www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Status of post-schism Orthodox Saints

I have a question that I'm curious about... what exactly is the status of those men and women regarded as saints by the Orthodox Churchs, but who were part of the eastern communions AFTER the schism? Technically speaking, the Church cannot recognize a non-Catholic as a saint, at least that's what I've always been taught. It only seems to make sense.

THUS, what does one make of such persons, from a Catholic perspective? Are there any Church documents on the subject, that speak with some authority on the issue?

I bring this up because someone in this forum defended Gregory Palamas as a "saint", yet from what I know he was very anti-Roman, and antagonistic towards the theology of the Roman Church. There are also philosophical problems with the particulars of his doctrine on divine energies (i.e. making such a sharp distinction between them, and the essence of God...where as the Eastern Fathers from who the language of "energies" arose, never made so sharp a distinction in fact, but seemed to speak in such terms out of necessity...the mystery of God and such.)

Thanx.

Dear Augustine,

St. Joan of Arc died excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The same Church that excommunicated her canonized her.

Joe Prokopchak
O' God, be merciful to me a sinner----The Publican

The Byzantine Catholic Church keeps the same Calendar of Saints we had before we entered into full communion with Rome. Technically speaking, the Church can recognize anyone it wants as a saint. Roman Catholics recognize the Byzantine Saints and Byzantines recognize the Roman saints. Each Church keeps its own calendar so this doesn't mean that they get added to one another's calendars. Should the Byzantine Catholic Church decide to proclaim more saints, I doubt they would also be added to the Roman Calendar.

>>THUS, what does one make of such persons, from a Catholic perspective? <<

The Catholic Churches - both Byzantine and Roman - consider them as Saints. We really don't care what the SSPX viewpoint is because it is not a valid Catholic viewpoint.

The following is from the Sunday Byzantine Worship Guide for February 28, 1999 used in our Byzantine Catholic Churches:

------

SECOND SUNDAY OF THE GREAT FAST
SUNDAY OF ST. GREGORY PALAMAS

The second Sunday of Great Lent is traditionally dedicated to Saint Gregory Palamas. Once again we are reassured, as we contemplate this man and reflect on his teachings, that we can indeed attain salvation and behold the "Light of Wisdom" by becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Saint Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) was a monk, archbishop and eminent theologian. He was also a major figure in fourteenth-century Byzantium. His greatest work, In Defense of Holy Hesychasts [commonly known as the Triads], was written between 1338 and 1341 as a response to the charges of Barlaam. Barlaam denied the legitimacy of the spiritual methods of Byzantine monastic groups known as hesychasts and discredited their claims to experience the divine presence. Hesychasm, a movement dating back to the Fathers of the desert, believed that since the body itself receives the grace of sacraments and the pledge of final resurrection it would properly have a share in "pure prayer". They believed that God is accessible to personal experience because He shared His own live with humanity. It is from this tradition that we have the famous "Jesus Prayer": Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!

Saint Gregory clearly teaches that, by cooperating with God who makes all things possible, we can attain eternal life. Thus, our lenten efforts are confirmed, our resolve is strengthened, our frustrations at the end of the second week are overcome, and we are filled once more with the light of hope.

Troparion: O Light of Orthodoxy, teacher and support of the Church, adornment of monks and invincible rampart of theologians, O holy Gregory Palamas the Wonderworker, the glory of Thessalonica and the herald of grace, intercede with Christ God for the salvation of our souls.

Hymns from Matins: Faithfully keeping to the path of your divine teachings, we flee from false teachers; and by your holy writings, O Holy Gregory, we drive back their armies.

You refuted the foolish teachings of heretics, O blessed Gregory, for your heart was filled with wisdom personified, by which you broke their perverted pride.

Opening your mouth, O holy Father, you proclaimed the wisdom of God, upon which you constantly meditated in your heart; and thus you showed the foolishness and futility of Barlaam.

By your words and writings, you have cut down the thorns of heresy; you separated the wheat from the tares, and you have sown the seeds of Orthodoxy, O holy Father.

