This is a question posed to the Eastern Orthodox members, but open for all.

On the heels of the recent thread about venerating Orthodox saints in the Catholic Church, I want to ask about St. Isaac the Syrian.

He was a Nestorian (7th century Bishop of Nineveh) but is venerated by Eastern Orthodoxy and even has a feast day. Of course his writings on the monastic life are apparently Orthodox "must-reads," though I regret to say I've never read any.

So what is this that it seems the Churches sometimes even officially venerate those as saints who were not officially in communion with them? Any thoughts?

Alexis

Sometimes common sense prevails?

I've parts of his writings, and they are worthy of respect and study.

-- John

And would this not be tantamount to an admission by the Eastern Orthodox Churches that one need not officially be a member of those Churches to be saved?

The Catholic Church has spoken on that issue: non-Catholics can be saved in some mysterious ways known only to God, but they are mystically somehow united to and saved through the Church, which is the only means of salvation.

But AFAIK, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are officially silent on the issue, right? In that case, this seems to lend support to the idea, though never defined or explicitly stated, that non-Eastern Orthodox can be saved.

Alexis

Interesting article

St Issac of Syria

Yes, Secret Squirrel, I found this quote to echo what I was saying earlier:


Alexis

I think it is obsolete now to equate the Assyrian Church of the East with Nestorianism.

At least in the Catholic circle the Assyrian Church of the East understanding of Christology was accepted trough the joint declaration.

Alfonsus,

I wasn't equating anything. My quote is from OrthodoxWiki, where the ACoftheE is equated with Nestorianism, rightly or wrongly. And even OrthodoxWiki wasn't talking about the modern-day ACoftheE, but rather Nestorianism in the 7th century.

Alexis

Logos-Alexis
Orthodoxy makes no judgments about what happens to those outside of Orthodoxy.

Dear Friends,

Alexis raises a fascinating question with respect to hagiography!

If I may be allowed to contribute my two cents' worth.

Since silence gives consent, with everyone's permission . . .

First of all, the Church (the undivided Church of the first millennium) actually forbade Christians to participate in the cultus or veneration of the saints and martyrs of designated sects condemned by it.

The Docetists and the various other heretical groups all had their saints and martyrs, pilgrimages to their shrines and the like. The Church forbade Christians from participating in any veneration, public or private, of such. The main reason is that their views about Christianity were so wild as to be considered non-Christian.

There were, however, other groups that, although excommunicated by the Councils, when they came into communion with the Church, their local saints, under certain conditions, continued to be venerated by them and in some cases their veneration extended throughout the Church universal.

In all cases, the point of heresy was about Christology i.e. the Person of Christ.

The Assyrians, representing the Antiochene School, were accused of Nestorianism or the system named after Nestorius of Constantinople that posited two "prosopa" or persons in Christ, one Human and the other Divine. Thus, Mary could not be said to be the Mother of God or Theotokos but Christotokos or the Mother of Christ.

The Miaphysites followed the Christology and Christological terminology of St Cyril of Alexandria who taught "One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate" and to Byzantine and Roman ears, this meant that they believed that Christ's Humanity was somehow subsumed by His Divinity.

Both these traditions had and have their Saints and Martyrs. In the case of St Isaac of Syria, whose cult is strong in the Orthodox Church, at no time has the Orthodox Church considered him to be a "Nestorian." His theology certainly does not reflect Nestorianism whatsoever.

The Church then knew, as we do now, that when monasteries of thousands of monks were led into this or that Christological controversy by the leadership (and one didn't question one's Abbot or Ighumenos) the theological views of the individual monastics were either strongly in favour of the controversy or else neutral. In any event, one could never condemn entire communities of monastics for the sins of their leadership. As long as the individual monastics went quietly about their business, there was no reason to assume they were "formal heretics" or else implicated in the controversy.

