serve to outrageously offend people in the same manner I was as I read through that anti-Christ article.
To disagree is one thing, to arrogantly and condescendingly assert it as a self-evident fact without any substance is another (as you did on the other thread). This is the line of thought I get with most of the EO’s ive spoken to so far: “You aren’t Orthodox because we say so” - “Orthodoxy is an adherence to the 7 councils as ecumenical because we say so”. Please learn to validate your claim with reason, and then maybe I won’t sound so pi**ed off, even if you arrive at the same conclusion.
Actually I think that there are 9 Ecumenical Councils. The 8th during 879-880 and the 9th being during 1341. In fact until recently many Orthodox did consider the 8th and 9th to be Ecumenical and the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848) repeatedly references the 8th Council for obvious reasons.
Your response is a red herring as it is absolutely irrelevant to the point I was making which is namely; you define Ecumenicity arbitrarily, and you arbitrarily define Orthodoxy as an adherence to your already arbitrary understanding of an Ecumenical Council. As such, your declaration that I am not Orthodox holds no water in the objective world - you can and surely have the right to continue holding onto it as a personal belief however.
Also I am sorry if I sounded arrogant. I said that I am not going to debate the Council of Chalcedon which includes believing that the Oriental churches are not part of the Church.
Don’t apologise for your arrogance - there is no one who is more arrogant than myself. Just show me that you have good enough reason to be arrogant. In other words, if you want to be arrogant, at least prove you can get away with it.
The conclusion of my research was that the Council of Chalcedon was legit and a lot of the arguments by Oriental churches revolve around semantics and defending men condemned as heretics by the Chalcedon.
Im wandering how much of an objective research you have truly performed - did you consider Chalcedon Re-examined
by V.C. Samuel or The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church
by Karekin Sarkissian? The former is sitting on my bookshelf waiting to be opened; I am 3/4 of the way through the latter. I have heard many good things about the former, and it was highly recommended. In fact I was told that if there was just one book I had to read on Chalcedon that presents a most well-balanced and objective viewpoint based on brillitantly reasoned arguments and historical fact; then that was the one to get.
You state in the above quotation that the Oriental Church defends men who were condemned as heretics by Chacledon - please let me notify you of the fact that this is not true. The men condemned for heresy at Chalcedon were Nestorius and Eutychus. We defend neither. The blessed St Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy at Chalcedon, the condemnation against him was rather of an ecclesial-juridical nature.
I recall for you the incident in which Anatolius of Constantinople proposed a new formula - the aim of which was to meet the criticisms made by the many who attended Chalcedon and who were initially quite embarrassed by the tome of Leo due to it’s evident theological weaknesses. The Roman Legates feeling insulted that anyone dared to challenge any aspect of Leo’s tome, and being suspicious that Anatolius’ formula may compromise the tome’s ultimate authority or even overshadow it (due ultimately and probably to their concept of papal supremacy and/or their adamant position to assert the superiority of Rome over the true theological centre of the Orthodox Christian world - Alexandria), threatened to abandon the council at this point, which alarmed the imperial commissioners.
Although the text of the formula was lost, we need to take note of a very small change in the text which is significant to the point im trying to ultimately make. There is no doubt that the re-constructed form of Anatolius’ formula as “in two natures” must have been “from two natures” - the latter of which, as recognized by the council was used by the blessed St Dioscorus. What we find is that the Roman legates tried to object to the Orthodoxy Anatolius’ formula which employed the expression “from two natures”, on the basis that such an expression was one adopted by the blessed St Dioscorus. In response, Anatolius reminds the forgetful Romans that the blessed St Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy but rather (and even still so, falsely) for disciplinary reasons.
The Orthodoxy of the blessed St Dioscorus remained unchallenged, and he was only unjustly and falsely condemned as a heretic over a hundred years later (533, 680, and 787), by men who were never acquainted with him and who probably never even read a word he said. Unless you can prove otherwise, then you have no valid case against the Orthodoxy of St Dioscorus who was simply staying faithful to the true champion of Christology, his predecessor St Cyril.
Please respect my right to believe what the Orthodox Church teaches
I respect your right to believe what you want - but since you feel the need to present your belief to others as axiomatic, then please respect my right to challenge them.
I currently hold the opinion that the dialogue between the Oriental churches and the Orthodox Church have been fruitless.
Would you like to be specific; which dialogue for example and why? Please take some time to visit www.orthodoxunity.org
which prove that fruitful progress has already been accomplished between the two churches whether you like it or not.
The church’s have managed to agree on the substance of our respective faith’s: The OO church acknowledging the Orthodoxy of the doctrine presented in the EO councils and the EO church acknowledging that the OO church have managed to maintain the Orthodox position on Christological issues regardless of the absence of their contributions to councils 4-7. Both church’s also seem to be willing to lift the anathemas of the figures they respectively condemned: see Proposals for Lifting of Anathemas agreed at Chambesy, Geneva, 1st-6th November 1993 at one of the above links.