Eastern Catholic Veneration of New Orthodox Saints

[Alveus_Lacuna]

I’ve often seen Byzantine-Rite Papists with icons of newer Orthodox saints; for example St. John of San Fransisco, and I was just wondering if this is informal, or if when the Orthodox Church glorifies a new saint, the corresponding Eastern Papal church also officially adds them to their calendars and commemorations.

 

[Diak]

Eastern Papal

Please use ecclesiological terms that actually mean something. Then perhaps we can answer your question.

 

[Aramis]

It’s informal.

In some cases, Icons are given as gifts by well meaning but not well informed friends and family. They might not realize St. Alexis Toth is considered a schismatic by the Catholic Church. Or that St. Peter the Aleut was sainted by the OCA & RO for having been martyred by Jesuits…

In other cases, it’s a personal devotion to a particular Orthodox saint for some reason. (In my case, St Herman of Alaska.) This usually is a patron of some particular area or endeavor. As long as they didn’t actively teach heresy, it’s generally quietly tolerated.

In still other cases, (none in the 20th century saints, tho,) the saint is on one or more of the Catholic Calendars, but may have been hostile to the Catholic Church. (Several from the 1000-1300 time frame come to mind, but their names don’t at the moment.) They may or may not be part of that person’s faith tradition, but they are still a Catholic saint by being on the calendar of any of the Catholic Churches.

As far as the new saints, few are recognized… even informally… tho common prayers for the joint martyrs of the Nazi and Soviet pogroms, both Catholic and Orthodox, have been held in various times and places.

A rare few might have been declared venerable by a Catholic Bishop. His flock may then publicly venerate that person; until Rome does, it’s purely a local thing.

 

[trophybearer]

Duuuuuude… if certain Orthodox forums won’t let you use terms like “papist” why would you think a Catholic one would? No need for that…

 

[dvdjs]

… Or that St. Peter the Aleut was sainted by the OCA & RO for having been martyred by Jesuits…

Actually the OCA has amended this incorrect claim.

 

[Hesychios]

If priests were involved in the abuse of Peter they would not have been in the Society of Jesus at the time in Spanish territory.

The Jesuit order had been formally suppressed in the years in question. They were known to the Russians because Jesuits in the Russian empire (mostly in the western provinces) and Prussia continued in operation due to the fact that the Papal Bull was not published in those areas and the decree was not enforced. The ‘rump’ Society of Jesus continued to recruit novices in those areas. In my opinion the Russian cleric who reported the incident was not aware that ‘Jesuit’ referred to one particular order (out of many possible ones) and was accustomed to using the term generically, as well as likely disparagingly.

In Spanish territory, which California certainly was, the Jesuits would have been ‘secularized’ and become diocesan priests or incardinated to another order shortly after the Bull was published in 1773 (perhaps within a year), forty two years had then passed by the time Saint Peter was captured. Jesuits did work in Arizona and Sonora before the suppression, (as well as famously in Paraguay) but not especially in northern California. The restored Jesuit order sent priests to San Francisco in 1849. The Upper California missions were dominated by the Franciscans, although possibly there were other orders and a few scattered diocesan clergy (Diocese of Sonora, Archdiocese of Guadelajara) by 1815.

 

[Pakesh]

I Papists

NOT cool
God Bless, Pakesh

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Is it against forum policy to use the term Papist? I know in some contexts it’s a pejorative, but I honestly meant it in no such way, as obviously those Eastern Christians in communion with the Vatican support the Papacy. If people find it offensive I will stop, I’m just trying to find technical designators which allow me to avoid the term “Catholic” to be consistent with my own Church’s teaching, which is that the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church. I certainly don’t want to have that debate in this thread, I was just wondering if there is some better term than “Latin” or “Papist” which is not “Catholic”?

Peace be with everyone.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

If priests were involved in the abuse of Peter…

***St. ***Peter! Give the man his due, he was martyred after all.

 

[Formosus]

Is it against forum policy to use the term Papist? I know in some contexts it’s a pejorative, but I honestly meant it in no such way, as obviously those Eastern Christians in communion with the Vatican support the Papacy. If people find it offensive I will stop, I’m just trying to find technical designators which allow me to avoid the term “Catholic” to be consistent with my own Church’s teaching, which is that the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church. I certainly don’t want to have that debate in this thread, I was just wondering if there is some better term than “Latin” or “Papist” which is not “Catholic”?