This is how, in fact, Eastern Orthodoxy has always seen St Isaac the Syrian. His writings, all of them, are clearly Orthodox - he lived in an area where there were no other Churches other than Miaphysite (formerly referred to as "Monophysite" by the West i.e. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). In addition, groups of "Nestorians" came back to Orthodoxy over time and brought with them the veneration of St Isaac the Syrian - no problem to have this integrated with the existing saints of Orthodoxy.

This was true of St Nicetas the Goth, who was ordained a priest by the Arian bishop Ulfilas (who believed that Christ was the "Great God and Saviour" but less than equal to the Father). Fr. Holweck in his Catholic "Dictionary of Saints" says that "through ignorance, Nicetas could have been an Arian" and suggests strongly that the area in which he lived had no other churches other than Arian ones.

Martyrdom for Christ, however, made the Church overlook the defect of the orthodoxy of such and St Basil the Great himself wrote a moving panegyric about a Christian martyr who was, in fact, an Arian martyr (St Sabas). Many Arian saints made it into the calendars of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (such as St Artemius of Egypt who was martyred for destroying pagan temples - the fact that he was also destroying Catholic churches that fought against Arianism was overlooked by the Church!).

The Christological heresies of the Assyrians and the Miaphysites were serious - but when an Assyrian Christian became Orthodox-Catholic and returned to the Church, the process was so "light and easy" - unlike the process so many members of other heretical and schismatical groups had to undergo. The same was true of the Miaphysites, but over time, the formerly Miaphysite Church of Georgia came into full union with Orthodoxy, as did groups of Armenians (St Paissy Velichkovsky actually lists "Chalcedonian Armenians" among his followers).

And the Miaphysite saints of Georgia (a number of whom were attacked by Orthodox theologians of their day) are all now part of the Orthodox calendar and also of the EC calendar. In other words, the cultus of these saints was examined after the Church of Georgia united with Eastern Orthodoxy and no problems were detected in their continued veneration.

As for holiness, again, as long as a person was not a vocal proponent of a given Christological controversy/heresy, and affirmed, for all intents and purposes, Orthodox teaching - there was no problem.

Even Rome today has a principle whereby when an Eastern church comes into communion with it, only those saints are expunged from their calendar that were "anti-Roman." Although one Catholic theologian once told me that even such saints can remain in the calendar, although they could not be liturgically venerated.

The principle is that the Churches don't question each other's canonizations and the fact of a local cult among the people is the strongest argument for maintaining it. In fact, Rome continues to beatify and canonize saints on the basis of an existence of a perennial cult (this was how the first English Martyrs were beatifed in 1886 - on the basis of the veneration of their pictures painted on the walls of the English College in Rome).

And while newly glorified saints of the Miaphysite or Assyrian tradition aren't "taken over" by Eastern Orthodoxy, with future reunions, this could take place.

This issue was discussed at length during the meetings of the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox commission as well.

Alex

Alex,

As usual, an exceedingly informative post. Along those lines, do you know if there were any Orthodox saints that remained on the calendars following the Union of Brest-Litovsk and the Union of Uzhgorod? (Did I spell those right?)

God bless and keep you....

Dear Thomas,

I don't about the Union of Uzhgorod, but that of Brest-Litovsk - all the saints venerated in the Orthodox Church until 1596 remained on the calendar without even a single one being removed.

The six most popular saints at the time were: Sts Vladimir and Olha, Sts Boris and Hlib and Sts Anthony and Theodosius of the Caves in Kyiv - these were all canonized by the Orthodox Church.

Others included: Sts Anthony, John and Eustace of Vilnius; St Nicetas of Pereyaslavl the Stylite, Sts Theodore and John the Martyrs; and many others.

It was only toward the end of the 19th century that the Austro-Hungarian empire, fearing Russia and the "Russification" in the Greek-Catholic Church who ordered the GC Metropolitan of Lviv to remove the "most Orthodox" of Saints and even wonder-working icons from the GC calendar (including the Theotokos of Pochaiv!).

It wasn't until 1904 when Met. Andre Sheptytsky asked Rome to acknowledge all the Saints of the Russian Orthodox Church for veneration by the Russian Byzantine Catholics - which permission was granted.

