The "New Holy Hierarchs"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Boy_Lost
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Little_Boy_Lost

Guest
The title of this Icon was “The New Holy Hierarchs” and also the “Pillars of Orthodoxy”.

3.bp.blogspot.com/_UOJjUH2o_wM/S1YsmHQyN_I/AAAAAAAAC-o/tgrtaTKnElI/s1600-h/oi_treis_ierarxai1.jpg

This icon features Photios, Mark of Ephesus and Gregory Palamas and is commemorated the first Sunday in November by the synod in resistance. (Not sure who they are)

What are your thoughts on this? On the surface it seems each of these gentlemen had some run in with Rome or Scholastic thought… in that they oppose the western church and define post schismatic thought. Should they be venerated together or even given the honorific that belongs to Chrysostom, Basil and Gregory?
 
St. Photios and St. Gregory Palamas are on my church’s liturgical calender so I see absolutely nothing wrong with venerating either of them. And while St. Mark of Ephesus is not on the UGCC’s calender, I hold him in veneration as well. Though I can understand why many would disagree with that.
 
It strikes me as celebrating the schism, not seeking to heal it in love and humility. I have no problem with venerating those people persay, just with the title of the icon which is too triumphalistic for my tastes.
 
so please do not post duplicate messages. If you see the same message on the web page, either go to another web page on the web site or skip web site altogether and go to next web site ( select “I Did Not Post On This Website” option ). URL Text is the label or caption for the clickable link, it is also auto included as part of the anchor in message but sometimes it may need to be adjusted in order to display properly.
Credit Card Debt
 
I have to say that I find it amusing that the defense of the Icon comes from a Catholic, and the questioning of its appropriateness comes from an Orthodox. 😛

That being said, I tend towards dcointin’s view that such an Icon is really a celebration of Schism. St. Gregory Palamas is not such a controversial figure, and his greatest claim to fame is his dispute with Barlaam of Calabria (a fellow Orthodox monk) in which Gregory’s position is also the Catholic position. Barlaam later became a Catholic, but his views were never embraced by the Catholic Church.

St. Photius and Mark of Ephesus are much more questionable characters. I personally see nothing particularly venerable about St. Photius, but I will defer to the Church on his place as a Saint. Mark of Ephesus, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to me to hold any redeeming qualities from a Catholic perspective (with due respect to Formosus’ view of the man). His arguments against the Latins were flawed and heavily criticized by his better-read Eastern companions at the Council of Florence. He’s the equivalent of Cardinal Humbert, IMO, offering a lot of heat and little insight in the discussions and debates of his day. The fact that he’s elevated to such a lofty status can only be explained, I think, by the fact that his polemics solidified the Schism.

Just my thoughts!

Peace and God bless!
 
Thank you all for you (name removed by moderator)ut. I appreciate your honest responses.
 
Dear Friends,

St Photios died in full union with Rome, and Fr. Francis Dvornik’s work has shed much light on Western eyes with respect to the man villified as the author of the East-West Schism.

He was a very holy man and constantly invoked the Name of Jesus. He also sent Sts. Cyril and Methodius to the Slavic lands and enthusiastically supported their evangelistic efforts. He deserves to be honoured by both East and West today and such a move would help the ecumenical movement very much. Eastern Catholic churches do have him on their calendars.

St Gregory Palamas was recognized as a saint by Rome in 1973. He too was a great teacher and practitioner of the Jesus Prayer and wrote on the nature of Uncreated Grace and the Energies of God in the Triads. He opposed nominalism, which is a heresy in both East and West. Pope John Paul II was especially personally devoted to both St Gregory Palamas and St Theophane the Recluse in their teachings on the Jesus Prayer.

St Mark of Ephesus defended his Church’s tradition, even when he failed as a scholar. He was canonized for his defence of faith, not for his scholarly abilities. The points he defended his Church on are still the sine qua non of East-West unity to this day. Although I don’t think he will ever be in the Roman canon of saints . . .

I have this icon at home and have no problem with it - I also know Roman and Eastern Catholic priests who have and venerate this icon as well.

Alex
 
Being an Oriental, I don’t venerate any of them. I do call Photius and Palamas “Saint” out of genuine respect for them and my fellow Catholics in the Eastern Tradition.

I do question the “sainthood” of Mark of Ephesus. Even though he defended his Tradition well enough, I’ve found upon reading his letter against the union that he misrepresented the decrees of the Council of Florence to his audience. I don’t think that was a very “saintly” thing to do.

Blessings
 
When they’re not canonized – they’re not canonized, and that does mean something serious.

Some things are simply allowed to continue because more harm would be done if they were not.
 
