The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
JustinWJustiniano, Chauntsinger, barabara737th, jwag, Georg
5,963 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (2 invisible), 268 guests, and 53 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,378
Posts416,670
Members5,963
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Nov 2022
Posts: 3
E
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
E
Joined: Nov 2022
Posts: 3
Hi. I was wondering if eastern Catholics recognize all the saints Rome canonizes (they may might not commemorate them in a liturgy). And do eastern Catholics recognize all the teachings of the Church of Rome even if theological emphasis maybe different? Thanks

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Christ is in our midst!!

EasternAquyinas2,

Welcome to the fourm.

Bob
Moderator

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
Since there is one God, there is one Faith. Since there is one Faith, there is one Heaven.

The difference can only be summed up as, different traditions, the same religion. For example, though Saint Constantine is not commerated in the West (I think), he is objectively still a Saint recognized by the Church. On the other side, see for example Saint Therese Byzantine Catholic Church.

The religion is the exact same, despite word choices such as the issue of "proceeds from the Father and the Son." vs. "proceeds from the Father." The Council of Florence for example settles that issue completely. The only thing that is different is the traditions. The West has the Mass, the East the Divine Liturgy and other Liturgies.

Joined: Nov 2022
Posts: 3
E
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
E
Joined: Nov 2022
Posts: 3
Thank you

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Originally Posted by Giovanni1
Since there is one God, there is one Faith. Since there is one Faith, there is one Heaven.

The difference can only be summed up as, different traditions, the same religion. For example, though Saint Constantine is not commerated in the West (I think), he is objectively still a Saint recognized by the Church. On the other side, see for example Saint Therese Byzantine Catholic Church.

The religion is the exact same, despite word choices such as the issue of "proceeds from the Father and the Son." vs. "proceeds from the Father." The Council of Florence for example settles that issue completely. The only thing that is different is the traditions. The West has the Mass, the East the Divine Liturgy and other Liturgies.
I think you will find that for us not Florence but Constantinople I settled that issue.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
However, words do mean substantive things.

The Miaphysites and the "Roman provinces" of the Church, meaning Rome and New Rome or Constantinople went their separate ways over . . .one word or one phrase which was, until recently, completely misunderstood as to its/their meaning concerning the "One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate."

The West confesses that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (actively) and from the Son (passively). It also inserted the "and the Son" into the Nicene Creed unilaterally when it was understood by the Universal Church that only an Ecumenical Council could have (but wouldn't have) done that.

We have been through all these and other issues here many times in the last few years.

As for Saints, the view has always been that East and West don't question each other's canonization. But there is no canon that says they must both venerate the same saints. Simply none. Plus the fact that there are so many saints who are honoured locally only. Saints not only embody Christian holiness but they also embody the respective spirituality of their own Particular Churches to which they belonged and through which they became Saints.

They are therefore most relevant to the Particular Churches to which they belonged and whose spirituality is celebrated in the Particular Churches' veneration of their own Saints in the first instance whether these are local, regional, national what have you.

We must remember that we belong to the Universal Church of Christ through membership in our Local and Particular Church with its own theological, canonical and liturgical traditions. The Saints whose veneration would be most emphasized would be those who come from and are identified with those Particular Church spiritualities.

So the answer to your question is NO Eastern Catholic Churches do not necessarily venerate all the Saints Rome has canonized nor does it have any obligation to. And the intricacies of canonization n the Roman Catholic Church are . . . complex. For example, Rome canonized the Eastern Catholic Hieromartyr, Saint Josaphat (by Bl. Pius IX) in 1875. However, when Rome canonized him, it did so ONLY for the Eastern Catholic Churches and so St Josaphat was not venerated by Latin Catholics themselves EVEN though Rome canonized him (he was eventually added to the Roman calendar in 1888).

Particular Eastern Catholic Churches may, in Synod, decide to accept certain new Saints canonized by Rome for liturgical veneration. The issue of acknowledging the validity of Roman canonizations is a separate issue - no EC will ever question that.

Last edited by Orthodox Catholic; 12/02/22 03:20 AM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Dear Giovanni1,

Most saints in both East and West tend to be local in terms of their veneration. Rome even allows for the veneration of Beati or Blessed persons whose cultus is NOT approved by Rome or who are not in the Roman calendar of saints.

St Constantine the emperor is a case in point. He truly is venerated in some areas of Italy and Spain but not in the universal Latin Church. In the Byzantine church, one would scarcely be able to find a parish where the icon of Sts Constantine and Helen does not figure prominently.

So it really isn't a matter of who is or is not in heaven. It is a matter of which saints are most relevant to particular Churches and religious communities which accounts for their specific cultus in them.

The rule is that only local or Particular church authority may approve the liturgical veneration of saints and which are to be listed in their respective calendars.

Universally though, as Father Sergius Keleher reiterated to me on many an occasion (+memory eternal!) , "We don't question each other's canonizations."

When the Kyivan-Ruthenian Church came into communion with Rome in 1596, the only saints the members of this Church could honour from their Orthodox patrimony was Sts Boris and Hlib. Only later were others brought in.

The Roman Calendar today lists them in its calendar by their baptismal names "Sts Roman and David." Also Sts Volodymyr and Olha are listed as "Sts Basil and Helen." And of course Sts Anthony and Theodosius of the Kyiv Caves Lavra.

When St John Paul II beatified Bl John Duns Scotus OFM, this particular saint had already enjoyed a local cultus in Italy for a few hundred years, having been beatified by the local Italian bishop . . .

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
What the question was specifically asking was the veneration of Western Saints in Eastern Churches, the answer that I gave was yes because it is the same religion and that it doesn't matter what rite you are, that you can venerate any canonized Saint.

Traditionally speaking, you would name a church after a Saint of the same rite or history, so as I gave in the example, naming a church Saint Therese Byzantine Catholic Church is not generally something that would be done like naming a Latin Church say after Saint Volodymyr. As you say, it is a matter of the Saints that are relevant to that Church.

The thing is, it would be strange to accept all the people every Orthodox jurisdiction canonizes, for example, I highly doubt you will ever find a Byzantine Catholic Church named after Alexis Toth.

Yes, Rome does allow for the veneration of Beatified people such as permitting the veneration of Charlemagne in certain areas in Germany in the past, but it is not permitted that this becomes a universal norm, the thing is that those Beatified already have miracles behind them.

The whole definition of a Saint is who is in Heaven, I was referring to objective veneration, as in, can an Eastern Catholic ask for the intercession of Latin-Rite Saints, and trying to describe that this is only one religion, if the Church says that a person is in Heaven then that person is a Saint. It's for the same reason why the Ukrainian Catholic Church commemorates an Ethiopian (i.e., Alexandrian-Rite) Catholic Saint on August 28. It is not as if a person objectively is somehow not a Saint and cannot be venerated if they are not the same rite.

It too would be much easier to acknowledge that for example Saints Borys and Hlib are Saints since they lived before 1453, then and only then did the Orthodox actually split permanently, not fully in 1054, even at this time many people still thought they were part of one Church because of how information travelled (for this same reason you can even in Italy have people commemorating like four different Popes at the same time as I think there have been stories of).

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Dear Giovanni,

You are right that the Eastern Catholics certainly recognize all the saints Rome canonizes, but you are wrong if you are suggesting that they somehow have a liturgical cultus in the East which they do not, at least not automatically.

When you say we are the same "religion" - yes, we adhere to the same faith. But you'd never know it to observe how the West liturgizes as compared to how the East worships.

Religion involves much more than a simple set of shared faith statements. It has more to do with spiritual culture and how that faith is expressed, the spiritual, liturgical and devotional emphases that are differently placed, not to mention the fact that the Eastern Catholics are organized into Particular Churches rather than simply rites. Several Particular Churches may share the same rite and spiritual culture, with distinctive differences etc.

However, the inclusion of saints canonized by Rome into the Eastern Catholic Calendars for liturgical commemoration and veneration is . . .up to the Synods of the various EC Particular Churches.

