Heretical Saints?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kei

Guest
Hello, looking through some saints I can’t help but wonder about the fact that some saints are said (according to catholic.com) to have either believed in heresy or schismatic beliefs. This is just odd to me. What’s up with that? For instance, yesterday was the feast day of St Gregory Palamas http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=1001

And so I really would like some explanation if anyone knows any further information. I suppose it is possible for those with odd beliefs to be in Heaven and I trust they are if upheld to be so by the Church, but it just seems strange to me.
 
The saint you pointed out got involved in a controversy over a form of contemplative prayer. He is also primarily a saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the Latin Church. Some Byzantine churches that are in communion with Rome also considered him a saint.

In the 20th century the Latin Church became more open to the idea of contemplative prayer and theologians began to be more accepting of this person and even consider him saintly. Pope JP II also spoke of him as saintly. He is not however a canonized or traditionally accepted saint of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
Saints who have believed in heresies have repented or been declared orthodox in their beliefs.

In 1351 Palamas was declared to be without any doubt orthodox and unimpeachable, according to the Orthodox Church. Hesychasm was more of a controversy than a heresy in the Orthodox Church and never really reached the Catholic Church.
 
When you say Orthodox church, you mean the schismatics, correct?
If so, why is he on this Catholic website if not a recognized Catholic saint?
 
And that’s not the only one that’s bothered me, for instance, some time between (late?) October and now, there was also a saint (one of the older ones, from some time before 500 I think) who it said was a heretic but didn’t mention any conversion either…
 
Some saints believed things that were never formally defined by the Church until much later, or they were involved in controversies at the time where they eventually submitted to Rome.

Heroic virtue does not by itself come from being orthodox in your beliefs (although a humble person will submit to Peter). It comes from your love for God. The Church has canonized all sorts of people with sinful or very ‘colorful’ histories but who ultimately lived a life of heroic virtue.

It’s not how you start a race that matters. It’s how you finish it.
 
Last edited:
Some Saints had what we would consider today heretical believes before the dogma regarding them were declared. So while their view was wrong, they were not really heretics because the Church has not dogmatically defined the teaching.

Also, not all Saints lived virtuously their entire lives. Some have radical conversions and then became Holy: like St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Becket, etc

What matters more, is how they lived at the end of their lives.
 
Some Catholics honor St. Photius as a saint, whereas others believe him to have been in heresy.
 
Last edited:
Also, in the times of persecution in the early Church, it’s very possible that some people made their decision to follow Christ, not know every teaching of Christ yet, but become martyred before they could be well educated–they might have held heretical beliefs because of not knowing any better and not having enough time to be taught.
 
Kei said:
When you say Orthodox church, you mean the schismatics, correct?

If so, why is he on this Catholic website if not a recognized Catholic saint?
Click to expand...
That particular website has other non-Roman Catholic saints and content. I think they are trying to be very broad in their conception of Catholic.
 
When some formerly separated Eastern Churches were reconciled, they were permitted to continue to venerate some of their post-schism saints (provided they weren’t being venerated precisely for being anti-Roman).

In any event, these are more like “Blesseds” than “Saints.” The title “Blessed” is given to those where permission has been given to some to venerate the person publicly, whereas the title “Saint” is given to those that all must venerate.
 
This also comes is connected with another thing I never quite understood.
Those in the current Eastern Orthodox churches are in schism, but those in them prior to the declaration of schism were still possibly Catholic despite believing almost the exact same things. So were the Orthodox in schism prior to the declaration of schism, and it merely declared it? If so, then that leads to the question as to those in the Orthodox church which thought they were faithfully in the Catholic Church as there was no declaration of schism.
So is it that they weren’t in schism until the declaration of schism (i.e., for, say, the refusal of the Father AND Son)?

And, as a secondary question, for those sects declared in schism but then later reconciled to Rome, were the believers of the schismatic sect after the schism but prior to reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as “ASPR Schismatics”) also faithful to the Church? Or were the ASPR Schismatics also schismatics, not faithful to the Church? If so, then does that mean that ASPR Schismatics who were alive for the reconciliation were previously schismatics but are now faithful to Rome?

The above questions are intended not only for the one to whom I am replying but for the entirety of the forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top