When they’re not canonized – they’re not canonized, and that does mean something serious.

Some things are simply allowed to continue because more harm would be done if they were not.
Was St. Paul canonized? 😛

In Christ,
Andrew
 
The title of this Icon was “The New Holy Hierarchs” and also the “Pillars of Orthodoxy”.

3.bp.blogspot.com/_UOJjUH2o_wM/S1YsmHQyN_I/AAAAAAAAC-o/tgrtaTKnElI/s1600-h/oi_treis_ierarxai1.jpg

This icon features Photios, Mark of Ephesus and Gregory Palamas and is commemorated the first Sunday in November by the synod in resistance. (Not sure who they are)

What are your thoughts on this? On the surface it seems each of these gentlemen had some run in with Rome or Scholastic thought… in that they oppose the western church and define post schismatic thought. Should they be venerated together or even given the honorific that belongs to Chrysostom, Basil and Gregory?
The icon is a celebration of schism. It’s pretty clear to me.

Real pillars of Orthodoxy? Try Pope St. Leo or Pope St. Agatho or Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria.

These men deserve that title much more.
 
The icon is a celebration of schism. It’s pretty clear to me.

Real pillars of Orthodoxy? Try Pope St. Leo or Pope St. Agatho or Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria.

These men deserve that title much more.
Says Pope WetCatchumen? No offense, but I’ll trust the judgement of the Church above your very fallible opinion my friend. 👍
 
Being an Oriental, I don’t venerate any of them. I do call Photius and Palamas “Saint” out of genuine respect for them and my fellow Catholics in the Eastern Tradition.

I do question the “sainthood” of Mark of Ephesus. Even though he defended his Tradition well enough, I’ve found upon reading his letter against the union that he misrepresented the decrees of the Council of Florence to his audience. I don’t think that was a very “saintly” thing to do.

Blessings
In Mark’s defense, the Council of Florence failed in many ways to actually deal with the Eastern side on most issues, and just accepted the latin status quo on ecclesiology. The intentions, for some of the attendees, were good but the execution of it was pretty poor (though much better then Lyons admittedly). I think in this way, Mark can be praised for standing up against false union… On that same token though, I have a lot of respect for Cardinal Isidore and I think history has been fairly poor to that unfortunate man. If the union had been a success, we’d probably be talking about St. Isidore of Florence but alas the Church has not decided to declare him a saint.
 
the Council of Florence failed in many ways to actually deal with the Eastern side on most issues, and just accepted the latin status quo on ecclesiology. The intentions, for some of the attendees, were good but the execution of it was pretty poor (though much better then Lyons admittedly). I think in this way, Mark can be praised for standing up against false union…
I can agree. I personally accept Florence as an Ecumenical Council, though I don’t believe it was perfect (of course, the first five Ecums were also wanting, and necessitated future clarifications). There was some, but not sufficient, consideration of the Eastern and Oriental Traditions. It might have gone differently if the Council was not so rushed due to socio-political concerns from outside the Council (in the same way Vatican 1 was rushed).

If Mark of Ephesus’ intention was, “Folks, let’s not rush into this, there’s still a lot more that needs to be discussed and settled,” then I can accept and applaud that. But if he was simply being polemic against the Latins in his letter against the Union (which is a possibility), then I would personally shy away from attaching “Saint” to his name.
On that same token though, I have a lot of respect for Cardinal Isidore and I think history has been fairly poor to that unfortunate man. If the union had been a success, we’d probably be talking about St. Isidore of Florence but alas the Church has not decided to declare him a saint.
Yes. I like him too.

Blessings
 
Dear brother Wetcatechumen,
The icon is a celebration of schism. It’s pretty clear to me.
If it was just St. Photius and Mark of Ephesus, I would probably agree. But there is really nothing particularly “schismatic” about St. Gregory Palamas. In fact, from my study of the filioque issue, his theology on the Procession could very well pave the way for rapprochement between East and West on the matter.👍

Blessings,
Marduk
 
When they’re not canonized – they’re not canonized, and that does mean something serious.

Some things are simply allowed to continue because more harm would be done if they were not.
Dear Shin,

But they are canonized - canonized by Eastern Orthodoxy. Roman Catholic prelates do attend Orthodox canonization ceremonies (I’ve seen them) and they do take with them copies of the icons of the newly-canonized Orthodox saints.

Rome never questions Orthodoxy’s canonizations and this is why when groups of Orthodox Christians come under Rome, they can and do continue to liturgically venerate their saints canonized by the Orthodox church.

Rome also regularly acknowledges Orthodox saints such as St Gregory Palamas in 1973 and this Orthodox saint, once horrifically villified by Roman Catholic theologians, in the Catholic Saints Online.

