Do eastern Catholics honor Orthodox saints?

[nightrider009]

Would an eastern catholic honor a saint that was declared saint in the orthodox church after the division?

For example, do coptic catholocs honor St Samaan, a saint who was canonized in the Coptic Orthodox Church in the 600s–after the division between coptic and catholic but before the reunion?

 

[suissemissed]

I’ve heard that some individual EC parishes have icons of post-division saints from the Orthodox churches, but as a whole the Catholic Church will not “officially” recognize these Christians as saints because they lacked full communion with Her. I am unsure about the liceity of the Orthodox icons put up by these EC parishes for public veneration.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yes, they do, and it’s entirely licit. They do so not just popularly but even liturgically.

For instance, in the Byzantine Rite, Orthodox Christians venerate St. Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday of Lent.

And thus, so do Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, they do, and it’s entirely licit. They do so not just popularly but even liturgically.

For instance, in the Byzantine Rite, Orthodox Christians venerate St. Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday of Lent.

And thus, so do Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.

I am very skeptical that Eastern Rite Catholics of any form would venerate any individual (in their liturgical worship or in their prayers or that they would encourage private veneration) who had not been raised to the office of Venerable, Blessed, or Saint by the authority of the Universal Magisterium of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church through a decree by the Pope.

Such a practice would be highly irregular and would indicate that " conversion " while officail was still unfolding at the spiritual level.

My opinion only.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am very skeptical that Eastern Rite Catholics of any form would venerate any individual (in their liturgical worship or in their prayers or that they would encourage private veneration) who had not been raised to the office of Venerable, Blessed, or Saint by the authority of the Universal Magisterium of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church through a decree by the Pope.

Such a practice would be highly irregular and would indicate that " conversion " while officail was still unfolding at the spiritual level.

My opinion only.

The Melkite Church (which entered into union with Rome in the 18th century) has post-schism saints on its calendar, like the aforementioned commemoration of Gregory Palamas on the Second Sunday of Lent. Doubt it to your heart’s content, but this is the reality which Eastern Catholics live.

 

[griego_catolico]

I am very skeptical that Eastern Rite Catholics of any form would venerate any individual (in their liturgical worship or in their prayers or that they would encourage private veneration) who had not been raised to the office of Venerable, Blessed, or Saint by the authority of the Universal Magisterium of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church through a decree by the Pope.

Such a practice would be highly irregular and would indicate that " conversion " while officail was still unfolding at the spiritual level.

My opinion only.

Linusthe2nd,

It may surprise you then to know that in the Martyrologium Romanum, the official listing of saints in the Roman Catholic Church, you will find “post-schism” saints, such as:

St. Stephen of Perm
St. Sergius of Radonezh
St. Gregory of Narek

Thus, in accord with GIRM # 355, a Roman Catholic Mass may be offered in honor of these saints.

 

[BusterMartin]

I am very skeptical that Eastern Rite Catholics of any form would venerate any individual (in their liturgical worship or in their prayers or that they would encourage private veneration) who had not been raised to the office of Venerable, Blessed, or Saint by the authority of the Universal Magisterium of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church through a decree by the Pope.

Such a practice would be highly irregular and would indicate that " conversion " while officail was still unfolding at the spiritual level.

My opinion only.
Cavaradossi;9942521:

The Melkite Church (which entered into union with Rome in the 18th century) has post-schism saints on its calendar, like the aforementioned commemoration of Gregory Palamas on the Second Sunday of Lent. You can doubt it all you want, but this is the reality which Eastern Catholics live.

Agreed. Beyond the example of Saint Gregory Palamas, I believe Saint Herman of Alaska and Saint Seraphim of Sarov are venerated in the Russian Catholic Church. Likewise, I have no doubt that there are those Catholics who venerate post-schism saints privately…even if there is no affiliation between that saint and a branch of Eastern Catholicism. One such example would be Saint John the Wonderworker. I, for one, have his icon in my icon corner and would suggest that his life, and the miracles worked during and after his life, make him worthy for veneration.

 

[RyanBlack]

I am very skeptical that Eastern Rite Catholics of any form would venerate any individual (in their liturgical worship or in their prayers or that they would encourage private veneration) who had not been raised to the office of Venerable, Blessed, or Saint by the authority of the Universal Magisterium of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church through a decree by the Pope.

Such a practice would be highly irregular and would indicate that " conversion " while officail was still unfolding at the spiritual level.

My opinion only.

Well, your opinion is exactly what this is–and it is wrong. There is nothing at all “highly irregular,” or irregular to any lesser degree about our veneration of at least one post-schism Orthodox saint. St. Gregory Palamas is officially venerated by both the Ruthenian and Melkite Catholics on the second Sunday of Lent. This is not a local or private veneration–it is on the actual official calendar. There may be other Eastern Catholics who include him on their calendars, but I know both the Ruthenians and the Melkites do.

