Somebody claims the Catholic Church canonized heretics

  • Thread starter Thread starter ddiemer.catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is who I thought this thread was going to be about. But he wasn’t a heretic, material or otherwise. St. Gregory’s Christology is not that of Eutyches, where Christ’s human nature is dissolved like a drop in the sea. St. Gregory, instead, describes the union like a wick in a candle. He also uses phraseology that is flat out Catholic (link below):
The properties of both Natures, without any change, admixture, or alteration, are preserved unfused, and are unspeakably united, in a manner above all common union, in the one Son, and the one Lord Jesus Christ, Who is of Two perfect Natures.
Click to expand...
He also uses phrases almost identical to that of Chapter IV of the Tome of St. Leo which can seem borderline Nestorian, rather than Monophysite (for clarity, these are St. Gregory’s quotes):
After a lapse of nine months, God and perfect man was born as child. He was fed with milk as man and glorified by Angels as God.
Click to expand...
For since it was impossible that the impassible and immortal nature of God should undergo suffering and death, He therefore clothed Himself with a body capable of suffering, in order that the impassible might be tormented in a passable, the immortal might die in a mortal, nature, to deliver them that were liable to the payment of a debt, from the penalty of their transgressions.
Click to expand...
A History of the Holy Eastern Church: General introduction - John Mason Neale - Google Books

During his lifetime, some Armenian churchmen and temporal rulers accused him of being a schismatic and a Chalcedonian (ie an orthodox Catholic). He sought peace with the surrounding orthodox Greek and Georgian churches and adopted some of their customs, including the veneration of icons (at a time when monophysitism led many Armenians to be very iconoclastic).

So it seems his “separation” was more of historical circumstance than true heresy or schism (as is the case with other “separated” saints).

He’s been venerated in the Armenian Catholic Church since they returned to communion in the 18th century. He’s not the only Saint in such a situation, including others in the Roman Martyrology (e.g. St. Sergius of Radonezh, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
Heresy though isn’t a sin of a lack of intelligence. It is the obstinate denial of truth taught by the Church after one has been baptized. It is persisting in error even when the Church has told you you’re wrong. Saints do not deny Church teaching after it has been defined.
Click to expand...
This is a good point, but maybe I have been looking at the question the wrong way.

Formal heresy requires obstinate denial, and the word “obstinate” surely requires a knowing and willful state of mind. But colloquially most people think of heretics as those that hold heretical beliefs, which is a much larger group than those in obstinate denial.

So, while I do not personally believe that formal heresy is a bar to salvation (but that may be a topic for another day), there should be no debate that merely holding good faith but erroneous beliefs (what I referred to as colloquial heresy) would not bar one from salvation.
 
ddiemer.catholic said:
Well, I’m not shaken in my faith or beliefs. He has very unique views and I think he’d rather believe what he believes than be convinced by the truth.

I’ll post another topic regarding Romans 8:28 for another one of his unique views
Click to expand...
ddiemer.catholic said:
Yeah, he’s very, very pro-life. He and I went to the same parish in Raleigh, NC. BUT, I think he’s open to non-Catholic views, such as this, and not open to what the Catholic Church actually says. His thought process is that the process of canonization is corrupt because it’s run by sinful men, therefore, the Church has and does canonize heretics.
Click to expand...
I’d be leery about asking him his beliefs. Your friend seems to be struggling with his own faith. To keep pursuing the topic may push him further and further away from the Catholic Church.

If he attends Mass on a regular basis, I would try to find common ground that you can discuss without getting into deeper dialogue. Maybe you could both read a Catholic book and discuss what you found helpful. Maybe you could both attend a pro-life event together or a rosary.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
Bottom line - that the Church believes someone is in heaven (which is what Sainthood means) has virtually nothing to do with theological purity.
Click to expand...
While it is true that a “saint” is defined as anyone who is in heaven, the Church chooses an infinitesimal fraction of those persons to actually canonize. Being a canonized saint does not simply require a person to be in heaven, it also requires the person to have lived a life of heroic virtue on earth. Not just an ordinary good, holy life, but something heroic that stands out as an example for other Catholics to emulate.

Therefore, the Church is unlikely to canonize a heretic, unless part of their heroic virtue involved some big renunciation of their heresy.

Having said that, there’s a significant difference between heresy as defined by the Church, which requires obstinacy and some refusal to be corrected, and simply holding an erroneous or mistaken belief, which may in some cases be a consequence of the politics or geography of the time.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Having said that, there’s a significant difference between heresy as defined by the Church, which requires obstinacy and some refusal to be corrected, and simply holding an erroneous or mistaken belief, which may in some cases be a consequence of the politics or geography of the time.
Click to expand...
I agree, but where it gets sticky for me is what if the mistaken belief is itself about the Church’s authority to make corrections? Like, what if I’m a sincere, well-meaning Protestant who is mistaken about the nature of the Catholic Church, but I am aware it has publicly rejected my position about x?

It seems to me that in order to obstinately refuse, one must first share the Church’s view about its own authority.
 
Fair enough in this context, but this issue comes up in a lot of other discussions around extra ecclesia and invincible vs. vincible ignorance, etc. Some argue that “well, if you’re aware that your position is contrary to that held by the Catholic Church, then you’re by definition a heretic/bad person/hell bound. “ My point is that presupposes a person with an un-Catholic about x but a Catholic view about the nature of the Church and its authority.

