www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Sept 25: A Roman Catholic Mass for a Russian Orthodox Saint

Today, I attended a Roman Catholic Mass celebrated for the memorial of Saint Sergius of Radonezh. His feastday is officially listed in the Roman Martyrology. I suggested it to the celebrating priest a few days ago.

Since today is an "ordinary weekday" on the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar, a priest may offer a Mass for any saint listed today in the Roman Martyrology.

I would not be surprised if this happened to be the first ever Roman Catholic Mass celebrated for Saint Sergius . The majority of Roman Catholic priests in the US probably do not know who Saint Sergius is.

Does anyone know if Saint Sergius' feastday is an "obligatory" or "optional" memorial on the Roman Catholic calendar in Russia?

[Linked Image]
Tomb of Saint Sergius

Saint Sergius, pray for us!

Wait, wait, wait.

How is St. Sergius in the Roman martyrology is he's only an Orthodox saint?

And if he isn't a Catholic saint, how can a Mass be offered in honor of him?

Logos Teen

It's simple.

Although Saint Sergius was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, Rome did approve of his veneration among Catholics.

As to how a Roman-rite Mass can be celebrated in his honor, here's how...

First, Saint Sergius is included in the official martrology of the Roman Catholic Church, the Martyrologium Romanum. I consulted a copy of it at a Roman Catholic seminary library. (The Roman Martyrologies on-line are incomplete.)

[Linked Image]

A brief bio of Saint Sergius (in Latin) is found for Sept 25, the day of his passing into eternal life.

On a side note, Saint Sergius is also listed in the four volume Butler's Lives of the Saints.

Second, Article 316-C of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal states:

"On the weekdays in Ordinary Time, the priest may choose the weekday Mass, the Mass of an optional memorial, the Mass of a saint inscribed in the martryology for that day, a Mass for various needs or a votive Mass."

Sept 25th falls in Ordinary Time in the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar. In the US, there is no obligatory memorial for that day, so the priest has the option of celebrating a Mass for any saint listed on Sept. 25th.

St Sergius is listed on Sept. 25th, so therefore a priest has the option of celebrating Mass in his honor.

I hope this answers your questions.

That does answer some! ...But leads to more.

So, St. Sergius is not a Catholic saint? If his veneration is allowed and he is inscribed in the Matyrology and called "saint" therein, it would seem he would be viewed as a Catholic saint.

This is, of course, presupposing that when the Martyrology speaks of "saints" it obviously means Catholic saints, just as when EO liturgical books speak of saints one would assume they don't mean the likes of the Little Flower and other post-Schism Catholic saints.

I'm just trying to understand!

Logos Teen

Why are you so worried about this?

First, a small correction: Mass is not offered "for" a Saint, but in honor of that Saint.

In general, the Holy See does not dispute the authority of Local Orthodox Churches to celebrate the glorification of ( = to canonize) Saints. In addition, the Holy See does not consider that the schism became "formal", so to speak, until the collapse of the Union of Florence.

Thus, when the Russian Greek-Catholic service-books were prepared in the nineteen-thirties, forties and fifties, a considerable number of Saints whose glorification had originally been done in Kyiv and Moscow were included - such as Saint Serge of Radonezh. This was done with the Imprimatur of Pope Pius XII.

The same question arose with regard to Saint Gregory Palamas; after a thorough discussion of the matter involving the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Saint Gregory is included in the Greek edition of the Anthologion published by the Holy See.

Pope John Paul II had a keen awareness of Saint Seraphim of Sarov and a strong devotion to him.

And so on. In more recent years, it is not unusual for Rome to send a delegation to be present at Orthodox canonizations - this of course would not be done in the case of someone who was being "canonized" as a sort of palladium of anti-Catholicism [Father Alexis Toth is an example of that sort of thing - I refer to the canonization, not to Father Alexis himself].

