www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Naples Archbishop handed over St. Januarius's relics to Alexy II

Dear Griego,

The article simply states that the Relics of St Seraphim of Sarov were brought to the Chevetogne Monastery for veneration there. The Relics properly belong to a Russian parish in Belgium. The article mentions the "growing cult of veneration of St Seraphim of Sarov in the Catholic church." And also that both the Orthodox and Catholics there present could venerate the relics (which is something of momentous ecumenical significance, wouldn't you say?).

The visit by the ROC representatives speaks volumes about the esteem in which the Benedictine monastery of Chevetogne is so obviously held by the Orthodox.

That is by far more significant than whether the Relics were actually given to the Monastery.

Alex

While this is noteworthy, when I say "Orthodox" I usually mean Eastern Orthodox unless I otherwise specify. Perhaps it is unfair, but Oriental Orthodox doing this doesn't come as much of a surprise to me; they have good relations with Catholics (don't know about how they are with Anglicans).

Alexis

Perhaps the Orthodox will allow us Catholics to venerate a post-Schism saint in one of their churches?

Again, this to me says a lot more about Catholic generosity than Orthodox generosity. While it is interesting, it only helps prove my point (if I really have one) rather than to go against it.

Alexis

Dear Alexis,

Who exactly are these wicked Orthodox who preventing you and other Catholics from venerating holy relics of Saints (whether they be pre- or post-schism) in Orthodox churches? The only place where I can conceive of this being done is some places on Mount Athos where Non-Orthodox are not permitted entrance into the nave of the Catholicon whilst services are taking place.

I honestly haven't noticed security guards posted in Orthodox churches preventing certain people from venerating holy relics. Speaking as a parish priest, I would only prevent someone from venerating a holy relic in my church if I had a real reason to believe they would be disrespectful.

Aren't there enough real problems around without you having to invent some more?

Fr David Straut

Dear Father David,

I couldn't begin to count the number of times that I have been privileged to venerate the large icon of Saint Seraphim (which I believe has a relic of the Saint set into it) in the Monastery Cathedral at Jordanville, and the lovely collection of relics from Pochaiv in the downstairs Church of the same Cathedral.

Surely no one is about to accusing the monks of Jordanville of practicing ecumenical laxism!

Fr. Serge

Fr. Straut,

Bless!

There is certainly no impediment to venerating the relics of Orthodox saints by Catholic in Orthodox churches. In fact just last December I venerated the relics of John Maximovitch in San Francisco, and attended the Divine Liturgy as well (though it was all in Russian...or Church Slavonic?).

Anyway, the issue you bring up is clearly not my point. The point of my post was actually something you brushed off. It is of importance that the fact that a *post-Schism* Catholic saint would not be allowed to be venerated by Catholics and Orthodox during a liturgical service in an Orthodox church!

And it's not about the "wicked Orthodox." Please, Father, don't put words in my mouth. I actually am in agreement with the Orthodox position (or what seems to me to be its implicit position). I don't think non-Catholic post-Schism saints should be venerated in public liturgical services in Catholic churches, really. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the obvious difference that lies between the two Churches in this regard.

I just think a little uniformity would help.

Look, it's not something I care too terribly much about. Justttttt enough to post it here.

Alexis

My own view is that, ironically enough, when it comes to the fundamental nature of the Church, the Orthodox have a more clear and consistent teaching than the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church, with all of the nuances ("sister churches," "subsists in," etc.) I think allows a certain amount of confusion in practice (which is why the CDF has had to, several times, explain and clarify RC teaching). And I think that since Rome thinks that Orthodox Churches are true particular Churches with sacraments, that their decisions to canonize saints must be legitimate as well.

The Orthodox Church's understanding of the Church is more simple. It is simply that the Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ; therefore, any western post-schism saints cannot be saints because they were not in Christ's Church. This doesn't mean that we have to reject the notion that there is holiness and grace outside of the Orthodox Church. But outside of the Orthodox Church, grace operates in a different manner. According to traditional Orthodox theology, outside of the Orthodox Church grace operates from the outside. So properly speaking, the Holy Spirit does not indwell non-Orthodox, though the Holy Spirit may move the non-Orthodox toward truth and a desire for holiness.

It was clearly explained to me, when I converted, that my baptism and our marriage would be made valid, that is, baptismal grace and the grace of the sacrament of marriage would be bestowed upon us in Chrismation. The Orthodox Church does not recognize non-Orthodox baptisms as valid, if we mean by valid that they, on their own, confer grace. But we do believe that those who have received the form of baptism will then receive the fullness of baptismal grace when they are received into the Church by Chrismation.

Nothing I am saying here is intended to be polemical. But it is, in fact, the most standard and traditional view of the nature of the Church, Sacraments, and the Saints and it was what I was taught and I am in the Antiochian jurisdication, which is somewhat more "liberal" so to speak than others. Of course, there may be many Orthodox hierarchs and theologians who hold other opinions, but as far I know, the view I just spelled out is the one considered to be most in accord with the ancient canons of the Church.

Joe

I should add something here. I do not mean to offend anyone by my last post. I offer it because it does provide a plausible explanation for why the Orthodox Church does not venerate post-schism western saints. Honestly, I am not exactly sure what I think about all of this. I consider myself somewhat agnostic on these questions of grace outside Orthodoxy, non-Orthodox saints, etc.

Joe

Dear Alexis,

The blessing of the Lord!

