E
EIF5A
Guest
I do not. (I pray to very few saints. I’m not Catholic.)
- Status
N
nschmitz10
Guest
Who determines Eastern Catholic Saints? Rome? Also, I believe the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople now recognizes Saints in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
P
pablope
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
That is right…we want a factual account. For what would stop someone from just coming up with inspirational stories, in the first place?
R
Rawb
Guest
Incorrect. The Patriarch of Constantinople might announce that a saint in the Greek Church is on the Greek Calendar now, but he is not the Orthodox pope. There is no equivalent of the Pope of Rome in the Orthodox Church. Saints are proclaimed by the people, just as in the Early Church and how the Roman Catholics used to do it.
Padre Pio was made a Roman Catholic saint because your Church determined he had enough ‘verified’ miracles after his death. His life was investigated, but not the sole determining factor, because many very holy people are awaiting Canonization by your patriarch because they haven’t had the required number of verified miracles yet. IIRC it’s three, unless they’re martyred.
As much as possible yes. What I meant was that the veracity is not too important so long as we stay within reason. We’re not looking to invent saints all willy-nilly, and we’re not having a problem with a bunch of made up miracles either. If we were we would be more strict. But if out of 100 stories, one or two has some embellishments, it’s not a huge deal.
Besides, you’re Roman Catholic. Do you really think this doesn’t happen in your own church? Especially historically?
I understand what you thought I was advocating, but I believe I have clarified.
You’re asking if, say, I found out St. Peter the Aleut was never martyred, what would happen to my confidence in his story? Well if it was proved beyond a doubt that he didn’t exist I don’t know that much would change for me. His story wasn’t huge in my conversion, and I’m sure my prayers are answered whether or not St. Peter exists.
There wasn’t any saint who was very instrumental in my conversion, so I don’t think I can answer your question. If there was and I found out he didn’t exist I don’t know what effect that would have on my faith. Probably dissapointment, like finding out an internet friend who I thought I had was actually a computer or troll or something, but it wouldn’t shake my faith in The Faith, or in my church.
A mistaken bishop who acted in good faith retains more credibility than one who repeatedly lies to his flock about covering up abuse. I say this not to be antagonistic or salt a wound, but to put your statement in perspective.
LoL, really? In the off chance that a bishop happened to be wrong about what he was told in good faith, you think the entire theology and faith which existed for 2,000 years before he did must crumble? Again, see above.
I’m sorry if you thought I was implying that all that there is to saints is inspirational stories.
Perhaps a convenient statement, but hardly true. Unless one declares that there is a single, solitary, human source of truth who cannot be wrong, and that human source is proven to have been wrong, then the actions of one man have no bearing on the actions of an entire Church.
Not very much. We pray after every Liturgy in the Thanksgiving Prayers that the Theotokos will “…protect us from the slavery of our own reasonings.”
Perhaps I do not owe a response to someone who calls me a coward without knowing anything about me more than a single internet forum conversation. I suggest you think before you speak.
As it so happens I’ve never found anything from dvdjs to make me squirm, nor any statement from any Roman since my conversion to Orthodoxy. I am not afraid of any Roman Catholic argument.
Why I block people is no business of yours, and I cannot tell you publicly without risking offense to others who are not you, so I’m afraid you’ll have to learn to not have your curiosity satisfied.
The Orthodox’s first response to this freedom is not to start making up fun and miraculous stories. We hold them to be sacred, for goodness sake.
This thread is getting very off topic. If you start a new thread I might post in there, but I can’t guarantee it (this topic isn’t very interesting to me, and my free time is getting shorter than when this thread began).
P
pablope
Guest
D
dvdjs
Guest
This, together with the comments above on St Christopher (still recognized) betray a lack of understanding of the process and the history of the process for recognition of saints in the universal church. Suffice it to say that the development of a local cultus has been and continues to be a catalyst for recognition. There is an investigation of the facts of the persons life; miracles that have occurred through the prayed-for intercession are obviously highly probative, but are not necessary,
But the glorification of Peter the Aleut was willy nilly. One person, telling a story he had heard from one other person claiming to be an eye-witness. No local cult. This does not happen, and probably has not happened historically in the Catholic church. I think that one could expect moreover, a strict investigation when the claim represents an attack on another church. The idea of making such an attack, or repeating it with such a reckless disregard for the truth is the stuff of libel.
