www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Gregory Palamas

Gregory, that polemic has been tried here many, many times. You will not find much sympathy here for that kind of approach. I would in return posit the Orthodox Church is not "one" because the ultimate sign of Christian communion, the Eucharist, is not shared by all jurisdictions as all are not in communion with each other. If they are not in communion, they do not share the same faith. And that is simply Orthodox ecclesiology.

In response to your post, which took my comments out of context, I was simply asking why this particular usage does not commemorate him. Other Greek Catholic typika do include this commemoration of our Father among the saints, as has been stated above. And if you will read my post you will also find St. Gregory's commemoration is included fairly completely in the Greek Catholic Uniontown Triodion. In my Greek Catholic parish we will sing his Canon before Divine Liturgy this Sunday.

And has been clarified on another thread, even though the Petras Typikon does not specifically include the commemoration, the instructions are present as addendum notes for celebrating its commemoration.

If St. Gregory were so out of sync with our theology, then it would not even be included as addendum notes. And other Greek Catholic Typika do specifically include St. Gregory's commemoration for the second Sunday of the Great Fast, and give texts and instructions for its celebration. The fact is, we do commemorate him liturgically and doing so thus embrace his theology when doing so.

I can say for myself St. Gregory Palamas is one of my absolute favorite saints, is one of our family patrons we regularly pray to for intercession, and I am Greek Catholic, in communion with Rome.

I do firmly and warmly embrace his theology as does my Church. Because we are in communion with Rome does not mean we reject Orthodox teaching. I know it is very difficult for you to understand that, but we are not Roman, but in communion with Rome. And many of has chosen to be Greek Catholic, having explored the alternatives.

Do you consider the Old Believers Orthodox? Some of their typika do not include this commemoration. Does this make them heterodox? Does this mean they do not embrace or "understand" Orthodox theology? Hardly. I certainly DO consider them to be Orthodox, holding on to some very pious and efficacious practices long ago discarded by post-Nikonian Orthodoxy.

Again, you use one yardstick out of context to pass judgement on all who profess communion with Rome without even knowing what the various practices of Orthodoxy follow concerning St. Gregory. Have mercy on us for being in communion with Rome and pray for us.

Dear Diak,

You raise a number of interesting points in this regard!

In 1973, I believe, Rome affirmed and recognized St Gregory Palamas as a saint and there was an official "ceremony" in this regard. It was related to me by Fr. Serge Keleher of Holy Ireland way back when and I've seen references to it in Catholic texts, here and there, ever since.

So St Gregory Palamas IS a saint of the Catholic Churches in union with Rome.

In the Catholic Church, when an Eastern Church comes into union with Rome, all the saints of that particular Church may continue to be venerated even though they were never themselves and personally in union with Rome (as long as they were not, in their lifetimes, characterized by strong anti-Roman tendencies in their preaching or writing).

So the fact that St Gregory was not a Roman Catholic is no barrier to his being acknowledged a saint of the Church and even celebrated liturgically.

When Catholic communities, such as New Skete, become Orthodox, the post-schism Latin saints are not so treated.

Even though New Skete continues to honour Sts Francis and Clare and continues to print their icons, this is on their own volition and does not mean that the Orthodox Church approves of their liturgical veneration - which it certainly does not.

Alex

Gregory,

So, it's either Catholicism or Orthodoxy? True, both claim to have the fullness of the faith. But it can't be simplified to an "either-or" proposition. Having been on both sides of the "fence," I can say that while Orthodox I did not feel less closer to God. When I received the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church I received Christ...not a fraction of Him.

The Catholic Church teaches that we are actualy less complete ("wounded" to use John Paul's words) without the union of our Churches. John Paul has also spoken of the "sin of our separation." When Catholics speak of having a "fullness," it should not be meant in any sort of triumphalistic manner. In fact, we should humbly say that while we rejoice in the universality of our Church we have much to do to make that "fullness" more complete. Part of that is in fully recognizing the patrimony of the Eastern Churches as part of the Catholic heritage as well.

Yes, Alex, through the intercession of that great Thomist Patriarch Josyp Rome included it in the Anthologion of 1974. I have a friend who was in the Studion in Rome in the late 1970s and early 1980s and he definitely remembers its commemoration in the monastery.

Patriarch Josyp himself is a fine example of how one can balance elements of both Thomist and Palamite theologies in an antimonic sense, as he certainly was an avowed devotee of both.

St. Gregory is on our calendar; his feastday is November 14.

