www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St. Gregory Palamas

Does anyone have any information on the 1971 Synod when St. Gregory Palamas was commemorated as a Catholic saint and what the relationship is in this process with Rome and "canonization"?

thanks

Max Percy

The only resource I can give you is

http://www.mliles.com/melkite/stgregorypalamas.shtml

Rev. Fr. Peter Boutros who is mentioned here is the Pastor at my Church in Phoenix, AZ Saint John of the Desert.

Other than that, I can tell you for a fact the Saint Gregory Palamas is on the Calendar during Lent.

There is also an Icon of Saint Gregory Palamas on the wall at Saint John the Baptist Ruthenian Church in Pittsburgh, PA.

Saint Gregory Palamas is a Saint in the Eastern Catholic Church.

I would like to know if a saint in an Eastern Catholic Church is automatically a saint in the RCC and visa versa? I would assume they are, but would like a definite answer...because I just told somebody that they were automatically. Am I wrong?

Zenovia

Haha...this is stormy waters you are getting into.

I know that theologically speaking, there are two OPINIONS about this, yes and no.

As far as devotions go, I know there are RC faithfully who have devotions to Eastern Saints, ex. Saint Gregory Palamas and Saint Seraphim of Sarov.

Catholic.org lists both as saints

I think the distinction would be -who is on which liturgical calendar- for those in communion with the papal Church.

Also many of the saints have not be received through the canonization process, since that is fairly recent in its present form anyway.

I can think of some Orthodox saints that would give some eastern Catholics a rough time of it, and also some Catholic saints that would raise the BP of some Orthodox. But I can't think of any on any calendar, save for some of the very most local ones that one would be forbidden to venerate. But that is just speaking for those of us in the papal Church.

I know Orthodox faithful who venerate western saints. I suspect that may not be encouraged by some clergy but I don't know if it is forbidden?

Eli

In brief :p you are not wrong.

Eli

I was under the impression there was no process for Eastern Catholic churches to individually add saints to their own calendars as happens in the Orthodox world. My understanding is all canonizations go through Rome. Official recognition of course is different than private veneration.

Andrew

I was under the impression there was no process for Eastern Catholic churches to individually add saints to their own calendars as happens in the Orthodox world. My understanding is all canonizations go through Rome. Official recognition of course is different than private veneration.

That was my impression too, but it seems so unlikely that Latins would canonize someone who was never a member of the Latin Church and was in some ways in opposition to it that led me to wonder about St. Gregory Palamas and his commmemoration and what at happened at the 1971 synod.

Hard to say. The New Advent article on Hesychasm [newadvent.org] , along with condemning Hesychasm as incompatible with western theology, refers to Gregory Palamas as being "a saint to them" - i.e. the Orthodox. Clearly that means not a "saint to us".

Andrew

This last is not accurate. None of the Old Testament saints and not all of the New Testament saints lived to be Latin rite Catholics. Nor did the eastern fathers who are now celebrated on the western Latin rite liturgical calendar. Not all saints in the Church have been canonized in the present process and not all not all saints are on the calendar at all.

Eli

Hmmm The guys were pulling in to clean the furnace as I was writing these last few words, which mean that many saints are not on the any liturgical calendar, by name, at all.

It is not at ALL hard to say. It is quite easy to say that is not the Church speaking.

Those words come from those members of the Church who were violently opposed to the east at that time.

You will find the same kinds of people speaking of the west now in Orthodoxy, and I have been told by other Orthodox that they do NOT speak for universal Orthodoxy.

Should I believe them? Or should I impute their teachings to universal Orthodxy because, if I do, then Orthodoxy is heterodox and I'll give you one example out of many.

I have been told that the Incarnation was born with an flawed human nature, just as the rest of us are born. This is from a priest on a list for inquirers to Orthodoxy.

I can believe that is universal Orthodox teaching or I can consider the overall attitudes of the source.

Eli

I'll give the priest in question the benefit of the doubt and hope by flawed he doesn't mean a sinful human nature, because that of course could not co-exist with the divine nature of Christ.

It is not at all obvious to me at first glance that this is or wasn't an official publication of the church. It says "Catholic Encyclopedia" which sounds fairly official. It says in the preface

The Catholic Encyclopedia, as its name implies, proposes to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine. What the Church teaches and has taught; what she has done and is still doing for the highest welfare of mankind; her methods, past and present; her struggles, her triumphs, and the achievements of her members, not only for her own immediate benefit, but for the broadening and deepening of all true science, literature and art -- all come within the scope of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

It also says

The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published. In constituting the Editors the ecclesiastical censors, he has given them a singular proof of his confidence and of his desire to facilitate the publication of the work which he has promoted most effectively by his influence and kindly co-operation.

Which is probably more important. It would seem to me that this at one time, if not still currently, was/is an officially approved publication and not just the opinion of somebody on the Internet.

--
Also, I just noticed this at the bottom of the article condemning Hesychasm, it says

ADRIAN FORTESCUE
Transcribed by Alphonsus Maria Arata Nunobe
Dedicated to the Greek Catholics

I haven't heard of Adrian Fortescue before. The web site Una Voce says

He had an exceptionally broad range of interests. He loved the study of the East- its languages, customs and religions- and knew the origin and history of the Eastern Churches, both Uniate and Orthodox, as few priests of the Roman Rite have ever done, as is made clear in his books on the subject. He devoted many years to the study of Church history, of which he was an inspiring master.

So it doesn't seem to me he was just some crackpot.

Andrew

Andrew,

The Catholic Encyclopedia was published before Vatican II, and carries all the pre-Vatican II anti-Eastern prejudices one would expect. It can hardly be considered authoritative anymore but it is still a good resource in many respects.

Adrian Fortescue was actually very sympathetic to the East in many respects and was ahead of his time in many ways. Our own Dr. Anthony Dragani's doctoral dissertation is on him and it is to be published by Gorgia Press.

Fr. Deacon Lance