The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Augoustinos, Poliscifi, The Cub, P H, Hardrada
5604 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (choralgeek), 72 guests, and 488 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,747
Posts412,013
Members5,604
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: griego catolico] #355980 11/16/10 01:41 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Diak Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
The "official" restoration of the liturgical commemoration of St. Gregory Palamas is contained in Volume II of the Anthologion published in Rome in 1974. As Pelikan has documented, Patriarch Josyp was significant in promoting this restoration, and Patriarch Josyp claimed inspiration from his predecessor, Metropolitan Andrey, in this regard. The Anthologion was printed with the approbation of the Holy See as noted on the cover page. The UGCC liturgical calendar also includes a number of saints "post schism" (whatever that means). We commemorated St. Abraham of Rostov just last Thursday (Julian) and the prosphora bakers Sts. Nikodim and Spirid last Saturday. Since the Union was accomplished in 1596 and no changes were required to the liturgical calendar by any article of the Union, it only makes sense these commemorations would continue.

It seems absolutely ludicrous to me with the liturgical and discliplinary problems besetting the Latin Church that any of her faithful is worried about what saints a particular Church wants to venerate.

Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: theloveofwisdom] #356695 12/04/10 06:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 7
P
Peregrinu Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 7
I don't know where to find the documentation you want - I've been looking for them myself - but here are a couple of things that might help:

(1) I read someplace - I believe it was a very old, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic "Dictionary of Catholic Biography" - that St. Sergius of Radonezh was canonized by the Pope sometime in the 1700s, though he was not placed on the Roman Martyrology until Vatican II.

(2) Here is a link to the 2007 Ruthenian typicon, at which you can see St. Seraphim of Sarov right at the top. You will also find a number of other post-1054 Orthodox saints, including St. Gregory Palamas. I first found this typicon when I was looking for some kind of hard evidence that St. Cosmas Aitolos was a Catholic saint, and he isn't listed here; I am hoping that omission from this document does not mean that somebody isn't recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church, but only that there wasn't room on the calendar for him (since there are sort of more than 365 saints!).

http://www.patronagechurch.com/Typicon/2007/Typicon%20Frame.htm

Hope this helps some.

Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: Diak] #356770 12/07/10 02:16 AM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Raphael Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by Diak
It seems absolutely ludicrous to me with the liturgical and discliplinary problems besetting the Latin Church that any of her faithful is worried about what saints a particular Church wants to venerate.


Diak, the issue is the doubt as to whether many of these men on the calendars were Catholic, since, as Dr. Ludwig Ott says, the proposition "Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation" is De fide (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1957 edition, p. 310), that is, necessary to believe with divine and Catholic faith under pain of automatic excommunication (CIC 751; 1364 §1). If someone were to knowingly and deliberately refuse to become Catholic before death, he would die a formal schismatic who is not a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church either "in re" or even "in voto" via explicit or implicit desire. If the Church is able to come to a moral certainty (not necessarily a scientific certainty) that the person in question died a fully incorporated member of the Catholic Church (CCC 837) or died desiring to become Catholic (even after a long period of anti-Catholicism), she can approve veneration of such saints.

