www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Venerating Non-Orthodox Saints

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

AMM,

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

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

Alexis

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

Three Cents,

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

Different strokes for different folks!

Alexis

Dear AMM,

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

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

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

Alex

Dear Alexis,

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

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

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

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

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

Alex

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

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

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

Dear AMM,

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

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

Reading their work is a great pleasure too.

Alex

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. Serge

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

Ah, time to resurrect an old thread!

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

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

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

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

Alexis

Dear Alexis,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alex