Since Protestant communities do not constitute full Churches in the Orthodox / Catholic understanding of the term, it is unlikely that such a principle could be extended to include Protestants - except in clear cases of martyrdom for the sake of Christ, as in the relatively recent case of Anglican martyrs in Africa.

When the Holy See was asked, 25 or 30 years ago, why the process of canonization is only applied for Catholics, the answer was that there is nothing in principle to prevent applying this process to other Christians as well, but the Holy See is reluctant to do this unless the relevant ecclesial community requests it - which has never happened.

Fr. Serge

Dear Father Serge,

It has been posted previously on this Forum that Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky petitioned Rome to ask for permission to allow Russian Byzantine Catholics to venerate Orthodox Saints, which was approved in 1904.

Could you provide further details about this? Is there any reference I can consult?

Thank you.

God bless you.

griego

I would assume Eastern Catholics could privately venerate St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre if they wished. He is a recognized Orthodox saint.

Andrew

I am unaware of any action having been taken on this matter in 1904. If you can track down the previous posting, it might be best to ask the contributor for a source.

Fr Serge

Next year, Serbian orthodox church will canonize father Justin Popovich of Celije. I wonder if Rome would accept to do it if Serbian Orhodox make a request?

I find it difficult to reconcile devotion to Alexis Toth while being Eastern Catholic.

It was unjust the treatment that he was given by the U.S. Roman Catholic hieararchy, but is that reason enough to leave the fullness of the Christian faith found only in the Catholic Church?

Yes, I know that the Orthodox Church has the apostolic faith and that there is holiness found within Her. I even have devotion to Orthodox Saints (especially Saint Elizabeth the New Martyr), but as a Catholic I believe that the fullness of the Christian faith is found in Catholicism, no matter to which liturgical traditon one belongs.

It is one thing for Catholics to venerate an Orthodox saint, but it is quite another to venerate an Orthodox saint who was originally Catholic.

I have a strong devotion to the Greek Catholic martyrs (Pratulin martyrs, Blessed Nicholas Charnetsky and Companions, Theodore Romzha, etc.). They suffered horrendous things for their loyalty to the Catholic faith. They were given opportunities to become Orthodox, but they chose not to leave the Catholic faith.

I do not think of Alexis Toth in a negative light, but for me to accept him as a saint is a "slap-in-the-face" to Byzantine Catholics who gave up their lives for their faith.

To those who have a private devotion to Alexis Toth, how do you reconcile that with being Eastern Catholic?

Father Frank Chrysostom, a Russian Byzantine Catholic priest for the Archdiocese of Denver, has some good comments regarding the glorifcation of Alexis Toth by the OCA. The link is: http://www.unitypublishing.com/Newsletter/OrthodoxCatholic.htm

So Orthodoxy lacks the fullness of faith?

I'm sorry to hear that. I believe my church maintains the fullness of faith and lacks nothing.

I don't see why.

Both sides have their martyrs.

He is a canonized saint though, and personally I think it would be respectful to refer to him that way instead of by his secular name.

Andrew

woah! both catholic and Orthodox have the fullness of the Faith. lets' be straight on that. that was settled beginning in 1965 when the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome got over them selves and said as much. Father Toth was treeated wrongly. maybe his leaving the Catholic Church wasn't the best move, but, we all know how he and other ECs were treated in the bad old days by the Catholic hierarchy.there is enough blame to go around, let's make sure everyone gets' their rightful share.
Much Love,
Jonn

Well here we go 'round and 'round again, but let's just say that it is not a consensus between either the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches that the other has the fullness of faith.

Logos Teen

aaaaaaah, yes! but I did say BEGINNING, there is much to be done, but attitudes are changing, kid, and high time.
Much Love,
Jonn

It sure does mine. Thanks, griego catolico, I found this very informative.

Now, regarding two other Saints...I was wondering if someone can tell me whether Eastern Orthodox also celebrate in their liturgy February 14 as do Latin Catholics (and so do Eastern Catholics but I am not sure just when) ..Sts. Cyril and Methodius, brothers, who lived in the nineth century. If not, when do they celebrate them if they do celebrate them?