Peace be with everyone.

I wasn’t aware that the Orthodox Church taught that you can’t give respect to people and organizations to be called what their name is. All the Orthodox clergy and monastics I have met have no problem referring to the Catholic Church as such.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

I wasn’t aware that the Orthodox Church taught that you can’t give respect to people and organizations to be called what their name is. All the Orthodox clergy and monastics I have met have no problem referring to the Catholic Church as such.

It’s not some official teaching. I just try to avoid passively acknowledging that the Vatican and it’s arms are the Catholic Church, that’s all. Just like some traditionalist Papists will not call my Church orthodox because they believe we are heterodox.

 

[trophybearer]

It’s not some official teaching. I just try to avoid passively acknowledging that the Vatican and it’s arms are the Catholic Church, that’s all. Just like some traditionalist Papists will not call my Church orthodox because they believe we are heterodox.

I just figure that those persons parents never taught them any manners. I was converted by information and sincerity. The information may have shaken some of my long held beliefs, but it turned out to hold water, and in the end I could no longer deny the reality I faced. That information and sincerity slowly softened my heart and lead me to ther Truth. Had I beed accosted with terms like “heretic” and “Papist” I may never have been able to get past the insult to my pride; or I may have just written off the commentator as a biggot. Sensitivity will never trump truth, but there is wisdom in taking into account and understading the effect our words have on others…

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Alright, no problem. To avoid offense, I’ll refer to these churches by their appropriate tiles. Everyone forgive me if I have offended you. This includes Roman (Latin) Catholics, Eastern Catholics, etc.

 

[Aramis]

Likewise, St. Peter the Aleut was not, in fact, Aleut he’s said to be from Kodiak, and the tribes there are Alutiiq, not Aleut.

Why is he misnamed? the Russian for Alutiiq is Алеутско-Кадьякскій, and the Aleut is Алеутскій.

St Peter the “Aleut” is said to have died in 1815. That’s only 30 years after the suppression, not 45.

ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=102713 gives the OCA citation on him, and notes that it was actually Franciscans. But Franciscans doing so is actually less likely… unless, perhaps, they were in fact former Jesuits.

 

[Hesychios]

Likewise, St. Peter the Aleut was not, in fact, Aleut he’s said to be from Kodiak, and the tribes there are Alutiiq, not Aleut.

Perhaps on the other hand he was not really from Kodiak, but lived there for a while?

I don’t know, just speculating.

Why is he misnamed? the Russian for Alutiiq is Алеутско-Кадьякскій, and the Aleut is Алеутскій.

St Peter the “Aleut” is said to have died in 1815. That’s only 30 years after the suppression, not 45.

I thought the Bull of suppression was dated 1773?

ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=102713 gives the OCA citation on him, and notes that it was actually Franciscans. But Franciscans doing so is actually less likely… unless, perhaps, they were in fact former Jesuits.

I don’t know why Franciscans are less likely to be abusers of others. That comment also has some interesting implications about the Society of Jesus.

People are people are people.

 

[dvdjs]

It’s not some official teaching. I just try to avoid passively acknowledging that the Vatican and it’s arms are the Catholic Church, that’s all. Just like some traditionalist Papists will not call my Church orthodox because they believe we are heterodox.

You really should take a moment to read all of the forum rules. The use of the term “Catholic” has been a point of contention in the past. There has been a ruling from moderators. Contesting the ruling of moderators is an offense that has led to banning.

 

[Harpazo]

You really should take a moment to read all of the forum rules. The use of the term “Catholic” has been a point of contention in the past. There has been a ruling from moderators. Contesting the ruling of moderators is an offense that has led to banning.

Check out his post after that one.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dvdjs]

Perhaps on the other hand he was not really from Kodiak, but lived there for a while? I don’t know, just speculating.

If so, this is another aspect of the usual story that is just factually incorrect. Overall, the reality is that there is very litte evidence in support of this story; given the serious nature of the charge, one might think that a little more homework would be done.

 

[dvdjs]

Check out his post after that one.

What is your point? The particular matter is not one for discussion or up to the discretion of the poster. Do you disagree with the suggestion that the rules should be read?

 

[dvdjs]

If so, this is another aspect of the usual story that is just factually incorrect. Overall, the reality is that there is very litte evidence in support of this story; given the serious nature of the charge, one might think that a little more homework would be done.

Here is an interesting link with some historical documentation relevant to the case:
moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2007/2007-3.html