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

Dear Friends,

Certainly, there is the historical precedent of the One Church of Christ prior to 1054 AD placing Saints of even heretical jurisdictions on its calendar for various reasons and in different contexts.

St Nicetas the Goth was an Arian priest ordained by the Arian bishop Ulfilas "the Apostle to the Goths". So was St Sabas the Goth and St Artemius of Egypt was an Arian Roman officer who was killed as he destroyed pagan temples there - but the fact that he was also destroying Catholic churches at the same time is overlooked for his death as a witness to Christ . . .

Miaphysite Saints in Georgia are now universally honoured in the Orthodox Church, such as St David of Garesja (called a "putrefaction" by a Greek Orthodox polemicist in his day).

When a number of the Old Believers came into union with the ROC, they kept their veneration of St Avvakum and there is an icon of him in the Old Rite Church of the Nativity in Erie (although there are "Edinoverie" who actually don't like St Avvakum and consider him to be something of a "trouble-maker" for Russian church unity etc.)

As most Saints are of a local/national/Particular Church significance, when Churches reunite in communion with each other, there is no need for them to take on each other's Saints.

In fact, the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, although it is in Communion with the other Miaphysite Churches, has not had the Oriental Orthodox Saint Severus of Antioch in its calendar and has even questioned his Orthodoxy (!). And Ethiopia's "Saint Pontius Pilate" will never, I am sure, be added to the calendars of other Churches.

There are many local saints in Greece who are so in the opinion of one village and perhaps of the next, but that is where the veneration stops.

The figure of St Francis of Assisi has posed a problem even for some Orthodox Saints who regarded him as an "ecstatic" whose private spiritual life is outside, in their view, the parameters of sound Orthodox spirituality.

That has not prevented Orthodox Christians from privately venerating him. And the fact that King Charles I was an Anglican does not prevent Western Orthodox Christians from keeping his icon at home and, in some cases, even enshrined in a corner of their parish churches and keeping his feastdays (Jan. 30th his martyrdom, Feb. 9 his burial, and others, but Jan. 30th is observed by all St Charles enthusiasts as a fast-day - such enthusiasts included John Henry Cardinal Newman).

As Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff once wrote to me, "Veneration of holy non-Orthodox persons is not condemned by Orthodoxy. It seems to me that King Charles belongs to this category."

Alex

Слава Ісусу Христу!

Ss Cyril and Methodius is honored by most every church.

Dear Mykhayl,

In fact, Pope John Paul II gave their Western cult a great boost when he declared them co-patrons of Europe along with St Benedict the Great.

Although recognized by the West, their cult was largely popular only in Western Slavic Catholic circles prior to this.

There are those, Catholics included, who completely dismiss as pious legend the idea that the Pope of their time gave approval to their Glagolithic liturgy.

Alex

Joe,

I thought the Catholic Church's position is that God gives sufficient Grace to every single human being, in order for them to respond to His Grace and be saved. Some choose to do so (efficacious Grace), while others reject His offer (inefficacious Grace).

Does this view differ from Orthodoxy? If so, how do the people who do not receive God's Grace enter Heaven? Is this not Calvinist-like double predestination? I'm sure this isn't the Orthodox position, but I'm just trying to understand as best I can.

Alexis

P.S. Good to see you back, Alex!

Alexis

Alex, you'll have to give me some time to think about this. But I will get back to you and post something.

Joe

Alexis:

I think you miss the point of the Eastern Church's approach to these questions. The Eastern Church will tell you where the Holy Spirit is working--in the Church. But the Eastern Church is not given so much to defining everything like the Western/Latin approach. The Eastern answer is "We know where the Holy spirit is working but we do not know where He might also be working that we do not know about, i.e., in other persons or groups not in visible communion with us." With this approach you have to be content with a bit of ambiguity--or the Mystery, if you will--and not try to define each and every person's status vis-a-vis God and His Saving Mystery in Jesus Christ.

This ambiguity idea stems from the fundamentally different approaches of the two lungs of the Church. Neither is wrong; it's just fundamentally different. The EP says it is "ontologically" different. You can go find out what that word means; I have but a vague idea and it doesn't really make my radar go wacko. I am content with Mystery.

In Christ,

BOB

Okay, let me try and answer the questions. Let's start by looking at the Old Testament saints and the virtuous pagans. Based on what I've read in articles and in books on Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, it seems that many Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit did not indwell the OT patriarchs, but rather the Holy Spirit worked on them "from the outside." I believe that this is something analogous to the general grace, or prevenient grace, taught in Western theology. Prior to the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the Church, holy men and women who responded to God's call would be saved, but they were not filled with the Holy Spirit in the same way that Christians are.

Now, fast forwarding to the Church. Like the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Church. I believe that what this means primarily is that the sacramental grace won by Christ for us is found in the Church and not outside of the Church. This does not mean that it is absolutely impossible for someone visibly outside the Church to be saved for there are those who are visibly outside the Church but invisibly are members of her just as there are those visibly within the Church who invisibly, in their souls, are outside (I can't remember which Church father said this, what is Augustine?). So, anyone can be saved who responds to the prompting of grace. That prompting however is external to the person, because the Holy Spirit is given in baptism, not before baptism.

Now, the question of whether non-Orthodox sacraments are efficacious or not depends upon whether it is possible for sacramental grace to exist outside the visible boundaries of the Church. Many Orthodox, especially the most traditional ones, argue that valid sacraments cannot be performed outside of the Orthodox Church. If the Church receives a Protestant or Catholic without baptizing them, then the Church is accepting by Oikonomia the person and whatever grace was lacking at the time of their non-Orthodox baptism, it is made up for by Chrismation or by being received into the Church. In other words, from this point view, my Protestant Baptism and my Melkite Chrismation were not efficacious sacraments of the Church. But when I was received into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation, then I was given the full baptismal grace and my baptism was made efficacious by the Church.