That has more to do with religious culture than with religious faith. The saints of the West belong to their own spiritual Latin culture and, as such, are not culturally relevant to the EC Churches. There are exceptions of course, but such exceptions are based on the popular veneration any given Western saint enjoys within an EC Church e.g. St Therese of Lisieux who is in the Melkite Horologion.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church has its own liturgical calendar of saints and only its Synod has the power to include additional entries or to establish feastdays such as the recently announced feastday of the icon of the Mother of God of Perpetual Help in July.

So while the Roman Catholic Church inscribes its universal Saints into its own calendar for public veneration by all Latin Catholics - the same simply does not obtain for Eastern Catholic Churches, despite the fact that they share the same basic faith.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Dear Giovanni,

Also, I might add that the definition of a saint is more than just a definition that a person is in heaven. It is an ecclesial recognition that the person being given the honours of the altar led a life of heroic virtue and who is, first and foremost, "canonized by God" ahead of any act of churches here on earth.

For Eastern theology on the saints, miracles attest to the fact that God acknowledges that a person is a saint rather than being "matter" to be used by church authorities to determine that a given person is a saint and so should be canonized etc.

It is a subtle difference but an important one in my (Eastern) view.

As for St Alexis Toth - I would not be surprised to see an EC Church named after him in fact. He tried in every which way to serve his Ruthenian people here and was thwarted in doing so and even rejected by Archbishop Ireland, and this despite the fact that he had received letters of commendation from his EC bishop who sent him here! It was the Ruthenian people who urged him to become Orthodox and serve them as an Orthodox priest in accordance with their own ritual and canonical traditions, something which he did. I'm surprised that Archbishop Ireland hasn't had a cause for canonization started for him by an Orthodox jurisdiction, given the great number of EC converts he gave to the Orthodox Church in America.

I've also seen icons of the Pillars of Orthodoxy in Ukrainian Catholic churches and monasteries which include St Photios the Great (also formally in the Byzantine Catholic Calendar - we just missed his feastday) and St Mark of Ephesus who refused to sign the documents of the Union of Florence. He actually came to Florence inclnined to union with Rome as long as Rome would agree to the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque as a minimum condition for unity. Rome refused and we know the rest of the story. Hopefully, one day soon Rome and the entire West will see fit to return to the original Creed without the Filioque as inscribed on papal tablets at Rome in both Latin and Greek.

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
It seems that it turns out that you don't know the story with the Filioque clause. The only reason it exists is because of how Latin works, what Filioque means is not the same as Pater et Filio, if it said Pater et Filio that would be an issue as that says that the Holy Spirit literally proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Church insists on it in Latin because it means an entirely different thing than it is claimed to be. In the Latin-Rite Greek Churches the Filioque doesn't exist. The only reason it was put into the Creed was because of Arianism in Spain.

If they refused to sign the Documents of the Council of Florence, if they absolutely knew and understood correctly what was written. I would say they are heretics, you should read it yourself. Certainly if you deny what the Filioque is implying you would be a heretic, the Filioque is not stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as if the Father and the Son were two different entities.

Please see, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecumenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461

I don't think causing a schism and deposing a lawful bishop characterizes one as "heoric virtue"

To put it simply, people are canonized because of virtues as well, but only because they must be first in Heaven to be Saints. Unless there are Saints who are not in Heaven, I put it simply and that it is how it is.

For the same way many Saints if instead they disobeyed their lawful superiors in times of calumny or persecution would likely not have ended up Saints, for the same reason Alexis Toth will never be canonized. Traditions aren't anything when compared to matters of eternal salvation. What he literally did is split away from the Church because a bishop forbid him to serve as a priest due to an unjust reason. If such a thing could classify one as having "heroic virtue" I wonder on what planet does making many people split away from the Church, a decision which still has effects to this day, just because one experienced something that was unfair, classify as virtue.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Dear Giovanni,

First of all, thank you so much for walking me back from the abyss of heresy!

Seriously though, you don't know me or my theological and other academic background nor how long I've been studying these issues. That is fair ball. I would only ask that you might wish to avoid terms like "heretic" in any discussion of the differences between Eastern vs Western theological paradigms. Also, your approach in the discussion, namely, "read this (and you will see it my way)" is intellectually, well, silly.

If things were theologically settled between East and West on the rational plane, as you said, then either the East is being stubbornly heretical as it persists in its "schism" or, as Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological commissions have discovered, we must delve more deeply into each other's theological "a priori's" and see if a genuine unity doesn't already exist, even if it is expressed differently.

So when you say the "Church" what you mean, at least to us Easterners, is the "Latin Church." And that means the Western Church with its own Particular (and quite legitimate) theological perspective and, I will say, "culture" even though that word can and has been much abused and misunderstood in contemporary times (and on this Forum as well).

With respect to the Filioque, the Orthodox East has a quite different approach to the issue of the Procession of the Most Holy Spirit where it emphasizes, correctly, the "Monarchy" of the Father as the Fount of Divinity. Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology or Triadology also agrees here as it teaches that the Spirit proceeds "Actively" from the Father and "Passively" from the Son. In the doctoral course I took on this subject, the professor said that if Roman Catholics actually taught that the Holy Spirit proceeded "Actively from both the Father and the Son - this would be heresy from the RC stance. The Latin Church forbids such teaching in any event.

The East, for all the linguistic issues surrounding the Filioque, sees this word as being "confusing" or perhaps, at best, "inadequate" to clearly teach the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son.

You will recall, from your own theological studies, how the heresy of Sabellianism developed from the Filioque, a heresy the East avoided and opposed by means of its formulation, "From the Father through the Son."

In fact, as your theological studies will bear out, St Thomas Aquinas himself affirmed that "through the Son" is the same as to say what the Latin Church means by "and the Son."

We would only argue that the former is a much clearer and comprehensive statement than the latter.

If that makes us "heretics," then you can begin preparing the wood for the public burnings . . .

I have yet to read of ANY Latin Church document which has ever condemned the Eastern Churches as "heretical" for not accepting the Filioque or its addition to the one Nicene Creed which for centuries the entire, universal Catholic Church accepted as complete and whole sans Filioque. Popes have even opposed including the Filioque into the Nicene Creed because the First Ecumenical Council, whose 1700th anniversary we will celebrate, as you know, in 2025, issued that Creed in the form that the Eastern Churches still continue to use and from a canonical point of view, only an Ecumenical Council could have made any additions or changes to it.

Orthodox theologians have said that the Filioque itself, as you've brilliantly presented it here (I am not being facetious), could be added to the Nicene Creed IF the entire Church, assembled in Ecumenical Council affirmed it upon its theological re-presentation (Fr Prof. John Meyendorff).

The Council of Florence was truly a Latin Council which formed the basis of later Church Unions such as that which resulted in my own Church, the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church. This doesn't mean that there cannot be theological improvements in terms of ecumenical discussions on the issues that divided the universal Church. I would be much more inclined to visit the discussions between Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians as set out in their ecumenical commissions on these matters as well.

In terms of ultimate ecclesial agreement leading to full ecclesial union between East and West,, the removal of the Latin Filioque from the Nicene Creed has always been a "sine qua non" for the Eastern Churches. Let's see what happens in two years time when the Nicene Creed is celebrated by both East and West, shall we?

By removing the Filioque, the West will only be returning to the form of the Creed intended for the Universal Church. It won't be "giving up" or "changing" anything. Father Francis Dvornik SJ in his groundbreaking study on the Photian Schism demonstrates quite conclusively that the Patriarch Photius (who is venerated by the Byzantine Catholic Church and other EC Churches) reconciled with Rome and died in union with Rome. The reason he could do that was because he could come to a full Triadological agreement or, better, that Rome assured him that it did not introduce any Triadological changes to the faith of the universal Catholic Church, including the Creed in its original form as promulgated by the First Ecumenical Council, affirmed as infallible by the major patriarchates of the Church, including, of course, Rome.

