Orthodox Saints and Full Communion with Rome

[brycelaliberte]

I was wondering, if an Orthodox Church were to come into full communion with Rome, what would be done about the Orthodox saints of that Church? Would they still be recognized saints, or suddenly have lost saint recognition, or what?

Just curious, hope I’m not lighting a match to find I’m in the powder room…

 

[jimmy]

I was wondering, if an Orthodox Church were to come into full communion with Rome, what would be done about the Orthodox saints of that Church? Would they still be recognized saints, or suddenly have lost saint recognition, or what?

Just curious, hope I’m not lighting a match to find I’m in the powder room…

Well considering the fact that St. Gregory Palamas is in the Byzantine calendar, the answer would be that they would still be saints. Also, you could consider the fact that St. Isaac of Nineveh wasn’t in communion with Rome, he was part of the Church of the East.

 

[jimmy]

I should clarify that St. Gregory is in the Byzantine Catholic calendar, not just in the Orthodox calendar.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

And…

What to do about Alexis Toth and Alexis Kabaliuk?:ehh:

 

[Ghosty]

And…

What to do about Alexis Toth and Alexis Kabaliuk?:ehh:

Some Saints are certainly more difficult than others. I’m sure there would be some kind of arrangements and accomodations made concerning such Saints as sainted almost specifically because of their opposition to the Catholic Church (the Orthodox might have concerns about similar Saints from the Catholic side).

Fortunately most Orthodox Saints don’t fit that bill, and certainly not the most important ones. The practice of the Catholic Church so far seems to be to accept as Saints those who were recognized as such by the Orthodox prior to the reunion with the Catholic Church.

In a sense I think it can be viewed as them “reuniting” along with their Earthly counterparts, though obviously there is no Schism in Heaven, and they are right alongside the various Latin Saints.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

Some Saints are certainly more difficult than others. I’m sure there would be some kind of arrangements and accomodations made concerning such Saints as sainted almost specifically because of their opposition to the Catholic Church (the Orthodox might have concerns about similar Saints from the Catholic side).

Fortunately most Orthodox Saints don’t fit that bill, and certainly not the most important ones. The practice of the Catholic Church so far seems to be to accept as Saints those who were recognized as such by the Orthodox prior to the reunion with the Catholic Church.

In a sense I think it can be viewed as them “reuniting” along with their Earthly counterparts, though obviously there is no Schism in Heaven, and they are right alongside the various Latin Saints.

Peace and God bless!

What about the Buddha (St. Josaphat)? Would he still be a Saint in the Catholic Church?

I thought we fixed that already…

 

[bpbasilphx]

**What about the Buddha (St. Josaphat)? Would he still be a Saint in the Catholic Church? **

**Gautama Buddha is one person.

Ss. Josaphat and Barlaam are saints of the Church.**

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Ghosty:

Some Saints are certainly more difficult than others. I’m sure there would be some kind of arrangements and accomodations made concerning such Saints as sainted almost specifically because of their opposition to the Catholic Church (the Orthodox might have concerns about similar Saints from the Catholic side).

Fortunately most Orthodox Saints don’t fit that bill, and certainly not the most important ones. The practice of the Catholic Church so far seems to be to accept as Saints those who were recognized as such by the Orthodox prior to the reunion with the Catholic Church.

In a sense I think it can be viewed as them “reuniting” along with their Earthly counterparts, though obviously there is no Schism in Heaven, and they are right alongside the various Latin Saints.

Peace and God bless!

And hey, Martin Luther may even be up there.

Most saints are not a problem. St. Photios and St. Mark of Ephesus are two “problematic” saints for veneration in the Eastern Catholic churches, due to their strong views against certain Western beliefs that the West considers essential.

Many Eastern saints are also unknown to the West as well, and so can fly under the radar, so to speak.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Volydmyr 988:

And…

What to do about Alexis Toth and Alexis Kabaliuk?:ehh:

Good question.

 

[jimmy]

And hey, Martin Luther may even be up there.

Most saints are not a problem. St. Photios and St. Mark of Ephesus are two “problematic” saints for veneration in the Eastern Catholic churches, due to their strong views against certain Western beliefs that the West considers essential.

