To no one specifically...Perhaps, in some cases, (I will place no limits on God) but they certainly can never be saints of the Orthodox Church.
What about St.Isaac the Syrian (aka. St.Isaac of Nineveh)? He was undoubtedly
not a part of the "canonical Orthodox Church", but was in fact a hierarch of the then anathematized
Nestorian schism. This of course doesn't stop people from praying to him, taking his patronage, studying his works as spiritual reading, etc.
Or perhaps the popular cultus amongst Greeks surrounding the last Emperor of Constantinople,
Constantine XI Paleologus, despite the fact that he strictly speaking died in communion* with the
Pope?
(* yes I know, some strain to show this was not the case,
or conversly that he's not
really an "Orthodox Saint"... but the Icons and popular cultus seem to disagree with that assessment.)
One thing I would be very wary of is anyone showing stigmata as that seems to be a peculiarly carnal 'miracle'
I fail to see how it would be any more "carnal", morbid, or what have you, than the veneration of skulls, "incorrupt corpses", encased bits of bone, etc.
and I would also point out that Francis of Assissi is pretty problematic for Orthodox for a number of reasons.
I know the article you're thinking of (from
www.orthodoxinfo.com, which attempst to contrast St.Francis to St.Seraphim of Sarov), and while there was a time where I would have defended it's content, that time is past. Simply put, the reasoning involved stank, most particularly for anyone familiar with the life of St.Seraphim and his "revelatory" experiences (such as one in which he see's St.John the Theologian and the Theotokos, and they say something to the effect "he is of our league") - supposedly those of St.Francis are "egotistical".
He and many other Roman Catholic mystics pay all to much attention to visions and such and often seem to be suffering from the sorts of spiritual deception many Orthodox saints warn against (prelest (Russian), or plani (Greek)).
Upon reflection, I realize that such a conclusion can be reached when one reads polemics about Latin saints, rather than their lives/hagiographies, writings, etc.
And for the record, these are often the sorts of people I would find most admirable amongst RC saints - certain others, for instance Josaphat Kuntsevich, are so undeserving of sainthood as for me to find it difficult to even accept them as Christians at all.
To be fair, I've read two very different accounts of just what he in fact did/didn't do. Not that this should be surprising, nor does it mean either side is necessarily lying by default...far be it from Eastern Europeans to exagerate or let religion and politics mix, fueling passionate "massagings" of the truth (to put it diplomatically.)
My favorite RC story is the one where a guy claims to have met the Theotokos and she told him to build an alter to her (perhaps this is a typical story and there are dozens like it).
The problem is that the alter is to Her. Not to her Son. I don't think Mary would ever presume to have such arrogance and yet in the RC, this seems to be typical of their Marian worship. I'm not trying to change the subject but Mary is considered a Saint and there is a huge insurmountable fact that the EOC does not have the same experience nor visitations as such.
This is really unbecoming of Orthodox Christians, since it sounds so much like Protestant "Maria-phobia" - such as confusing the building of an altar in honour of the Mother of God (but which, duh, would obviously be used to offer the Holy Oblation to
God, not the Mother of God...as if Latins are retarded pagans) with an act of "Marolatry". In context such a practice of building shrine-altars is no different than naming a Church after (and placing it under the patronage) of any given Saint.
That is an awesome link!! I love when Orthodox theology smashes the RC`s weak ass reasonings. Can`t get enough.
The theologians have spoken.
I know that St. Seraphim of Sarov, among other Orthodox, take the attitude that, when one receives mystical visions, one should not look too deeply into them.
They should be taken with a grain of salt - which in my reading, is pretty much what any traditional Roman Catholic priest or theologian would advise as well.
By carnal with reference to stigmata, I was actually referring to the fact that they always seem to come about after dwelling or meditating on the physical sufferings of Christ and, at least in all the accounts I have come across, a strong desire on the part of the mystic to suffer bodily as He did.
While it's certainly a different spirituality than what dominates the Orthodox Church of the East, it doesn't strike me as being any weirder/masochistic/whatever than what some of the early martyrs like St.Ignatios of Antioch wrote, about their
desire to be martyred, St.Ignatios going out of his way to compare martyrdom in the circuses to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. In perspective, I don't see how a desire to identify with the principle of martyrdom (Christ Crucified) is really significantly different.
This in my opinion is dubious because it is a concentration on the carnal aspects of the Passion over and above the truly important spiritual aspects of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Wondering how "suffering" and "crucifixion" are clearly and totally distinct.
I'd also end by noting that in all the RC miracles of this type that I have read accounts of, the visions were not tested to see if they were of God and this is a very grave error according to our Church Fathers.
Then someone needs to
read more, since this doesn't sound correct at all.
What I think jmdedjl is saying here is that stigmata appears to be an outgrowth of the Roman Catholic concentration on the Crucifixion 'satisfying God for our signs' as opposed to Christ setting us free from bondage to Death.
An analogy is our respective churches in how we depict the Crucifixion. RC concentrates on the suffering and has an image of a bleeding and contorted Christ. EO has an image of a victorious Christ, and has Him looking more like He is sleeping after fighting a great battle.
The thing is though, I don't know that
either approach can be said to be invalid, since both involve analogy/paradigms drawn from the Scriptures - the judicialist one being just as much "Scriptural" as that of "Christus Victor". The problem that few who doggedly hold to either one want to accept, is that the Scriptures (and hence the Fathers) present many different analogies and ways of speaking about the "feat of salvation". For example, what many blame on St.Anselm of Canterbury, can be read in the writings of St.Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome (who is recognized by both Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians.)
This is of course, because what we're dealing with are
analogies - men (holy, enlightened me, yes...but men, speaking as men do) speaking about great mysteries, events of tremendous spiritual significance and depth.
Secondly, the unhealthy attention in the RCC is on the suffering of the Lord not suffering for Him.
Makes me wonder why one of the clearest prophecies of Christ (that of the Prophet Isaiah) is almost singularly concerned with His
suffering, which he (the Prophet) says happens by the will of God.
For that matter there is the now "Bl." Stepanic who supported the Croatian Ustashi (Nazi puppet government) in their genecide against the Serbs. Does anyone really think he is a saint?
Again, an issue which (put nicely) is clouded by a lot of nationalist rhetoric on both sides. Honestly, I've heard well stated arguments (with documentation) pointing to both scenarios. According to some, Archbishop Stepanic was a nut - according to others, most of the charges leveled against him came from the hands of communists who'd proven their enmity toward the Church of Rome, precisely because it (at least up to the time of Pius XII) was militantly anti-communist.
And some of those "miracles" might very well have been the work of the Evil One. Let's face it, no matter how holy you are, you can't be a saint outside of the Church. Roman Catholicism is outside the Church. I'll let you connect the dots...
I've come to think reality doesn't allow one the luxury of oversimplification. One need only read about ecclessiastical history in the first millenia A.D. to realize this annoying complication.
Some of the "devils handiwork" below...
http://www.livingmiracles.net/Images/Incorrupt/Guiliani.jpghttp://www.livingmiracles.net/Images/Incorrupt/Bernadette3.jpghttp://www.livingmiracles.net/Images/Incorrupt/dePaul4.jpghttp://www.kerygma.org/lee/vianney.jpg
