www.byzcath.org

Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints

Posted By: Kyrie Eleison

Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/02/19 04:46 AM

How come I've seen some usage of EO Saints being posted on Melkite/byzantine catholic site? Like of the front of this site itself it quotes Fr. Seraphim Rose and calling Seraphim of Sarov a saint when he was EO and never canonized by Rome. How can Byzantines call schismatics saints, like Gregory Palamas and Photios?
Posted By: theophan

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/02/19 06:34 PM

Kyrie Eleison:

Welcome to the forum. Please go to Town Hall and read the thread entitled "Who We Are." That may help you discern whether this is a good fit for your pilgrim journey.

The reason that we Catholics study and venerate Orthodox saints is because holiness knows no boundaries. The Holy Spirit blows where He wills and uses willing instruments to help Him in His work wherever He finds them. Rome has recognized some Orthodox saints in some cases so there is nothing for you to be upset about in this regard. Many of our members have personal devotion to saints who have lived their lives out of communion with the place they find themselves. They do this for their own reasons, but recognize the lived example of Christ-centeredness exhibited as something they can relate to. There are many examples. One man I have personally known--who has not yet been canonized by the Greek Orthodox Church--is a bishop I met in Pittsburgh in the mid-1970s. He was known for his humility and personal holiness throughout his life. When he was dying he was surrounded not only by members of his own Church, but also by many Catholic and other clergy. He was recognized across what divides us by the example of his life.

On the matter of where the Holy Spirit is moving, may I suggest you check out the threads about myrrh streaming icons that are currently streaming in Canada and in Pennsylvania, as well as other places. Then compare that to the statues of the Blessed Virgin Mary that are crying streams of the same scented oil. The Mother of God is trying to tell us all something here. And maybe it is urgent enough to pull out all the stops and get the message to as many receptive people and places as possible.

May I suggest that you step back and see what makes people open to those outside their own community. It may be an opportunity for growth.

Bob
Moderator
Posted By: Administrator

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/03/19 04:01 PM

Welcome, KE, to the Forum!

That the Catholic Church has not officially recognized some Orthodox saints does not mean they are not saints. As Bob noted above, holiness knows no boundaries. And keep in mind that prior to modern times and the Vatican's centralization of the canonization process, the process was much more local.

You might check the archives. A quick search brought up a discussion from which had a quote from Saint Pope John Paul II in pointing out that in his book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" he refers to "Saint Seraphim of Sarov".

John
Posted By: theophan

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/14/19 11:22 PM

Quote
How can Byzantines call schismatics saints


Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

I want to take one more stab at your inquiry. You refer to "schismatics" in your post. If you refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will find that only Catholics can become heretics or schismatics in the Church's understanding of these terms at this date. The Vatican Council teaches that the status of those who call themselves Christians but who are not in communion with the Catholic Church because of their birth can be called neither schismatics nor heretics because they are not at fault at not being in communion with the Catholic Church. In other words, only we Catholics who have been baptized and confirmed in communion with Rome can be labeled one or the other, if and when, we jump ship and join another Christian community.

There is another dimension to the Mystery of what communion means. Communion has many levels. It is our relationship with Christ via Eucharistic Communion; it is our relationship to one another in our community; it is our relationship to all those who have gone before us, beginning with the Apostles. It is also very much a reality among the other Churches of Apostolic origin with whom we are not currently sharing the Eucharist. HOWEVER, the Council teaches us that they do, indeed, have the same relationship with Christ that we do in the Eucharist. So how do we explain that? Christ cannot be divided; nor can the Holy Trinity. So at some level that we cannot now see or experience, we must be sharing something with all these people. So it seems to me that it is a rather harsh throwback to an earlier polemical age to use these terms in referring to our brethren with whom we do not now share the Eucharist but with whom we should be praying that the Holy Spirit will show us the way to that day when we can.

Bob
Posted By: Kyrie Eleison

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/22/19 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by theophan
Kyrie Eleison:

The reason that we Catholics study and venerate Orthodox saints is because holiness knows no boundaries.


Firstly, this implies salvation outside the church and that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is not the one true church of Christ.

“The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” - Pope Pius XI (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

"By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” - Pope Pius XII (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

Your whole idea of "salvation outside the church" is heretical, you're appealing to emotions as well, if someone past the age of reason professes heresy, that is something contrary to the orthodox doctrine of the Catholic church then they, by definition, are heretics and they are not saved.

Also if your idea of "holiness knows no boundaries" is correct then can a "pious" Muslim be holy or what about a hindu? If so then can they be saved? and if they can be why even be a Christiani or a catholic and just go and join the parrenialists. At this point why are you even a "Catholic" just go be Orthodox, because in your scheme submission to the Roman Pontiff isn't necessary for salvation itself, you can even be a saint so whats the point.

Originally Posted by Administrator
A quick search brought up a discussion from which had a quote from Saint Pope John Paul II in pointing out that in his book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" he refers to "Saint Seraphim of Sarov"


Look at this "Pope" "Saint" kissing the quran
https://imgur.com/1RqZv2q
Posted By: Irish_Ruthenian

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/22/19 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
[quote=theophan]Kyrie Eleison:

The reason that we Catholics study and venerate Orthodox saints is because holiness knows no boundaries.


Firstly, this implies salvation outside the church and that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is not the one true church of Christ.

“The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” - Pope Pius XI (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

I think a little historical fact-checking is called for here. First of all, the word "katholicos" does not mean Roman. When St. Irenaeus said that the Church was "katholicos" (catholic) he spoke of a Church which transcended ethnic boundaries. Thus, the Church consisted of five Patriarchates of various ethnic makeups. Your own Roman Catholic communion has within it 23 other ethnic rites, such as the Melkites, the Copts, the Ruthenians, the Syro-Malabar, and the Mar Thoma.

Now let's get to where the Church is actually located. The Church is the Body of Christ according to Scripture. Therefore, wherever you find the Body of Christ (i.e., the Eucharist) you find Christ and you find the Church. Since both Roman Catholicism and Holy Orthodoxy have valid apostolic succession all the way back to the beginning, that is the Church. The arrogance of Roman Tradionalists does not change this. Neither does the arrogance of the Russian Orthodtraddies regarding the Roman Catholic Church. It is more than time for both of these sides to admit this and stop throwing verbal rocks at each other. Where Christ is, there is the Church, and where the Eucharist is, there is Christ.

As for the Roman Catholic Church keeping "true worship," you guys can't even keep what one of your popes ordered all the way back in the 10th century. Pope Leo III, who was facing enormous pressure from the Carolingian Frankish bishops to insert the Filioque Clause into the Creed, had two silver plates inscribed with the Creed
without the Filioque. This was his response to Frankish meddling in areas they had no business messing with. Indeed, two ecumenical councils of the united Church of East and West both condemned with anethema anyone who would alter the wording of the Creed!!!! But I bet you didn't know that, did you?