For the most part, both East and West today acknowledge the legitimacy of their respective Triadologies and the East does not see the Latin theology behind the Filioque as "heretical." It has always insisted that it does not belong in an ecumenical Creed intended for the entire Church, East, West, North and South. I know of no Roman Catholic theologian engaged with the Orthodox who denies the plausibility of this position.

As for the Saints issue, again, you are looking at it from a quite centralized perspective where Rome canonizes and everyone accepts the saints into their calendars and venerates them. That just does not obtain. Nor does the idea that saints must be of the same faith in order to be in the Catholic calendar. Take, for example, the recent addition to the Doctors of the Church made by Pope Francis - St Gregory of Narek of Armenia.

Can you provide any evidence to suggest St Gregory was a Catholic in communion with Rome? Any at all? If not, how does he come to be a Doctor of the Catholic Church? Any ideas?

There were schisms in the Church over the years and when either these schisms were healed or when groups from the "separated brethren" (aren't you a bit behind the Vatican II times here with your "heresy" talk?) came into communion with Rome, those churches or even regions continued to venerate the saints who were spawned from within those separated churches and ecclesial groups.

Did you know (now you have me talking like you!) that popes have approved for inclusion into the Catholic calendar numerous Orthodox saints who were NEVER in communion with Rome? St Sergius of Radonezh is one that comes to mind but there are others.

Father Frederick Holweck in his "Dictionary of Saints" has a fascinating introductory article where he says that there are saints in the Roman calendar about whose orthodoxy we have no idea and that the best research by the Bollandists have shown that they came from both heretical and schismatical churches. Anti-popes were just that - but, as Fr Holweck says, that didn't prevent Catholic churches and monasteries from taking inspiration from their virtuous lives in a number of cases.

And I think that a Saint being in Heaven is critically important . .. But the main reason they are canonized is because of their particular example of charity, witness to faith that they set on earth. In addition, as I'm sure you will know, martyrdom tends to blot out any wrongdoing a canonized or beatified martyr may have been guilty of. Among the priests who were martyred in Holland by the Calvinists, for example, there was one who lived in sin with a woman. When told to desecrate the Blessed Sacrament by the Calvinists, he said "I am a fornicator, I am not a heretic!" His martyrdom earned him the title "Blessed."

But there will be local saints who are important to local and Particular Churches who really have nothing to say to other Churches and, yes, who will never be canonized for universal honour by Rome. Rome does not dispute the legitimacy of those local cults, even those Beati who are not in the Roman calendar. Italy honours many local saints who are not in the Roman calendar e.g. Blessed John Duns Scotus, the Franciscan, as i am sure you know, who developed the theology behind the Immaculate Conception, was beatified and venerated locally in an Italian region and by an Italian bishop. When Pope Saint John Paul the Great (I hope I don't run the risk again of coming close to heresy or schism for giving him that epithet without Rome's approval - now I am being facetious) beatified John Duns Scotus, he simply extended his already existing cultus. The same is true of Sts Thomas More and John Fisher, canonized in 1935 (I'm not making this up - we had a poster here by the name of the Young Fogey who once said nothing I say can be trusted, so I try to be careful) - these two sainted martyrs had a local Cultus declared for them at Rome in 1575 and they were locally venerated there until their formal and universal glorification

I've run out of things to say, so I bid you a wonderful day!

Servus Tuum,

Alexander Roman, PhD, OblSB

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
Well, yes, I agree with you entirely that "through the Son" is a more accurate phrase from "and the Son", which is why the Latin word "Filioque" is not synonymous with "and the Son" which would be "et Filio."

I haven't said that the Orthodox are heretics for not using an addition. You must have misunderstood me. I have said that if the Orthodox denies what the Catholic Church means when it says "Filioque" then the Orthodox would absolutely be heretics and there is then no way to get around it. But, if the Orthodox are not rejecting the inclusion of the word "Filioque", not by the very fact of including it as a change of tradition, but if they are rejecting the teaching behind it, that would be heretical. This is what I mean by it.

We are discussing an issue related to languages and local uses, and you are making it sound as if a situation relating to the Latin language somehow affects the Greeks or the Slavic languages. I am simply explanining that the only reason that the word "Filioque" was added, was in order to emphasize the Divinity of God the Son, in reponse to the Arian heresy which still prevailed in the West. I do not claim that therefore it should prevail as it is now in English for example. I do not claim that the Ukrainian Church, nor the Byzantine Church, nor even the Latin Church in English, should leave it how it is. Either it should be changed to "through the Son", or removed, or if not, what we mean should be emphasized.

I am simply stating, that if the Orthodox denied the "Filioque" for what it was as an actual teaching of the Church, and not disputes over inclusion into the Nicene Creed, that this would constitute heresy. Tradition does not equal Religion.

Yes, I understand your point. But even martyrdom, if one willfully (ephasize on willfully) wants to hold heretical errors, martyrdom cannot save them. I do not say that if anyone explicitly is not a part of the Church that they cannot be saved, and I do not claim that no person that any Orthodox group has ever claimed is a Saint cannot be a Saint objectively. There was an example of a Saint in the early Church, though if I am correct he said heretical opinions, he died a martyr, and it was likely because this was pure speculation rather than opposing the Church. In such a sense one can cite an example of what Origen said, before he was condemned in a council and thereby his errors were formally opposed by the Church.

But I do not claim that if someone is a genuine schismatic or a genuine heretic, that one can be claimed to be a Saint. In this, I can not say objectively if Alexis Toth is or is not objectively a Saint, that is, if he may have converted at the end of his life. But I can certainly say, that from him being a Catholic priest, then breaking communion with Rome in order to found his own jurisdiction, this constitutes schism. There is just no way that this act can classify him as having virtue. We are not dealing with that he did this, and came back to the Church, but that he commited schism.

I cannot say that Mark of Ephesus can be ever canonized if he explicitly knew completely well what he was denying when he denied the Council of Florence. Certainly in this example he didn't not accept the Council because of a change in traditions which would be a stupid reason to deny an entire Council which clarified truths. But that if he denied what the Council said about the procession of the Holy Spirit, that he is then a heretic.

Yes, I indeed know of example where people after 1054 and after 1453 have been inserted into the Roman Calendar. Look at for example the Russian Catholic Saints inserted by Pope Pius XII, I never denied that. But the Church cannot claim that people who died in culpable heresy and schism can somehow be claimed to be Saints. This is the issue I am getting at.

Local beatifications and recognitions though don't have to deal with infallible declarations of sanctity. Anyone can be venerated locally, this is not an infallible action. Yes, local veneration is how many of the early Saints had been recognized as Saints. But just because someone is locally venerated, this does not mean that they are Saints. There is no infallible declaration that Charlemagne is a Saint, yet he certainly if I am correct is beatified and has local recognition, or had local recognition, in areas in Germany.

Yes, people aren't canonized simply because they are in Heaven. But objectively speaking, nobody can be canonized if they are not in Heaven. The entire point of canonization rests on the question ultimately, is this person in Heaven or not.

To put it simply, we're literally arguing against eachother about the same exact thing regarding the change of the Nicene Creed. It seems maybe we're arguing the same thing about Canonizations as well.

To put it simply regarding heresy, I am not talking about choices of words. I am talking about does someone accept this truth, or do they disregard it. Word choices don't matter here. It is as if someone denied the Immaculate Conception or the Dormition, which would be heresy, though it doesn't matter whether they called it the Assumption, or the Dormition.

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
And especially before 1054 and before 1453, people such as who you mentioned, Saint Sergius of Radonezh which who I was referring to for example with the comment of Pius XII in 1940.

But, it would be very difficult if not impossible for example to say that what some Orthodox groups hold today, as the possibility of multiple marriages (that is, being married to someone else while a person is still married to someone), the claim of the necessity of the Epiclesis, the invalidity of Baptisms or Chrismations, or Ordinations celebrated by people outside of their group, and things like this.