Also, in 1904, Rome approved the entire canon of Orthodox Saints venerated by the Russian Orthodox church for veneration by the Russian Catholic Church that was formed then.

And even after Pope Urban VIII decreed that beatifications were reserved to Rome alone, local Italian, French and Spanish bishops continued to beatify saints for their dioceses - and these continue to be venerated to this day. For example, although Pope John Paul II beatified the Franciscan Bl. John Duns Scotus in recent years, the same Beatus was venerated as such in a diocese in Italy for decades. Peter Lombard is also a local Beatus in Italy somewhere and there are many others.

FYI.

Alex
 
Dear brother Wetcatechumen,

If it was just St. Photius and Mark of Ephesus, I would probably agree. But there is really nothing particularly “schismatic” about St. Gregory Palamas. In fact, from my study of the filioque issue, his theology on the Procession could very well pave the way for rapprochement between East and West on the matter.👍

Blessings,
Marduk
And Photios died in union with Rome so there’s no schismatic there. He is villified in the West for his stand on the Filioque - the same stand St Gregory Palamas (and Pope St Leo III, BTW) took.

And St Mark of Ephesus refused union with Rome because Rome would not remove the Filioque (again, the very same stand of Palamas, Photios, Pope Leo III and St John of Damascus).

And if you can figure that one out, then you are obviously a much better man than I sir! 🙂

Alex
 
Dear Shin,

But they are canonized - canonized by Eastern Orthodoxy.

Alex
The Eastern Orthodox ‘canonization’ is not the canonization of the Catholic Church. Moreover, a bishop’s acclamation of a person as a saint lacks the authority of the Papal canonization process. An Eastern Catholic bishop who used such a method, while in communion with Rome, would be using a different method to acclaim, one far more fallible and local.

'The Patriarch chosen by the Court, was the impious Photius, a Eunuch of illustrious birth, but of the most inordinate ambition. He was a man of great talent, cultivated by the most arduous study, in which he frequently spent the whole night long, and, as he was wealthy, he could procure whatever books he wanted; he thus became one of the most learned men of his own or of any former age. He was a perfect master of grammar, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy, medicine, and all the profane sciences; he had not paid much attention to ecclesiastical learning, but became a most profound theologian when he was made Patriarch. He was only a mere layman, and held some of the highest offices in the Court; he was Protospathaire and Protosecretes, or Captain of the Guards, and Chief Secretary. We cannot say much for his religious character, for he was already a schismatic, as he joined Gregory, Bishop of Syracuse, a man convicted of several crimes, and whose character was so bad, that when St. Ignatius was elected Bishop of Constantinople, he would not permit him to attend at his consecration, and Gregory was so mortified at the insult, that he dashed to the ground the wax candle he held in his hand as an attendant at the consecration, and publicly abused Ignatius, telling him that he entered into the Church not as a shepherd but as a wolf. He got others to join with him, and formed a schism against the Patriarch, so that the Saint was in the end obliged, in the year 854, to pass sentence of deposition against him in a Council. Noel Alexander remarks, that St. Ignatius deposed Gregory from the See of Syracuse, because the churches of that province were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as Sicily then formed part of the Empire of the East but in order to confirm the sentence, he appealed to Benedict III., who, having again examined the affair, confirmed what was decided, as Nicholas I. attests in his sixth epistle to Photius, and his tenth epistle to the clergy of Constantinople.

Photius promised everything, and was accordingly consecrated, but by the very same Gregory, and took possession of the See. Six months had not yet passed over, since his consecration, and he had broken all his oaths and promises; he persecuted St. Ignatius, and all the ecclesiastics who adhered to him; he even got some of them flogged, and by promises and threats induced several to sign documents, intended for the ruin of his sainted predecessors. Not being able to accomplish his design, he laid a plot, with the assistance of Bardas, that the Emperor should send persons to take informations, to prove that St. Ignatius was privately conspiring against the state.