The Creed continued to be recited sans Filioque until Henry II was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by Pope Benedict VIII. At that coronation Mass, the Creed was said, much to the satisfaction of Henry, who had pulled Benedict's bacon ouf of the fire, so to speak, and was owed, with the Filioque, despite the warning anethema against doing such!!! This is YOUR CHURCH which you claim has held the true faith of the Apostles.

I
THINK
NOT!!!

Whilst others here may be loathe (or unlike me, just too polite to mention such) let us also consider the other additions to the Depositum Fidei , which your Church had no right to enact!!!! Remember, the Church is not led by the desires of one man to find truth, but rather determines truth
only through an ecumenical council!!!. Every heresy that the Church has had to fight started with one man thinking he was smarter than the Depositum Fidei and the Early Fathers. That said, your body has added the following without a council:

The Immaculate Conception.
Induglences
Purgatory
Augustinian Predestination
Unmarried Clergy
"Dead Bread" in the Eucharist
Papal Infallibility
Baptism by Sprinkling

to mention a few. None of which were known to the Early Church. Yet you claim to have kept the faith unsullied as it was from the beginning.

Puuuuuuuleeaaaaassseeeeee!!! (Where is that rolling eyes avatar??)


"By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” - Pope Pius XII (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

Guardian of the Scriptures???? Sheeesh, your translators don't even know the proper meaning of the Greek word μετανοέω (metaneo) which means "repent" (change your mind) and we see this in the Douhy-Reims mistranslation which translates it in every instance as "do penance" There is no "doing" in repentance. The Greek word means a change of heart or mind, not wearing hair shirts or beating yourself senseless as Peter Damian did when he was not calling the wives of Orthodox priests "tarts" and other nasty names

Your whole idea of "salvation outside the church" is heretical, you're appealing to emotions as well, if someone past the age of reason professes heresy, that is something contrary to the orthodox doctrine of the Catholic church then they, by definition, are heretics and they are not saved.

Then St. Paul lied, and you know what, I will take St. Paul and what he wrote in Scripture over a bunch of popes who were publishing such screed in the interest not of spiritual unity, but of consolidation of political power and scaring the bejeepers out of the ignorant so as to keep them in line. Paul said this:

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
(Hmmmmm............says nothing about being in the Church, does it???) 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, (In other words, they neither belonged to the Church nor had the Word of God) do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;


Also if your idea of "holiness knows no boundaries" is correct then can a "pious" Muslim be holy or what about a hindu? If so then can they be saved? and if they can be why even be a Christiani or a catholic and just go and join the parrenialists. At this point why are you even a "Catholic" just go be Orthodox, because in your scheme submission to the Roman Pontiff isn't necessary for salvation itself, you can even be a saint so whats the point.

What exactly is holiness? Based on Matthew 25 and other passages,such as the Romans passage, about how we treat our fellow man, I can think of any number of Hindus and Muslims who were far more holy than the Roman Catholics who invaded Constantinople, pissed on the holy altar of the Haggia Sophia and raped and killed women and children. You want to talk about holiness? The centuries of Roman Catholic behavior in this area are what kept me from the Church for decades. You should be scandalized and above all, you ought to be real careful when you start throwing stones at others!!! For one thing, some of us really do not appreciate it because we have studied history and not the white-washed pablum that is put out as "truth" and it offends us when you try to act holier-than-thou with such a corrupt history.

And secondly, some of us will, as I have done now, pick up those rocks and chuck them right back because we aren't taking the half-truths and white-washed history anymore. Now if you want to come in here and play nice and discuss, that's good, and perhaps along the way you may well learn some things. If not, I'm sure the Dimond Brothers would welcome you with open arms.
Posted By: Kyrie Eleison

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/22/19 06:21 PM

"I think a little historical fact-checking is called for here. First of all, the word "katholicos" does not mean Roman. When St. Irenaeus said that the Church was "katholicos" (catholic) he spoke of a Church which transcended ethnic boundaries. Thus, the Church consisted of five Patriarchates of various ethnic makeups. Your own Roman Catholic communion has within it 23 other ethnic rites, such as the Melkites, the Copts, the Ruthenians, the Syro-Malabar, and the Mar Thoma."

I agree the Catholic Church is universal and not limited to the Romans or that ethnic group. No one made this argument. However, submission to the Roman pontiff is a requirement for salvation.

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Pope Boniface VIII

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” - St. Cyprian of Carthage "The Unity of the Catholic Church 4"; 1st edition

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” St. Irenaeus "Against Heresies 3:3:2"


"Now let's get to where the Church is actually located. The Church is the Body of Christ according to Scripture. Therefore, wherever you find the Body of Christ (i.e., the Eucharist) you find Christ and you find the Church. Since both Roman Catholicism and Holy Orthodoxy have valid apostolic succession all the way back to the beginning, that is the Church. The arrogance of Roman Tradionalists does not change this. Neither does the arrogance of the Russian Orthodtraddies regarding the Roman Catholic Church. It is more than time for both of these sides to admit this and stop throwing verbal rocks at each other. Where Christ is, there is the Church, and where the Eucharist is, there is Christ."

It is not arrogant to hold fast to tradition which has been handed down to us. The language of the 7th ecumenical council was far from the language used during the 1st and 2nd centuries of the church. Is that to say that the 7th Ecumenical Council's dogmas did not hold true even prior to its conception? Well no, something that is dogmatic is just a truth being defined, a truth is still true even if it's not defined and we must still be subject to that.

Secondly the heretical nonsense your spouting violates the law of non-contradiction. The "Orthodox" Church cannot be the truth while the Roman Catholic Church also is the truth. It's one or the other, the "Orthodox" hold to the energy essence distinction and deny the primacy of St. Peter while the Roman Catholic Church affirms the primacy of St. Peter and affirms Absolute Divine simplicity. Both of with cannot be true at the same time. The "Orthodox" do not have valid eucharist sacraments due to them being outside of the church, namely not in communion with the Roman Pontiff, therefore the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in EO liturgies is none. They're just eating bread and wine, no transformation takes place. Their celebrations are abhorrent to God almighty

"…[T]he sin of superstition may be committed by worshipping the true God in the wrong way or by worshipping false gods….

"1. God may be wrongly worshipped either by false worship or by superfluous worship being paid him. Worship of God is false when its meaning is not in accordance with fact, or when the falsehood is in the person who performs the act of worship, as when a layman performs the duties of a priest, or when someone tries to gain credence for false miracles or false relics….