Furthermore, I find your comment “Such a practice would be highly irregular and would indicate that ‘conversion’ while officail was still unfolding at the spiritual level,” to be very disturbing. The Eastern Catholics did not “convert” at all when entering into union with Rome. Non-Christians convert. Our various churches came into full communion with the See of Rome, we did not convert. Furthermore, in the future, if some, or all of the Orthodox Churches enter into full communion with the See of Rome, I hardly think that they will be required to give up the veneration their saints who are post-schism. If such a requirement is placed upon them, full communion almost surely will not take place.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, your opinion is exactly what this is–and it is wrong. There is nothing at all “highly irregular,” or irregular to any lesser degree about our veneration of at least one post-schism Orthodox saint. St. Gregory Palamas is officially venerated by both the Ruthenian and Melkite Catholics on the second Sunday of Lent. This is not a local or private veneration–it is on the actual official calendar. There may be other Eastern Catholics who include him on their calendars, but I know both the Ruthenians and the Melkites do.

Furthermore, I find your comment “Such a practice would be highly irregular and would indicate that ‘conversion’ while officail was still unfolding at the spiritual level,” to be very disturbing. The Eastern Catholics did not “convert” at all when entering into union with Rome. Non-Christians convert. Our various churches came into full communion with the See of Rome, we did not convert. Furthermore, in the future, if some, or all of the Orthodox Churches enter into full communion with the See of Rome, I hardly think that they will be required to give up the veneration their saints who are post-schism. If such a requirement is placed upon them, full communion almost surely will not take place.

I don’t think there is any reason to take my opinion personally as several seem to have done. Why does that occur so ofter on this forum? Why all this super sensitivity? Your response to my use of " conversion " is missconstrued entirely. And I would like to know by what authority post schism Eastern " Saints " are either still venerated in the liturgy of Eastern Catholic Churches or approved for private veneration? I don’t think this is unreasonable?

 

[babochka]

And I would like to know by what authority post schism Eastern " Saints " are either still venerated in the liturgy of Eastern Catholic Churches or approved for private veneration? I don’t think this is unreasonable?

Liturgically, they are venerated by the authority of our Bishops. Privately, I don’t believe any such approval is required.

 

[RyanBlack]

I don’t think there is any reason to take my opinion personally as several seem to have done. Why does that occur so ofter on this forum? Why all this super sensitivity? Your response to my use of " conversion " is missconstrued entirely. And I would like to know by what authority post schism Eastern " Saints " are either still venerated in the liturgy of Eastern Catholic Churches or approved for private veneration? I don’t think this is unreasonable?

No my response was not entirely misconstrued. Your posts smack of superiority, condescension, and triumphalism How you cannot see that, I don’t know. If that is not your intent, since they are sop often taken that way in this forum, I suggest that you take a different approach.

You basically accuse us of illegitimate veneration of post-schism Orthodox saints (at least one of whom is actually on our Church calendar), say that our “conversion” (not a proper term to begin with) is only official, and that there is need for ongoing spiritual conversion (I presume you mean we’ve not been properly assimilated-a presumption that I don’t think is unreasonable given the general tone of your posts towards Eastern Catholics), and then your surprised that some of us challenge you? Then, you dismiss the challenge as our being overly sensitive. I really don’t get this. Oh, I forgot. We’re just supposed to just back and take it, because after all, we’re the red-headed step-children who just need to accept the fact that we will only be merely tolerated until we become fully Roman

Finally,why do we need to answer to you as to which saints we venerate? But since you ask, the authority by which we venerate St. Gregory Palamas is that of our bishops. That good enough for you?

 

[nightrider009]

Im a little confused, guys. I know that several popes have declared that outside the catholic church, there is no salvation. And I know that many bishops still hold this teaching in the most strictest sense (which in my opinion is the most Orthodox belief). How then can the church allow the veneration of these saints?

 

[BusterMartin]

Im a little confused, guys. I know that several popes have declared that outside the catholic church, there is no salvation. And I know that many bishops still hold this teaching in the most strictest sense (which in my opinion is the most Orthodox belief). How then can the church allow the veneration of these saints?

There’s a good deal to be read on this, and some of it can be found at archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp.