I would find it hard to believe that these are not formal heresies that absolutely contradict Church teaching, and if someone absolutely maintained these positions until their death in say while knowing the contrary truth and absolutely maintaining their position, they certainly cannot be saved. And in this example do I seek to apply what I mean by denying a truth of the Church to be heresy, as in, if someone denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit as it is written, fully knowing the intention, and understanding competely what the Council of Florence said, they would be heretics. Personal opinions of tradition does not make someone a heretic. Denying reality makes one a heretic.

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
Also correction, I am not sure of any people acknowledged by Rome to be Saints who died after 1453. Only those before that date.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Christ is in our midst!!

Quote
. . . what some Orthodox groups hold today, as the possibility of multiple marriages (that is, being married to someone else while a person is still married to someone), . . .

Giovanni1,

Please explain what you mean by this. I have never heard that any Christian group--certainly not the Orthodox Churches--advocating or allowing this practice. I ask you to bring your sources to us for critical examination. This sounds like the claim of someone completely unfamiliar with our Eastern Christian brethren--an ignorant polemic, if you will.

Bob
Moderator

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Christ is in our midst!!

Quote
The Council of Florence for example settles that issue completely. The only thing that is different is the traditions. The West has the Mass, the East the Divine Liturgy and other Liturgies.

Giovanni1,

Perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that the Council of Florence is not recognized as an ecumenical council by our Orthodox brethren, whether Chalcedonian or Non-Chalcedpnian. In fact our brethren in the Orthodox Church whose bishops participated note the fact that St. Mark of Ephesus specifically rejected that council. And, according to universal Tradition--capital "T" indicating the "life of the Holy Spirit lived in and guiding the Church--the Holy Spirit speaks in a genuine ecumenical council in only one of two ways: by the unanimous consent of the bishops present OR through the mouth of the lone dissenter.

There are many terms for the way that Christ's Saving Sacrifice is brought into our lived experience, but the action is the same. Mass, Divine Liturgy, Divine Praises, Quobono, Badarack--all terms in different languages for the same action of God with His People.

The issues you so lightly dismiss are taken very seriously and have caused much anger and polemics over the centuries. Would that things could be as simple as you seem to think they are. But they are not or we would not be divided in our Eucharistic celebrations.

Bob
Moderator

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Christ is in our midst!!

Quote
It seems that it turns out that you don't know the story with the Filioque clause. The only reason it exists is because of how Latin works, what Filioque means is not the same as Pater et Filio, if it said Pater et Filio that would be an issue as that says that the Holy Spirit literally proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Giovanni1,

ROFLOL I don't know where you received your Latin education, but adding "-que" to a word is identical to having "et" between it and its antecedent. But what really has me in tears is that you haven't been around long enough to know Dr. Roman. I have. His knowledge of these issues and his ability to explain them in great detail, as well as his ability to express the opposite side of an issue with which he disagrees, has left me in awe. Please don't pretend to school other members here on these very complex theological issues which have occupied many of the best minds in the various Churches for a millennium and more.

Bob
Moderator

1 member likes this: Fr. Deacon Lance
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Christ is in our midst!!

Giovanni1,

I am sorry to paste a comment I recently made to another new member who seemed to have the same attitude I am detecting by your post in this thread. But it seems to fit so here it is.

Quote
May I suggest you go to the head of this section and read "Who we are." You have come to this forum and have projected an attitude by your posts that you are here to train us. May I suggest that you read through some of the threads and find out what Eastern Christianity is about, what concerns Eastern Christians have.

Eastern Christians have had poor treatment from Western Christians. This is a place where their legitimate concerns and approaches are our concern. These do not need to be filtered through a Western prism.

May I suggest you read more and post less until you get a feel for Eastern Christianity.

We are not here to be schooled by Latin or other Western Christians. This is a place to discuss and learn about the Eastern Churches, whether in communion with Rome or not.

Bob
Moderator

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
This here: https://www.oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/divorce-and-remarriage for an example.

The question still objectively remains, does a bond between two individuals exist or not who were married. It cannot seem that for example for Catholics somehow in reality that they have an unbreakable bond, while the Orthodox who claim to profess that Matrimony is a Sacrament as well, treat it as a breakable bond. I understand that it has always been permitted to marry after the death of one's spouse. But if a bond objectively exists that no power on Earth except death can sever, I am not sure how many Orthodox groups can claim in objective reality then to be married to someone else while they their original spouse is still alive.

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
Yes, I understand that the Council of Florence is rejected by the Orthodox. But I am stating that the Council of Florence settled the issue of the Procession of the Holy Spirit certainly. Now, it is either that the Catholic Church was wrong, and by the Pope applying infallibility to the Council of Florence the Church was in grave error. Or that whoever rejects the Council of Florence is in grave error.

I cannot see the possibility of say someone in the Catholic Church today explicitly rejecting Papal Infallibility, and then somehow remaining correct?

Yes, and I understand your point, but I was simply trying to make the claim of what specifically divides the Churches today.

If I have been in error regarding the actual definition in Latin about the "Filioque" clause, then I admit that I am wrong.

But, my point in my thread first of all was trying to emphasize how certain individuals could not be canonized in the Catholic Church such as Mark of Ephesus, due to his rejection of the Council of Florence and as far as I know, no subsequent retraction of that denial.

My purpose further too was stating how for example of the Catholic Church teaches that marriage can never be broken, that Orthodox groups can even teach divorce and remarriage clearly contradicts what the Church teaches and thus people who would support it could never be canonized by the Church. So too for those who would deny explicitly say the theology behind the Procession of the Holy Spirit defined at the Council of Florence, or that the Epiclesis is not needed, and other issues.

This was solely my point in this, I did not make those points in an attempt to try to say that I know more about the history and traditions of the East more than anyone else. Just simply to make this one point which was related to the original topic.

This was simply it, I do not seek to try to argue about every point of what many Orthodox Churches hold that are against Catholic teaching. But only to state that those who would explicitly break away from the Catholic Church, or accepts things that the Catholic Church does rejects, or the opposite, cannot be held to be Saints in the Catholic Church if they persisted in their claims or schism from the Church.

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
To put it simply, again, I am not arguing about which individual specifically may or may not be in Heaven, because I do not know nor understand the soul of every person and therefore I cannot judge every person or individual.

And again, my point was not to enter here into disputes against others about any other point except for the question "Will the Catholic Church ever hold to be Saints those who explicitly and formally either split from the Church, or, willfully and in full knowledge, hold positions contrary to what the Church teaches?" And according the view of the Church, do these specific individuals display virtue as a result of these actions and lack of reconciliation with the Church until death, in order to ever be called models of virtue?

This was the entire point of what I am stating here, and I do not pretend in my explanations to know every issue in its entirety, and in its depth, as if I had figured out on my own every single piece to the puzzle which confused many people and needed multiple Ecumenical Councils in order to clarify the truth, as in the issue of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. I just simply wanted to share what I knew about the basics of who can ever be canonized by the Catholic Church, or not. I am not attempting to say, nor am I claiming, that I know more than any person has ever before on these issues specifically. But I do intend to state, as I have been trying to, this single point.

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
Also, I understand now that I was wrong about the specific word "Filioque", you are absolutely correct in that adding "que" after a word's base form is the equivalent of putting "et" before a word and its base form.

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
Correction, if the previous post was amibigious:
See:
https://www.oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/second-marriage-for-a-roman-catholic
https://www.oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/conversion-after-divorce
https://www.oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/second-marriage

in which it is stated that even if a marriage wasn't declared non-existant in the first place (an annulment), that a married person has no problem to be with another person in, at least, the OCA.

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
I would also like to ask, what do you mean specifically by that basically there is truth in a Council by either the unanimous consent of the bishops present or the lone dissenter? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying but this is how it seems by reading this.

Does this mean that any council that does not have unanimous consent is invalid? Or that the lone dissenter overrides the council?

I know the tradition regarding the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers on Church teachings, but not of bishops regarding the validity of an ecumenical council.