"2. Anything in the worship of God which does not tend to his honour and glory, or which is against the ordinances and practice of the Church, to whom the regulation of religious worship exclusively belongs, is superfluous worship and superstition. This sin is committed by attributing an infallible effect to a fixed number of prayers or acts of piety, or to the mere material wearing of the scapulars or medals, or by unwarrantably acting against the rubrics while saying Mass or administering the sacraments or sacramentals of the Church." - Rev. Thomas Slater, "A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. 1, 5th ed. [1925], p. 140"

"[1] And Nadab and Abiu, the sons of Aaron, taking their censers, put fire therein, and incense on it, offering before the Lord strange fire: which was not commanded them. [2] And fire coming out from the Lord destroyed them, and they died before the Lord." - Leviticus 10:1-2

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” St- Jerome "Letters 15:2"


As for the Roman Catholic Church keeping "true worship," you guys can't even keep what one of your popes ordered all the way back in the 10th century. Pope Leo III, who was facing enormous pressure from the Carolingian Frankish bishops to insert the Filioque Clause into the Creed, had two silver plates inscribed with the Creed without the Filioque. This was his response to Frankish meddling in areas they had no business messing with. Indeed, two ecumenical councils of the united Church of East and West both condemned with anethema anyone who would alter the wording of the Creed!!!! But I bet you didn't know that, did you?

The Creed continued to be recited sans Filioque until Henry II was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by Pope Benedict VIII. At that coronation Mass, the Creed was said, much to the satisfaction of Henry, who had pulled Benedict's bacon ouf of the fire, so to speak, and was owed, with the Filioque, despite the warning anethema against doing such!!! This is YOUR CHURCH which you claim has held the true faith of the Apostles.


Either we have true worship or we don't. You cannot say that we have the real presence of Christ in our eucharistic celebrations and then say we don't. Make up your mind. The Nicene-Constantinople Creed is perfectly orthodox with or without the filioque.

Whilst others here may be loathe (or unlike me, just too polite to mention such) let us also consider the other additions to the Depositum Fidei , which your Church had no right to enact!!!! Remember, the Church is not led by the desires of one man to find truth, but rather determines truth only through an ecumenical council!!!. Every heresy that the Church has had to fight started with one man thinking he was smarter than the Depositum Fidei and the Early Fathers. That said, your body has added the following without a council:

The Immaculate Conception.
Induglences
Purgatory
Augustinian Predestination
Unmarried Clergy
"Dead Bread" in the Eucharist
Papal Infallibility
Baptism by Sprinkling

to mention a few. None of which were known to the Early Church. Yet you claim to have kept the faith unsullied as it was from the beginning.

Puuuuuuuleeaaaaassseeeeee!!! (Where is that rolling eyes avatar??)


Firstly, you obviously haven't read the Didache, so please go read what it says on baptism and the eucharist. Leavened or unleavened can be used, it doesn't matter. The rest have good reasons for being "added" and have 1000s of books written on them so I cannot go through them within this post otherwise it'd just be too long. a TL;DR is the Pope is infallible (on matters of faith and morals) and we do not need a council to pronounce dogma as the Pope can pronounce dogma from the chair as he is the teacher of the church, the shepard, the vicar of Christ, etc..

Guardian of the Scriptures???? Sheeesh, your translators don't even know the proper meaning of the Greek word μετανοέω (metaneo) which means "repent" (change your mind) and we see this in the Douhy-Reims mistranslation which translates it in every instance as "do penance" There is no "doing" in repentance. The Greek word means a change of heart or mind, not wearing hair shirts or beating yourself senseless as Peter Damian did when he was not calling the wives of Orthodox priests "tarts" and other nasty names

Penance is the act of repentance or receiving absolution from a priest. So the meaning remains the same, as you should have a change of heart when "doing penance" namely taking the actions to repent for your sins/turn away from that way of life.

Then St. Paul lied, and you know what, I will take St. Paul and what he wrote in Scripture over a bunch of popes who were publishing such screed in the interest not of spiritual unity, but of consolidation of political power and scaring the bejeepers out of the ignorant so as to keep them in line. Paul said this:

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (Hmmmmm............says nothing about being in the Church, does it???) 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, (In other words, they neither belonged to the Church nor had the Word of God) do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;


You are just being dishonest with yourself at this point. St. Paul is quite literally writing to gentiles in the church. While writing to gentiles in the Church he is talking about the law of moses in this very specific context. Also if there is salvation outside the church, and you defined the church as the body of Christ, then there is salvation outside the body of Christ and therefore baptism is not necessary for salvation.... You see where this nonsense leads.

What exactly is holiness? Based on Matthew 25 and other passages,such as the Romans passage, about how we treat our fellow man, I can think of any number of Hindus and Muslims who were far more holy than the Roman Catholics who invaded Constantinople, pissed on the holy altar of the Haggia Sophia and raped and killed women and children. You want to talk about holiness? The centuries of Roman Catholic behavior in this area are what kept me from the Church for decades. You should be scandalized and above all, you ought to be real careful when you start throwing stones at others!!! For one thing, some of us really do not appreciate it because we have studied history and not the white-washed pablum that is put out as "truth" and it offends us when you try to act holier-than-thou with such a corrupt history.

And secondly, some of us will, as I have done now, pick up those rocks and chuck them right back because we aren't taking the half-truths and white-washed history anymore. Now if you want to come in here and play nice and discuss, that's good, and perhaps along the way you may well learn some things. If not, I'm sure the Dimond Brothers would welcome you with open arms.


Muslims and Hindus aren't saved by the very fact that they reject Christ's Gospel, this is Christianity 101 my guy. That's why Christ told us to spread his Gospel. Otherwise, theres no point to spread the Gospel if theres salvation outside Christ. Then you make Christs sacrifice on calvary redundant, which is heresy.

also: "Ad Hominem Fallacy: (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." - Galatians 1:8

“They want to treat the Modernists with oil, soap and caresses. But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can.” – Saint Pope Pius X


God bless brother and I hope you see the errors of your ways.
Posted By: theophan

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/22/19 06:30 PM

Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

I was trying to figure out where you were coming form so I checked you profile. It speaks volumes.

First of all, the Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is still leading the Church into all Truth. You fail to mention the teaching of the Vatican Council of 1962-1965 or the codification of Catholic teaching ordered and approved by Pope Saint John Paul II. I suggest you check out the CCC, especially paragraphs 830-856 with a particular emphasis on paragraphs 846 to 848 and 838. This should tell you where the Catholic Church is today. Your earlier citations are just that--earlier citations. Pope St John XXIII called the Catholic Church of which he was visible head for a short time to think about opening our thoughts and hearts to embrace the larger world and those who are Christians but not in communion with us. He also called us, through the Council, to embrace and dialogue with those who do not know Christ and to witness to Him.

The former polemical approach to those who do not share our visible communion have, as the Council and these paragraphs teach, is no longer what the Church teaches nor is it what we are obliged to believe. The CCC was ordered, specifically, by Pope St John Paul II, to clarify where we stand as Catholics after the confusion that came out of the right interpretation of the Vatican Council. The confusion was brought about by two radically opposing views--both "sedevacantist" (those, as you know, who believe that Pope Pius XII was the last pope) and those who thought the Church had a radical new beginning in 1965 and that everything prior to that date should be jettisoned. Neither point of view is part of the Catholic Church as she now lives.

