www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Sept 25: A Roman Catholic Mass for a Russian Orthodox Saint

It sure does mine. Thanks, griego catolico, I found this very informative.

Now, regarding two other Saints...I was wondering if someone can tell me whether Eastern Orthodox also celebrate in their liturgy February 14 as do Latin Catholics (and so do Eastern Catholics but I am not sure just when) ..Sts. Cyril and Methodius, brothers, who lived in the nineth century. If not, when do they celebrate them if they do celebrate them?

St. Cyril was born in Thessalonica and educated in Constantinople. He and his brother, St. Methodius, went to Moravia to preach the Christian faith. They both prepared Slavic liturgical texts in what would later be known as the Cyrillic alphabet. They were summoned to Rome where Cyril died in 869. Methodius was consecrated a bishop and went to Pannonia where he preached the Gospel. He died in Czechoslovakia in 885.

Porter

There may not be a consensus, but Catholics should understand the teaching of the Magesterium. Unitatis Redintegratio speaks quite directly to this issue. From Paragraph 15: And the conclusion to Paragraph 17: Everyone at the Council, including Archbishop Lefebvre, signed this document and it was officially given at Rome by Pope Paul VI in 1964. With the teaching of the Church in mind, venerating Orthodox saints should therefore be of little concern - and the veneration for St. Seraphim of Sarov by the late Pontiff, who also quoted St. Seraphim occasionally, is a case in point.
FDD

Do you know of any statement where Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagorus stated that both Churches have the fullness of faith? I have not been able to find one. There is no such statement in the Common Declaration [vatican.va] of October 28, 1967.

God bless you,

griego

Diak,

As for the first quote you cite, I don't see how this shows the Orthodox have the fullness of the Faith? It's just reiterating exactly what we know about Apostolic Succession and what it brings with it. The Sedevacantists also have these things, but are also schismatic.

The second quote seems to be states that those in communion with Rome express Eastern heritage "more faithfully and completely," which to me is simply stating that Eastern Catholics are truer to the Eastern heritage than the Eastern Orthodox thanks to their communion with the Pope.

Thirdly, Vatican II wasn't a dogmatic council and didn't define any doctrines, especially not in regards as to what we must believe about the Eastern Orthodox in order to be faithful Catholics.

Logos Teen

Here is the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration [vatican.va] of December 7, 1965 in which the mutaul excommunications were lifted. Again, there is no statement that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both have the fullness of faith.

In fact, the last two paragraphs state that there are differences between the two Churches that must be worked out before a "full communion of faith" can be realized.

Ilian,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, as an Orthodox Christian that is your belief. As a Catholic, I believe what my Church teaches that the fullness of faith lies only in the Catholic Church.

This is not my own opinion, but a teaching of the Catholic Church as stated in the document Dominus Iesus [vatican.va] .

If you have not read, I recommend that you do. You may not agree with it, but at least you will know the Catholic teaching. Pay special attention to section 4 of the document titled, "Unicity and unity of the Church".

I look forward to further dialogue with you.

May God bless you!

griego

If you believe that Orthodoxy lacks the fullness of faith, that Orthodox saints are not saints (and can be referred by their secular names), or that if a Catholic who by their own free choice joins Orthodoxy can be said to be making a mistake or is not worthy of veneration... I honestly don't see what there is to talk about.

If that's the position of the Catholic church, I don't know why I'm even posting here.

Andrew

First of all, what other Councils do you reject? So for some Catholics a universal council presided over by their lawful Vicar of Christ can be ignored?

Secondly, I've heard this relativistic argument plenty times. Ask any Catholic Bishop if he rejects the documents of Vatican II as not being part of the Magesterium who is currently in full communion with the Catholic Church. Go ahead. Don't ask me - ask any visible successor of the Apostles in full communion.

Also regarding your first objection - I doubt a term "closest intimacy" (which is the same in the original Latin version) would certainly not be used by the Church to describe another Church if serious or significant dogmatic differences separated us. See if that language has ever been used with the Protestants by a Council. You won't find it.