St. Cyril was born in Thessalonica and educated in Constantinople. He and his brother, St. Methodius, went to Moravia to preach the Christian faith. They both prepared Slavic liturgical texts in what would later be known as the Cyrillic alphabet. They were summoned to Rome where Cyril died in 869. Methodius was consecrated a bishop and went to Pannonia where he preached the Gospel. He died in Czechoslovakia in 885.

Porter

There may not be a consensus, but Catholics should understand the teaching of the Magesterium. Unitatis Redintegratio speaks quite directly to this issue. From Paragraph 15: And the conclusion to Paragraph 17: Everyone at the Council, including Archbishop Lefebvre, signed this document and it was officially given at Rome by Pope Paul VI in 1964. With the teaching of the Church in mind, venerating Orthodox saints should therefore be of little concern - and the veneration for St. Seraphim of Sarov by the late Pontiff, who also quoted St. Seraphim occasionally, is a case in point.
FDD

Do you know of any statement where Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagorus stated that both Churches have the fullness of faith? I have not been able to find one. There is no such statement in the Common Declaration [vatican.va] of October 28, 1967.

God bless you,

griego

Diak,

As for the first quote you cite, I don't see how this shows the Orthodox have the fullness of the Faith? It's just reiterating exactly what we know about Apostolic Succession and what it brings with it. The Sedevacantists also have these things, but are also schismatic.

The second quote seems to be states that those in communion with Rome express Eastern heritage "more faithfully and completely," which to me is simply stating that Eastern Catholics are truer to the Eastern heritage than the Eastern Orthodox thanks to their communion with the Pope.

Thirdly, Vatican II wasn't a dogmatic council and didn't define any doctrines, especially not in regards as to what we must believe about the Eastern Orthodox in order to be faithful Catholics.

Logos Teen

Here is the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration [vatican.va] of December 7, 1965 in which the mutaul excommunications were lifted. Again, there is no statement that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both have the fullness of faith.

In fact, the last two paragraphs state that there are differences between the two Churches that must be worked out before a "full communion of faith" can be realized.

Ilian,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, as an Orthodox Christian that is your belief. As a Catholic, I believe what my Church teaches that the fullness of faith lies only in the Catholic Church.

This is not my own opinion, but a teaching of the Catholic Church as stated in the document Dominus Iesus [vatican.va] .

If you have not read, I recommend that you do. You may not agree with it, but at least you will know the Catholic teaching. Pay special attention to section 4 of the document titled, "Unicity and unity of the Church".

I look forward to further dialogue with you.

May God bless you!

griego

If you believe that Orthodoxy lacks the fullness of faith, that Orthodox saints are not saints (and can be referred by their secular names), or that if a Catholic who by their own free choice joins Orthodoxy can be said to be making a mistake or is not worthy of veneration... I honestly don't see what there is to talk about.

If that's the position of the Catholic church, I don't know why I'm even posting here.

Andrew

First of all, what other Councils do you reject? So for some Catholics a universal council presided over by their lawful Vicar of Christ can be ignored?

Secondly, I've heard this relativistic argument plenty times. Ask any Catholic Bishop if he rejects the documents of Vatican II as not being part of the Magesterium who is currently in full communion with the Catholic Church. Go ahead. Don't ask me - ask any visible successor of the Apostles in full communion.

Also regarding your first objection - I doubt a term "closest intimacy" (which is the same in the original Latin version) would certainly not be used by the Church to describe another Church if serious or significant dogmatic differences separated us. See if that language has ever been used with the Protestants by a Council. You won't find it.

Thirdly, the statement s quite clear and direct, and I'll post it again in the words of the Council, universally convened and presided over by the Vicar of Christ:

What part of "full Catholic and apostolic" is not understood? Perhaps a closer study of the magesterial decrees of your Church is in order.
FDD

Address of John Paul II to a group of Catholic and Greek Orthodox faithful: [vatican.va]

In the address above, John Paul II speaks of the �unity of faith� which both Catholic and Orthodox alike share. I find it doubtful that both parties could be said to share such a �unity of faith� if one party alone was thought to contain the �fullness of the faith� while the other is somehow lacking in its deposit of the faith.