As far as this particular forum is concerned, we are not exclusively a "Catholic Church" forum. We have grown to be an Eastern Christian forum, though the title of an earlier approach still is with us. Please go to "Who We Are" in Town Hall and read that thread. It succinctly states the mission of this forum. We are here to learn about the Eastern Churches, both in and out of communion with the Bishop of Rome. If you are uncomfortable with who we are as a forum, perhaps this is not a right fit for you. We have members here who are from both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches of Apostolic origin; we have Latin Catholics--of which I am one--; we have Protestant members. We care for each other, pray for each other, and support each other. We do not agree on many fine points of doctrine or how the Church is supposed to be structured. But we have begun the road to communion by talking to each other and getting to know each other. No one of us is into any kind of syncretism about any of these matters. But we are here for each other.

Bob
Moderator
Posted By: Kyrie Eleison

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/22/19 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by theophan
Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

I was trying to figure out where you were coming form so I checked you profile. It speaks volumes.

First of all, the Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is still leading the Church into all Truth. You fail to mention the teaching of the Vatican Council of 1962-1965 or the codification of Catholic teaching ordered and approved by Pope Saint John Paul II. I suggest you check out the CCC, especially paragraphs 830-856 with a particular emphasis on paragraphs 846 to 848 and 838. This should tell you where the Catholic Church is today. Your earlier citations are just that--earlier citations. Pope St John XXIII called the Catholic Church of which he was visible head for a short time to think about opening our thoughts and hearts to embrace the larger world and those who are Christians but not in communion with us. He also called us, through the Council, to embrace and dialogue with those who do not know Christ and to witness to Him.

The former polemical approach to those who do not share our visible communion have, as the Council and these paragraphs teach, is no longer what the Church teaches nor is it what we are obliged to believe. The CCC was ordered, specifically, by Pope St John Paul II, to clarify where we stand as Catholics after the confusion that came out of the right interpretation of the Vatican Council. The confusion was brought about by two radically opposing views--both "sedevacantist" (those, as you know, who believe that Pope Pius XII was the last pope) and those who thought the Church had a radical new beginning in 1965 and that everything prior to that date should be jettisoned. Neither point of view is part of the Catholic Church as she now lives.

As far as this particular forum is concerned, we are not exclusively a "Catholic Church" forum. We have grown to be an Eastern Christian forum, though the title of an earlier approach still is with us. Please go to "Who We Are" in Town Hall and read that thread. It succinctly states the mission of this forum. We are here to learn about the Eastern Churches, both in and out of communion with the Bishop of Rome. If you are uncomfortable with who we are as a forum, perhaps this is not a right fit for you. We have members here who are from both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches of Apostolic origin; we have Latin Catholics--of which I am one--; we have Protestant members. We care for each other, pray for each other, and support each other. We do not agree on many fine points of doctrine or how the Church is supposed to be structured. But we have begun the road to communion by talking to each other and getting to know each other. No one of us is into any kind of syncretism about any of these matters. But we are here for each other.

Bob
Moderator


I came here to learn more about byzantine Catholicism although I was and am struck by the amount of modernism that has encroached the eastern churches and its sad to see. I have a great love for the east and the Eastern Rites. I also like some of the resources here. However, you cannot call yourself a Catholic and accept the east as "okay" or have some false ecumenism with the Eastern churches who clearly are wrong in their rejection of the Roman Pontiff.

I reject Vatican II and the papal claimants after Pope Pius XII. Vatican II and its papal claimants show clear cut contradictions of the faith in its doctrines and it cannot possibly be the church that Christ established. Heres a list of quotes from "Pope" Francis: http://francisquotes.com/

"Saint" "Pope" JPII ordered "communicatio in sacris" (shared prayer) with Non-Catholics, sihks, hindus, muslims and the like.

these people are not the Popes
Posted By: Irish_Ruthenian

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/22/19 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by theophan
Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

I was trying to figure out where you were coming form so I checked you profile. It speaks volumes.

First of all, the Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is still leading the Church into all Truth. You fail to mention the teaching of the Vatican Council of 1962-1965 or the codification of Catholic teaching ordered and approved by Pope Saint John Paul II. I suggest you check out the CCC, especially paragraphs 830-856 with a particular emphasis on paragraphs 846 to 848 and 838. This should tell you where the Catholic Church is today. Your earlier citations are just that--earlier citations. Pope St John XXIII called the Catholic Church of which he was visible head for a short time to think about opening our thoughts and hearts to embrace the larger world and those who are Christians but not in communion with us. He also called us, through the Council, to embrace and dialogue with those who do not know Christ and to witness to Him.

The former polemical approach to those who do not share our visible communion have, as the Council and these paragraphs teach, is no longer what the Church teaches nor is it what we are obliged to believe. The CCC was ordered, specifically, by Pope St John Paul II, to clarify where we stand as Catholics after the confusion that came out of the right interpretation of the Vatican Council. The confusion was brought about by two radically opposing views--both "sedevacantist" (those, as you know, who believe that Pope Pius XII was the last pope) and those who thought the Church had a radical new beginning in 1965 and that everything prior to that date should be jettisoned. Neither point of view is part of the Catholic Church as she now lives.

As far as this particular forum is concerned, we are not exclusively a "Catholic Church" forum. We have grown to be an Eastern Christian forum, though the title of an earlier approach still is with us. Please go to "Who We Are" in Town Hall and read that thread. It succinctly states the mission of this forum. We are here to learn about the Eastern Churches, both in and out of communion with the Bishop of Rome. If you are uncomfortable with who we are as a forum, perhaps this is not a right fit for you. We have members here who are from both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches of Apostolic origin; we have Latin Catholics--of which I am one--; we have Protestant members. We care for each other, pray for each other, and support each other. We do not agree on many fine points of doctrine or how the Church is supposed to be structured. But we have begun the road to communion by talking to each other and getting to know each other. No one of us is into any kind of syncretism about any of these matters. But we are here for each other.

Bob
Moderator


Hello, Bob.

Was that directed to me or to our friend who has a view of the Roman Catholic Church which is in line with Pope Boniface VIII and Unam Sanctum? I'm kinda thinking him, but when I first saw your message in my Email box, I thoought it was to me.
Posted By: Irish_Ruthenian

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/22/19 10:47 PM

Quote
It is not arrogant to hold fast to tradition which has been handed down to us. The language of the 7th ecumenical council was far from the language used during the 1st and 2nd centuries of the church. Is that to say that the 7th Ecumenical Council's dogmas did not hold true even prior to its conception? Well no, something that is dogmatic is just a truth being defined, a truth is still true even if it's not defined and we must still be subject to that.