If this is the case, can't any genuine council just be overturned by either of those requirements? In this case, would simply by the fact of say the Council of Florence being rejected by Mark of Ephesus mean that the Council of Florence was not a genuine ecumenical council? Applying this to the modern day, it is certain that not all bishops voted yes on all of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, would by this logic since it lacked unanimous consent by all bishops present, therefore it would not be a genuine ecumenical council? Certainly there maybe are other instances where individual present bishops had rejected individual councils, or decrees or canons, I think if I am correct an example would be the Council of Nicaea which didn't have unanimous consent, but close to unanimous consent?

Again, this how what you are saying seems to me, but I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Christ is in our midst!!

Quote
This here: https://www.oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/divorce-and-remarriage for an example.

The question still objectively remains, does a bond between two individuals exist or not who were married

Giovanni1,

The link you post is the short answer. It is by no means the complete answer to the question if one asks an Orthodox priest. Please stop the straw man approach. Setting up a short answer as the entirety of Orthodox theology and practice in this area is not the way to compare Catholic and Orthodox approaches to the sacrament and its application in real life.

Bob
Moderator

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Christ is in our midst!!

Quote
I am stating that the Council of Florence settled the issue of the Procession of the Holy Spirit certainly.

And I am stating that that council did not because there was the lone dissenter speaking for the Holy Spirit. The idea that a council could be ecumenical without unanimous consent did not occur before Vatican 2. Even Vatican 1 had the Pope's emissaries going from diocese to diocese to obtain the signature of those bishops who left before the vote on papal infallibility because they objected to it, threatening them with excommunication if they did not sign. That's hardly the way Tradition had councils decided.

Bob
Moderator

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Christ is in our midst!!

Quote
My purpose further too was stating how for example of the Catholic Church teaches that marriage can never be broken, that Orthodox groups can even teach divorce and remarriage clearly contradicts what the Church teaches and thus people who would support it could never be canonized by the Church. So too for those who would deny explicitly say the theology behind the Procession of the Holy Spirit defined at the Council of Florence, or that the Epiclesis is not needed, and other issues.

I have to ask. What is your purpose in coming here?

Bob
Moderator

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
My purpose was to participate on this forum helpfully and to post and then now to answer questions.

The question came up through my response to the original poster which was basically, can the Catholic Church claim that individuals such as Photius and Mark of Ephesus are Saints? I argued no, that the Church cannot hold that these people are Saints, but certainly not the latter due to his rejection of the Council of Florence.

I stated then that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church today to recognize any modern in history Orthodox individuals who willfully and with full knowledge hold until their death knowingly contrary positions to the Catholic Church if they knew and understood full well what is the objective truth and persisted in error.

I didn't create a strawman argument. In particular the OCA says that divorce and remarriage is possible of which I showed multiple sources. One of which explicitly teach that a Catholic who divorces their spouse and joins the OCA can marry another person, while their spouse is still living. The source further says that though the OCA would recognize the marriage, the Catholic Church will not.

The Catholic Church said that this is impossible. Therefore I ask, can the Church canonize individuals who hold (in this example) the position of the OCA? That was the argument. I didn't create a strawman. According to the Church, marriage is an unbreakable bond and divorcing and being with another person is adultery. The OCA teaches otherwise and claims that it can use the "principle of economy." Therefore according to the Church, this person would still be married to someone, and attempting to contract a marriage with another person even though they are married. This is a summary of what I have been trying to explain on this specific post after the aforementioned question was essentially posted.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,139
Likes: 64
Christ is in our midst!!

Giovanni1,

Your posts are not "helpful." In fact, they have been offensive. If you want to be a member of this forum, I suggest--strongly--that you come with questions when you want to learn about the differences between the Eastern Churches. They are all of Apostolic origin, too.

If you have read anything about the Catholic Church--which is a communion of 23 sui juris Churches--and her position toward Churches with which she is not in communion, you would know that Vatican Council 2 has stated unequivocally that these Churches are true Churches and that they have every right to claim to be the Church mentioned in the Nicene Creed as the Catholic Church. So your posts are not only not representative of the Catholic Church, but they are offensive to the Churches whose members regularly post here. Your posts seem to indicate that you have been schooled by those in the Catholic Church who are in the fringe area that has not fully embraced the teachings of Vatican 2.

I am the Moderator to whose inbox all your posts come for approval before they see the light of day. I strongly suggest you review before you post. Otherwise, going forward, I will just delete your posts before allowing them to take up bandwidth here.

FYI, Florence is not considered an ecumenical council by many of our Eastern Christian members because of the way councils were commonly held to be inspired by the Holy Spirit prior to the 20th century. The Bishop of Rome did not think Florence was a success and is specifically recorded in history as stating it was a failure because of St Mark of Ephesus' refusal to endorse it. Beyond some early councils--7 recognized by the Chalcedonian Orthodox; 4 by the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox and only 3 by the Armenians--most are considered to be local councils of the Latin Church and not binding on anyone else. So take your Latin arrogance and return here only with a more humble attitude of learning. Your task will be to see the world through the eyes of our Eastern brethren here.

By the way, you owe Orthodox Catholic an apology.

Bob
Moderator

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Wow - the things that happen when one is away . . .!

I thank our Moderator Theophan for his kind comments about me.

Perhaps Giovanni and I got a bit derailed from things when we began talking about too many things at once. And for that I apologize to both Giovanni and to our Moderator.

At this juncture, I would like to say that what I see as the difference between our perspectives is simply that - where "perspective" reflects the specific spiritual cultures to which we belong.

There is the essence of orthodox Catholic Faith and then there are its varied expressions based on the spiritual culture of the various Particular Churches.

We Easterners see the Catholic Church as a Communion of Churches, including the Latin Rite Church of course. And it is always very difficult, if not near impossible to separate a point of dogma from the way in which it is expressed since we all think within the particular theological modalities of our Churches.

As Eastern Catholics, I think we are also in the best possible position to understand the Orthodox Churches and also the Oriental and Assyrian Churches - unless of course we are Eastern Rite Jesuits studying the Christian East for in that case, they know it better than anyone . . . a fact.

I think it would be disappointing if whatever I said would derail what is an interesting exchange in this regard. May I suggest that we keep the points of discussion to a few at a time? I would like to invite Giovanni to raise the points he would like to discuss first and I promise to be more disciplined in the ensuing discussion.

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
Again, I am sorry in that I do not intend to offend anybody. My only point here was simply to state one detail about what the Catholic Church cannot do, that is, canonize individuals who split away from it in bad faith.

I do not disagree that the Orthodox are our seperated bretheren and that there have been many unfortunate disagreements and issues in history that led to this position and I hope for a reconciliation soon. There is a big distinction between those Orthodox in general, and those Orthodox who are not "separated in good faith from the Catholic Church" - Orientalium Ecclesiarum, that is, seperated in bad faith i.e. genuine and personal (that is knowingly and willingly held despite knowing what is actually true) schism or heresy. Not those who are looking for the truth.

I have fully embraced the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as it is a legitimate council.

I simply wanted to state that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to ever hold as Saints those who have split away from the Church and if they had held positions in bad faith.

Again, I am sorry if I seem offensive to you, this is not my intention. Again, what I have stated in this individual post here is what I intended the entire time. But this is what the Catholic Church absolutely teaches and has taught. If I am being offensive by presenting what the Church has and will teach, then I cannot say anything else. But if I am somehow not presenting what the Church is teaching, I am only saying what I am saying in good faith that it is correct. I do not seek and did not ever seek to be offensive here on this forum, and only wish to present what the Catholic Church will not do in the situation regarding Mark of Ephesus.

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
Thank you, and I apologize as well if I may have seemed offensive to you as this was certainly not my intention.

What I was basically trying to discuss was one main point which you brought up regarding not questioning eachother's canonizations, and I wanted to state the opposite view of how it would be impossible for certain individuals to be canonized if they held certain points or did certain things.

In one case for example Alexis Toth, who though clearly suffered unjustly by Bishop Ireland, still broke away from the Church.