Who says that those who proclaimed the glorification of Peter the Aleut acted in good faith? There are serious questions about this from EOs on the links that I gave above. The lack of support for the case coupled with the gravity of the charge would make it incumbent on any responsible person to determine the facts. OCA did not investigate the case sufficiently, and there are questions as to whether it act in good faith.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The veneration of many martyrs could also be said to have been done willy-nilly by the same standards. Do you really think we have extensive records which prove the existence and truth of the martyrdom of every single second and third century martyr who appears either in the Eastern Synaxarion or even on the old Roman Calendar? In fact historians seem to think that perhaps the persecutions of Christians were not as bad as they are made out to be in the hagiographies. Are when then guilty of slandering the pagans when we commemorate these martyrs?
R
Rawb
Guest
I don’t. The Bishop does.
Perhaps, but St. Christopher is still a saint in your church, even though the evidence for his existence is on par with St. Peter’s. Your church also still venerates St. Barbara and St. Valentine, and they’re the same. You’ve removed them from the calendar, but you still claim they’re saints.
You have stories of saints who’ve flown, had visions, and spoke in tongues without any verification, but you accept them because your church has ok’d their veneration. You can’t hold us to a standard you don’t hold for yourself.
I know. I was giving an example. My second example was hopefully more general.
Actually no, we don’t believe in infallibility. We don’t hold the Councils to be infallible, bishops to be infallible, there is no “cannot err” in Orthodoxy. After all, the Bishops supported Arianism and the Councils supported Iconoclasm. At some point every source of authority in The Church (back when we were One Church) was condemned as heretical.
I don’t think we categorize these types of things as being an ‘act of faith’ or not. Everything should be an act of faith. As for the rest of your question see above, but think through what you’re saying: If not having ‘sufficient evidence’ (a subjective standard) for the existence of a saint means that a church which believes itself to be incapable of erring is, therefor, wrong and capable of erring, and therefor looses credibility, what does that say about your church which actually does say the canonization of a saint is an act of faith in which it cannot err and yet has canonized saints, the evidence for which is on par with saints who you yourself are having serious trouble accepting.
In perhaps clearer terms: Your church says it cannot err in acts of faith. Canonizing a saint is, according to your church, an act of faith. It has canonized saints who, by your standard for other churches, do not have sufficient historical evidence. Not having sufficient historical evidence seems to be proof that a church has erred on an act of faith and is therefor fallible. But your church’s doctrine is that it is infallible in these situations…
However, this is not a problem for Orthodox who do not believe in infallibility.
Ok, then change my “source” to “protector” and you can even add in “on faith and morals” if you like…but again, getting off topic.
I
Ion
Guest
Guys do not forget you are not the Pope speaking with the Patriarch on behalf of the Catholic/Orthodox church, and each of you has his own opinion only…
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
I request that you publically apologize to Rawb for your public slander of his character.
You without substantiating evidence called Rawb a ‘coward’.
I
Ion
Guest
Unfortunately bad things happened…I recall reading about martyrs at the hand of christians, starting from the early church, not only cross-denomination. I think it would be a mistake to consider it on behalf of the Church rather than on behalf of the responsible persons.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
I am not an expert on why the Catholic Church has chosen to make the canonization of Saints an official process. But I think I can shed a little light into the why, offer some benefits, and explain why it does not drastically change the process, in particular the fact that the process of becoming a Saint is just as much if not more dominated by popular devotion by everyday practicing Christians.
Covering these points in reverse order:
While it may seem that the process of canonization removes the ‘laity’ and makes it a top down process, the reverse is true in practice and by design. Personally, I am not in favor of requiring ‘miracles’ for promotion (it seems too much like ‘putting the Lord our God to the test’). The practical result, though, is that only those with a large enough popular following by the laity will be able to pass that test.
The process of beatification has two very important uses:
Verifying that a person existed and was actually a martyr and lived a holy life does not fix this problem but it makes it harder. It is much easier to use a person, deliberately or unconsciously, when they don’t exist. You can make up any detail you want, deliberately or unconsciously, in a way that is hard to do for a real person. For example, if the Orthodox church had done a full investigation on Peter the Aleut the way the Catholic Church does there could be no reasonable suspicion that he did not exist and he solely exists as another reason for the Orthodox to hate the evil Catholic Church. (Not that I care either way, I am not so silly as to think that there are no Catholics in the world who do evil in the name of the Church.)