I must have misunderstood your post. It wouldn't be the first time that I didn't read something carefully enough. Except for very odd places, such as New Skete in Cambridge, New York, you would not find Post-Schism Catholic Saints being venerated in Orthodox churches in liturgical services, icons, or relics. I am somewhat surprised that Post-Schism Orthodox Saints are venerated in Catholic churches, but I understand that the Catholic Church has a broad interpretation of Ecclesiology, which sees the Orthodox Churches as somehow being part of the Catholic Church while not being visibly so. So if you would like to carry on your campaign to have Post-Schism Orthodox Saints not venerated by Catholics, I do understand.

By the way, it is not the custom in the Christian East to address priests by appending their Surname to the title 'Father.' You are perhaps a Latin Catholic?

Yours in Christ,

Fr David

In my view, the veneration of relics is not only an act by the Church, but a personal sign of respect and love. If a non-Orthodox venerates the relic of Saint Herman, it is out of love. If an Orthodox venerates a relic of Saint Therese, it is out of love. The veneration of relics is not a sacrament. It can shared by all.

[Linked Image]

When the relics of Saint Therese the Little Flower were brought to Russia for veneration a few years ago, let's be honest, I am sure that plenty of Orthodox people kissed her relics.

Here is a description of the tour:
ST. THERESE'S TOUR OF FORMER SOVIET UNION HUGE SUCCESS

Her Relics Go to Russia, Siberia and Kazakstan

PARIS, AUG 15 (ZENIT)

The most important missionary of modern times has just finished a genuine tour of the former Soviet Union. The relics of St. Therese of the Child Jesus, who died at 24 years-old and whom John Paul II declared a doctor of the universal Church, traveled by bus through Russia, Siberia and Kazakstan, covering 30,000 kilometers and stopping at 60 important parishes. Simultaneously, ten small reliquaries, along with a beautiful Byzantine icon of Therese, painted by archimandrite Zenon, visited very distant places, like Astrakhan and Magadan, as well as many small communities, hospitals, prisons, orphanages and sick persons. The mission was possible thanks to the cooperation of the local Churches. Prior to the relics' arrival, all the parishes organized preparatory retreats and translated some of Therese's manuscripts. Cassettes of songs written by the saint, as well as prayer books, were produced in Russian. At present, her "Autobiographical Manuscripts" are being distributed in Russia, Siberia and Kazakstan, becoming the summer's best-seller. "The diocese of Eastern Siberia, the largest in the world -- covering 10 million square kilometers, has only 24 priests and religious -- the same (number) as Monaco," the French Catholic organizers of the mission explained. Therese of Lisieux continues to be one of the most important missionaries of our century, as many Popes have described her." http://www.ichrusa.com/courtyard/relicsinthenews.html#therese2

Next year, her relics will be touring England and Wales. One of the questions asked on a website http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/relics_of_st_therese_of_lisieux
about it says: "I’m not a Catholic: can I take part?

Certainly. All are welcome: members of other Christian churches, people of other faiths or no particular faith, anyone who is in any way looking for answers to the questions of life. Sick and disabled people will be especially welcome, and in some venues there will be special events for the young."

So there will be plenty of Anglicans and others venerating her relics.

As to whether her relics or any saint of the Catholic world will be brought into an Orthodox Church for veneration any time soon, I don't know. But maybe venerating relics can be one way to open our hearts to our common humanity and how that person struggled to be Christ-like.

When we meet each other, regardless of your religion or ethnicity, we greet each other using some form, a kiss, handshake etc. You don't always agree with everybody in life, especially their theology, but you can greet and give them respect in a proper way. IMHO, venerating a relic is no different.

Ray

The nicest part is there are no pews in that church.

I.F.

Fr. David,

Yes, sorry, I am a Latin Catholic and taken to calling secular priests by their last name.

Joe,

I generally agree, except for the fact that I'm not so sure that just because the Orthodox Churches have valid sacraments, their glorification process is somehow infallible.

Could you touch one more time on the difference between being called to holiness and being indwelled by the Holy Spirit? I didn't know the Orthodox position was that non-Orthodox couldn't be temples of the Holy Spirit (by the way, I certainly don't take offense to such a belief, so feel free to speak freely). You can PM me if you feel more comfortable discussing it in private.

Alexis

Well, what I'm telling you is what I was taught and also what I have read in some Orthodox literature. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that this is the more traditional position. But I can't say that its official dogma or that all Orthodox believe this. In fact, as I mentioned, I'm not sure that i entirely agree with it (for me it is on open question and I prefer not to say where the Holy Spirit is not since the Holy Spirit blows where He wills).

But to clarify, the basic idea is that there is no salvation outside the Church, meaning, that there is no sacramental grace outside of the Church. Therefore, non-Orthodox sacraments are not effacacious. This means that non-Orthodox are not indwelt with the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that they are damned though, since they can respond to God's revelation as best as they know how and God may choose to accept them.

Now, I repeat that I am not saying that I wholeheartedly agree with this, but this is the view you can find in much Orthodox literature. I am not sure of its dogmatic status.

Joe

By the way, I admit that the Catholic view is much more generous. The only reason I even brought this up is that it offers a plausible explanation to your question, Alexis, of why the Orthodox Church does not venerate non-Orthodox saints.

Joe

Orthodox Christians in France have a devotion to Saint Therese, the Little Flower.

One can read about it in Helen Iswolsky's book, Light before Dawn: A Russian Catholic in France, 1923-1941. She writes how many Orthodox Christians have experienced miracles through her intercession, including one incident in which a Russian taxi driver who ran out of gas while driving out in the country had his gas tank miraculously filled after praying to her!! There were so many miracles occurring that it even led one Catholic priest to complain about it. Her spirituality has been compared to that of Saint Seraphim of Sarov.

Father Aleksandr Elchaninov in his book, Diary of a Country Priest, recommended to his faithful to read the life of Saint Therese as well as that of Saint Francis.