My point was simply to argue this main point by bringing up topics that the Catholic Church holds as truth, and ask how could the Church canonize those who reject the Church's view on topics. I did not intend to debate on specific points that I brought up here (e.g., the Council of Florence or the Epiclesis) but intended to discuss the differences that would make it impossible for the Church to claim that a certain individual is a Saint.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
There is just too much here to which I'd like to respond, and have already in other threads. Orthodox Catholic and Theophan present popular views of the Eastern viewpoint that, as an Eastern Catholic, I would characterize as "theology light" and reject as lacking sufficient depth. And I would hope this forum does not embrace a parochialism and promote and present as though dogmatic, an Eastern triumphalism just as bad as the West's.

The presentation about the communion of churches, though often repeated, is superficial . And the Catholic East-West presentation --harmonization -- of marriage as a unified sacramental theology is a debacle; see my post Ministers of Matrimony and the thread (if you have the stamina).

The Catholic Church -- that is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH not just the western Catholic Church -- officially, formally, recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils. As a corrective to Latin -- western Catholic -- misconceptions, we Eastern Catholics need to get rid of our own and then better or even start to explain our unity, articulate an Eastern Catholic theology, instead of misrepresenting or diluting it. The Orthodox theology of the Ecumenical Councils is Orthodox, and it is NOT the Catholic view. Can they be reconciled? Yes. Is the Eastern Catholic view the Orthodox view? No.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Dear Father Deacon AJK,

Clearly, I am far too beneath your theological brilliance and education to deserve to be on this Forum with someone of your great theological breadth and depth.

Please forgive my intrusion with my idiotic and nonsensical comments - for the last twenty years or so - and allow me to remove myself permanently from this Forum to allow the Light of Catholic Teaching, which is so clearly beyond my comprehension and capability, tinged with uneducated parochialism to boot, to keep other Forum Members from reaching the heights you will undoubtedly lead them to.

Perhaps Giovanni will come back to discuss the many issues I'm sure you will spend a good deal of time unraveling for the common good of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I thank this Forum, the Administrator John, my friend Theophan, Mother Alice and the many others I've had the privilege and blessing of knowing over the years and I commend myself to your prayers with the assurance that I will most certainly keep you all in mine.

Am just too old for this kind of nonsense.

Signing off - Alex/Orthodox Catholic

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Dear Giovanni,

You raised a good many number of excellent points and there is nothing in what you say that I disagree with.

That the Catholic Church does not question the canonizations of the Eastern Churches does NOT mean that those same Orthodox saints find, or will ever find, a place in the universal Roman calendar and for the reasons you cite.

On another level, representatives of the Roman Catholic Church do attend Orthodox canonization ceremonies and receive icons of the newly glorified Orthodox saints. Archbishop Lustiger of Paris not only attended the Orthodox glorification/canonization of St Maria Skobtsova, he publicly recommended that every Catholic venerate her for her martyric witness.

Historically, and as Fr Holweck discusses in his Forward to his Dictionary of Saints, there are numerous entries in the Roman Calendar of Saints whose orthodoxy can be called into question, but whose martyrdom and heroic example of faith in Christ seemed to "cancel out" any defects of their orthodoxy.

But returning to the original theme of this thread, no Eastern Catholic will never question Rome's canonizations, of course - I think that our gentleman AJK above is alluding to that or may have been intending to. But the organization of the liturgical calendars of the respective Eastern Catholic Churches is the responsibility of those same Particular Churches = Rome does not and will not impose the cultus of any contemporary Saint on them.

It was very nice to make your acquaintance and it is always wonderful to come across someone so truly theologically literate and widely educated as yourself! As you can see, I feel I am not welcome here and so will sign off the Forum to leave it to the experts!

May God bless you always, Sir!

Alex

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
ajk writes:
“The Catholic Church -- that is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH not just the western Catholic Church -- officially, formally, recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils. As a corrective to Latin -- western Catholic -- misconceptions, we Eastern Catholics need to get rid of our own and then better or even start to explain our unity, articulate an Eastern Catholic theology, instead of misrepresenting or diluting it. The Orthodox theology of the Ecumenical Councils is Orthodox, and it is NOT the Catholic view. Can they be reconciled? Yes. Is the Eastern Catholic view the Orthodox view? No.”

Fr Deacon,

Can you point me to a list proclaimed by a Pope that defines 21 Councils? I don’t think you can. Most of those Popes have conceded most were Synods of the Latin Church concerned with that particular Churches’ problems. The latter 14 certainly don’t deal with matters of universal importance like the first 7. I think most of the Melkite Synod who signed the Zoghby initiative would not agree with you either.

Last edited by Fr. Deacon Lance; 02/22/23 09:11 PM.

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
ajk writes:
“The Catholic Church -- that is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH not just the western Catholic Church -- officially, formally, recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils. As a corrective to Latin -- western Catholic -- misconceptions, we Eastern Catholics need to get rid of our own and then better or even start to explain our unity, articulate an Eastern Catholic theology, instead of misrepresenting or diluting it. The Orthodox theology of the Ecumenical Councils is Orthodox, and it is NOT the Catholic view. Can they be reconciled? Yes. Is the Eastern Catholic view the Orthodox view? No.”

Fr Deacon,

Can you point me to a list proclaimed by a Pope that defines 21 Councils? I don’t think you can.
I never stated there was a "list," rather "... officially, formally, recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils" :
Quote
... Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum sollemniter initium capit. ... 2. Universa Concilia — sive viginti Oecumenica sive innumera eaque non parvi pendenda Provincialia et Regionaliaquae per succedentia tempora sunt celebrata, manifesto vigorem Ecclesiae Catholicae comprobant et quasi fulgentia lumina in eius annalibus recensentur.
ALLOCUTIO IOANNIS PP. XXIII IN SOLLEMNI SS. CONCILII INAUGURATIONE [vatican.va]

Quote
...solemn opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council... A positive proof of the Catholic Church's vitality is furnished by every single council held in the long course of the centuries—by the twenty ecumenical councils as well as by the many thousands of memorable regional and provincial ones emblazoned on the scroll of history.
Opening Address To the Council by Pope Saint John XXIII [catholicculture.org]


Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Most of those Popes have conceded most were Synods of the Latin Church concerned with that particular Churches’ problems.
What Popes and where? This interpretation may come from a faulty translation; see Re: First Seven Councils.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
A prior discussion of this topic that may be of interest: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
No faulty translation. General Synod and Ecumenical Council are not the same thing. Nor have you answered the Melkite Synod’s statement.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
No faulty translation. General Synod and Ecumenical Council are not the same thing.
You are focusing on the wrong words. I made my case in some detail.
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Nor have you answered the Melkite Synod’s statement.
Didn't think I'd have to compare it to a Pope's formal address opening the Council; it's a matter of relative proportion. But, if you insist: Sincere statement, poor ecclesiology, rejected by both Catholic and Orthodox communions.

Quote
CLOSING OF THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HOMILY OF POPE PAUL VI
... And you will also hear the reading of our official decree in which we declare terminated and closed the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.
CLOSING OF THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL [vatican.va]

Was Vatican II an Ecumenical Council or was it not?

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Originally Posted by ajk
You are focusing on the wrong words. I made my case in some detail.

And for all that detail I don’t buy it.

Originally Posted by ajk
Didn't think I'd have to compare it to a Pope's formal address opening the Council; it's a matter of relative proportion. But, if you insist: Sincere statement, poor ecclesiology, rejected by both Catholic and Orthodox communions.
Yet still held by the Melkite Synod. So claims that one view represents the “Eastern Catholic” view are false. Not everyone is in agreement.

Originally Posted by ajk
Was Vatican II an Ecumenical Council or was it not?
I believe it was. But it also wasn’t dealing with heresy or proclaiming dogma so its relevance to the Orthodox is negligible.

Last edited by Fr. Deacon Lance; 02/23/23 01:09 PM.

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
Though the Second Vatican Council did not proclaim any new teachings. It indeed reaffirmed past teachings, for example Papal Infallibility in Lumen Gentium. Therefore if one accepts Vatican II as an ecumenical council, Vatican II says that one must believe in Papal Infallibility (which was defined in Vatican I). So too was it re-stating things that were not defined in an ecumenical council such as the Immaculate Conception and the Dormition.