The whole argument held by some in this thread that the West alone holds the �fullness of the faith� - in that it seeks to minimize (dare I say cheapen) the deposit of faith held by our Eastern brethren - does to me smack of Triumphalism in yet another guise.

Rather than sowing such discord, may we endeavor to fulfill the desire of our Holy Father in �Overcoming the misunderstandings of the past, we look in hope to a future when love will be perfect among us and the world will therefore know that we are Christ's disciples.�


~Isaac (who as a Byzantine Catholic holds St. Alexis Toth in the highest esteem.)

Dear Issac,

We need to be careful not equating "unity of faith" with "fullness of faith". There is a distinction which is often blurred.
The document Dominus Iesus makes that distinction in articles 16 and 17.

Fullness of faith (last paragraph of Article 16):

With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ , despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church , and on the other hand, that �outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth�,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church .56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that � they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church �.57

Unity of faith(first paragraph of Article 17):

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. 59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church .60

The Orthodox and Catholic churches are united in their faith in Jesus Christ, but as it states above, non-Catholic Churches do not accept papal primacy, which is a doctrine of faith revealed by God.

Dominus Iesus carries the apostolic authority of our late Holy Father Pope John Paul II.

Also, a clarification, the fullness of faith is not found in the "West" but in the Catholic Church.

Brother Griego,

Thank you for pointing out that particular document, which in turn led me to Cardinal Ratzinger�s \'Note on the Expression "Sister Churches".\' [vatican.va] I find both extremely troubling, especially the assertion in the second document (paragraph 10) that the �Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches,� which in the context of both documents means that the �Universal Church� spoken of is Rome alone - an assertion which in good conscience I cannot accept. I am going to have to give both documents careful consideration and prayerfully examine the question that increasingly arises within me as to why I remain Catholic when in belief and praxis I am Orthodox.

In Christ,
~Isaac

Dear Andrew,

Does not the Orthodox Church teach that the fullness of faith exists only in the Orthodox Church? Does it not teach that the Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ?

So why are you offended when the Catholic Church states the same thing about Herself?

Do you believe that both Churches have the fullness of faith? If so, then why are we not already in communion?

The issue of papal primacy is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a matter of doctrine. It is part of the Catholic faith (both East and West) that God wills His Church to be shephered by the Pope of Rome.

It is not my intention to "fan the flames" or even to enter into an apologetical discussion. I am only stating what the Church teaches. I will be the first to accept that I am wrong if I am proven so, but so far no one has challenged the sources I have referred to. The Catholic Church is very good about putting what She believes on print.

As for the comment about Orthodox saints, the Catholic Church does officially recognize the holiness of some Orthodox saints, such as Saint Sergius of Radonezh.

If I didn't accept him as a saint, then why would I suggest that there be a Roman-rite Mass in his honor?

Our late Holy FatherPope John Paul II has spoken of Saint Seraphim of Sarov and Saint Gregory Palamas.

I have a personal devotion to Saint Elizabeth the New Martyr; I am currently reading her biography as spiritual reading!! I would love to make a pilgrimage to her tomb in Jerusalem!
I have venerated the relics of Saint John Maximovitch and Saint Nektarios at their shrines.

The Catholic Church has made no official acceptance of Fr. Alexis Toth, therefore a Catholic may have a private devotion to him as he or she sees fit or not.

Personally, I do not regard as a saint in light that he was a Catholic priest whose actions led to division in the Church.

You were offended that I didn't accept Fr. Toth as a saint, but do you accept Saint Josaphat as one? The majority of Orthodox do not.

Yes, Fr. Toth was treated unfairly by the hiearachy, but so have many Catholic saints but they didn't leave the Catholic Church.