For more info on this dogma of the Church, consult the following magisterial pronouncements:
*Pope Pelagius II of Rome (579-590) in 585, Letter 4 "Dilectionis vestrae" to the schismatic bishops of Istria in PL 72:710D-715B [D247]
*Pope Innocent III of Rome (1198-1216) on 12/18/1208, Profession of Faith Prescribed for Durand of Osca and his Waldensian Companions, from the letter "Fitts exemplo" to the Archbishop of Terraco [D423]
*Twelfth Ecumenical Council (Lateran IV in 1215 under Pope Innocent III), Definition directed against the Albigensians and other heretics [D430]
*Pope Boniface VIII of Rome (1294-1303) on 11/18/1302, Bull "Unam Sanctam" [D468-469]
*Pope Clement VI of Rome (1342-1352) on 9/20/1351, Letter "Super quibusdam" to the Consolator, the Armenian Catholicos Mekhitar I of Cilicia (1341-1355) [D570B]
*Pope Eugene IV of Rome (1431-1447) on 2/4/1440, Bull "Cantate Domino" at 17th Ecumenical Council (of Florence) [D714]
*18th Ecumenical Council (of Trent, 1545-1563) under Pope Paul III of Rome (1534-1549) on 1/13/1547, Decree of Justification chapters 4-5, 8, 14 [D796-797, 801, 807]
*Pope Benedict XIV of Rome (1740-1758) on 3/16/1743, Profession of Faith prescribed for the Maronites [D1473]
*Bl. Pope Pius IX of Rome (1846-1878) on 12/9/1854, Allocution "Singulari Quadem" [D1647-1648]
*Idem. on 8/10/1863, Encyclical Letter "Quanto conficiamur moerore" to the bishops of Italy [D1677-1678]
*Pope Leo XIII of Rome (1878-1903) on 6/29/1896, Encyclical letter "Satis cognitum" [D1955]
*Ven. Pope Pius XII of Rome (1939-1958) on 6/29/1943, Encyclical letter "Mystici Corporis" [D2286, 2288]

God bless you and yours, Diak! Pray for me, a sinner.

Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: Raphael] #356787 12/07/10 12:41 PM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,283
Athanasius The L Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,283
In spite of Dr. Ludwig Ott, I think you will find on this Forum precious little sympathy (and absolutely none from me personally) for the idea that the Orthodox are schismatics or that it is impossible for the Orthodox to achieve sainthood or that the Orthodox Church is a less certain path to salvation than is the Catholic Church.

Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: Raphael] #356790 12/07/10 02:11 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,471
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,471
Raphael:

Christ is in our midst!!

All of the doucments you cite are dated material and must be read in light of the pronoiuncements of Vatican Council II. Apart from that, they hold no value to us except to be seen as statements of the age in which they were written.

Since the Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has abandoned her seige mentality wherein we sat in our own isolation surrounded by our own walls and looked at the world and everyone else as outsiders. With the insights that the Holy Spirit provided at the Council, we have awakened to the fact that there are various ways to be part of the Mysical Body of Christ, that holiness is not an exclusive Catholic thing, and that while we believe that the visible outlines of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church subsist in the Catholic Church there are others who can make the same claim and we are not to deny their claim.

And, since we are an Eastern forum, not necessarily exclusively Catholic in union with the Bishop of Rome, please don't come here with a list of this sort. For many of our brethren, it is offensive.

In Christ,

Bob
Moderator

Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: Athanasius The L] #356797 12/07/10 03:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
I
Irish Melkite Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
I
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
In spite of Dr. Ludwig Ott, I think you will find on this Forum precious little sympathy (and absolutely none from me personally) for the idea that the Orthodox are schismatics or that it is impossible for the Orthodox to achieve sainthood or that the Orthodox Church is a less certain path to salvation than is the Catholic Church.


What my brothers, Ryan and Bob, have both said so well.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: Irish Melkite] #356853 12/08/10 03:10 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
In spite of Dr. Ludwig Ott, I think you will find on this Forum precious little sympathy (and absolutely none from me personally) for the idea that the Orthodox are schismatics or that it is impossible for the Orthodox to achieve sainthood or that the Orthodox Church is a less certain path to salvation than is the Catholic Church.


What my brothers, Ryan and Bob, have both said so well.

Many years,

Neil


It is important for us all to keep in mind, be we of the East or the West, Catholic or Orthodox, that the position espoused by Raphael does reflect the beliefs of many pious and well-intentioned Catholics. From my experience this includes laity and clergy alike.

Likewise, if you go on any predominately Orthodox forum you will find equally strong (and reflexive) statements made by equally pious and well-intentioned Orthodox - laity and clergy alike.

Having stated the obvious, it is important for those of us who hold a different view and differing hopes about the reconciliation of East and West that we continue to bear witness to reconciliation and hope, rather than an endless repetition of past misconceptions.



Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: theophan] #357023 12/13/10 12:05 AM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 7
P
Peregrinu Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 7
Theophan,

Since the question is which Eastern saints who lived after the schism of 1054 are venerated by the Catholic Church, wouldn't a list like this be quite helpful? (And, last time I checked, the Church's teaching is immutable and always true, Vatican II or no Vatican II - the hermeneutic of continuity is the only orthodox interpretation of the Council.) It might help to know what the Catholic Church teaches about the possibility of sanctity for those outside visible communion with Rome.

And I trust that my Orthodox brethren are mature enough and secure enough not to be offended by knowing what the Catholic Church teaches. I'm certainly not offended to know what the Orthodox bishops teach.

And, though I am Eastern, I am sympathetic to the good hard Catholic teaching that Ott has to offer. He doesn't water anything down in the name of a shallow ecumenism. His Western formulation of dogma offers a different perspective than we get from our own lung of the Church, but seeing our Faith expressed from multiple ritual perspectives is not necessarily a bad thing - it helps us view the whole.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: Peregrinu] #361440 03/11/11 12:07 AM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Raphael Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
I am not certain, but I think the 21 post-schism saints Ven. Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) permitted for veneration are from among the following 25 post-schism saints who appear in the Roman Calendar approved by the Servant of God Pope Paul VI of Rome (1963-1978) in 1969:
1. St. Sava of Serbia (January 14) [1174-1237]
2. St. Nicetas of Novgorod (January 31) [†1108]
3. St. John the Martyr of Vilnius (April 14) [†1342]
4. St. Anthony the Martyr of Vilnius (April 14) [†1342]
5. St. Eustace the Martyr of Vilnius (April 14) [†1342]
6. St. Stephen the Enlightener of Perm (April 26) [1340-1396]
7. St. Stephen Pechersky (April 27) [†1094]
8. St. Cyril of Turov (April 28) [1130-1182]
9. St. Ignatius of Rostov (April 28) [†1288]
10. St. Isaiah the Wonderworker of Rostov (May 15) [†1090]
11. St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk (May 23) [†1173]
12. St. Leontius of Rostov (May 23) [†1077]
13. St. Nicetas the Wonderworker of Pereaslavl (May 24) [†1186]
14. St. German of Valaam (June 28) [†1353?]
15. St. Sergius of Valaam (June 28) [†1353?]
16. St. Anthony of the Kiev Caves (July 10) [983-1073]
17. St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves (July 10) [†1074]
18. St. Theodore the Black of Yaroslavl (September 19) [†1299]
19. St. David of Yaroslavl (September 19) [†1299]
20. St. Constantine of Yaroslavl (September 19) [†1299]
21. St. Michael the Martyr, Wonderworker of Chernigov (September 21) [†1246]
22. St. Theodore the Martyr, Wonderworker of Chernigov (September 21) [†1246]
23. St. Sergius the Wonderworker of Radonezh (September 25) [1314-1392]
24. St. Abraham the Wonderworker of Rostov (October 29) [†1073]
25. St. Barlaam of Khutyn (November 6) [†1193]

All you glorious saints, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death! Amen

Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: Epiphanius] #361448 03/11/11 12:57 AM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Raphael Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Originally Posted by theloveofwisdom
My question is regarding this statement ... "In 1904, in response to a petition to this effect from Andrew Sheptytsky, the Vatican recognized the Russian Orthodox Saints in the Orthodox calendar for veneration by the Russian Catholics."


it was my understanding that Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky) worked very hard to eliminate the many latinizations that had come into the UGCC over the preceding centuries, and that among his accomplishments was the restoration of the observance of the Second Sunday of the Great Fast in honor of St. Gregory Palamas. It was also my understanding that he did this with the approval of Pope Pius X.