Vatican II explicitly states for example in Sacrosanctum Concilium that those decrees within that document mainly apply to the Latin Church (such as the use of Latin or the high place of Gregorian chant or polyphony), but also apply to the other Rites of the Church. Hence it is clear that Vatican II in general in documents such as Dei Verbum or Lumen Gentium is intended to be binding for all Catholics.

For relevance to this discussion, I would just like to add that Vatican II in Lumen Gentium (section 22) defines an ecumenical council as only being an ecumenical council if it is at least recognized as one by the Pope, and there is no exception to an ecumenical council being ecumenical unless it is recognized by the Pope.

Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 35
Likes: 3
I'm not sure how could the 8-21st Ecumenical Councils not deal with matters of universal importance, the Fourth Council of Constantinople certainly did, so did the Fourth Lateran Council (defining Transubstantiation, the Papal Primacy, etc.), the Second Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, Vatican I, and Vatican II certainly dealt with matters of universal importance. And certainly every other council that proclaimed truths by the very fact of peoclaiming truths deals with matters of universal importance.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by ajk
You are focusing on the wrong words. I made my case in some detail.

And for all that detail I don’t buy it.
Your prerogative: It is my detailed post versus your "I don’t buy it." Also, synod is borrowed from the Greek for council. So in the letter -- and it's a letter not a solemn address by contrast -- we find there are numerous contextual references to Lyons as an ecumenical council in the original Latin text on the Vatican website, for example:
Quote
The whole work of the Council of Lyons is summed up in several Constitutions, ... another, beginning with the word Faithful [Fideli], established the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle (Cf. decrees of the ecumenical councils _.., pp. 309 and 314); the others, on the other hand, look at various questions of ecclesiastical discipline. But if we evaluate the importance of this Council and its fruits, which have also been perceived through the consequent centuries, not only in regard to discipline, but also in the religious life of the Christian people, this is mainly due to its canonical work, which achieved great authority in the Church (Const. 26, 27, 28 and 19, cf.Decrees of ecumenical councils, pp. 328-330; 324).

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by ajk
Didn't think I'd have to compare it to a Pope's formal address opening the Council; it's a matter of relative proportion. But, if you insist: Sincere statement, poor ecclesiology, rejected by both Catholic and Orthodox communions.
Yet still held by the Melkite Synod. So claims that one view represents the “Eastern Catholic” view are false. Not everyone is in agreement.
What exactly is it that is oficially "held" by the Melkite Synod?

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by ajk
Was Vatican II an Ecumenical Council or was it not?
I believe it was. But it also wasn’t dealing with heresy or proclaiming dogma so its relevance to the Orthodox is negligible.
It may not be relevant to the Orthodox but that is NOT the question or the point. Returning to it:

Originally Posted by ajk
The Catholic Church -- that is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH not just the western Catholic Church -- officially, formally, recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils.
So if VCII is an ecumenical council as you believe it is, how many ecumenical councils are recognized as such by "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"?

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 64
Likes: 2
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 64
Likes: 2
I hedge my bets and venerate all the saints, East and West. I need all the help I can get.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
If I may cut through a lot of the verbiage, and, sadly, some of the bad feelings that have been expended on this thread, I'd like to offer this quote from The Catechism of the Catholic Church that doesn't say it all, but says a lot: "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."

Add to this the fact that Saint Gregory of Narek (Grigor Narekatsi) of the ancient Armenian Apostolic Church (long seperated from Rome and Constantinople) was made a Doctor of the Church by the Bishop of Rome, Papa Francesco, on Febrruary 26, 2015. May St. Gregory pray for us all! Enough said.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by Utroque
If I may cut through a lot of the verbiage, and, sadly, some of the bad feelings that have been expended on this thread, I'd like to offer this quote from The Catechism of the Catholic Church that doesn't say it all, but says a lot: "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."

Add to this the fact that Saint Gregory of Narek (Grigor Narekatsi) of the ancient Armenian Apostolic Church (long seperated from Rome and Constantinople) was made a Doctor of the Church by the Bishop of Rome, Papa Francesco, on Febrruary 26, 2015. May St. Gregory pray for us all! Enough said.

This previous post of mine ended up as a blank page; perhaps this will correct that. smile

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
Originally Posted by Utroque
If I may cut through a lot of the verbiage, and, sadly, some of the bad feelings that have been expended on this thread, I'd like to offer this quote from The Catechism of the Catholic Church that doesn't say it all, but says a lot: "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."
The words in quotes are from Pope Paul VI in 1975; it is now 2023. Do the Orthodox reciprocate the sentiment?

Originally Posted by Utroque
Add to this the fact that Saint Gregory of Narek (Grigor Narekatsi) of the ancient Armenian Apostolic Church (long seperated from Rome and Constantinople) was made a Doctor of the Church by the Bishop of Rome, Papa Francesco, on Febrruary 26, 2015. May St. Gregory pray for us all! Enough said.
Is this to be understood as a general endorsement of the veneration of Armenian saints? Do the Armenians reciprocate? What's the Orthodox position?

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by ajk
The words in quotes are from Pope Paul VI in 1975; it is now 2023. Do the Orthodox reciprocate the sentiment?

Is this to be understood as a general endorsement of the veneration of Armenian saints? Do the Armenians reciprocate? What's the Orthodox position?

Yes, the words are from Pope Paul VI in 1975, but they are incorporated into a catachism that I believe still reflects the official position of the Church of Rome and those Churches in communion with her. Who can speak for the Orthodox? I do feel things have moved in the right direction as contacts and gesture have increased over the years.

And, yes, I do feel that Pope Francis' elevation of St. Gregory Narek does constitute a genenral endorsement not only of Armenian saints, but a warm embrace of the Armenian Church. I've always had the impression that the Armenan Apostolic Church has always expressed warm feelings toward Rome even though no formal nechanism for achieving union has been established at this point.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
I was not questioning Pope Paul or the CCC only that, although in 1975 "it lacks little to attain the fullness," it is now 48 years later.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by ajk
I was not questioning Pope Paul or the CCC only that, although in 1975 "it lacks little to attain the fullness," it is now 48 years later.

And perhaps it will take another 48 years of deep understanding, dialogue, good will, prayer and that little imperative called necessity to pare down those little differences that keep us separated, and bring about that union which all our Saints now enjoy. I have the feeling that the UGCC and the OCU may pave the way; but who knows.

I've felt for many years that the non-Chalcedonian Churches have had a warmer and less hostile attitude toward Rome than the Orthodox, so called; and, perhaps, a union with them may come even sooner. Invoking one anothers Saints is a good start. smile

Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 109
Likes: 20
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 109
Likes: 20
Utroque, you wrote:

"And perhaps it will take another 48 years of deep understanding, dialogue, good will, prayer and that little imperative called necessity to pare down those little differences that keep us separated....."[/ quote]

*****What a discriminating and polite way to express that hope.

"......and bring about that union which all our Saints now enjoy." [/ quote]

*****This is especially beautiful.

"I've felt for many years that the non-Chalcedonian Churches have had a warmer and less hostile attitude toward Rome than the Orthodox, so called...." [/quote]

***** Were there ill- feelings about Canon 28 of Chalcedon among Oriental Orthodox toward the Eastern Orthodox? If so, do they yet linger? Rome ( Pope Leo I) rejected that Canon.......I suppose that's a whole other topic, but just wondering.....

Last edited by Hutsul; 02/27/23 10:42 PM.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by Hutsul
***** Were there ill- feelings about Canon 28 of Chalcedon among Oriental Orthodox toward the Eastern Orthodox? If so, do they yet linger? Rome ( Pope Leo I) rejected that Canon.......I suppose that's a whole other topic, but just wondering.....