The Greek Catholic martyrs suffered worse treatment than Fr. Alexis. Several of them were offered the chance to become Orthodox and continue their ministry. They refused.

How can I accept Fr. Toth as a saint in light of the sacrifices of the Greek Catholic martyrs who gave their lives for the Catholic faith, rather than being Orthodox?

Please explain how that can be reconciled.

God bless you,

griego

What I believe is that Orthodoxy contains the fullness of faith, because I believe wherever the true Eucharist is present, so there is Christ who is the fullness of the church and the faith. I personally don�t bother with trying to point out which other communions may or may not contain the fullness of faith. God alone knows that. Were the Orthodox and Catholic Churches to reconcile, I don�t think one or the other would alone be completed or achieve fullness. Both would receive something that is missing IMO.

I have great respect for the Catholic martyrs who died for their faith. There are Orthodox martyrs who could have become Catholic too and been spared persecution and death. This unfortunately has occurred on both sides throughout history. I don�t think I really need to point that out to anyone.

I have great respect for St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre. I also have great respect for + Metropolitan Orestes and the other founders of my diocese. You obviously do not. So be it. That is not a challenge to my faith, any more than are the documents pointed out which apparently say that Rome says it alone has the fullness of faith or that it is the �mother of all churches�.

This is the one and only place I regularly converse with Catholics about their faith (in real or cyber life). I simply don�t feel the need to continue reading comments that denigrate my church or its saints though, so I believe it is time for this to come to an end.

There are several aspects to the discussion of the glorification of Father Alexis Toth:

1) this event was not preceded by any movement of prayer - one has the impression that it was fast-tracked, so to speak. In particular, no full set of services to the new Saint seems to have been prepared.

2) one must, as I said above, distinguish between Father Alexis himself (and I have neither said nor written anything to suggest that he has not been saved in heaven) and the process of glorification. A close friend, himself a Greek-Catholic, attended the glorification and was severely traumatized by the crude fashion in which it was used to attack the Greek-Catholic Church. One might compare this matter to Saint Photius: there is no reason for Catholics to dispute the sanctity of Photius of Cosntantinople, nor to object to his glorification. There is every reason to avoid using some the wilder versions of services to him.

3) secular names - this is a minor matter, but perhaps it's best to clear it up. It is not customary to use surnames in reference to the Saints. But occasionally, by way of exception, this is done, presumably to avoid confusion (there are many Saint named "Peter", and it is no more than polite to indicate which Saint Peter one has in mind - the Apostle, St Peter Chrysologus, Saint Peter Mohyla, and so forth). In the case of Father Alexis Toth, one has only to visit the chapel of Saint Vladimir's Seminary to find a lovely icon of him with an inscription which includes his surname.

As to the whole discuxsion of venerating "non-Catholic" Saints, I seriously doubt that they have schisms in heaven!

Fr. Serge

Isaac,

Paragraph ten of the CDF note on the term 'sister Churches' is not really a problem, because it can be conformed to the ecclesiological doctrine of the ancient Fathers. On the other hand, paragraph three of the same document is problematic because it promotes a notion of the primacy that has never been accepted by the Eastern Churches, and which has even been openly rejected by the Melkite Patriarch. Here is what the CDF document says:

Now, here is what the Melkite Patriarch said at the Synod of Bishops in 2001 about the relationship between the ministry of the Pope and that of the Eastern Patriarchs:

The Melkite Patriarch is correct, because as long as Rome insists on a primacy of power and jurisdiction over the Church and the bishops, instead of a primacy of honor and love in service to ecclesial communion, the restoration of communion between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches will be impossible. A Patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the universal Church through the celebration of the liturgy, is incompatible with the Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical communion with the bishop of Rome. Hopefully the recent discussions in Belgrade will help in the process of restoring a Patristic ecclesiology within the Roman Church.