Dear Deacon Richard,
I found the following information from UGCC priest Fr. Peter Galadza's 2004 book The Theology and Liturgical Work of Andrei Sheptytsky. Fr. Galadza says on p. 296:
Quote
Kyr Andrei argues that except for Gregory Palamas, all of the saints referred to were studied by the Jesuit Martinov in 1868 and found acceptable – even inspiring – to Catholic sensibilities.212 As for Palamas, he too, writes Sheptytsky, should be tolerated for now, because even the Ruthenian Church retained his feast until Zamosc.213
n. 212: J. Martinov, S.J., Annus ecclesiasticus greco-slavus (Bruxelles, 1868).
n. 213: Title 17, "De Reliquiis, Miraculis, Ac Veneratione Sanctorum," Zamosciae Acta, 123.


The Servant of God Andrei Sheptytsky was actually an anti-Palamite: "he categorically rejects the Palamite approach to grace" (178) and "rejects a cornerstone of Hesychasm – the emphasis on bodily experience of the divine" (180). Sheptytsky misunderstood St. Gregory Palamas (he thought Palamas taught that uncreated divine grace is "distinct from God") (181). In what Fr. Galadza characterizes as a defense of Barlaam of Calabria (1290-1348), Sheptytsky wrote (qtd. p. 181):
Quote
[Barlaam] showed that Palamas had accepted a substantial difference between God's nature, or essence, and God's attributes. [Palamas] similarly had presented the divine grace in human souls as an uncreated, infinite divine attribute, bestowed upon souls … An author [Palamas] whose works contained real heresies against the unity of God's nature, and against God's grace, became a saint, recognized not only by the Byzantine Church, but by all of the three other Eastern Patriarchates. This fact … indubitably testifies to the great decline of theological knowledge in the Byzantine, and in general Eastern, Church near the end of the fourteenth century.


Fr. Galadza points (181 n. 345) out that St. Gregory Palamas's rehabilitation among Eastern Catholics indeed began with the holy Josyf Cardinal Slipyj (1892-1984) in 1970.

Frs. Alphonse Raes, S.J., Georges Gharib, and Olivier Raquez, O.S.B. were in charge of inserting the service to St. Gregory Palamas into the Greek Anthologion. See Gharib, Georges. Testi Mariani del Secondo Millennio: Autori orientali (secc. XI-XX), p. 334.

The service in the book published by a Roman dicastery with the Vatican's approval is to be found in Anthologion, vol. II, Sacred Oriental Congregation, Rome 1974, pp. 1607-1616. See the Most Rev. +Basil H. Losten, Eparch of Stamford. Our Paschal Pilgrimage: On the Journey of the Great Fast. Eastern Christian Publications, 1996. p. 43.

Here are some questions I have for experts, especially Fr. Serge Keleher. I beseech you forum members to answer this puzzled sinner's questions before this thread gets closed or side-tracked. Thank you and God bless you and yours!

Now I know these questions are going to be very offensive, but that is not why I am asking them; I'm not trying to start a firestorm, but only want some more answers as I intensively research the cult of St. Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church (which I've been doing for the past four years).

In 1336 St. Gregory Palamas wrote his two Apodictic Treatises against Filioque (which was already a dogma in 1274; see Denzinger 460) at St. Sabbas (Fr. John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas pp. 39-40). The contemporary pope was Benedict XII of Rome (1334-1342) of happy memory. What led the saintly Josyf Slipyj to the requisite (for liturgical veneration) moral certainty that Palamas--who died in 1359 and is not recorded as becoming Catholic in 1355 when Pope Innocent VI of Rome (1352-1362) sent Paul of Smyrna (Titular Latin Patriarch of Constantinople 1366-1370) to the Palamas-Gregoras debate--did not die before accepting the truth of the dogma of Filioque? All of the fasting and other good works that St. Gregory is credited with in his biographies would not be meritorious if he was in formal schism from 1336 until shortly before his death in 1359, since morally good actions done without charity (i.e, when someone is in a state of mortal sin) are not quickened by subsequent penance (cf. ST III, q. 89, art. 6).

Please help me understand how Josyf addressed these specific difficulties, and how he presumably showed the righteous Franjo Cardinal Seper (1905-1981) (I cannot access "Slipyj to Franciscus Seper, 6.IV.1971") that St. Gregory Palamas was not simply a case of "death-bed conversion" to Catholicism, since, as Pope Eugene IV of Rome (1431-1447) dogmatically taught in his Bull "Cantate Domino" [Denzinger 713]: "No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Thank you for your patience with me, a wretch, and God bless you and yours!

Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: theophan] #361449 03/11/11 01:13 AM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Raphael Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by theophan
Raphael:

Christ is in our midst!!

Dear Bob,
He is and ever shall be!

Originally Posted by theophan
All of the doucments you cite are dated material and must be read in light of the pronoiuncements of Vatican Council II. Apart from that, they hold no value to us except to be seen as statements of the age in which they were written.

Peregrinu has explained my position well in terms of the hermeneutic of continuity.

Originally Posted by theophan
Since the Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has abandoned her seige mentality wherein we sat in our own isolation surrounded by our own walls and looked at the world and everyone else as outsiders. With the insights that the Holy Spirit provided at the Council, we have awakened to the fact that there are various ways to be part of the Mysical Body of Christ, that holiness is not an exclusive Catholic thing, and that while we believe that the visible outlines of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church subsist in the Catholic Church there are others who can make the same claim and we are not to deny their claim.

Everyone who reads this, please do not take it as uncharitable, but as "caritatis in veritate." While the Catholic Church teaches in her Catechism (CCC 838) that non-Catholic Christians are "joined in many ways" to the Catholic Church, she also plainly teaches dogmatically that someone who knowingly and deliberately rejects dogmas like the Filioque is not an actual member (in re) of the Mystical Body of Christ because that person is automatically excommunicated by reason of his formal heresy (Latin CIC 1364 §1), which is "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of Baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (Latin CIC 751). The Holy Fathers of Vatican II had no intention of denying the dogmatic teaching of Pope Eugene IV of Rome (1431-1447) in his Bull "Cantate Domino" [Denzinger 713]: "No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Help me understand your statement "we are not to deny their claim." Even if we do not make such an outright denial in this forum because we want to minimize polemics (Ecclesiastes 3:7: "A time to keep silence, and a time to speak"), objectively speaking, there would be no reason to be Catholic if we did not believe that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church subsists only in the Catholic Church whose members are in communion with the Pope of Rome.

Originally Posted by theophan
And, since we are an Eastern forum, not necessarily exclusively Catholic in union with the Bishop of Rome, please don't come here with a list of this sort. For many of our brethren, it is offensive.

This sinner is not trying to offend anyone, but is only trying to be loyal to the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church, which should not be passed over or watered down for the sake of a false peace, by which I mean this: one in which someone comes to believe that despite real, objective dogmatic differences, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are both the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

That is all I need to say on these points, and I won't disrespect you, my superior, by repeating myself endlessly in this thread. In the meantime, I eagerly await everyone's answers on the recognition, by the Catholic Church, of post-schism Orthodox saints, in light of the dogma of "no salvation outside the Church," on which see also CCC 845-848, 851, 855.

Yours in Christ,
the sinful Will Raphael Huysman

Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: Raphael] #361454 03/11/11 02:15 AM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Nelson Chase Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
While the Catholic Church teaches in her Catechism (CCC 838) that non-Catholic Christians are "joined in many ways" to the Catholic Church, she also plainly teaches dogmatically that someone who knowingly and deliberately rejects dogmas like the Filioque is not an actual member (in re) of the Mystical Body of Christ because that person is automatically excommunicated by reason of his formal heresy (Latin CIC 1364 §1)


I rejected the Filioque as an Eastern Catholic. (I don't say it is heresy) It is outside the Byzantine Theological Patrimony. Also when was the Filioque declared a dogma? I am pretty sure recently Rome has said the original Greek form of the Creed is the only Ecumenically binding Creed and that the addition of the Filioque is just a local practice (I may be wrong on the last parts wording) If it were heresy to deny this addition to the Creed then why would the Eastern Catholic Churches remove it from the Creed? Why would Rome tell us to remove it from the Creed after Vatican II?

Quote
the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are both the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.


