Fake OCA Saint Abp Dimitry of Dallas

[Barbara]

Claims being put forward that Abp Dimitry of Dallas and South for the OCA is incorrupt

Picture supposedly taken 5 years after his repose

What do people on the Forum think about this ? I don't believe it myself

[SavaBeljovic]

People often forget incorruption can be considered a punishment too: The Uniate Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos who signed the Union of Lyons travelled to Mt. Athos with an entourage of Uniate priests in the 13th century while on his way to fight the Hungarians, he at first went to the non-Greek monasteries on Mt. Athos and murdered monks who refused to accept the Union of Lyons.

When he left Mt. Athos to meet the Hungarians in battle, his army was decimated despite outnumbering the Hungarians. Him and the Uniates stopped in Mt. Athos on their way back where they died; however Michael VIII's corpse nor those of the Uniates with him corrupted -- which is odd as on Mt. Athos there are no incorrupt relics of any Saints, all bodies on Mt. Athos corrupt -- the corpses of Michael VIII and the Uniates all gave off a foul stench and have horrified expressions on their faces. They're kept in one of the Monasteries there as a reminder.

There's a story from the life of St. Nektarios of Aegina about a woman who got into an argument with her husband about his drinking. One day he came home and was drunk, and his wife slapped him. She felt bad about this and went to St. Nektarios to confess, to which he told her: "God has forgiven you but your hand will not corrupt even after death!" As sure enough, after she reposed, the entirety of her body except her right hand corrupted.

I believe our dearest brother @eish has mentioned that in Romania when they find an incorrupt body, they at first do a service asking for God to remit the sins of the person whose body is incorrupt. Only if it's discovered two-three more times to be incorrupt do they consider it to be a blessing from God and not a sign of a punishment.

The Roman Catholics often tout having incorrupt Saints and while many of them are fake (being covered in wax or such) not all of them are. Monophysites and even Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims all claim to have incorruption amongst themselves. Obviously this doesn't mean these people are blessed by God, as "miracles" (anything superseding natural order) can come from one of two sources: God or the demons.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's sorcery or demonic influence at work with the incorruption of Hindus/Muslims/Papists etc. but it could also be a warning from God. I know a few years ago the OCA invited these scientists to try to figure out why Dimitri Royster and they were able to "prove" it wasn't explainable by science -- i.e. no natural mummification occurred nor are the conditions in that church able to preserve a body that long.

We have incorrupt Saints in the Orthodox Church and we know what they taught and how they lived. We unfortunately know what Dimitri Royster taught and who he belonged to. It's more than likely actual incorruption, but not as a blessing from God.

[NektariosLopez]

I know a few years ago the OCA invited these scientists to try to figure out why Dimitri Royster and they were able to "prove" it wasn't explainable by science -- i.e. no natural mummification occurred nor are the conditions in that church able to preserve a body that long.

I can't see how a group that considers something "holy" would allow it to be put under scrutiny through the lens of materialism. I'm not sure how this, even if it was the relics of an actual holy man, prove anything other than irreverence toward what is holy.

Didn't some Roman Catholics talk about wanting to allow their "Eucharist" to be put under the microscope to "prove" it's not merely bread and wine? I don't think anything came of it but I never paid much attention after initially reading about it.

[NektariosLopez]

wait a minute, appears they did allow it:

https://www.saintbeluga.org/eucharistic ... microscope

I was curious and did a quick search

[SavaBeljovic]

I know a few years ago the OCA invited these scientists to try to figure out why Dimitri Royster and they were able to "prove" it wasn't explainable by science -- i.e. no natural mummification occurred nor are the conditions in that church able to preserve a body that long.

I can't see how a group that considers something "holy" would allow it to be put under scrutiny through the lens of materialism. I'm not sure how this, even if it was the relics of an actual holy man, prove anything other than irreverence toward what is holy.

Didn't some Roman Catholics talk about wanting to allow their "Eucharist" to be put under the microscope to "prove" it's not merely bread and wine? I don't think anything came of it but I never paid much attention after initially reading about it.

Good point, it reminds very much of what we're reminded of "Do not put the Lord thy God to the test".

With the Papists and trying to use science, that's been a thing for centuries. They call it "ex scientia certa" which can have a variety of contexts, but in times past it was used to change things like the traditional Church teaching on heliocentrism (because contrary to what modernists claim, Galileo was actually supported and funded by the Roman Catholic church and his theories were adopted long before they were taught in the East) and ironically, the calendar.

There's one case in France where a priest was about to serve the Mass and started to have doubts of whether or not the Eucharist was actually the Body and Blood of Christ. As he was about to serve the Mass the bread and wine were transformed into actual flesh and blood. It's still preserved in a cathedral in France somewhere.

I don't buy this story for the reason that if the bread and wine -- which we know is only bread and wine by accident -- was transformed into the species/accident of flesh and blood, it would make it subject to corruption and go against the traditional teaching of the Church on the transformation of the Holy Gifts, as per what the Confession of Dositheus states:

"Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also says: 'Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,' that is worthily."

All of that aside, the Papists brought scientists to see this this transformed-flesh Eucharist and the scientists confirmed it was indeed actual human flesh and blood. Science will also confirm several miracles of the Buddhists and Hindus to be outside of natural order. I wouldn't put much stock in these claims as we have the Orthodox Church and better ideas of what miracles are. Whether or not they can be described or examined by science is unnecessary.