Secondly the heretical nonsense your spouting violates the law of non-contradiction. The "Orthodox" Church cannot be the truth while the Roman Catholic Church also is the truth. It's one or the other, the "Orthodox" hold to the energy essence distinction and deny the primacy of St. Peter while the Roman Catholic Church affirms the primacy of St. Peter and affirms Absolute Divine simplicity. Both of with cannot be true at the same time. The "Orthodox" do not have valid eucharist sacraments due to them being outside of the church, namely not in communion with the Roman Pontiff, therefore the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in EO liturgies is none. They're just eating bread and wine, no transformation takes place. Their celebrations are abhorrent to God almighty


**Sigh**

I think at this point in time I shall refer you to Father Thomas Hopko regarding your first paragraph:

https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

Point blank, the Roman Catholic Church left the traditions of the Early Fathers, beginning with the Filioque Clause to the Creed. Fr. Thomas discusses these additions with kind firmness in his article. This is not to say that the Orthodox Church doesn't have need of some serious soul-searching to do Herself, especially in the area of divorce and remarriage and Christ's words against that.

As for your second paragraph, I actually am having quite a struggle with this myself at this time. A cannot be B and cannot be "Not A." Therefore, either the Immaculate Conception is true or it is not. Either Purgatory is true or it is not. Either Christ died to pay off a penal and juridical sentence against mankind, or He died to heal our souls and provide the medicine of the Eucharist. My struggle, as it has been, has been to try to understand how to be Eastern Catholic in Communion with Rome when I do not agree with nor share certain specific beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of "communion" is the commonality of shared belief. That is why the Orthodox have a "closed communion table" to all those outside their faith. The Roman Catholic Church does the same with Protestants. Yet I am in a situation where my theology is fully Orthodox and yet I am in a church body which is "in communion" with Rome.

I still believe that it is possible to be in error and yet be part of the Church because of apostolic succession and because of the Eucharist which is derived from that succession.

As for your statement about valid Eucharist - you do know, do you not, that the OrthoTraddy Russian Orthodox Church says the same thing about Roman Catholic Sacraments - that they are "graceless" and thus they rebaptize all converts from the Roman Church who enter Russian Orthodoxy. I find their attitude and yours hard to understand. It is as if you and they have no ability to look at the various miracles, wonder-working saints, holy people, and incorrupt saints on both sides and realize that there is much more going on here than your narrow and provincial view of theology.

I am assuming that you are a fairly young person (I'll check your bio in a moment). This is the kind of Fundamentalist thinking which attracts a lot of young people who have zeal, but often lack both knowledge (as in your lack of historical knowledge) and charity (which I myself continue to work on).


Posted By: theophan

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/23/19 12:12 AM

Irish_Ruthenian:

Christ is in our midst!!

[quoteHello, Bob.

Was that directed to me or to our friend who has a view of the Roman Catholic Church which is in line with Pope Boniface VIII and Unam Sanctum? I'm kinda thinking him, but when I first saw your message in my Email box, I thought it was to me.][/quote]

See my pm.

Bob
Posted By: theophan

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/23/19 12:30 AM

Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

Whenever we get into discussions involving Apostolic Churches and the history of the breakdown in communion, we need, in this age, to consider The Church of the East. This particular Church spent its entire history outside the Mediterranean world that has occupied the history we share with the Byzantine and Oriental Orthodox communions. They are not part of any of our Ecumenical Councils; they are not part of the arguments here. But they consider themselves the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in the territory they have occupied since the Apostolic age.

"Authenticity in Unity: A Personal Reflection on Present-Day Questions Concerning the Unity of the Church of the East," by Bishop Mar Awa Royel, Diocese of California, Church of the East, 2015. He writes

"By divine design beyond the grasp of men, the Church of the East is the autocephalous and continuous canonical Church of the Middle East, India, Central Asia, and China. It would be a violation of the orthodox and catholic Faith, as manifested through the ages, to consider this tradition as belonging to the Roman see, or any outside see or jurisdiction, claiming jurisdiction over the Church of the East."

I would be glad to share this file via email because it provides a very interesting perspective from an Apostolic Church that has never been involved in any of the arguments or schisms of the Mediterranean world, but which considers herself in communion with whatever other Apostolic body that wishes to be in communion with her.

Bob
Posted By: theophan

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/23/19 12:37 AM

Quote
these people are not the Popes


Christ is in our midst!!

You must be careful here. If what you claim about the Catholic Church is true, then you have a dilemma. Jesus Christ promised to be with His Church to the end of the age. He also promised that "The Gates of Hell" shall not prevail over Her." So if what you say about the successors to Pope Pius XII is true, the you also must admit that you believe that Jesus Christ is a liar. He also told His Church taht he would send the Holy Spirit to be with Her.

i don't think you want to say or believe any of these things. Seems like skating close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit to me.

Bob
Posted By: Irish_Ruthenian

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/23/19 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by theophan
Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

Whenever we get into discussions involving Apostolic Churches and the history of the breakdown in communion, we need, in this age, to consider The Church of the East. This particular Church spent its entire history outside the Mediterranean world that has occupied the history we share with the Byzantine and Oriental Orthodox communions. They are not part of any of our Ecumenical Councils; they are not part of the arguments here. But they consider themselves the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in the territory they have occupied since the Apostolic age.

"Authenticity in Unity: A Personal Reflection on Present-Day Questions Concerning the Unity of the Church of the East," by Bishop Mar Awa Royel, Diocese of California, Church of the East, 2015. He writes

"By divine design beyond the grasp of men, the Church of the East is the autocephalous and continuous canonical Church of the Middle East, India, Central Asia, and China. It would be a violation of the orthodox and catholic Faith, as manifested through the ages, to consider this tradition as belonging to the Roman see, or any outside see or jurisdiction, claiming jurisdiction over the Church of the East."

I would be glad to share this file via email because it provides a very interesting perspective from an Apostolic Church that has never been involved in any of the arguments or schisms of the Mediterranean world, but which considers herself in communion with whatever other Apostolic body that wishes to be in communion with her.

Bob


I would welcome the link as I continue to work through my place in the Church.
Posted By: theophan

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/23/19 01:17 PM

Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

I don't know your age, but being a sedevacantist should, by this time, be fading out of existence. I'm old enough to remember when the sedevacantists declared that the new ordination rite made mandatory in the Latin Catholic Church on January 1, 1968, made all future ordinations to whatever orders void. Now that means that, according to them, there have been no bishops, priests, deacons ordained since then. That also means that we are perilously close to having no sacramental life left anywhere. And since orders are not personal, according to St Cyril of Alexandria, the Latin Church is close to dying out.

Taken to its logical conclusion, that means that the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome are the last harbor of the Apostolic Faith that comes to us from Christ.

Is that where you stand?

Bob
Posted By: Kyrie Eleison

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/23/19 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by theophan
Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

I don't know your age, but being a sedevacantist should, by this time, be fading out of existence. I'm old enough to remember when the sedevacantists declared that the new ordination rite made mandatory in the Latin Catholic Church on January 1, 1968, made all future ordinations to whatever orders void. Now that means that, according to them, there have been no bishops, priests, deacons ordained since then. That also means that we are perilously close to having no sacramental life left anywhere. And since orders are not personal, according to St Cyril of Alexandria, the Latin Church is close to dying out.