O Holy Father Gregory Palamas, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for us!

Dear in Christ Augustine,

You have asked what the "status" of those declared Saints by the Orthodox Church since the 11th Century are. Well, dear Augustine, they are Saints! That is their status. Some of these saints have even been Blessed by God to offer proof of their sanctity by the incorruption of their bodies, exactly like some other famous Saints of the Western Church. Others have offered such proof by miracles attributed to them, much in the same way such "proofs" must be given in the Western Church's Causes
for Canonization.
In the case of these Holy Men and Women we call Saints the Orthodox are much less juridical than our Western brothers, but we are no less moved by the holiness of their lives, nor are we less effected by their intercessions for us before the Throne of God, where they surely must stand to achieve for us their suppliants the many Blessings we have received.

the unworthy monk Kyrill

Fr.Kyrill Replies to my Query:

You have asked what the "status" of those declared Saints by the Orthodox Church since the 11th Century are. Well, dear Augustine, they are Saints! That is their status. Some of these saints have even been Blessed by God to offer proof of their sanctity by the incorruption of their bodies, exactly like some other famous Saints of the Western Church. Others have offered such proof by miracles attributed to them, much in the same way such "proofs" must be given in the Western Church's Causes
for Canonization.

Augustine replies:

Thank-you for answering my question, Father. I ask, only because the question comes to mind about the issue of the persons in question not being in communion with the Holy See, and other complications.

Also, is it not correct (I could be wrong here), that Gregory was antagonistic towards the Holy See, and those in communion with the Holy See? If Catholic saints must manifest extra-ordinary virtue, is not this an example of something other than a virtue, attacking the very social fabric of the Church itself?

Despite what certain souls may desire to believe, I'm not asking this question to be antagonistic; it's simply a logical difficulty that I'd like settled. Thank-you, for your patience, and please remember me when you say your office.

Augustine

Jeff Y States:

The Byzantine Catholic Church keeps the same Calendar of Saints we had before we entered into full communion with Rome. Technically speaking, the Church can recognize anyone it wants as a saint. Roman Catholics recognize the Byzantine Saints and Byzantines recognize the Roman saints. Each Church keeps its own calendar so this doesn't mean that they get added to one another's calendars. Should the Byzantine Catholic Church decide to proclaim more saints, I doubt they would also be added to the Roman Calendar.

Augustine Replies:

Thus, I am to understand that the causes of men and women for sainthood who died within the juristiction of Eastern Catholic heirarchs, are reserved to those individuals, their canon law, etc? That their causes are not brought to Rome?

Jeff Y Says:

>>THUS, what does one make of such persons, from a Catholic perspective? <<

The Catholic Churches - both Byzantine and Roman - consider them as Saints. We really don't care what the SSPX viewpoint is because it is not a valid Catholic viewpoint.

Augustine Replies:

You could have simply said "The Catholic Churches - both Byzantine and Roman - consider them as Saints." Since it's off topic, I'll prevent myself from getting into the issue of the priestly fraternity of St.Pius X in this forum. If in the name of truth you're actually interested in finding out the actual facts on the matter (as so much is hearsay), you can contact me at caesar@golden.net.

l8r, and God Bless...

Joe Wrote:

Dear Augustine,
St. Joan of Arc died excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The same Church that excommunicated her canonized her.

Augustine Replies:

True enough. Though I believe this was an act of a diocesan bishop, and pertained to alleged heresy. YET as the doctors of the Church teach, an excommunication is not valid if the grounds for which it is issued do not exist. THUS, they can be over turned. Obviously, there were crooked motives in the "excommunication" of St.Joan of Arc.

On the other hand, can the same be said in the case of the schism? While I'm aware that there are issues about "who exactly" was excommunicated in the first place, the fact of the matter was that there was, at least materially speaking, a schism given that the patriarchs of the east not only refused to acknowledge the universal juristiction of the Roman Pontiff, but did not even recognize him even as an Orthodox Patriarch, period.

