How does the Catholic Church view Orthodox "saints"

[jimmy]

The Church is going through a gravely confused period in its history. There are many things people in authority have done which are inexcusable expressions of religious indifferentism.

Oh, so you judge the authorities as heretics or apostates basically?

 

[Dauphin]

Just out of curiosity … supposing you yourself had committed some sort of indiscretion like the above. Would you be happy to know that, long after your death, people who knew about your sins would continue to bring them up in public – so that you would always be remembered by your worst failures, rather than any good you may have accomplished?

If not, why would you treat John Paul, who is no longer here to speak for himself, that way?

He was the Pope. He had the highest dignity on earth, but also the greatest responsibility. He failed in his responsibility by his scandalous actions, and permanently damaged his credibility, and that of his office, on Ecumenical matters.

This isn’t about accusing the Pope of committing sin - I can’t judge if an action is sinful. I can, though, say clearly when it is scandalous.

 

[Dauphin]

Oh, so you judge the authorities as heretics or apostates basically?

No. I would never judge. I’m not competent to judge.

I can only say when an action or decision is manifestly contrary to the Catholic faith. If my humble understanding is wrong, I’d love to be convinced of it. I don’t like to think ill of the actions or words of the Supreme Pontiff.

 

[DL82]

I guess this is one of the most important obstacles to reconciliation between the two communions. Both have confidence in their ability to discern the lives of holiness of their canonised saints.

In the case of some of the saints who have lived on the borders of Poland, Romania, Hungary, former Yugoslavia, Ukraine and that whole ‘border’ area between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, there will be a number of saints on both sides whose primary cause of canonisation was converting, or perhaps even persecuting and compelling, large numbers of ‘schismatics’ back to the ‘true faith’. It takes a very careful understanding of conscience to say that both sides acted in holiness when doing so.

 

[jimmy]

No. I would never judge. I’m not competent to judge.

I can only say when an action or decision is manifestly contrary to the Catholic faith. If my humble understanding is wrong, I’d love to be convinced of it. I don’t like to think ill of the actions or words of the Supreme Pontiff.

OK. I don’t think that it is contrary to the faith. The west has always recognized the authority and sacraments of the eastern bishops. The pope has always recognized that the bishops of the east hold the apostolic succession from the apostles and consequently they have the authority to declare saints for celebration within the liturgy of the Church.

 

[Dauphin]

My view was not of canonization but of recognition by Catolics of canonized Orthodox saint. What significance does this make? Only if Catolic church wants to make have feast day. But for average Catolic as we have seen many believe canonization of ORthodox church, just as many Orthodox pray to St. Francis of Assizi.

Then it’s a muddying of the waters. If some saints on the calendar held a different faith than others, what does this say about the importance of faith for salvation? It’s a sign of religious indifferentism - the unity of the faith is dissolved.

Perhaps we’ll venerate dead Protestants next? After all, some of them had great writings and saintly actions. If it’s all about works and not faith, then there’s no obstacle to canonizing atheists either.

 

[Dauphin]

OK. I don’t think that it is contrary to the faith. The west has always recognized the authority and sacraments of the eastern bishops. The pope has always recognized that the bishops of the east hold the apostolic succession from the apostles and consequently they have the authority to declare saints for celebration within the liturgy of the Church.

The question is, did these men and women hold the same faith of the Church? Did they have the Catholic and Apostolic faith?

If they lived after the schism, did they accept all of the dogmatic definitions passed by Councils and Popes? If not, then we have a problem.

Faith can’t be a subjective, personal, matter. If these people did not hold the Catholic faith, then they’re not saints.

 

[jimmy]

The question is, did these men and women hold the same faith of the Church? Did they have the Catholic and Apostolic faith?

If they lived after the schism, did they accept all of the dogmatic definitions passed by Councils and Popes? If not, then we have a problem.

Faith can’t be a subjective, personal, matter. If these people did not hold the Catholic faith, then they’re not saints.

Yes, they accepted the seven councils which preceded the council. Yes they hold to the same faith. The problem is that the west continues to develop their faith in a way that is narrowed from the faith of the fathers. The only reason why there would be a difference would be because the west continues to develop their faith while the east holds to the faith that was handed on to them. But the west even recognizes that the east has their own theology and their own spirituality which is completely legitimate. Check for example the documents of Vatican II. Check Unitatis Redintegratio which mentions it in the section on the eastern Christians. Check Orientale Ecclesiarum which discusses it.

 

[Formosus]

The Post-schism Orthodox saints can be justified as true saints much in the same way as Saints who followed anti popes during the Great schism have been venerated as being true saints. In the case of martyrs, then there is really no question about that since they have been baptized in blood. You claim that this comes out of religious indifference, but it doesn’t. The Church has accepted post schism saints on Byzantine calenders before Vatican II.

 

[Dauphin]

Yes, they accepted the seven councils which preceded the council. Yes they hold to the same faith. The problem is that the west continues to develop their faith in a way that is narrowed from the faith of the fathers. The only reason why there would be a difference would be because the west continues to develop their faith while the east holds to the faith that was handed on to them. But the west even recognizes that the east has their own theology and their own spirituality which is completely legitimate. Check for example the documents of Vatican II. Check Unitatis Redintegratio which mentions it in the section on the eastern Christians. Check Orientale Ecclesiarum which discusses it.

Catholics believe that every council of the Church must be accepted by all Christians, without exception. The Councils themselves explicitly anathematized anyone who rejected their definitions.

The Church has the privilege of defining the faith - no one else. The documents you refer to may have vague language, but they don’t say what you claim they say. The idea that one is free to reject an Ecumenical Council is simply incorrect.