I feel quite certain that, for a long time (perhaps since 1 Constantinople in AD 381) the Church of Alexandria felt upstaged and offended by the usurpation by the Church of Constantinople of its second position within what had been a Patriarchal Tetrarchy of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This resentment was no doubt reinforced with the introduction of Canon 28 and played a role in withdrawing themselves and other churches from Chalcedon in AD 451. Ecclesiastical politics aside, they did reject the dogmatic definition of the Two Natures/One Person, and hence the separation that exist to this day. Pray, Lord, it's time to heal!

A bit off-topic, but akin to the Thread - Saints preserve us!

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by Hutsul
***** Were there ill- feelings about Canon 28 of Chalcedon among Oriental Orthodox toward the Eastern Orthodox? If so, do they yet linger? Rome ( Pope Leo I) rejected that Canon.......I suppose that's a whole other topic, but just wondering.....

I feel quite certain that, for a long time (perhaps since 1 Constantinople in AD 381) the Church of Alexandria felt upstaged and offended by the usurpation by the Church of Constantinople of its second position within what had been a Patriarchal Tetrarchy of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This resentment was no doubt reinforced with the introduction of Canon 28 and played a role in withdrawing themselves and other churches from Chalcedon in AD 451. Ecclesiastical politics aside, they did reject the dogmatic definition of the Two Natures/One Person, and hence the separation that exist to this day. Pray, Lord, it's time to heal!

A bit off-topic, but akin to the Thread - Saints preserve us!

I do not know why my previous post (2/28/23) was misplaced by Giovanni1's older post from 2/20/23, but here it is mine again! I hate to think I was being sabotaged. smile

Last edited by Utroque; 03/01/23 06:07 PM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Dear Utroque,

The documents of the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Ecumenical Commission make for a fascinating read!

It appears that the Oriental Orthodox have always affirmed that the One Person of Christ is both Divine and Human without intermixture etc.

They have always clung to the Christological formula of St Cyril of Alexandria: "One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate."

At one point in the back and forth between the theologians, both sides came to the realization that when the Oriental Orthodox use the term "Nature" or "Physis" they apparently mean "Person!"

The theologians involved in those ecumenical talks were satisfied that both sides affirmed the same Christology using their own terminology. Yes, they rejected Chalcedon but not, apparently, the essentials of Chalcedon. They talked about that as well and came to the conclusion that since their Churches were not represented at Chalcedon and since they accept the theology of Chalcedon as expressed according to their Miaphysite formulation, they wouldn't need to accept that Council upon any future reunion. Methods of reunion were discussed and included a mutual act of the lifting of the anathemas pronounced by both sides against each other's teachers and Saints (including the Oriental Orthodox Saint Dioscoros and Saint Severus of Antioch, St Dydimus the Blind). That was one possible model of an act of reunion. All that would have to be approved by their respective Churches before proceeding any further, of course.

Interestingly, some Eastern Orthodox parishes have been dropping the names of those Oriental teachers from those mentioned in the Sunday of Orthodoxy services . .

I know, for example, Chaldean Catholics who privately venerate . . . Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia and others honoured in the Assyrian Church of the East because they believe there was misunderstanding on both sides with respect to the unity of Christ's Two Natures. There is so much one could say about this here but I will leave it on the level of "Theology Lite" as per my acknowledged style!

A Blessed Great Fast!

Alex

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 131
Likes: 8
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 131
Likes: 8
Dear Alex,

Glad to see that you that seem to have changed your mind about leaving the forum!

May you, and all here, have a Blessed Great Fast!

JM

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
I would like to ask for Fr Deacon's AJK's forgiveness and pardon for having given offence and of all of you here too.

Guess it is too late for me to grow up finally at 67 . . .

In answer to the original question of this thread - no, Eastern Catholics do not venerate all the saints canonized by Rome. They could and nothing is stopping them from that, but many of them are just not in the church calendars of Eastern Catholic Churches.

Certainly, all EC Churches acknowledge the canonizations by His Holiness the Pope of Rome to be true canonizations.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
I would like to ask for Fr Deacon's AJK's forgiveness and pardon for having given offence and of all of you here too.

Guess it is too late for me to grow up finally at 67 . . .

In answer to the original question of this thread - no, Eastern Catholics do not venerate all the saints canonized by Rome. They could and nothing is stopping them from that, but many of them are just not in the church calendars of Eastern Catholic Churches.

Certainly, all EC Churches acknowledge the canonizations by His Holiness the Pope of Rome to be true canonizations.

A Blessed Great Fast, to you!

I hope we would extend this forgiveness to all on the forum; typos and all. I'm on to my 82 year, but I love the give & take of this forum. It's so good to have your voice back; I do miss the old voices of those who've gone elsewhere since I joined 17 years ago.

Your last, simple sentence was the direct, clear and truthful answer to Giovanni's initial query. Whether t's the answer he was seeking, I know not; but it's the truth.

Joined: Feb 2023
Posts: 10
Likes: 2
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Feb 2023
Posts: 10
Likes: 2
Actually the USBCC acknowledges on the website and quotes some Vatican sources stating that the binding version of the Creed IS the original Greek of 381 (council of Constantinople). Do some googling and you'll find it on the USBCC site.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Thank you for this!

It would be quite something if in 2025 a common date for Easter would be set for both East and West. It would also be wonderful if the same original Nicene-Constantinople Creed in its original version, the version that was once normative both both East and West was restored as a common, universal Creed. We can dream - and pray.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
My fear is that it would create a new schism. The Latin west is fractured enough! How about the east just accepting the Latin version as Orthodox? After all His Holiness, Pope Francis is willing to accept the revised Julian Pascalion for all. The Latin version of the Creed has been in use for a very long time in the west, and the additions are very small. I think it's widely understood why the "Filioque" was added. "Deum de Deo" is an addition also. This version of the Creed is even used among Anglicans, Lutherans and other main-line Protestants. I think a common acceptance of both versions as orthodox is a stronger expression of unity within a stylistically diverse Church.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Your fears are well-founded! We don't know what 2025 will bring with respect to the Creed - the emphasis appears to be more on the issue of the date of Pascha.

With respect to the Filioque, perhaps a formula could be agreed upon to make both sides happy.

IF the West would go back to the original Creed sans Filioque (Anglicans and others do use both versions with and without the Filioque), perhaps the Orthodox East could affirm that both "Through the Son" and "From the Son" are equally valid statements on the Spiration of the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity. The issue with the Filioque in the East appears to be much more a canonical than a theological one - that the Creed of the earliest Ecumenical Councils was meant to affirm the universal faith of the entire Church, East and West (where the Filioque is an expression of specifically Western Triadology or Trinitarian theology).

So for example, the Orthodox Saint Mark Eugenikos, Archbishop of Ephesus known for his opposition to East-West Union principles established at the Council of Florence, originally came to attend the Council proceedings in the hope that reunion between East and West could be established once more (according to Fr Prof. John Meyendorff in a number of places in his published works). However, the sine qua non for the realization of such unity would, from the Orthodox perspective, be the original Creed without the Filioque. All else, namely theological differences as they developed since the break between East and West (whenever one believes that occurred . . .) were either open to negotiation or could remain as theological opinion or theologoumena that would not affect the unity of the entire Church, East and West.

Should the issue of the affirmation of the original Creed come to the fore during the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council, I personally don't believe a return to the universal Tradition of the first Millennium, if properly explained and handled, would be an insurmountable problem for the West.

I don't know how they will settle the matter of the common date for Easter, if indeed that will be proclaimed in two years' time. If the Pope accepts the Eastern Paschalion as it is now . . . he may have Father Deacon (and Doctor) AJK to deal with!

A blessed Fast!

Alex

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 28
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
I don't know how they will settle the matter of the common date for Easter, if indeed that will be proclaimed in two years' time. If the Pope accepts the Eastern Paschalion as it is now . . . he may have Father Deacon (and Doctor) AJK to deal with!
Finally, something we agree on!

Last edited by ajk; 03/09/23 12:03 PM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,390
Likes: 30
Bless, Father Deacon and Doctor!

As with the Calendar Issue, I knew it was all just a matter of time!

A blessed Great Fast!

(You are the best - and you know it too!!)

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2023 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5