These included many Orthodox saints glorified since the time of the Brest Union.

There was one Saint, the Venerable Martyr Athanasius of Brest, who was against the Union of Brest - but many GC's continued to venerate him as a national martyr and saint.

To counter this, the Polish Jesuits instituted the feast of St Josaphat on Sept. 16, two days before that of St Athanasius, to cut down the number of GC's attending the pilgrimage to the Shrine of St Athanasius at Brest.

Met. Andrew Sheptytsky ordered the feast of St Josaphat to be returned to November 12/25 where it was formerly. I have a GC prayerbook from 1893 that indeed lists the feast of St Josaphat under Sept. 16th.

Alex

Why is this so significant?

Dear Alexis,

Sorry not to make it clearer.
I think my comment should be taken in a more general way. In some circles, including the Catholic Church, some are used to label the term Nestorian to the Assyrian Church of the East. By saying this they imply the mindset 'they are heretics and has nothing to do with us'.

I think the OrthodoxWiki article provide that example. I also found such writing in some Catholic article. But IMO the main reason why they put it that way was ignorance.

Sorry if my post seemed like I accused you of something.

Becuase it shows that Eastern Orthodoxy seems not to hold that one need be officially a member of the EO Communion to be saved, and can even be venerated as a saint liturgically.

Alexis

Thank you Alex.
Church historian extra-ordinaire!


-ray

I guess I don't consider it exactly news that it is believed that grace and therefore salvation can be present outside the church.

AMM,

You've been really touchy lately. What's eating you? Don't take it out passive-aggessively on me!

I'm not EO so I don't really know whether the general consensus in Orthodoxy is that salvation can be found outside the Church.

Alexis

The Orthodox Church's theology is Apophatic (or negative). We do not know the wonderfully incomprehensible mind of Our Heavenly Father. Who is or who is not saved is solely within the realm of His Steadfast Love (Psalm 36).

Three Cents,

But to my Latin mind (which I'm proud of, thank you very much ;)), this sort of thing lends credence to the idea that perhaps the entirety of the theology on this issue isn't negative. Some of it is implicit positive (i.e., we know this non-Orthodox St. Isaac guy was saved and is a saint). Where the Roman and Byzantine mind diverge, it seems, is that we Romans would continue on further to state the logical result of this implication, where the Byzantine mind seems still to be silent.

Different strokes for different folks!

Alexis

Dear AMM,

Certainly this is an important matter for the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox commission who dedicated some notable (and learned) space to a consideration of the matter (especially how the Saints would be handled upon reunion).

The Orthodox side concluded that the recognition of other Saints is closely tied to the question of whether the Saints were in communion with Orthodoxy - it is not a statement whatever about the holiness of those Saints (e.g. St Francis, St Dioscoros of Alexandria, St Severus of Antioch and St Philoxenus of Mabhugh).

That is different from how Rome sees things and the Orthodox contribution to this hagiographical question in those discussions makes clear Orthodoxy's position and can serve to bring further ecumenical insights on the matter.

Alex

Dear Alexis,

And the Orthodox Church has always regarded St Isaac as fully Orthodox not only because his writings but also because of the view that a Saint or monastic could be fully Orthodox but due to circumstances beyond his or her control was in an area where there were only Assyrians/Miaphysites etc.

So what I'm saying is while your question is perfectly valid (and interesting), the case of St Isaac may or may not be the best one to use to illustrate it.

This aspect needs to be further explored but it is fascinating, as I'm sure you will agree!

In the case of Arian martyrs for Christ, their martyrdom appeared to cancel out the fact of their formal heresy.

Rome also refused to put into the calendar those who showed some sort of "moral weakness" including the first Pope not to make it into the calendar of saints, Pope Liberius. He is "St Liberius" in the East and also in certain areas of the West where he is depicted with a halo (there are several Popes who have local cults as "Blessed" but that is where it stops). Pope St Marcellus was canonized for his martyrdom - his life was certainly nothing to write Rome about.