Thirdly, the statement s quite clear and direct, and I'll post it again in the words of the Council, universally convened and presided over by the Vicar of Christ:

What part of "full Catholic and apostolic" is not understood? Perhaps a closer study of the magesterial decrees of your Church is in order.
FDD

Address of John Paul II to a group of Catholic and Greek Orthodox faithful: [vatican.va]

In the address above, John Paul II speaks of the �unity of faith� which both Catholic and Orthodox alike share. I find it doubtful that both parties could be said to share such a �unity of faith� if one party alone was thought to contain the �fullness of the faith� while the other is somehow lacking in its deposit of the faith.

The whole argument held by some in this thread that the West alone holds the �fullness of the faith� - in that it seeks to minimize (dare I say cheapen) the deposit of faith held by our Eastern brethren - does to me smack of Triumphalism in yet another guise.

Rather than sowing such discord, may we endeavor to fulfill the desire of our Holy Father in �Overcoming the misunderstandings of the past, we look in hope to a future when love will be perfect among us and the world will therefore know that we are Christ's disciples.�


~Isaac (who as a Byzantine Catholic holds St. Alexis Toth in the highest esteem.)

Dear Issac,

We need to be careful not equating "unity of faith" with "fullness of faith". There is a distinction which is often blurred.
The document Dominus Iesus makes that distinction in articles 16 and 17.

Fullness of faith (last paragraph of Article 16):

With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ , despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church , and on the other hand, that �outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth�,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church .56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that � they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church �.57

Unity of faith(first paragraph of Article 17):

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. 59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church .60

The Orthodox and Catholic churches are united in their faith in Jesus Christ, but as it states above, non-Catholic Churches do not accept papal primacy, which is a doctrine of faith revealed by God.

Dominus Iesus carries the apostolic authority of our late Holy Father Pope John Paul II.

Also, a clarification, the fullness of faith is not found in the "West" but in the Catholic Church.

Brother Griego,

Thank you for pointing out that particular document, which in turn led me to Cardinal Ratzinger�s \'Note on the Expression "Sister Churches".\' [vatican.va] I find both extremely troubling, especially the assertion in the second document (paragraph 10) that the �Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches,� which in the context of both documents means that the �Universal Church� spoken of is Rome alone - an assertion which in good conscience I cannot accept. I am going to have to give both documents careful consideration and prayerfully examine the question that increasingly arises within me as to why I remain Catholic when in belief and praxis I am Orthodox.

In Christ,
~Isaac

Dear Andrew,

Does not the Orthodox Church teach that the fullness of faith exists only in the Orthodox Church? Does it not teach that the Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ?

So why are you offended when the Catholic Church states the same thing about Herself?

Do you believe that both Churches have the fullness of faith? If so, then why are we not already in communion?

The issue of papal primacy is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a matter of doctrine. It is part of the Catholic faith (both East and West) that God wills His Church to be shephered by the Pope of Rome.

It is not my intention to "fan the flames" or even to enter into an apologetical discussion. I am only stating what the Church teaches. I will be the first to accept that I am wrong if I am proven so, but so far no one has challenged the sources I have referred to. The Catholic Church is very good about putting what She believes on print.

As for the comment about Orthodox saints, the Catholic Church does officially recognize the holiness of some Orthodox saints, such as Saint Sergius of Radonezh.

If I didn't accept him as a saint, then why would I suggest that there be a Roman-rite Mass in his honor?

Our late Holy FatherPope John Paul II has spoken of Saint Seraphim of Sarov and Saint Gregory Palamas.

I have a personal devotion to Saint Elizabeth the New Martyr; I am currently reading her biography as spiritual reading!! I would love to make a pilgrimage to her tomb in Jerusalem!
I have venerated the relics of Saint John Maximovitch and Saint Nektarios at their shrines.

The Catholic Church has made no official acceptance of Fr. Alexis Toth, therefore a Catholic may have a private devotion to him as he or she sees fit or not.

Personally, I do not regard as a saint in light that he was a Catholic priest whose actions led to division in the Church.