Many Eastern saints are also unknown to the West as well, and so can fly under the radar, so to speak.

Are St. Mark and St. Photios venerated in the Byzantine Catholic Church? If so, on what dates?

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Photios is venerated on 6 February, I do believe, in the Catholic Churches who use the Byzantine Rite (too many of them to spout them off right now, and I don’t want to leave anyone out.)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I was wondering, if an Orthodox Church were to come into full communion with Rome, what would be done about the Orthodox saints of that Church? Would they still be recognized saints, or suddenly have lost saint recognition, or what?

Just curious, hope I’m not lighting a match to find I’m in the powder room…

**Excellent question I’ve often wondered about this: for us, St. Josaphat of Polotsk, S.J. (d. 1623) is a missionary & martyr whose remains did not corrupt - for the Orthodox, I believe he counts as a murderous thug. **​

---

**We do already venerate some Saints who were not Catholics - Elesbaan was a Monophysite, Asterius was an Arian - but that’s by mistake; venerating someone like St. Mark of Ephesus, who was a vigorous opponent of union with Rome, is a different prospect, because his opposition was never a secret. I can’t see him being venerated by us, or St. Thomas Aquinas being venerated as a Saint by the Orthodox. **

---

**Quite a few Saints are not saintly, & IMO they should be weeded out, not accorded an honour they don’t deserve. If St. Josaphat is as black as the Orthodox paint him, he has no more title to being called a Saint that Vlad the Impaler. The Orthodox honour as Saints people we do not - so do the other ancient bodies. There needs to be an end of all the Church politics, otherwise who is honoured & why & by whom will never be sorted out. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And…

What to do about Alexis Toth and Alexis Kabaliuk?:ehh:

**If Alexis Toth can be a Saint, so can Abp. Lefebvre. His lot may be called schismatic by Rome at present - but so were the Orthodox, for centuries. Not now - now, they are “the Church’s other lung”. Give it a few centuries, & the SSPX too will be “separated brethren”, & then, a Church, & then, “another lung”. Members of the Polish National Catholic Church are ****already allowed to receive the Eucharist in a RC church, as far Rome is concerned - John XXIII & his predecessors would never have allowed that. **​

 

[Cajetan]

Just an aside, one of my philosophy professors was vacationing in Greece and visited Mount Athos, which is basically the historic “centre” of Eastern Orthodox monasticism. Upon entering the monastery he noticed iconography of various Orthodox saints painted on the walls. Two of them stood out to him: St. Plato and St. Aristotle!

While I’m sure this is a “regional” thing – the entire Orthodox communion probably doesn’t recognize Plato and Aristotle as “saints” – I thought that was awesome. There IS a very old tradition in Christian (indeed, Catholic) thought which views the work of these ancient Greek philosophers as paving the way for Christian Revelation in the Western world.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Cajetan:

Just an aside, one of my philosophy professors was vacationing in Greece and visited Mount Athos, which is basically the historic “centre” of Eastern Orthodox monasticism. Upon entering the monastery he noticed iconography of various Orthodox saints painted on the walls. Two of them stood out to him: St. Plato and St. Aristotle!

Are you sure they were of the Greek philosophers and not later Christians bearing their names? I’m not challenging you, but just leaving open this possibility. One of the early Church historians was Socrates, but different from the Socrates of Athens.

You are right: many early Christians saw the Greek philosophers as paving the way for Christianity. This is especially true of philosophers who became Christian (e.g. St. Justin Martyr). On the other hand, there were many Christians who looked askance at Greek philosophy (Tertullian, for example)–“What has Athens to do with Jerusalem”? From what I’ve read of them, the Cappadocians well approach the issue, using Greek philosophical terms but only as they served the Christian message.

 

[Cajetan]

Are you sure they were of the Greek philosophers and not later Christians bearing their names? I’m not challenging you, but just leaving open this possibility. One of the early Church historians was Socrates, but different from the Socrates of Athens.

According to my prof., he asked the monk who was giving his party the tour this very thing and the monk explained that the icons were, in fact, of the famous ancient Greek philosophers. The reason for them being up there among Christian saints, he explained, is because of that early Christian tradition… which the Mount Athos monks apparently take quite seriously.