On the subject of Gregory of Narek, there are clearly others way more informed on him than I am. My knowledge is basically limited to “he was Armenian, I think.” But it does seem that he was not in communion with the Church, and was presumably aware of the Catholic Church’s belief that he should be, even if he didn’t hold any particularly heretical beliefs.
 
Last edited:
His not being in communion with the Church of Rome was not his own doing, and given that he was Armenian and concerned with practicing his faith in Armenia, I don’t really see how, in that day and age, he could reasonably have taken some different path than what he took.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
His not being in communion with the Church of Rome was not his own doing, and given that he was Armenian and concerned with practicing his faith in Armenia, I don’t really see how, in that day and age, he could reasonably have taken some different path than what he took.
Click to expand...
I get that his lack of communion with the Church was more of a historical accident than a deliberate choice to break communion. My point is he could have theoretically entered communion, either by leaving Armenia (there were Venetian and Genoese colonies around the Black Sea where presumably one could safely practice Catholicism) or at least publicly expressing a desire to do so, and also he was presumably aware that the Church would tell him he should.

To be clear, I’m not bagging on St. Gregory of Narek, and I’m certainly no expert on his life. My point is that a definition of heresy that is simply “you’re aware the Church says x, and you persist in saying or doing y” must presuppose a belief in the Church’s authority to make that call.
 
Last edited:
ddiemer.catholic said:
I explained to him that the process of canonization precludes the possibility that the candidate believed, said, wrote, or taught anything contrary to the Bible, Tradition, or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
And the miracles that God provided to prove that He agreed with their canonization. Canonization recquires a long process and needs procedures which undergoes scientifically also, to prove that the miracle is made by God.
 
Last edited:
St Gregory was declared a Doctor of the Church during a commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the genocide in Armenia. Pope Francis said:
For us Christians, may this be above all a time of deep prayer. Through the redemptive power of Christ’s sacrifice, may the blood which has been shed bring about the miracle of the full unity of his disciples. In particular, may it strengthen the bonds of fraternal friendship which already unite the Catholic Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church. The witness of many defenceless brothers and sisters who sacrificed their lives for the faith unites the diverse confessions: it is the ecumenism of blood, which led Saint John Paul II to celebrate all the martyrs of the twentieth century together during the Jubilee of 2000. Our celebration today also is situated in this spiritual and ecclesial context. Representatives of our two Churches are participating in this event to which many of our faithful throughout the world are united spiritually, in a sign which reflects on earth the perfect communion that exists between the blessed souls in heaven.
Click to expand...
Martyrdom is a great equalizer, with the baptism of blood freeing us from our sins. St Maximilian Kolbe could have written a dozen heretical works, and still been canonized for dying as a martyr. (He did not write anything heretical) A martyr is a witness who testifies to the life of Christ given for us.

St Gregory was a holy man, and the declaration that he is a Doctor of the Church is usually taken as equivalent to, and surpassing, a canonization. His writings are a gift to the whole Church, not just the Christians of Armenia.

Our theology may not have grasped yet how that works exactly, but it is something we may learn from St Gregory and the Armenian Christians devoted to him for all these centuries.
 
Bl Barto Longo was a satanic priest before his reversion, he was Canonized. Canonization does not mean a person was perfect.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
My point is he could have theoretically entered communion, either by leaving Armenia
Click to expand...
He was an Armenian monk, priest and mystic who lived his whole life in Armenia, most of it in a monastery there. He was not somebody who traveled around, nor would he typically be leaving his own faith tradition/ country to go practice a Western Catholic tradition, nor should that be necessary.

It makes sense to me that when the Armenians re-established an Armenian Catholic Church in communion with Rome, they want to bring their most beloved saint with them. Like I said, if two holy Popes evaluate his life and work and decide he passes muster, I’m okay with it. I’m not going to second guess and say “he should have ditched his whole tradition, left his monastery, and moved west to be a proper Catholic, or no sainthood for him.”
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I’m not going to second guess and say “he should have ditched his whole tradition, left his monastery, and moved west to be a proper Catholic, or no sainthood for him.”
Click to expand...
I’m not doing that either.

I don’t think I’m expressing my point very well, so I’ll stop detailing the thread.
 
Last edited:
sudy said:
The issue stems from a lack of understanding of Mary for many people.
Click to expand...
Another quote from The Glories of Mary: chapter 8 sec. 1:
“Those who do not call on you in life will never get to Heaven.”
Would that mean that a Protestant could never get to Heaven since he only calls on Jesus?
Or what about a Jew or Muslim etc.?
 
EugeneCharles said:
Canonization recquires a long process and needs procedures which undergoes scientifically also, to prove that the miracle is made by God.
Click to expand...
That is true of modern canonization, but there was not such a process in the past, particularly in ancient times. Not to say those canonizations are somehow lesser, just pointing out this is a more modern development.
 
TMC said:
That is true of modern canonization, but there was not such a process in the past, particularly in ancient times. Not to say those canonizations are somehow lesser, just pointing out this is a more modern development.
Click to expand...
While this is true, the saints discussed in this thread were all canonized within the last 2 centuries.
 
Yes. I agree with what you said.

Yet, St. Maximillian Kolbe, who was pointed by the OP, was canonized by Pope John Paul II, undergoes the modern process. For St. Alphonsus, we don’t have that evident scientific basis since he was canonized around early 19th century.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top