 

[jimmy]

Dauphin, I would like to add that a definition within a council doesn’t make the Church better or greater. If that was true then would would have to conclude that the Church of today is greater than that of the apostles. And that is something we can not conclude. The Church is the same today as it was in the first century. It is not greater. So for the east to hold to the faith as it was in AD 1000 should bear no problems for the west. And I don’t think the west thinks that it is a problem. I think they would say that the doctrines of Trent are present in the faith of the east at least in their beginings due to their adherance to the faith of the fathers.

 

[Dauphin]

Dauphin, I would like to add that a definition within a council doesn’t make the Church better or greater. If that was true then would would have to conclude that the Church of today is greater than that of the apostles. And that is something we can not conclude. The Church is the same today as it was in the first century. It is not greater. So for the east to hold to the faith as it was in AD 1000 should bear no problems for the west. And I don’t think the west thinks that it is a problem. I think they would say that the doctrines of Trent are present in the faith of the east at least in their beginings due to their adherance to the faith of the fathers.

Adherence to post-schism councils isn’t optional. Councils which followed the schism are not somehow less legitimate or authoritative. If anyone rejected conciliar definitions which followed the schism, they were anathematized, and explcitly so, by the Church.

 

[jimmy]

Catholics believe that every council of the Church must be accepted by all Christians, without exception. The Councils themselves explicitly anathematized anyone who rejected their definitions.

The Church has the privilege of defining the faith - no one else. The documents you refer to may have vague language, but they don’t say what you claim they say. The idea that one is free to reject an Ecumenical Council is simply incorrect.

Actually they say exactly what I said. I just recently read both of them. Orientale Ecclesiarum specifically says that the east has a legitimate liturgy and spirituality. Unitatis Redintegratio adds theology to that.

Specifically read Article 17 of Unitatis Redintegratio:

What has already been said about tlegitimate variety we are pleased to apply to differences in theological espressions of doctrine. In the study of revealed truth east and west have used different methods and approaches in understanding and confessing divine things. It is hardly surprising, then, if sometimes one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed them better. In such cases, these various theolgical formulations are often to be considered complementary rather than conflicting. With regard to the authentic theological traditions of the Orientals, we must recogmine that they are admirably rooted in Holy Scripture, are fostered and given expression in liturgical life, are nourished by the living tradition of the apostles and by the works of the Fathers and spiritual writers of the East; they are directed toward a right ordering of life, indeed, toward a full contemplation of Christian truth.
This sacred council thanks God that many eastern children of the Catholic Church preserve this heritage and wish to express it more faithfully and completely in their lives, and are already living in full communion with their brethren who follow the tradition of the west…

 

[Dauphin]

Actually they say exactly what I said. I just recently read both of them. Orientale Ecclesiarum specifically says that the east has a legitimate liturgy and spirituality. Unitatis Redintegratio adds theology to that.

That could mean alot of things. The Church has grown expert at being ambiguous in its statements, and most of them aren’t worth reading.

Neither of these documents states the post-schism councils may be rejected, since they are not at liberty to say so. It would be an absurdity. The Councils themselves anathematized anyone who rejected them. It’s a fait accompli.

 

[jimmy]

That could mean alot of things. The Church has grown expert at being ambiguous in its statements, and most of them aren’t worth reading.

Neither of these documents states the post-schism councils may be rejected, since they are not at liberty to say so. It would be an absurdity. The Councils themselves anathematized anyone who rejected them. It’s a fait accompli.

The fact still remains that the east is exhorted to retain, and if necessary return to their tradition. The fact is that the councils of the west hold to a specifically western approach to the faith. They(except for Vatican II) ignore the fact that we even exist. Are we to ignore our traditions for the sake of the tradition of the west? Vatican II(specifically in Art.17 as quoted above) says otherwise.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Church is going through a gravely confused period in its history. There are many things people in authority have done which are inexcusable expressions of religious indifferentism.

Good thing they have you then to set them straight.

I’d ask you who ordained you, but I don’t recall you being one of the many of the followers of the Vatican who look askance at the Orthodox laity’s involvement.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Then it’s a muddying of the waters. If some saints on the calendar held a different faith than others, what does this say about the importance of faith for salvation? It’s a sign of religious indifferentism - the unity of the faith is dissolved.

Perhaps we’ll venerate dead Protestants next? After all, some of them had great writings and saintly actions. If it’s all about works and not faith, then there’s no obstacle to canonizing atheists either.

ooooh

I have to agree with you Dauphin.

 

[rad]

Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran and invited pagans to pray to their gods for peace. He wasn’t known to avoid causing scandal.

Curious about it…
Since the late Pope did smooch the quran ,does he get the muslim benefits in the muslim heaven,like the 72 hourisis,enquiring mind wants to know…

 

[Formosus]

Thats really off topic. There is no need to discuss that further here. This is about post schism saints on Eastern Catholic calenders.

The post schism saints were mistaken, though in many cases it was impossible to even find a Catholic church for many of them, especially if there were monastics or hermits. St. Isaac of Syria, ,a member of the Assyrian Apostolic Church ,is venerated by Catholics, Syriac Orthodox(miaphysites) , Assyrians,and by Eastern Orthodox. Infact Eastern Orthodox consider him one of the greatest spiritual fathers (as I do myself). So Isa, if its muddying the waters to venerate saints who were not of the same Faith then why is Mar Isaac held in such high regard within your own church?

Not that Orthodoxwiki is a valid source but, this is a quote from it on St. Isaac.
"His inclusion is thus an indication that the Church does not regard canonical boundaries as being the litmus test of Orthodoxy. "
orthodoxwiki.org/Isaac_of_Syria

 

[bpbasilphx]

This isn’t about accusing the Pope of committing sin - I can’t judge if an action is sinful. I can, though, say clearly when it is scandalous.

Especially from that special height of discernement and depth of vision that comes only when you are 20.