Secondly, the verification of the authenticity of the saints and their lives help the faithful to more fully relate to the Saints and thus to be better motivated to be like them. The saints become not these mythical and untouchable figures of legend, but real flesh and blood that we can relate too. Knowing that a saint struggled with something and yet still lived a life of courageous faith help us who struggle with the same things to realize that yes we too can do the same.
Finally, as to the why. Again, I am not a historian. I am confident, though in saying that the differences between the Churches are due to the different heretics we faced. Catholics did not face near as much iconoclasts so we don’t have nor need all the rules about icons. The Orthodox did not have our experience with the Reformation nor the heresies that lead to it so they don’t have many of our rules and changes that resulted. While papal control of canonization began much before the Reformation, certainly the reformation led the Catholic Church to want to have more control over the reverential practices of the faithful. I would imagine that the rise of the Jesuits to counter the reformation also contributed to the scholarly nature of the Church.
Covering these points in reverse order:
While it may seem that the process of canonization removes the ‘laity’ and makes it a top down process, the reverse is true in practice and by design. Personally, I am not in favor of requiring ‘miracles’ for promotion (it seems too much like ‘putting the Lord our God to the test’). The practical result, though, is that only those with a large enough popular following by the laity will be able to pass that test.
The process of beatification has two very important uses:
- It helps to avoid politicization of Saints
- Verifying the validity of the Saint helps the faithful to become closer to the ‘real’ Saints and therefore helps them to live a holier life.
Verifying that a person existed and was actually a martyr and lived a holy life does not fix this problem but it makes it harder. It is much easier to use a person, deliberately or unconsciously, when they don’t exist. You can make up any detail you want, deliberately or unconsciously, in a way that is hard to do for a real person. For example, if the Orthodox church had done a full investigation on Peter the Aleut the way the Catholic Church does there could be no reasonable suspicion that he did not exist and he solely exists as another reason for the Orthodox to hate the evil Catholic Church. (Not that I care either way, I am not so silly as to think that there are no Catholics in the world who do evil in the name of the Church.)
Secondly, the verification of the authenticity of the saints and their lives help the faithful to more fully relate to the Saints and thus to be better motivated to be like them. The saints become not these mythical and untouchable figures of legend, but real flesh and blood that we can relate too. Knowing that a saint struggled with something and yet still lived a life of courageous faith help us who struggle with the same things to realize that yes we too can do the same.
Finally, as to the why. Again, I am not a historian. I am confident, though in saying that the differences between the Churches are due to the different heretics we faced. Catholics did not face near as much iconoclasts so we don’t have nor need all the rules about icons. The Orthodox did not have our experience with the Reformation nor the heresies that lead to it so they don’t have many of our rules and changes that resulted. While papal control of canonization began much before the Reformation, certainly the reformation led the Catholic Church to want to have more control over the reverential practices of the faithful. I would imagine that the rise of the Jesuits to counter the reformation also contributed to the scholarly nature of the Church.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
I am unaware of anything preventing any Catholic from personally venerating an Orthodox Saint. Official Catholic Saints applies only to public reverence and having their name used in the liturgy.
I wouldn’t have any problem with a Catholic praying to Peter the Aleut (mentioned above as someone who was Martyred for not converting to the Catholic faith.) Even a Catholic can appreciate the bravery for Christ, even if we don’t fully understand why he thought converting was so against Christ.
He certainly would not be the first martyr who died at the hand of a Catholic. Thomas a Becket comes readily to mind. It would hardly be surprising if there were others. As I mention in another post I am not so silly as to believe that no Catholic has ever done evil in the name of the Church.
Indeed, I would hope, that having more shared Saints would helps the Orthodox and the Catholics to better understand and appreciate each other.
It is important to note, though, that the sharing of saints is unnecessary. I am certain that the Orthodox have their own version of St. Francis of Assisi (the humble man of the people who single handedly changed the world), St. Thomas Aquinas (the scholar), St Ignatius of Loyola (Scholar), St. Francis Xavier (missionary), St. Catherine (the mystic), St. Theresa of the little flower, etc. They don’t need Catholic saints to lead them or inspire them. Neither do Catholics need the Orthodox saints.