You were offended that I didn't accept Fr. Toth as a saint, but do you accept Saint Josaphat as one? The majority of Orthodox do not.

Yes, Fr. Toth was treated unfairly by the hiearachy, but so have many Catholic saints but they didn't leave the Catholic Church.

The Greek Catholic martyrs suffered worse treatment than Fr. Alexis. Several of them were offered the chance to become Orthodox and continue their ministry. They refused.

How can I accept Fr. Toth as a saint in light of the sacrifices of the Greek Catholic martyrs who gave their lives for the Catholic faith, rather than being Orthodox?

Please explain how that can be reconciled.

God bless you,

griego

What I believe is that Orthodoxy contains the fullness of faith, because I believe wherever the true Eucharist is present, so there is Christ who is the fullness of the church and the faith. I personally don�t bother with trying to point out which other communions may or may not contain the fullness of faith. God alone knows that. Were the Orthodox and Catholic Churches to reconcile, I don�t think one or the other would alone be completed or achieve fullness. Both would receive something that is missing IMO.

I have great respect for the Catholic martyrs who died for their faith. There are Orthodox martyrs who could have become Catholic too and been spared persecution and death. This unfortunately has occurred on both sides throughout history. I don�t think I really need to point that out to anyone.

I have great respect for St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre. I also have great respect for + Metropolitan Orestes and the other founders of my diocese. You obviously do not. So be it. That is not a challenge to my faith, any more than are the documents pointed out which apparently say that Rome says it alone has the fullness of faith or that it is the �mother of all churches�.

This is the one and only place I regularly converse with Catholics about their faith (in real or cyber life). I simply don�t feel the need to continue reading comments that denigrate my church or its saints though, so I believe it is time for this to come to an end.

There are several aspects to the discussion of the glorification of Father Alexis Toth:

1) this event was not preceded by any movement of prayer - one has the impression that it was fast-tracked, so to speak. In particular, no full set of services to the new Saint seems to have been prepared.

2) one must, as I said above, distinguish between Father Alexis himself (and I have neither said nor written anything to suggest that he has not been saved in heaven) and the process of glorification. A close friend, himself a Greek-Catholic, attended the glorification and was severely traumatized by the crude fashion in which it was used to attack the Greek-Catholic Church. One might compare this matter to Saint Photius: there is no reason for Catholics to dispute the sanctity of Photius of Cosntantinople, nor to object to his glorification. There is every reason to avoid using some the wilder versions of services to him.

3) secular names - this is a minor matter, but perhaps it's best to clear it up. It is not customary to use surnames in reference to the Saints. But occasionally, by way of exception, this is done, presumably to avoid confusion (there are many Saint named "Peter", and it is no more than polite to indicate which Saint Peter one has in mind - the Apostle, St Peter Chrysologus, Saint Peter Mohyla, and so forth). In the case of Father Alexis Toth, one has only to visit the chapel of Saint Vladimir's Seminary to find a lovely icon of him with an inscription which includes his surname.

As to the whole discuxsion of venerating "non-Catholic" Saints, I seriously doubt that they have schisms in heaven!

Fr. Serge

Isaac,

Paragraph ten of the CDF note on the term 'sister Churches' is not really a problem, because it can be conformed to the ecclesiological doctrine of the ancient Fathers. On the other hand, paragraph three of the same document is problematic because it promotes a notion of the primacy that has never been accepted by the Eastern Churches, and which has even been openly rejected by the Melkite Patriarch. Here is what the CDF document says:

Now, here is what the Melkite Patriarch said at the Synod of Bishops in 2001 about the relationship between the ministry of the Pope and that of the Eastern Patriarchs:

The Melkite Patriarch is correct, because as long as Rome insists on a primacy of power and jurisdiction over the Church and the bishops, instead of a primacy of honor and love in service to ecclesial communion, the restoration of communion between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches will be impossible. A Patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the universal Church through the celebration of the liturgy, is incompatible with the Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical communion with the bishop of Rome. Hopefully the recent discussions in Belgrade will help in the process of restoring a Patristic ecclesiology within the Roman Church.

God bless,
Todd