From the link of DTB with his poll. (Typicon at the Patronage site)

November
14 TWENTY-FOURTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST. The Holy and Illustrious Apostle Philip. Our Holy Father Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica.

I think that Orthodox calendars include both commemorations. I saw a Melkite site that indicated that only the commemoration on the 2nd Sunday of Lent is on their calendar. Perhaps Fr. David can shed some light on this situation.

Diak, your comment on Orthodox ecclesiology is interesting; Gregory has stipulated on another thread his view that lack of communion is not sufficient to demonstrate a difference in Faith.

djs, the main point of discussion is the restoration of St. Greogry's "greater" commemoration on the Second Sunday of the Great Fast. Anyone who has a Ruthenian church calendar can indeed see the commemoration in November. There is no disagreement on the presence of his fixed-feast commemoration. But I doubt many if any Greek Catholic parishes specifically keep his fixed-feast commemoration, which in some usages is not even of polyeleos rank.

If you look at the discussion, you would see that the various directions for the commemoration on the Second Sunday of the Great Fast have some differences in Greek Catholic usage and the discussion is primarily focused on the restoration of St. Gregory's commemoration on the second Sunday of the Great Fast.

Yes, he is also commemorated twice amongst the Orthodox. Other than those churches dedicated to him, and in Thessalonika, I will chance to guess that you will also not see a major liturgical celebration specifically for St. Gregory on the fixed-day commeoration among the Orthodox compared to that of the second Sunday of the Great Fast.

His commemoration being presented on a Sunday presents a much more widespread and solemn opportunity for his commemoration and remembrance of his great works and deeds, returns us from some unfortunate effects of Zamosc and is harmonious with our mother Church of Constantinople. And Rome says it's OK.

Diak,

Sorry, I was just writing to make it clear that, whatever informed the decision regarding commemorations on the 2nd Sunday in Lent, it simply an error to say that this practice is "[b]ecause St Gregory Palamas is Orthodox, not Catholic. He didn't share the same Faith as Rome", or that he is not considered a Saint by us. His presence on our calendar shows unambiguously that such an idea is wrong.

Although I see this flame-question as rhetorical, I think there is some inadvertent merit here.

A better statement might be that we see a need to reinvigorate authentic practices of our own church, which, naturally, have very, very much in common with Orthodox churches.

Dear Diak, I am not trying to be mean...just honest. I don't believe that Eastern Catholics are Orthodox. I don't believe that Eastern Catholic dogma (the same as the rest of Catholicism...it is the same dogma shared among all Catholic churches)is compatable with Orthodoxy.

Great point! However, let's look at it this way: the Eucharist can only be manifested when there is a unity of Faith under a bishop who teaches and holds orthodox (right teaching) Faith. The Holy Spirit abides in "spirit and truth". For example, the OCA and ROCOR do not share Eucharistic communion because of issues not pertaining to common Faith. Yet, it would be a mistake to say that the OCA is "graceless" (or vise-versa) because of this. They, in fact, share the common Faith. We do not commune with each other because we believe that this non-Faith issues are also important.

Now, the source of unity within the Catholic Church is union with the pope of Rome since he has (as Vatican I states dogmatically-ex cathedra)immediate jurisdiction over ALL CATHOLIC CHURCHES OF ALL RITES. If the Catholic Church truly believed that the summit of Catholic unity is the Eucharist, then why would she allow Orthodox Christians to commune in any Catholic Church? Orthodox Christians obviously do not share the same faith as Catholics.

So what? He is included because (at least some or most) Eastern Catholics BELIEVE that their theology is in sync with St Gregory. That doesn't make it right. That is akin to a Mormon saying that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin because we use it in our church.

But you do reject Orthodox teaching when you enter into communion with Rome. As an Eastern Catholic you MUST accept ALL Catholic dogma (EC's and RC's share the same dogma). I am not making this up. Show me which "Roman teaching" you can reject. You are a Catholic who celebrates within an eastern liturgical setting. Liturgy does not make one Orthodox, Faith does. And Catholic dogma is not compatable with Orthodox Faith.

Of course, anytime Eastern Catholicism is questioned, it is regarded as a flame war or mean. I am open to criticism and welcome it. I will try to defend my Faith. Will you?

Greg

Many people write here to ask questions about EC, but I think, as you seem to say, that you write to call the ECC's into question. You apologized, repeatedly, on the last thread for inflammatory remarks. Great. But then you go on to make remarks on this thread of a similar nature. Instead of asking us - who we are, what are our beliefs and practices, what is our church and its history, you make declarations, with implict answers to questions that you really - it is clear -should be asking.