I believe that yes both the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. (many will disagree we me) Sadly, we are divided, not because the Church can be but because man is sinful. It is our sins that divide us and we need to pray for the day that our divisions end, when in humility we overcome our sin of disunity.


Quote
In the meantime, I eagerly await everyone's answers on the recognition, by the Catholic Church, of post-schism Orthodox saints, in light of the dogma of "no salvation outside the Church," on which see also CCC 845-848, 851, 855.


I think, dear brother, there is no need for Rome to say anything about venerating post-Schism saints. It is by Rome's silence that we get the answer. If it were a problem to venerate post-Schism saints I am sure the modern day Church of Rome would pronounce it. Sometimes it is what the Popes don't say that is more important than what they do say, IMHO.

One thing the Pope did say with the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 1960s

Quote
Since they are certain that they express the common desire for justice and the unanimous sentiment of charity which moves the faithful, and since they recall the command of the Lord: "If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brethren has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go first be reconciled to your brother" (Mt. 5.23-24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that:

A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.


This for me clarifies all the past statements on the Orthodox Church before Vatican II.

Blessed Fast.


Last edited by Nelson Chase; 03/11/11 02:28 AM.
Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: Raphael] #361457 03/11/11 03:13 AM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,283
Athanasius The L Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,283
Originally Posted by Raphael
Originally Posted by theophan
Raphael:

Christ is in our midst!!

Dear Bob,
He is and ever shall be!

Originally Posted by theophan
All of the doucments you cite are dated material and must be read in light of the pronoiuncements of Vatican Council II. Apart from that, they hold no value to us except to be seen as statements of the age in which they were written.

Peregrinu has explained my position well in terms of the hermeneutic of continuity.

Originally Posted by theophan
Since the Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has abandoned her seige mentality wherein we sat in our own isolation surrounded by our own walls and looked at the world and everyone else as outsiders. With the insights that the Holy Spirit provided at the Council, we have awakened to the fact that there are various ways to be part of the Mysical Body of Christ, that holiness is not an exclusive Catholic thing, and that while we believe that the visible outlines of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church subsist in the Catholic Church there are others who can make the same claim and we are not to deny their claim.

Everyone who reads this, please do not take it as uncharitable, but as "caritatis in veritate." While the Catholic Church teaches in her Catechism (CCC 838) that non-Catholic Christians are "joined in many ways" to the Catholic Church, she also plainly teaches dogmatically that someone who knowingly and deliberately rejects dogmas like the Filioque is not an actual member (in re) of the Mystical Body of Christ because that person is automatically excommunicated by reason of his formal heresy (Latin CIC 1364 §1), which is "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of Baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (Latin CIC 751). The Holy Fathers of Vatican II had no intention of denying the dogmatic teaching of Pope Eugene IV of Rome (1431-1447) in his Bull "Cantate Domino" [Denzinger 713]: "No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Help me understand your statement "we are not to deny their claim." Even if we do not make such an outright denial in this forum because we want to minimize polemics (Ecclesiastes 3:7: "A time to keep silence, and a time to speak"), objectively speaking, there would be no reason to be Catholic if we did not believe that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church subsists only in the Catholic Church whose members are in communion with the Pope of Rome.

Originally Posted by theophan
And, since we are an Eastern forum, not necessarily exclusively Catholic in union with the Bishop of Rome, please don't come here with a list of this sort. For many of our brethren, it is offensive.

This sinner is not trying to offend anyone, but is only trying to be loyal to the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church, which should not be passed over or watered down for the sake of a false peace, by which I mean this: one in which someone comes to believe that despite real, objective dogmatic differences, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are both the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

That is all I need to say on these points, and I won't disrespect you, my superior, by repeating myself endlessly in this thread. In the meantime, I eagerly await everyone's answers on the recognition, by the Catholic Church, of post-schism Orthodox saints, in light of the dogma of "no salvation outside the Church," on which see also CCC 845-848, 851, 855.

Yours in Christ,
the sinful Will Raphael Huysman


Please spew this sort of stuff elsewhere. You've already been told that it's offensive and not wanted here.

Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: Peregrinu] #361526 03/11/11 07:54 PM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Raphael Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by Peregrinu

(1) I read someplace - I believe it was a very old, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic "Dictionary of Catholic Biography" - that St. Sergius of Radonezh was canonized by the Pope sometime in the 1700s, though he was not placed on the Roman Martyrology until Vatican II.

Dear Peregrinu,
I checked John J. Delaney and James Edward Tobin's 1961 Dictionary of Catholic Biography, which talks about St. Sergius of Radonezh on p. 1048 or 1049, and does not mention that any pope canonized St. Sergius or confirmed his cult. I searched Google Books to see if St. Sergius was canonized by any of the following, but did not find any confirmation: Innocent XII (1691-1700), Clement XI (1700-1721), Innocent XIII (1721-1724), Benedict XIII (1724-1730), Clement XII (1730-1740), Benedict XIV (1740-1758), Clement XIII (1758-1769), Clement XIV (1769-1774), and Pius VI (1775-1799).

However, Pope Benedict XIII (1724-1730) confirmed the cult of Sts. Boris and Gleb in 1724 (see Patron Saints Index by Terry Jones and the information provided by St. Patrick's parishioner Katherine I. Rabenstein). I haven't yet looked for the document in which Benedict XIII of happy memory confirms the cult of the holy passion-bearing brothers.

Sts. Sergius of Radonezh, Boris and Gleb, and all you holy popes of Rome, pray for us!

Re: Documentation on approval of post-schism eastern saints..PLEASE!! [Re: Raphael] #361767 03/16/11 06:44 AM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Raphael Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Nor did I find any information on 18th-century papal approbation of the cult of St. Sergius of Radonezh in the Acta Sanctorum, October (1864), t. XI, pp.. 234-235. This entry only mentions that St. Sergius is in the Menologion of Daniel Papebroch, S.J. (1628-1714) of pious memory. 10:XI:185 (PDF file p. 221) mentions that the cult of Sts. Boris and Gleb was approved by the Synod of Zamosc and Pope Benedict XIII of Rome.

Regarding the Holy Fathers of the Kiev Caves (cf. 10:XI:209 [245]) and their loyalty to Rome, and concerning Catholic veneration of post-schism Orthodox saints, see the Bollandists' learned comments in the following volumes (from authors like Frs. Ivan Martynov of pious memory, Daniel Papebroch, etc; the format is Month, Tome, Page, PDF file page # from Documenta Catholica Omnia):
*10:X:863-883 (891-911)
*10:XI:i-vii (30-37), 27 (63)

See also Fr. John Stilting, S.J.'s "Dissertation on the Conversion and Faith of the Russians," which talks about which Metropolitans of Kiev were Catholic and which ones were Orthodox: Acta Sanctorum 9:II:i-xxvii (25-51). Fr. Stilting, in the same volume, talks about Sts. Boris and Gleb on pp. 633-639 (741-747), and annotates their "Acts" on pp. 639-644 (747-752).