God bless,
Todd

to those who have stated that there was no statement between the Pope and Patriarch of the fullness being present in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism: true as that may be, I did say "beginning", and that says that things had hitherto come pretty far after the mutual anathemas and excommunications of yore. I guess it's all about semantics. what I also find here is that the recognition of the Fullness of the Faith is coming from the grassroots, everyday people like you and I seeing past the painful events of history and recognizing each other for what we are: Christians, rooted in History,Apostolic Sucession and orthodoxy (small "o").I still recall with a warm heart a year or so ago when I wished that I could receive the Mysteries in the OCA parish in Chattanooga, as we all know no Russian Catholic parish exists anywheres near here. I still remember one good OCA dude saying that "why not" as far as my being able to receive the Mysteries in one of his parishes. how long this good attitude has existed between individual Catholic and Orthodox persons before 1965 is a mysterium tremendum not only to me, but I dare to presume to a lot of other folks. now, if we can only get the powers that be in both our traditions to get over themselves, I think we'll be on our way.
Much Love,
Jonn

THE ROMAN MARTYROLOGY

The Twenty-Fifth Day of September

1. In the town of Emmaus, the birthday of blessed Cleophas, a disciple of Christ, who is said to have been slain by the Jews for his confession in the same house wherein he had made supper for the Lord, and is buried there in glorious memory.
2. At Amiens in France, blessed Firminus, Bishop, who obtained martyrdom in Diocletian's persecution, under the governor Rictiovarus, by being beheaded after many torments.
3. On the same day, on the Claudian Way, St. Herculanus, soldier and Martyr, who was converted to Christ by the miracles at the passion of blessed Alexander, Bishop, and, under the Emperor Antoninus, was for his confession of the faith, slain with the sword after many torments.
4. At Damascus, the holy martyrs Paul and Tatta his wife, and their sons Sabinian, Maximus, Rufus and Eugene, who, accused of professing the Christian religion, were tortured by stripes and other punishments, and in torment gave up their souls to God.
5. In Asia, the passion of SS. Bardomian, Eucarpus and twenty-six other martyrs.
6. At Lyons in France, the death of St. Lupus, Bishop, once an anchorite.
7. At Auxerre, St. Anacharius, Bishop and Confessor.
8. At Blois in France, St. Solemnius, Bishop of Chartres, famous for miracles.
9. On the same day, St. Principius of Soissons, Bishop, brother of blessed Bishop Remi.
10. At Anagni, the holy virgins Aurelia and Neomisia.

And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors and holy virgins. Thanks be to God.

I dont see any St Sergius in the above text for the 25 Sept. However, it is permissable to to have masses said for the dead who were not Catholics.

I think a few who have commented here have forgotten that the Catholic church has been sending high level delgations to represent the Church at some Orthodox Canonisations, including the Russian Royal Martyrs. The Orthodox calendar was approved by the Holy See in the time of Metropolitan Andrew of thrice blessed memory.

Hello Pavel,

May I ask where you found that version of the Martyrology? Was it online? The online versions are incomplete.

I consulted the official Martyrologium Romanum, published by the Holy See, at a Roman Catholic seminary. It is published in Latin. Below is an image of the cover:
[Linked Image]
That's where you'll find Saint Sergius. If I can, I'll scan the page and post it here.

God bless,

griego

I think a few who have commented here have forgotten that the Catholic church has been sending high level delgations to represent the Church at some Orthodox Canonisations, including the Russian Royal Martyrs.

Hello again Pavel,

Do you know who represented the Catholic delegation at the glorification of the Romanovs?
I'd be interested to know.

The Orthodox calendar was approved by the Holy See in the time of Metropolitan Andrew of thrice blessed memory.

Yes, Alex (aka Orthodox Catholic) has mentioned that before, but he also said that Rome removed those Orthodox saints from the calendar who were "anti-Roman" in reputation.