Alex

I hadn't realized I was being touchy, so I apologize if that is the case. I promise to add some "feely" to balance that out.

The church is a conduit of grace, but not the only means. The sacraments are for us and God is not bound to them. That there is salvation outside the church does not seem like a new insight to me. That there is no assurance or description of how this happens is implied as well.

The point about the Oriental Orthodox is a good one, but from my perspective they are Orthodox.

Dear AMM,

Excellent that you say that about the Oriental Orthodox! The really great insight of that Commission was the idea that they are two "Orthodox families of Churches."

For me, this goes beyond the most "ecumenical" statements Rome has ever put out while offering some solid points for working out a common ecclesial praxis.

Reading their work is a great pleasure too.

Alex

Very interesting, I hate to tell you but the feeling is not mutual from my experience. The Copts I have encountered have been so far quite adamant in rejecting the Council of Chalcedon and her dogmas (which they understood very clearly).

They were, however, quite hopeful that the Eastern Orthodox Church would someday return to what they believed to be the true faith and the true Church and reject heterodox theology.

That's the beauty of personal experience. Mine is totally different.

QUOTE:
'but when an Assyrian Christian became Orthodox-Catholic and returned to the Church, the process was so "light and easy" '

When a group of members of the Assyrian Church (formerly known as Princ-uh-i mean Nestorians....) joned the Orthodox Church in 1898, the Assyrian Bishop and several of his clergy went to St Petersburg, where they were receieved in their current ranks by Profession of Faith, and then vesting in the proper Orthodox vestments....

I'm amazed that so far no one on this thread has mentioned Barlaam and Joasaph of India!

Fr. Serge

At my priest's suggestion I'm reading the spiritual biography of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco this year during Lent. Something noted during his years in Western Europe is that he actively looked for western saints not commemorated on the calendar and had them added by the synod.

Ah, time to resurrect an old thread!

Here's another doozie I'd love for someone to explain.

It seems that besides numerous Eastern Orthodox saints who are especially venerated in the Georgian Church but who were nonetheless Monophysite, we have the case of Empress Theodora.

From all accounts she was very anti-Chalcedonian and was unabashedly Monophysite, so much so that she often intervened to save or (in the case of Nubia) spread Monophysitism, sometimes contrary to the will of her Orthodox/Catholic husband, Justinian.

How is it that someone who was clearly not simply Monophysite because of geographical location (for which reason Alex excused Isaac the Syrian) and even wielded her political influence contrary to spread heresy, venerated as a saint in the very Church with which her personal theological positions competed?

Alexis

Dear Alexis,

Actually, I had nothing to do with receiving St Isaac the Syrian into the calendar - the Church did. But thank you for the compliment!

In the case of Sts Justinian and Theodora, there is no doubt that they were always Orthodox and in good standing as such. (They join a total of 20 Byzantine Emperors and Empresses in the Calendar who were so honoured primarily for their services to protect and govern the Church - and in some cases, their calendar entry is simply that - the level of a memorial/commemoration and not liturgical veneration).

You've hit on yet another fascinating aspect of this complex and sometimes bewildering history of the relations between Byzantine Christianity and the Miaphysites (I think recent historiography has done a fair job of clearing those Christians of the charge of "Monophysitism" - and they themselves condemn Monophysitism - the remaining problem is with historical memories and some enduring difficulties appreciating each other's Christological expressions and those of the Council of Chalcedon).

This has to do with the tension that existed between the Imperial power and the Church. The same Church that commanded the people to "honour the emperor" was also the same Church that could exempt the people from that same obligation if the Emperor were to be condemned as heretical (or seen by the people as heretical by siding with a group condemned as heretical by the Church). And religion could both unify or severly divide an empire, thereby weakening it and the Emperor's power.