Taken to its logical conclusion, that means that the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome are the last harbor of the Apostolic Faith that comes to us from Christ.

Is that where you stand?

Bob


There have been valid lines since then namely the Thuc and lefebvre lines. There have been plenty of bishops and priests ordained since then like Bp Donald Sanborn and Bp Pivarunas. And i would highly suggest you check out their work
Posted By: theophan

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/23/19 07:28 PM

Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

First of all, this is becoming tiresome. This is not a Latin Catholic forum. This is not necessarily a Catholic forum. This is a forum for Eastern Christians. Please take a hiatus and read "Who We Are" in Town Hall before posting again.

Eastern Christians do not believe in St. Augustine's theory that orders are personal and go with a person when he leaves the Church. St. Cyril if Alexandria presents the Eastern theory and practice, which may be found on a thread in this forum, that orders are not personal and they cease to be anything but void when a man leaves his particular Church and bishop.

So your post is totally alien to the thinking of the Eastern Churches and oddly out-of-place here.

Bob
Moderator
Posted By: ajk

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/26/19 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by theophan
Eastern Christians do not believe in St. Augustine's theory that orders are personal and go with a person when he leaves the Church. St. Cyril if Alexandria presents the Eastern theory and practice, which may be found on a thread in this forum, that orders are not personal and they cease to be anything but void when a man leaves his particular Church and bishop.

So your post is totally alien to the thinking of the Eastern Churches and oddly out-of-place here.

Sounding to me dismissive, this presents certain forum posts as definitive and comprehensive: "Eastern Christians do not believe... St. Cyril if Alexandria presents the Eastern theory...orders are not personal ."

Contrast this, the dogma of the forum posts and opinions, with the (no need to mention it ?) Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote
VII. THE EFFECTS OF THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS

The indelible character

1581 This sacrament configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ's instrument for his Church. By ordination one is enabled to act as a representative of Christ, Head of the Church, in his triple office of priest, prophet, and king.

1582 As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ's office is granted once for all. The sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily. 74

1583 It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, 75 because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.


This is not a matter of anyone's "theory" or what this or that Father said (even though worthy of consideration) but of explicit dogma. Also it's Cyprian's not Cyril's "theory.".

There is no such "Eastern Christian" common belief. There is no Eastern Catholic dogma, or Western Catholic dogma, apart from Catholic dogma. Otherwise, the Catholic communion of churches is just another opinion club. How then, " totally alien"?

Catholic trumps Eastern and Western. Seriously consider a clarification, although I believe a formal retraction is in order.


Posted By: Santiago Tarsicio

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/27/19 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Administrator
Welcome, KE, to the Forum!

That the Catholic Church has not officially recognized some Orthodox saints does not mean they are not saints. As Bob noted above, holiness knows no boundaries. And keep in mind that prior to modern times and the Vatican's centralization of the canonization process, the process was much more local.

You might check the archives. A quick search brought up a discussion from which had a quote from Saint Pope John Paul II in pointing out that in his book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" he refers to "Saint Seraphim of Sarov".

John


Right, but there have been cases of 'saints' who had their names taken from the Roman Martyrology, such as Clement of Alexandria. I believe that it is necessary to better substantiate the answers, otherwise "controversial" saints will always be questioned; commitment to the truth is part of being a Christian.
Posted By: Santiago Tarsicio

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/27/19 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by ajk

This is not a matter of anyone's "theory" or what this or that Father said (even though worthy of consideration) but of explicit dogma. Also it's Cyprian's not Cyril's "theory.".

There is no such "Eastern Christian" common belief. There is no Eastern Catholic dogma, or Western Catholic dogma, apart from Catholic dogma. Otherwise, the Catholic communion of churches is just another opinion club. How then, " totally alien"?

Catholic trumps Eastern and Western.




Nice. I would like to share an excerpt from a post taken from an Orthodox website:

"My title is “St. Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas between East and West.” The notion of East/West opposition, as you are doubtless aware, has been a prominent feature of Orthodox theology since at least the time of the Russian Slavophiles in the early-to-mid 19th century. With this overall paradigm of opposition, one of the distinctive feature of 20th century Orthodox theology in particular, especially in the Russian diaspora, has been the elevation of St. Gregory Palamas to the status of a kind of archetype of the Christian East to set against Thomas Aquinas understood as an archetype of the Christian West. In other words, Orthodox neo-Palamism has emerged as a conscious counterweight to Catholic neo-Thomism."

"But the basic fact that an archetypal Easterner (Palamas) should embrace an archetypal Westerner (Augustine) is strange only if one begins with an assumption of an East/West dichotomy in opposition in the first place. What is puzzling is the fact that so many observers across the theological spectrum in East and West alike have approached the issue under precisely such an assumption. A serious engagement with Augustine is out of the question for virtually all critics and admirers of Palamas. But a serious engagement there was, and one which must press us to question further the hackneyed dichotomy of East and West."

"It’s been the main purpose of this lecture to suggest that Palamas is not as Eastern nor Aquinas as Western as had previously been widely supposed. Each has substantial interest in the other’s tradition. Each shares a complimentary approach to the theological endeavor and displays an unusually irenic approach to the Latin/Greek schism. In each case, they stand out among their contemporaries for the breadth, depth, and openness of their theological vision — a theological vision that encompasses the best of both East and West. And this is surely the kind of vision we desperately need today. Thank you."

https://journal.orthodoxwestblogs.c...nd-thomas-aquinas-between-east-and-west/
Posted By: Kyrie Eleison

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/27/19 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by ajk


Catholic trumps Eastern and Western. Seriously consider a clarification, although I believe a formal retraction is in order.


Thank you, I personally did not want to start a debate. From the standpoint of the Catholic Church saint canonizations are infallible and submission to the Roman Pontiff, that is, the successor to St. Peter is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. The Roman Pontiff is the visible point of unity for the ENTIRETY of the Catholic Church, east and west. I do not care about Orthodox polemics against this, nor do I care about what they have to say about papal primacy. I was addressing Catholics and Catholics alone. The question of papal primacy is a different subject and I think this thread was taken away from its main point by anti-catholic rhetoric.
Posted By: Administrator

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/27/19 11:52 AM

Kyrie Eleison,

Your posts are unclear. They read as if you are stating that full membership in the Catholic Church itself is necessary for salvation. You might consider the following from the Catholic Catechism:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." 322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." 323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." 324

That last quote is of Pope Paul VI. St. Pope John Paul II had also stated that the only thing necessary for communion with the Orthodox is communion. Your posts seem to be ignoring teachings that don't match your personal opinion.