I think that most folks here would jump to defend their Faith from a threat. I also think that it would be highly unusual to find attacks here on Faith. Don't confuse your idiosyncratic, private judgments with the Faith.

Search the forum and read the comments on purgatory. There is food for thought for you there on "dogma".

Gregory, I am very comfortable with my faith and identity. In the past I have belonged to ROCOR, Greek, Serbian, and OCA parishes in addition to Roman and Greek Catholic. I have a lot of years, tears, and discernment into my faith at this point. You can believe whatever you want, that is strictly your business.

I do not question your faith or beliefs, nor is it Christian or polite to question another's faith. That is between them and God. For myself, St. Gregory Palamas perhaps more than any other theologians except the Cappadocians has shaped my own faith.

I hold the teachings of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, I say the Creed without the Filioque, and I am in communion with the Church of Rome. If lex credendi, lex orandi as according to St. Prosper of Aquitane holds (as I believe), I worship in Orthodox manner.

I noticed you did not answer my question about the Old Believers. Do you consider them Orthodox? Some are in communion with "canonical" Orthodox churches. They do not hold the commemoration of St. Gregory Palamas. Orthodox or not? Do they not share the Orthodox faith?

And the point remains. If some Orthodox churches are not in communion with each other, they do not mutually consider each other Orthodox. That is clear enough. I know the ROCOR very well and know that they think this about several "canonical" jurisdictions. They simply do not consider them to be Orthodox at all.

According to Orthodox ecclesiology, both simply cannot share the same faith if they are not in communion with each other. They cannot, in fact, share the same faith because the very manifestation of them sharing the same faith in Orthodoxy cannot be shared, i.e. the Eucharist.

You can argue whatever scholastic points about levels of grace (quite Roman of you, actually) but the manifestation of their sharing the same faith, the Eucharist, if not shared, does not nor cannot manifest unity of faith. Check your Orthodox theologians.

Dear Greg,

Just a point on the saints which, as you know, is a beloved hobby of mine!

There are many saints in the Orthodox calendar that were not Orthodox by faith.

There are saints who were Arians such as St Nicetas the Goth, St Sabbas and St Artemius of Egypt.

The Georgian Orthodox Church gave Orthodoxy a number of its saints from its Miaphysite heritage - even some that were condemned by their contemporary Greek Orthodox theologians.

There are other examples.

So the fact that St Gregory Palamas was Orthodox and not in union with Rome is therefore something that we Catholics don't hold against him . . .

God bless!

Alex

And what about Emperor Constantine?

Dear djs,

What ABOUT Emperor Constantine?

You mean because he was baptized by Arians on his death-bed? Is that it?

He would still have been baptized and the Church never questioned that.

Emperor St Constantine XI the New Martyr is in both Catholic and Orthodox calendars.

That he died in union with Rome seems obvious from the fact that on the morning of his military foray against the Turks (that ended with his martyrdom) he received Communion from an RC Cardinal.

As Fr. Keleher likes to say, " . . .and the Orthodox are short on Cardinals . . ."

Aren't the Irish in our Church wonderful?

Most of them, at least?

Alex

They are not my private judgments, it is the Faith of the Orthodox Church. And, I have been fair by providing Catholic statements to defend what Catholicism teaches. Why is this idiosyncratic? I am trying to present an argument based upon what BOTH SIDES hold as true.

If I get a chance I will look at some of those posts. However, I presented the EX CATHEDRA statements of Vatican I as an example (again not my private judgment) to illustrate that Catholics and Orthodox have a different faith. I never claimed purgatory as a matter of dogma, which in Catholic eyes is not.

Why is it so bad to ask what people believe? This is a CATHOLIC forum. Catholic implies that you hold certain truths, forum suggests a place where topics are discussed. Hence, what (discussion/forum) do you believe (faith/Catholic)? Is this not fair game?

But, if you don't accept the councils after the first seven which you are bound to, then you are placing yourself outside the realm of Catholic Faith. So, Diak, do you accept Papal Infallibility which was proclaimed ex cathedra at Vatican I?

I am not sure. My "guess" would be no. But at least I am honest and am willing to be corrected.

I don't think this is universally true and it is not clear enough. I am in the OCA and I consider ROCOR to be Orthodox. The majority of ROCOR believe the OCA to be Orthodox.

I was born Roman Catholic, was Melkite and now I am Orthodox. I am very comfortable with my Faith.

Greg