The theological disputes that led to the break on the basis of Christology (and we should remember that while this was a very critical issue, it was the only one that separated the Churches) were not seen as being insurmountable by the religious and civil authorities of the day. What was the great headache for the Emperor was the fall-out for his political governance and plans as a result of continuing church divisions. Again, we live in a country where one's religion is one's private affair, for the most part. At that time, to be in separation from one another meant something very serious as citizens of the same state who were divided along religious lines did not cooperate with one another and could even withdraw support for the authorities who were not members of their church etc.

The Emperor's ecclesial policy, therefore, was to be involved directly in church affairs (as he was from the beginning, already) and promote reunion of the Byzantine and Miaphysite Churches. In the case of St Theodora, she was involved in this to an even greater extent than her imperial husband (however, Byzantium had an established tradition of devout Orthodox Empresses who defended true doctrine even when their own husbands were heretics).

But Justianian was equally agreeable to ecumenical outreach here. While in talks with Miaphysites, they asked him about the continued veneration of their teachers/saints in a reunited Church. To this, Justianian replied that this could be dealt with positively by a reunion council and that it was not a problem at all. Let us also remember that what the argument was really about at that time had to do with various understandings of Cyrillian Christology. St Cyril of Alexandria was an undoubted Saint honoured by all (except the partisans of Nestorius . . .) and the Oriental Orthodox Saint Dioscorus of Alexandria was his nephew. At no time was anyone questioning Dioscorus' orthodoxy - he was condemned for his brutal behaviour towards St Flavian of Constantinople (who died from his beating by Dioscorus because the latter thought him to be Nestorianizing - but fisticuffs at church councils were the order of the day and even St Nicholas of Myra was condemned for punching out Arius the arch-heretic . . .).

There can be no doubt that Sts Justinian and Theodora saw the conflict much as theologians see it today - competing theological expressions and could be worked out to everyone's satisfaction with some willingness on both sides. Both sides confessed and defended the Divinity of Christ and the Unity of His Person. Both sides also confessed Christ's Humanity (for otherwise how could our Lord effect our salvation on the Cross?).

And both sides condemned Monophysitism and continue to do so today.

Both sides also continue to venerate St Theodora and her husband.

They can no more be considered heretics or in the wrong than any of us on this forum could for advancing ecumenical views on how best to reunify Catholic and Orthodox Christianity.

Alex

Same idea

Congratulations to the members of the Forum for handling this topic so irenically.

Over in the Eastern Catholicism section of the Catholic Answers Forum the Moderator has banned discussion on this topic.

Wonderful to see that contributors here can handle it without contention.

We're lucky that here we don't have certain Latin posters insisting that some Eastern Catholic Saints aren't actually Saints. That always makes for a flame-fest!

Peace and God bless!

P.S. How is your health, Fr. Ambrose?

Ghosty! It's nice to see all the old familiar faces here.

Thanks for the enquiry about the health. Most days are very good but there is the odd one when if I were a Roman Catholic, I could spring ten souls out of Purgatory.

I'm sure even any Orthodox among the ten would be most grateful that Catholics are willing and able to oblige.

Ajk,

From what I am understanding from the Eastern Catholics here on the Forum, no suffering is involved for Eastern Catholics (nor for Orthodox?) in Purgatory. Only Roman Catholics undergo that. The rest of us, if I understand Marduk correctly, do not suffer but are there simply to increase in holiness - not an unpleasant thought.

My apologies, Father Deacon, for addressing you as Ajk. I clicked on your profile and discovered you are a deacon.

Hieromonk Father Ambrose (bless),

Being so close to the Kingdom, you may be unaware that those like myself, so far from holiness, many times it takes quite some suffering for our holiness to increase..

I only speak for myself though I try to accurately state the theology.

But my remark was about (your) suffering in the flesh; here you now seem to have put yourself in purgatory.

Father, bless, no apology necessary, but I thank you for the kindness of your consideration.

Dear Ghosty,

Well, Rome is so reticent about glorifying Eastern Catholic saints (which is why we like to borrow as many as possible from the calendar of our Orthodox brothers) that the ones that do make it through all the hoops and hurdles of the revered Latin Congregation for canonizations are sure to be solid!

What was that you were saying about St Philomena?

Alex