As to the the validity of saints, note that the Catholic Church recognizes numerous saints from the Orthodox Church that it never formally canonized. You appear to be taking a very black-and-white approach to theology in an area where there is a lot of nuance.

Best wishes,
John
Posted By: ajk

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/27/19 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
Originally Posted by ajk


Catholic trumps Eastern and Western. Seriously consider a clarification, although I believe a formal retraction is in order.


Thank you, I personally did not want to start a debate.
You're welcome. Nor did I. Still it happens on forums as night follows day.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
From the standpoint of the Catholic Church saint canonizations are infallible...
As I said, I'm not fond of dogmatic-forum language. This (above quote) is a case in point. Here (following) is an example of the question having to be asked --so not a given -- and answered: Are canonizations infallible? Reasoned arguments and specific facts that inform ...

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
...and submission to the Roman Pontiff,
...and no submit, submission language, the "say uncle" approach to theological discourse, having to be used.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
...that is, the successor to St. Peter is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. The Roman Pontiff is the visible point of unity for the ENTIRETY of the Catholic Church, east and west.
There is a tendency when speaking to others in a language they do not understand to repeat what is said louder and louder until screaming. It doesn't help, probably hinders understanding. The Christian East has its own ethos. Without discarding the historical record and past language and even embracing it, I think the full understanding of the Pope's relation to the Church is now better contained within the framework of communion, the Eucharist, catholic, the "Church of churches".

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
I do not care about Orthodox polemics against this, nor do I care about what they have to say about papal primacy.
You should, we should, I do. As I've posted several times on this forum, Eastern Catholics especially should articulate to East and West, from the perspective of our spiritual heritage -- that ethos I mentioned -- why we are Catholic.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
I was addressing Catholics and Catholics alone.
If unavoidable or necessary to do so always consider the Eastern Christian scope of this forum.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
The question of papal primacy is a different subject and I think this thread was taken away from its main point by anti-catholic rhetoric.
Just for my curiosity and not wanting to fan the fire, what is the --one only please -- most egregious example of the "anti-catholic rhetoric"?



Posted By: ajk

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/27/19 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Santiago Tarsicio
I would like to share an excerpt from a post taken from an Orthodox website:

"My title is “St. Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas between East and West.”
...
"It’s been the main purpose of this lecture to suggest that Palamas is not as Eastern nor Aquinas as Western as had previously been widely supposed. Each has substantial interest in the other’s tradition. Each shares a complimentary approach to the theological endeavor and displays an unusually irenic approach to the Latin/Greek schism. In each case, they stand out among their contemporaries for the breadth, depth, and openness of their theological vision — a theological vision that encompasses the best of both East and West. And this is surely the kind of vision we desperately need today. Thank you."

https://journal.orthodoxwestblogs.c...nd-thomas-aquinas-between-east-and-west/

Thank you for this link. It is an exceptional overview of the status of the East-West theological interface or border or no-man's land. It lacks footnotes but the absence of explicit documentation also makes it an easier, more fluid read; and he gives many names. He has me rethinking my neglect of Florovsky and echoes my impression of LaCugna (though I am more sympathetic to her criticisms of Palamas) and others. I'd like more from him on Zizioulas and to have him appraise Stăniloae.

Were I the Magister of the forum, it would be required reading.

Posted By: Kyrie Eleison

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/28/19 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by Administrator
Kyrie Eleison,

Your posts are unclear. They read as if you are stating that full membership in the Catholic Church itself is necessary for salvation. You might consider the following from the Catholic Catechism:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." 322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." 323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." 324

That last quote is of Pope Paul VI. St. Pope John Paul II had also stated that the only thing necessary for communion with the Orthodox is communion. Your posts seem to be ignoring teachings that don't match your personal opinion.

As to the the validity of saints, note that the Catholic Church recognizes numerous saints from the Orthodox Church that it never formally canonized. You appear to be taking a very black-and-white approach to theology in an area where there is a lot of nuance.

Best wishes,
John


I have little care as to what Vatican II or what its papal claimants have to say. The papal claimants after Vatican II are not popes they are antipopes. They have never been popes because they have apostatized from Catholic Faith namely they have professed heresies of modernism condemned by various popes. So because they espouse heresy publically they cannot be the successor to St. Peter because Christ prayed that St. Peters faith would not fail.

An example of "Pope" Francis contradicting the faith:

On Heaven and Earth2, pp. 12-13: “I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him… nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person… every man is the image of God, whether he is a believer or not."

Francis I response to open letter 3 published Sep 2013: “First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.”

Teaching of the Church:

"If any one deny the one true God, Creator and Lord of all things visible and invisible, let him be anathema" (Conc. Vatican., Sess. III, "De fide", can. i).

"If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema" (First Vatican Council, Sess III, can. 2/1: Denz. 1806; cf. D. 1785).

“And to you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with the angels of his power, in a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” II Thessalonians I: 7-9

Since Vatican II there has been a rise in marriage anullments and a drop in seminarians, monks, priests, and nuns.

"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" - Matthew 7:16



Originally Posted by ajk
There is a tendency when speaking to others in a language they do not understand to repeat what is said louder and louder until screaming. It doesn't help, probably hinders understanding. The Christian East has its own ethos. Without discarding the historical record and past language and even embracing it, I think the full understanding of the Pope's relation to the Church is now better contained within the framework of communion, the Eucharist, catholic, the "Church of churches".

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
I do not care about Orthodox polemics against this, nor do I care about what they have to say about papal primacy.
You should, we should, I do. As I've posted several times on this forum, Eastern Catholics especially should articulate to East and West, from the perspective of our spiritual heritage -- that ethos I mentioned -- why we are Catholic.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
I was addressing Catholics and Catholics alone.
If unavoidable or necessary to do so always consider the Eastern Christian scope of this forum.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
The question of papal primacy is a different subject and I think this thread was taken away from its main point by anti-catholic rhetoric.
Just for my curiosity and not wanting to fan the fire, what is the --one only please -- most egregious example of the "anti-catholic rhetoric"?
Posted By: Santiago Tarsicio

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/28/19 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison

I came here to learn more about byzantine Catholicism although I was and am struck by the amount of modernism that has encroached the eastern churches and its sad to see. I have a great love for the east and the Eastern Rites. I also like some of the resources here. However, you cannot call yourself a Catholic and accept the east as "okay" or have some false ecumenism with the Eastern churches who clearly are wrong in their rejection of the Roman Pontiff.

I reject Vatican II and the papal claimants after Pope Pius XII. Vatican II and its papal claimants show clear cut contradictions of the faith in its doctrines and it cannot possibly be the church that Christ established. Heres a list of quotes from "Pope" Francis: http://francisquotes.com/

"Saint" "Pope" JPII ordered "communicatio in sacris" (shared prayer) with Non-Catholics, sihks, hindus, muslims and the like.

these people are not the Popes


I think the Orthodox saints were already venerated by Eastern Catholics before the Second Vatican Council. Answering the thread, the best answer I found (was in a discussion in portuguese language) is that post-schism eastern saints received recognition through the process of equipollent canonization. Or at least there was a equipollent beatification (in this case they would be called saints for convenience, just like Blessed Gundisalvus of Amarante, called Saint Gundisalvus).