Here’s a quick excerpt:

The key elements of revelation that together undergird extra ecclesiam, nulla salus are these: (1) Jesus Christ is the universal Savior. (2) He has constituted his Church as his mystical body on earth through which he dispenses salvation to the world. (3) He always works through it—though in countless instances outside its visible boundaries. Recall John Paul’s words about the Church quoted above: “Her activity is not limited only to those who accept its message.” …] Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus does not mean that only faithful Roman Catholics can be saved. The Church has never taught that.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I don’t think there is any reason to take my opinion personally as several seem to have done. Why does that occur so ofter on this forum? Why all this super sensitivity?

Perhaps you should go back and read your original post. Respectfully, it conveyed both an imperious attitude favoring the Latin Church and a fundamental lack of appreciation for the norms of worship of Eastern Catholics. It was expressed rather conclusively, as well. The reactions of many here should give rise to some pause and reflection …

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Im a little confused, guys. I know that several popes have declared that outside the catholic church, there is no salvation. And I know that many bishops still hold this teaching in the most strictest sense (which in my opinion is the most Orthodox belief). How then can the church allow the veneration of these saints?

Recent Pontiffs have written about saints declared by the Orthodox Churches, including St. Gregory Palamas mentioned earlier. Saints are models of holiness for us to emulate. For as many saints as we think we know, there are countless others that we will never know unless we are worthy of the eternal reward. Frankly, I’m confused as to why anyone would feel that a saint recognized by an Apostolic Church would not be worthy of commemoration and/or study.

The respect is mutual, by the way, and there have been several favorable responses from the Orthodox Churches reflecting on the recently named Doctors of the Church. While they may not be formally recognized as such in Orthodoxy, we have seen through and by this example that the Orthodox are capable of the same - contemplation of the holy.

 

[nightrider009]

BusterMartin, is the belief that there is salvation outside the church required of catholics? Do all bishops beleive that? I thought it was acceptable to beleive there is not. I am surprised that they would excommumicate someone for beleiving so.

 

[Rawb]

I have been told by several, though I can’t remember if they were Roman or Eastern, Catholics that they would find no problem venerating any of the following saints:

St. Anthony of Rome, who was part of a monastery that refused to accept Papal authority after the 1054 Schism. When his monastery was disbanded because of this, he prayed on a rock at the edge of an ocean and was miraculously carried to Novgorod where he eventually became a priest, an abbot, and reposed on August 3rd, 1147.

St. Macarius the Roman, who after studying in Italy during the time of the Protestant Reformation, renounced Roman Catholicism and traveled to Northern Russia where became an ascetic, eventually a monk, priest, and abbot as well. He fell asleep on August 15th, 1550.

St. Mark of Ephesus who is called a Pillar of Orthodoxy because he stood fast against false reunion with Rome at the council of Ephesus.

St. Peter the Aleut, who was tortured to death by Franciscan Missionaries in California for refusing to renounce Orthodoxy and become Roman Catholic.

St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, who used to stand outside the Roman Catholic school in Shanghai and tell the Orthodox children they shouldn’t be going there and during his time in France helped establish Western Rite Orthodoxy to facilitate Roman Catholic conversions.

And the list goes on. There are certain Roman Catholic saints I still feel affection for, pray for, and would ask to be prayed for by. Premier among these would be Bl. Pier Giorgio Frassati. However, if I found he had committed a slight against Orthodoxy I would sadly decease my actions. With all due respect, I find it difficult to understand why one would venerate a saint who condemned my church.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And the list goes on.

It’s a rather interesting and occasionally provocative list.

With all due respect, I find it difficult to understand why one would venerate a saint who condemned my church.

Likewise. It is also difficult to accept that any given Apostolic Church would canonize someone who openly condemned other Apostolic Christians or Churches. Any reservation about mutual veneration surely stems from concern over this single point, whether such condemnation was subtle, overt or merely suspected.

 

[Rawb]

Likewise. It is also difficult to accept that any given Apostolic Church would canonize someone who openly condemned other Apostolic Christians or Churches.

I don’t find that difficult at all to believe. It is only recently that the churches looked upon one another with anything other than mistrust anyway, but it must be remembered that who maintains Apostolic Succession is not so clear cut in the East as it is in the West.

There’s also the fact that the Romans just beatified Cardinal Newman. Especially given the lack of distinction between Blessed, Saint, Holy, Venerable, etc. in Eastern Christianity, the Anglicans could make the same complaint about Cardinal Newman that is made here about other saints.

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t find that difficult at all to believe. It is only recently that the churches looked upon one another with anything other than mistrust anyway, but it must be remembered that who maintains Apostolic Succession is not so clear cut in the East as it is in the West.

There’s also the fact that the Romans just beatified Cardinal Newman. Especially given the lack of distinction between Blessed, Saint, Holy, Venerable, etc. in Eastern Christianity, the Anglicans could make the same complaint about Cardinal Newman that is made here about other saints.

Newman became a Catholic, what complaint could be made?