Such was Gregory, with whom Photius was leagued, and as this Jast was elected Bishop of Constantinople, not according to the Canons, but solely by the authority of Bardas, he was at first rejected by all the Bishops, and another was elected by common consent. They adhered to their resolutions for many days, but Bardas by degrees gained them over. Five still held out, but at length went with the stream, and joined the rest, but only on condition that Photius would swear to, and sign a paper, promising to renounce the schism of Gregory, and to receive Ignatius into his communion, honouring him as a father, and to do nothing contrary to his opinion. Photius promised every thing, and was accordingly consecrated, but by the very same Gregory, and took possession of the See (6). 4. Six months had not yet passed over, since his consecration, and he had broken all his oaths and promises; he persecuted St. Ignatius, and all the Ecclesiastics who adhered to him; he even got some of them flogged, and by promises and threats, induced several to sign documents, intended for the ruin of his sainted predecessors. Not being able to accomplish his design, he laid a plot, with the assistance of Bardas, that the Emperor should send persons to take informations, to prove that St. Ignatius was privately conspiring against the state. Magistrates and soldiers were immediately sent to the island of Terebintum, where St. Ignatius dwelt, and endeavoured by every means, even resorting to torture, to prove the charge, but as nothing came out to inculpate him, they conveyed him to another island called Jerium, and put him in a place where goats were kept, and, in a little time after, brought him to Prometum, near Constantinople, where he underwent cruel sufferings, for they shut him up in a confined prison, and his feet were fastened to the stocks by two iron bars, and the captain of his guard struck him so brutally with his clenched fist, that he knocked two of his teeth out. He was treated in this brutal manner, to induce him to sign a renunciation of his See, to make it appear, that of his own free will he gave up the Patriarchate.
 
When the Bishops of the province of Constantinople were informed of this barbarous proceeding, they held a meeting in the Church of Peace, in that city, declared Photius deposed, and anathematized him and all his adherents; but he, supported by Bardas, called together a Council in the Church of the Apostles, in which he deposed and anathematized St. Ignatius, and, as several Bishops complained loudly of this injustice, he deposed them likewise, and put them in prison along with Ignatius. Finally, in the month of August, of the year 859, St. Ignatius was banished to Mytilene, in the island of Lesbos, and all his adherents were banished from Constantinople, many of them severely beaten, and one, who complained against this act of injustice, had his tongue cut out (7).

[and after further trials and tribulations]

. . . He was then handed over to the executioners, to be tormented till he would sign his own deposition; they first nearly starved him for a fortnight, and afterwards hung him up by the feet over a deep pit, which was the tomb of Copronimus, and dashed him from side to side, till the marble lining of the tomb was stained with his lood. When he was thus reduced to the last extremity, and scarcely breathing, one Theodore, a bravo employed by Photius, took hold of his hand, and forcibly made him sign a cross on a sheet of paper, which he brought to Photius, who then wrote on it himself: “I, Ignatius, unworthy Bishop of Constantinople, confess that I have not been lawfully appointed, but have usurped the throne of the Church, which I have tyrannically governed.” But even after this act of villany, Photius did not consider himself safe, so he laid a plot with Bardas, and sent soldiers to take St. Ignatius, who, after his liberation from prison, lived at home with his mother, but he escaped in the disguise of a poor man, carrying two baskets slung on a pole over his shoulder. Six light horsemen were sent after him, with directions to kill him wherever he was found, but God delivered him out of their hands. For forty days, Constantinople was shaken by earthquakes, and so Bardas and the Emperor gave him leave to retire to his monastery, and live in peace, though he was again banished.

In the meantime the Legates returned to Rome loaded with presents by Photius, and merely told the Pope verbally that Ignatius was deposed by the Council, and Photius confirmed. Two days after, Leo, secretary to the Emperor, arrived in Rome, and presented a letter to the Pope from the Emperor, containing a long defence of the acts of the Council, and of Photius. Nicholas began then to suspect that his Legates had betrayed him, and so he immediately summoned together all the Bishops then present in Rome, and publicly declared in presence of the secretary Leo himself, that he never had sent his Legates either to depose Ignatius or confirm Photius, and that he never had, nor ever would consent to either one or the other (14). He wrote both to the Emperor and to Photius to the same effect (Epis. 9), and wrote likewise another letter to all the faithful of the East (Epis. 4), in which, by his Apostolic authority, he particularly commands the other Patriarchs of the East to hold the like sentiments regarding Ignatius and Photius, and to give all possible publicity to this letter of his. Photius, in the meantime, without taking any notice of this letter of his Holiness, planned that a certain Monk of the name of Eustrates should present himself in Constantinople, pretending that he had been sent to the Pope by Ignatius as the bearer of a letter, complaining of all he had suffered; but he said the Pope did not even deign to receive him, but on the contrary, sent a letter by him to Photius, assuring him of his friendship. Photius immediately brought these two letters to the Emperor and to Bardas; but when the whole matter was sifted, it was discovered that it was all a scheme got up by Photius, and Bardas felt so indignant at the imposition, that he commanded that the Monk Eustrates should receive a severe flogging.’

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, ‘History of Heresies and their Refutation’

And it just gets worse.
 
Some things as I said, are tolerated less worse harms result. That is my impression.

After all bishops of local churches often venerate proposed candidates for sainthood who will never actually make it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top