Yes,

The following paragraph can be found on the OCA Midwest Diocese website [midwestdiocese.org] in which Fr. Alexis attacks Saint Josaphat and the Catholic Church:

Saint Alexis made the 1,200 mile trip from Minneapolis to Wilkes-Barre on December 3, 1892. He was led to the parish house which was filled with parishioners to whom he again explained what it meant to enter the Orthodox Church. The people were satisfied with all of that, but especially, with the prospect of finally having a bishop. The following day, a Sunday, the church was filled. St. Alexis gave a sermon which lasted for more than an hour and a half. He covered the history of the Unia including its origins, how it was enforced - particularly referencing one of its greatest enforcers, the supposed �Hieromartyr-Saint� Josaphat Kuntzevich, whom St. Alexis harshly but accurately referred to as a �jerk and villain ,� - papal supremacy which the Saint identified as �a human invention;� how the Latin Church spoiled the Nicene Creed (i.e., by altering it to read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son [contrast John 15:26]); Rome�s peculiar teaching of immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary; how �indulgences� are false and were invented to raise money, etc., and how all of these issues are opposed to Christ�s teaching and the patristic understanding of the Church.

Does anyone know where I can get the complete text of this homily?

As one who has devotion to Saint Josaphat, the above paragraph only reinforces why I do not regard Fr. Alexis as a saint. How can I regard as a saint one who criticizes Saint Josaphat, who gave his life for union between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

It puzzles me that there are Eastern Catholics who have a devotion to Fr. Alexis and yet believe the false accusations against Saint Josaphat.

To me, it makes no sense.

How does one reconcile this? How does a Byzantine Catholic venerate an Orthodox saint who attacks the union that brought about the Byzantine Catholic Church?

I am asking these questions to understand this position, not to provoke argument. Please believe that.

Your explanations will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

God bless you.

griego

We have had information on St Josaphat before here that said he was as bad as the opposition when it came to using force etc on the people who resisted the 'union'

In Demetrius Wysochansky's book, St. Josaphat Kuntsevych, Apostle of Church Unity-the most thoroughly researched book on Saint Josaphat's life in English-, he provides English translations of Saint Josaphat's letter correspondence with Leo Sapiah, chancellor of Lithuania, in which he denies absolutely that he had ever used force against Orthodox Christians.
The book provides testimonies of Orthodox Christians during Saint Josaphat's canonization process in which they admit they fabricated lies about Saint Josaphat as well as other Orthodox Christians who testified to his holiness.

It should also be pointed out that Leo Sapiah severely punished those who murdered Saint Josaphat.

It's worth reading.

I have the latest edition of the Martyrologium Romanum (2004) in my hands as I write this. On page 536, Saint Sergius is ninth of eleven saints listed for September 25th.

Here is his entry in Latin (minus the accents):

In monasterio Sanctissimae Trinitatis in Mosquensi Russiae regione, sancti Sergii de Radonez, qui, primum in silvis asperis eremita, dein vitam coenobiticam coluit et hegumenus electus propagavit, vir mitis, consiliarius principum et consolator fidelium.

I only know of one online Martyrology, that at Breviary.net. It is an excellent resource, being in Latin and English, but it is preconciliar and has not been updated with the postconciliar Calendar changes or any of the many canonisations/glorifications since that time. I just wish the new Martyrology was available in translation.

St. Sergius-
There is a very nice listing of St. Sergius in the Dictionary of Saints, by John Delaney.
It does not list an actual Feast day, but does mentioned that he died on Sept, 25,1392. It is very interesting, and says "he was born near Rostov, of a noble Russian Family, and christened Bartholomew"-I don't have a scanner, and do not type very well, otherwise I would post the whole story.

And in this official teaching of the Catholic Church in the document posted above you will notice if you read it that the filioque is omitted from the Nicene Creed.

Just to add a little more input to this thread.

There are several feastdays of non-baptized christians celebrated on the liturgical calendars of both the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches.

Joe Prokopchak
Byzantine Bad Boy

Dear griego catolico,

You said:


I would suggest you try reading the Balamand document.

God bless,
Peter.