From what I know (maybe you have information to the contrary and correct this), Gregory Palamas was very much of the "typical" Byzantine mentality of the age, which was antagonistic towards reunion with Rome, in much the same modern "Orthodox" Christians are. Thus, while very likely a pious and very ascetic man, a non-Catholic none the less. Thus, how can he be a canonical CATHOLIC "saint"?

This is the heart of my question. While it may strike a sensitive nerve, it is a valid question, and I'd appreciate a reasoned response. Thanks.

Pax Christi

I think, Augustine, that you will not be able to find the black and white answers you seek. Even the Western Church, which tends to be much more legalistic than the Eastern Church, cannot arrange and explain every aspect of theology. The Trinity cannot be put in a box. The Holy Spirit guides us into wisdom - not legalism.

>>Also, is it not correct (I could be wrong here), that Gregory was antagonistic towards the Holy See, and those in communion with the Holy See? <<

I've seen no proof of antagonism on the part of St. Gregory Palamas and I've studied the Triads and Meyendorff's excellent "A Study of Saint Gregory Palamas". He is quite eloquent against Barlaam's errors but his teaching is purely Orthodox, or - if you don't like that word - fully Catholic. Even if he was antagonistic against the Holy See or an individual in communion with the Holy See this alone cannot be used as evidence of anything. The Holy See is often wrong. The infallibility of the Church - even in your interpretation of it - is quite restricted. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. He said nothing about the sinfulness, poor judgement and the ever failing humanity of those Christians -including the pope - who make up the Church.

>>If Catholic saints must manifest extra-ordinary virtue, is not this an example of something other than a virtue, attacking the very social fabric of the Church itself?<<

When the very social fabric of the Church is being harmed by people like Barlaam we are called to defend the Church. St. Gregory Palamas defended the hesychastic style of prayer that dated back to the desert fathers when Barlaam attacked it. Why is it that you consider the Latins in the Church to be infallible and the Byzantines to be always fallible?

>>I am to understand that the causes of men and women for sainthood who died within the juristiction of Eastern Catholic hierarchs, are reserved to those individuals, their canon law, etc? That their causes are not brought to Rome? <<

This is a good question for which I do not have an answer. The Byzantine Catholic Church, as do all suri iuris Churches, has always had the right to proclaim saints. It is only in the Western Church that a formal process, as such, existed.

>>Since it's off topic, I'll prevent myself from getting into the issue of the priestly fraternity of St.Pius X in this forum. If in the name of truth you're actually interested in finding out the actual facts on the matter (as so much is hearsay), you can contact me at caesar@golden.net.<<

I did a Yahoo search on the SSPX and came across the Catholic Information Network's account of the Lefebvrist schism at http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/l-intro.htm and Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei in which he confirmed the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers, the SSPX http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/ecclesia.htm.

>>On the other hand, can the same be said in the case of the schism? While I'm aware that there are issues about "who exactly" was excommunicated in the first place, the fact of the matter was that there was, at least materially speaking, a schism given that the patriarchs of the east not only refused to acknowledge the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, but did not even recognize him even as an Orthodox Patriarch, period.<<

Wrong. The current Latin understanding of the universal jurisdiction is recent, developing after the 1054 split. The excommunications were technically between the papal legate and the Patriarch of Constantinople. They were lifted in 1964 and, technically, there is nothing to stop us from declaring full communion with one another. From the time of the apostles until today the Orthodox recognize Peter as the Patriarch of Rome and acknowledge primacy. The current dispute, again, is the form and extent of this primacy. Universal, individual jurisdiction by Peter, as understood and held by today's Roman Catholics, was unknown in the first millennium - Peter always acted with the whole Church. This is historical fact and acknowledged by the West. It is this question which Pope John Paul II has put on the table for discussion and redefinition.

I am curious. Just why are these issues so important to you? Is it so necessary to put the Trinity into a box and explain every mystery before believing?