It would be great if we could recognize more of the saints that we share. I would wish that more people in the Catholic faith would be more aware of St. Athanasius, or St. John Chrysostom, etc. St. Athanasius is a personal hero of mine that I secretly wished Pope Francis would have chosen as his namesake. (Not that I don’t like Francis, the choice was inspired.)
I would also love it if both sides could find some comfort and devotion for the more important saints in the other faith. I would love to know who the most important saints are for the Orthodox churches. I highly suspect Athanasius is near the top as he should be for all Christian Churches.
I wouldn’t have any problem with a Catholic praying to Peter the Aleut (mentioned above as someone who was Martyred for not converting to the Catholic faith.) Even a Catholic can appreciate the bravery for Christ, even if we don’t fully understand why he thought converting was so against Christ.
He certainly would not be the first martyr who died at the hand of a Catholic. Thomas a Becket comes readily to mind. It would hardly be surprising if there were others. As I mention in another post I am not so silly as to believe that no Catholic has ever done evil in the name of the Church.
Indeed, I would hope, that having more shared Saints would helps the Orthodox and the Catholics to better understand and appreciate each other.
It is important to note, though, that the sharing of saints is unnecessary. I am certain that the Orthodox have their own version of St. Francis of Assisi (the humble man of the people who single handedly changed the world), St. Thomas Aquinas (the scholar), St Ignatius of Loyola (Scholar), St. Francis Xavier (missionary), St. Catherine (the mystic), St. Theresa of the little flower, etc. They don’t need Catholic saints to lead them or inspire them. Neither do Catholics need the Orthodox saints.
It would be great if we could recognize more of the saints that we share. I would wish that more people in the Catholic faith would be more aware of St. Athanasius, or St. John Chrysostom, etc. St. Athanasius is a personal hero of mine that I secretly wished Pope Francis would have chosen as his namesake. (Not that I don’t like Francis, the choice was inspired.)
I would also love it if both sides could find some comfort and devotion for the more important saints in the other faith. I would love to know who the most important saints are for the Orthodox churches. I highly suspect Athanasius is near the top as he should be for all Christian Churches.
I
Ion
Guest
In both churches, Holy Virgin Mary is the greatest saint.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
As she should be. It is amazing how often Mary brings people together and to her son. Our Lady of Guadalupe was very important in Christian history as she allowed the true conversion of the Americas. One of my parish priests mentioned that Mary was also important in one of the early councils in bringing together Christians to understand Christ’s full divinity. For how else could Mary be the ‘mother of God’. It is my understanding as well that many Muslims as well have some devotion to Mary.
Hail Mary,
full of Grace,
the Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women
and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, mother of God,
pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
I
Ion
Guest
Amen!
D
dvdjs
Guest
Typically, the impetus for glorification arose from local cults of veneration. I have little doubt that this process lent itself to hyperbole and myth-making. (And while the CC in the 15th century or so, began to investigate the claims as part of the process of moving from local to universal veneration, this organic development of veneration remains important - even though, with modern networking, “local” veneration might quickly go viral, world-wide). As investigations also included saints of early history, the CC has also undertaken to be open about what aspects of the lives of early saints are certain, and which are in doubt. If there were unjustly accused villains in the story, I think that the CC might very well offer an apology. We are not a “never explain, never apologize” type of church.
This does not mean that every declaration must give no offense. Just that when there is likely to be offense, there is an affirmative effort to makes sure that all the facts are in order.
There may be controversies, or it may be that we are not be able to confirm every detail of every saint, in particular the early ones. But that is not really comparable to the the glorification of a new saint, of very recent times, for whom there is admittedly terribly poor documentation, and for whom the approach to glorification was so oddly top-down.
E
EIF5A
Guest
Of the few saints I pray to, one of them is St. Mary of Egypt. (Granted, she is pre-schism.)
I don’t care if it turns out that she didn’t actually walk across water. I also don’t care if a lion didn’t help dig her grave. What’s most important to me is her act of contrition and her victory over temptation. (I do hope that part is real, however.)
I don’t care if it turns out that she didn’t actually walk across water. I also don’t care if a lion didn’t help dig her grave. What’s most important to me is her act of contrition and her victory over temptation. (I do hope that part is real, however.)
- Status