The Bollandists explicitly list the following as "Saints" (there are more, but I don't have time right now to include them) in the columns next to their biographical entries, or as saints/blessed in their biographical entries themselves, in Acta Sanctorum, October, t. XI:
*Archbishop Saba I of Serbia: 1:I:979-983 (1063-1067); 10:XI:39 (75), 42-44 (78-80)
*Anthony the Roman of Novgorod: 10:XI:46 (82), 193 (229)
*Prochorus of the Kiev Caves (†2/10/1103): 10:XI:67 (103)
*Alexis of Moscow (r. 1354-1378; omitted from Russian Catholic calendar in 1940): 2:II:639-641 (677-679); 10:XI:70-71 (106-107)
*Stephen Nemanya of Serbia (Simeon the Myrrh-Gusher of Mt. Athos): 10:XI:71-73 (107-109)
*Erasmus of the Kiev Near Caves: 10:XI:79-80 (115-116)
*Titus the Presbyter of the Kiev Near Caves: 10:XI:81 (117)
*Nikon of the Kiev Caves (†3/23/1088): 10:XI:96 (132)
*Eustratius the Martyr of the Kiev Caves (†1096): 10:XI:99 (135)
*Bishop Simon of Vladimir: 10:XI:125 (161)
*Anthony, John, and Eustace of Vilnius (†1342): 4:II:265 et seq. (?); 10:XI:109 (145), 310 (346)
*Stephen of Perm: 10:XI:115 (151)
*Stephen, abbot of the Kiev Caves and Bishop of Vladimir in Volhynia (†4/27/1094): 10:XI:116 (152)
*Metropolitan Macarius the Hieromartyr of Kiev: 10:XI:118-119 (154-155)
*Theodosius of the Kiev Far Caves: 10:XI:121-122 (157-158), 200-201 (236-237)
*Bishop Isaiah the Wonderworker of Rostov (†5/15/1090): 10:XI:129 (165)
*Leontius of Rostov: 10:XI:137-138 (173-174)
*Euphrosyne of Polotsk: 5:V:234 (476); 10:XI:138 (174), 244 (280)
*Nicetas the Stylite of Pereyaslavl (†1186): 10:XI:139 (175)
*Andrew the New Martyr of Chios (†1465): 5:VII:184-188 (294-298); 10:XI:143 (179)
*Agapetus of the Kiev Caves (†6/1/1095): 10:XI:144 (180)
*John the New of Suceava (†6/2/1330): 6:I:263-264 (349-350); 10:XI:145 (181)
*Luarsab II of Georgia (†1622): 10:XI:157 (193)
*Peter and Febronia of Murom: 10:XI:158-159 (194-195)
*Anthony of the Kiev Far Caves: 10:XI:174 (210)
*John the Long-Suffering of the Kiev Caves: 10:XI:181 (217)
*Angelina (Brancovich), despotina (princess) of Serbia: 10:XI:226 (190)
*Pimen of the Kiev Caves (†8/7/1139): 10:XI:195 (231)
*Theodore and Basil of the Kiev Caves: 10:XI:198 (234)
*Archbishop John of Novgorod (†9/7/1186): 10:XI:219 (255)
*Damian, Jeremiah, and Matthew the Clairvoyant of the Kiev Caves: 10:XI:242 (278)
*Parasceva Petca the New of Tarnovo: 10:VI:62(90),66(94),68(96); 10:XI:246-247 (282-283)
*Parasceva, Abbess of Polotsk: 10:XI:262-264 (298-300); 277 (313)
*Hilarion, bishop of Meglin, Bulgaria (†1164): 10:IX:405-408 (447-450); 10:XI:253-257 (289-293)
*Arethas of the Kiev Near Caves: 10:X:863-877 (891-905); 10:XI:259-260 (295-296)
*Nestor the Chronicler of the Kiev Caves: 10:XI:261-262 (297-298)
*Spyridon and Nicodemus the Prosphora-Bakers of the Kiev Near Caves: 10:X:864 (892), 874 (902); 10:XI:267 (303)
*Joannicius, monk of Devich (†1430): 10:XI:270 (306)
*Peter, a mid-14th century hermit of Serbia: 10:XI:289 (325)
*Bishop James of Rostov (†1392): 10:XI:290 (326)
*Philothea of Tarnovo (†1060), "whose relics are in Arges, Romania": 10:XI:301-302 (337-338)
*Metropolitan Peter of Kiev (omitted from Russian Catholic calendar in 1940): 10:XI:313-314 (349-350)

The Bollandists mention St. Michael of Chernigov in 10:XI:71 (107), 85 (121). In 9:VI:105E (from the year 1757) they say: "Michael, princeps Zernichoviensis, aut Czernioviensis, et Theodorus ejus famulus memorantur hodie in Ephemeridibus Moscorum figuratis. At non conflat nobis, Catholicine fuerint an schismatici. Non coli tamen apud Catholicos, habemus ex notitiis Polonicis."

Sts. Mary, Joseph, Raphael the Archangel, Boris and Gleb, and all the saints, pray for us poor sinners!

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3