Are there any Eastern Catholic saints from after the schism? Is the process for recognizing an Eastern Catholic saint the same as in the Latin Rite? Do the Eastern Catholics recognize any post-schism Orthodox saints?

SAHmommy

St. Josaphat Kuntsevych was made a saint after the schism.
There are quite a few Ukrainian Catholic churches named after him.

Yes, St. Josaphat of Polotsk, St. Charbel, St. Rafka, St.Nimatullah and there several more Beatified, like our own Blesseds Theodre Romzha, Paul Gojdich, Basil Hopko.

Yes, unfortunately.

Yes, St. Gregory Palamas, St Sergius of Radonezh, St.Seraphim of Sarov spring to mind.

The Blessed Martyrs Omeljan Kovc, Klement Sheptytsky, Nicholas Charnetsky, and Basil Velychkovsky were beatified by the late Holy Father John Paul II.

The Unions of Brest-Litovsk, Uzhorod, Alba Iulia and the Cyril Tannous Antiochian Schism created some problems for Eastern Catholics because these all occurred post-Palamas, and Gregory was to Orthodoxy during the post Great Schism (but pre-Reformation) period as Thomas Aquinas was to Catholicism. There was the feeling that Thomistic and Palamite Theology were at odds with each other and that the Papacy from the 1500s through the 1700s (the period of the four Greek Catholic Unions) was Thomistic. The extreme positions of the two Churches tended to regard the opposite as heretical. Has this changed from the Catholic perspective? I don't see how because Palamite Theology leaves virtually no room for Universal Jurisdiction or Papal Infallibility. Whereas, Thomistic obviously can. Is the thinking now in Catholicism to accept the two? Or is this just a nod to the Orthodox who value Gregory so highly and give him prominece on the Liturgical Calendar? I know that some (if not all) Greek Catholics celebrate Palamas Sunday, but what tangibly does that mean?

St. Gregory Palamas was accepted by the Catholic Church, by Pope John Paul II, I believe.

Dear Three Cents,

From what I can gather, Saint Gregory Palamas was fighting a heresy. He related the heresy of 'Barlaam' to his Catholic Calabrian roots and to the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

I think the problem comes about because of the differences in language. What Saint Gregory would consider using one's 'nous' towards the attainment of Grace, which might be interpreted as the 'heart' by some, is really, (or so I believe), one's 'heart' and 'reasoning', which would be in contrast to one's base 'passions' and 'pride'. I think, from the little I've read and know, (and believe me I don't know much), Saint Gregory believed that Barlaam's false belief that God could be reached through one's knowledge and mind, rather than through the attainment of Grace, came about through Scholasticism. Palamas was wrong you know, (about Scholasticism that is)...but, that's semantics for you.

Actually, the writings of Saint Gregory Palamas, reaffirms a lot of beliefs that had been recently discarded by some Orthodox in this country. Beliefs that show how closely alligned we are to the RCC, not only in our concept of the Holy Trinity, but especially in our concepts of our Theotokos...to the chagrin of the Protestanizing faction within our Church.

Zenovia

Thanks to both who responded.

Dear Zenovia:

What is being attempted now (note my use of attempted) is to rid Orthodox Theolgical Education of both Protestant reactionary thought and the previously prevailing Scholastic model (or Catholicism without their Vatican I defined Pope). The Patristic Movement (which has a category on the Forum, much to its credit), led by such as Fr. Georges Florovsky reestablishes our own Theology, which is neither Catholic Scholastic nor anti-Papal reactionary Protestant. Our Apophatic Eucharisic Theology is really compatible with neither. With Protestanism, it is incompatible because it stresses the Eucharistic timeless body and decends from Our Heavenly Father negatively and not affirmatively by some acceptance formula of salvation.

It differs with Catholicism because sacramentally, the Local Church united Eucharistically around its Bishop is the Church in its totality and requires no one else to make it "valid" or "licit" (to use Catholic terms). Whereas Catholicism requires union with the Papacy to make it "licit" (as opposed to "valid", for which to Rome requires "true" apostolic succession), Orthodoxy rejects that. This rejection provides some of the appeal to the strongly anti-Papal Protestants who join Her (particularly in the South and West Coast). Perhaps those that subsequently leave realize that they were joining much more than they thought they were when they did what they did.

Thanks to both of you again. Zenovia's post is a very nice one (although I'll choose to respectfully disagree with its ending).

In anticipation of the Nativity of Our Lord and Savior:

Christ Is Born! Let Us Glorify Him!

Check this out, this will help, 68 pages long

In addition to my great love for Saint Seraphim of Sarov, as a Greek-Catholic I also pray to Sts John of Kronstadt, Nicholas of Japan, Peter the Aleut (martyred by Latin Catholics) and Herman of Alaska.

Holiness, providentially, knows no jurisdiction.

Peace,

Gordo

Realizing that it is now common practice for Eastern Catholics to venerate post-schism Orthodox saints, what evidence is their for their veneration prior to Vatican II? My parish, for instance, would not set up an ikon of Gregory Palamas for veneration. Would any EC Church be named after S. Photios, say?

In short is this just another post-VII novelty, or is this something that has ecclesiastically-approved precedent?

Now, whatever that might mean, canonization is an ecclesiastical process instituted to assure the legitimacy of the public recognition & veneration of any given person's holiness. To my knowledge there has been no canonization process performed for such Orthodox saints even as S. Seraphim (a good, pious & loveable man on all accounts)- to say nothing of such anti-Catholics as S. Gregory Palamas, S. Photios the Great, or S. John Maximovitch.

Whatever our private opinion of the sanctity of these men, we have no room for their public veneration - indeed, publicly to venerate them would be scandalous inasmuch as it would discredit the prudential & time-tested norms set up by our Holy Mother the Catholic Church for the trying of the holy ones, & could very well be taken as a denial of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

We must remember the Orthodox have a more local view of everything, including canonizing saints. Rome is open to much more scrutiny and now has this grand elaborate process leading up to canonization.

I for one accept St. John Maximovitch, St. Gregory Palamas, St. Alexis Toth, St. Tikhon, St. Herman of Alaska, St. John of Kronstadt and others. They are legitimate saints in their mother Churches and accepted by other Orthodox Churches.

I must say that I am Orthodox, although I was raised in the Latin Church. I must say that I find it hard to believe that Byzantine Catholics would honor St. Alexius Toth because he left Rome and became Orthodox. How do eastern Rite Catholics deal with this issue? BTW, Photius the Great is my favorite saint.

"Whatever our private opinion of the sanctity of these men, we have no room for their public veneration - indeed, publicly to venerate them would be scandalous inasmuch as it would discredit the prudential & time-tested norms set up by our Holy Mother the Catholic Church for the trying of the holy ones, & could very well be taken as a denial of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus."

I beg to differ, and so do Rome and the Melkites. The Melkites have restored, St. Gregory Palamas' commemoration on the Second Sunday of Lent and given that his theology is a keystone of Byzantine theology this is quite proper. The Russians when they entered communion were not required to alter their calendar at all, so it includes all the post-schism Russian saints glorified up to that time. Besides veneration of post 1054 schism saints was not frowned. The cut off unofficially was the rejection of Florence, but as all the Unias occured after this as Churches entered communion thye brought with them there calendars.

As to outside the church there is no salvation, Rome has repeatedly affirmed that the Orthodox Churches are true particular churches and this can only be because they are part of the one true church albeit imperfectly at the moment.

Fr. Deacon Lance