OFF:

In the Latin Church there is the rather curious case of Emperor Charlemagne (Charles the Great), he was "canonized" by an antipope, Paschal III. The canonization was obviously invalid, but the cult was tolerated by the subsequent legitimate popes, there is a discussion whether it was canonized or if at the very least there was a equipollent beatification (maybe nothing).


Originally Posted by Santiago Tarsicio

Right, but there have been cases of 'saints' who had their names taken from the Roman Martyrology, such as Clement of Alexandria

*removed from the Roman Martyrology
Posted By: theophan

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/29/19 11:15 PM

Quote
I have little care as to what Vatican II or what its papal claimants have to say. The papal claimants after Vatican II are not popes they are antipopes.


Christ is in our midst!!

Kyrie Eleison, I have to ask-- Why are you here? What is your purpose in joining this forum?

You have obviously not read "Who We Are" in Town Hall to know that we are not specifically a "Catholic" forum, if by Catholic you mean in communion with the Bishop of Rome. We have grown to be an inclusive forum whose members include Byzantine Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, as well as many Latin Catholics and Protestants. You aren't asking about the Eastern Churches; you seem to want to preach about Latin Catholic past positions. Many of the Eastern Christian members are from Churches that have been harmed by Latin Catholic attitudes and pronouncements in the past and are not interested in hearing them anew. Additionally, you are not helping build up this community with these posts.

We also have a policy here of not making negative statements about clergy with whom we may disagree, especially bishops. Your comments about post-Vatican II popes are not in line with our policy. I am asking you to refrain from continuing in this vein.

Bob
Moderator
Posted By: Santiago Tarsicio

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/30/19 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison

I have little care as to what Vatican II or what its papal claimants have to say. The papal claimants after Vatican II are not popes they are antipopes. They have never been popes because they have apostatized from Catholic Faith namely they have professed heresies of modernism condemned by various popes. So because they espouse heresy publically they cannot be the successor to St. Peter because Christ prayed that St. Peters faith would not fail.

An example of "Pope" Francis contradicting the faith:

On Heaven and Earth2, pp. 12-13: “I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him… nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person… every man is the image of God, whether he is a believer or not."

Francis I response to open letter 3 published Sep 2013: “First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.”

Teaching of the Church:

"If any one deny the one true God, Creator and Lord of all things visible and invisible, let him be anathema" (Conc. Vatican., Sess. III, "De fide", can. i).

"If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema" (First Vatican Council, Sess III, can. 2/1: Denz. 1806; cf. D. 1785).

“And to you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with the angels of his power, in a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” II Thessalonians I: 7-9


It is not so simple to show that someone has incurred the canonical crime of heresy. Currently the crime of heresy is more technically understood, occurs when a person after baptism obstinately refuses to believe in a dogma. Attempts to demonstrate that the current Pope of Rome is a heretic have failed, there are good canonists able to demonstrate that the accusations are unfounded, because there are subtleties and nuances.


Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison

Since Vatican II there has been a rise in marriage anullments and a drop in seminarians, monks, priests, and nuns.

"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" - Matthew 7:16




This says more about people and civilization than the church itself. Of course the church also faces the crisis ("the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God" St. Paul VI). Revolutions have occurred in sexual morality, it is difficult to demonstrate that an Ecumenical Council is the cause. Pope St. Paul VI suffered writing Humanae Vitae, a martyr. In my opinion the sacred Council begins to be understood only now (however, it is well known that post-conciliar terminology has been misused to spread relativism and confusion, it is necessary to do a work of clarification, a "hermeneutic of continuity " as said Benedict XVI).
Posted By: ajk

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/30/19 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
I have little care as to what Vatican II or what its papal claimants have to say. The papal claimants after Vatican II are not popes they are antipopes. They have never been popes because they have apostatized from Catholic Faith namely they have professed heresies of modernism condemned by various popes. So because they espouse heresy publically they cannot be the successor to St. Peter because Christ prayed that St. Peters faith would not fail.

Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
The question of papal primacy is a different subject and I think this thread was taken away from its main point by anti-catholic rhetoric.
Just for my curiosity and not wanting to fan the fire, what is the --one only please -- most egregious example of the "anti-catholic rhetoric"?
When I asked for an example of the "anti-catholic rhetoric" you bemoaned, I wasn't expecting you to respond by providing the example with your own words. Blinded by a ludicrous ecclesiology, you have shown yourself here to be the rabid anti-Catholic. I have some issues with Pope Francis too but he has opened the debate to include that a Pope can -- and should at times -- be critiqued.

The lunacy of you folks who have deluded yourselves into believing that you can declare who's (not) pope is the hubris school of theology. Sedevacantists belong to a cult. Sedevacantism in the order of ecclesiology is a sin against the Holy Spirit. Your words are repugnant. What ever may be said of Francis, the one thing for sure is that he is the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

To give proper breadth to my criticism, consider that you and for instance -- looking at posts in this thread -- Irish_Ruthenian are two sides of the same coin and neither of you realize it.

Posted By: theophan

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints - 09/30/19 09:29 PM

Christ is in our midst!!

Many years ago I was in a fraternal meeting when one of my brethren started going off on Protestants: they're all wrong about Christ, they're going to Hell, etc. So I told them this story.

You may get to Heaven and St. Peter will assign you a place. He will tell you that you will be sharing a six by nine foot room that has bunk beds, a small closet, no windows or doors, but open ceiling. You will be rooming with Jimmy Swigert; he's been there first and the closet is pretty full; also he has the lower bunk so you will have to negotiate if you want to make any changes. He dislikes Catholics to a great degree. (So is this Heaven or Hell?) Many of the rest of us will be entertained by sitting above you, looking down into your room and enjoying your discussions with Jimmy Swigert.

Told the same story--reversed--to a Protestant who was going off on Catholics. The change was that he would be with the last Pope who would have far more clothing crammed into the closet.

I have to admit that the vast bulk of my extended family is Protestant, from Anglican to Evangelical and all in between. We get along because we love each other and are very sad that we cannot share the Eucharist.

The point of all is that there is no room for hatred. People are placed where they are by the Lord according to His Plan, not ours. Our job is to witness in love to the gift we have been given and listen patiently to those who have been given a different view than we. I happen to agree with my Orthodox brethren on many things that dismay my fellow parishioners and clergy. But they don't go off on a tangent because they know that there is no guile with me and I can explain graciously why I hold what I do. Some see me as too strict, given the current Latin Catholic praxis, but that is their business; If I am strict with myself and am not pushing others, I am witnessing to the fact that there is something greater in our Faith practice that needs to be recognized.

Bob
© 2020 The Byzantine Forum