Now, if this view is correct (and I add that not all Orthodox agree with this view, but it does seem to be the most traditional view and the one most in keeping with the canons), then it leads to this question: Are non-Orthodox sacraments graceless? And indeed you find that the ultra-traditionalists would say yes, they are graceless. I think that you will also find many Orthodox who would say that there is grace present, insofar as by publicly celebrating these Christian rites, one is demonstrating faith in Christ and one can be moved by the Holy Spirit (working externally on the person) to deeper faith. So non-Orthodox sacraments are not valueless even if they do not bestow grace in the same way that Orthodox sacraments do.

Of course, there are also some Orthodox who would say that in some Churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, there are efficacious sacraments whether or not there is Orthodoxy of faith. The most conservative of the Orthodox consider this to be an erroneous position.

Honestly, I am agnostic on this issue and this is primarily because I have not finished researching the issue and also because I am reluctant to set limits on the activity of the Holy Spirit. Whether non-Orthodox sacraments are efficacious or not, they are holy events when they are done with true faith in Christ and that is good enough for me.

Now what does all of this have to do with this thread? Well, the question was why it was the case that Orthodox do not publicly venerate post-schism non-Orthodox saints? A plausible answer to this question would be based on the view that only sacraments within Orthodoxy are efficacious. Post-schism western saints would simply not be saints because they have not been truly baptized and made members of Christ's church.

Now, I feel the need to say again that I do not at all mean to offend anyone, nor do I necessarily agree with this judgment on non-Orthodox saints. But I hope that by posting this, I can at least provide some clarity regarding what Orthodox believe about the non-Orthodox. In this sense, I hope that this post is educational. God bless.

Joe

Bob, well said and I basically agree with what you say here (though I personally don't accept the two lungs analogy).

Joe

Dear Joe,

Forgive me, but that is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church with respect to why Saints of the other Churches not in communion with it are not publicly venerated.

This was brought up during the Orthodox-Oriental dialogue and it is brought home elsewhere.

For Orthodoxy, sanctity is never merely a "personal" matter. When Orthodoxy does not include Francis of Assisi or Dioscoros of Alexandria in its calendar, it is doing so not by way of pronouncing a judgement on these and others' personal sanctity. Indeed, it refrains from doing so!

Sainthood relates to the social conception of Ecclesiology which is, as you know, Orthodoxy's hallmark.

Sainthood presupposes, first and foremost, Communion with the Body of Christ which is the Orthodox Catholic Church and when that Communion is broken, so is the foundation for the experience of true holiness which is always within the Communion of the Church, the Eucharist, the Church's liturgy etc.

The fact that the personal sanctity of other saints in other churches is not the issue in their recognition by Orthodoxy is brought home by the fact that when Churches resume Communion with the Orthodox Church, those Churches' saints can actually be ratified for veneration (in those same Churches and they can also eventually become "universally" recognized).

A case in point is St John of Shanghai. As late as 1999, petitions went to the Moscow Patriarchate to have him placed in the universal Orthodox calendar. No one was going to question St John's orthodoxy of faith, much less his tremendous holiness of life!

But since the ROCOR was not yet in communion with the MP and world Orthodoxy, that recognition was witheld until last summer.

Can Orthodox Christians venerate holy people privately? Absolutely. But that is different from paying them the public liturgical tribute that only Communion with the Church can establish.

New Skete's enduring veneration for the Franciscan Saints is based on the same principle - they brought these Saints with them when they established Communion with Orthodoxy although they don't venerate them publicly, I don't believe.

Alex

This was drawn to my attention by Dr Eric who is not able to post it right now.

Fr David Straut


The Orthodox Church canonized St. Stephen of Hungary in the year 2000. He died in 1038 and was canonized by Pope Gregory VII in 1063.


From Fr West's Catholic Blog

http://frwest.blogspot.com/2006/08/st-stephen-of-hungary.html


St Stephen of Hungary

The following article on the life of St. Stephen of Hungary (ca. 975- 1038 A.D.) was drawn from the following articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_I_of_Hungary

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14287a.htm

http://www.saintstephenofhungary.org/stephen.html

St. Stephen of Hungary was the first Christian King of Hungary. He was born around the year 975 A.D. in the town of Esztergom. He was named Vaik (Vojk) at his birth, which means hero. His father Géza was the ruling Magyar prince. His mother was Sarolt, the daughter of the Transylvanian chieftain Gyula.

During the 10th and 11th centuries, many areas of Europe were ruled by warring feifdoms, and leaders struggled to build nations. The Magyar House of Árpád was determined to create a country that would be known as Hungary.

During the late 900s, Duke Géza fought tirelessly to unite the Magyar tribes of Hungary and forge closer ties to Western Europe. He was convinced that Christianity would help to forge his people into a strong country.

The Duke and his whole family converted to Catholicism in 985. His son István Király (St. Stephen) was 10 years old at the time. The family was baptized by St. Adalbert of Prague. Stephen's Baptism was a precondition of being recognized by Rome as King. He was named Stephen at his Baptism in honor of the first Christian martyr and the protector of the church at Passau.

In 995, Stephen married Gizella of Barvaria. She was the daughter of the Duke of Bavaria, Henry II, the Wrangler or Quarrelsome, and Gisela of Burgundy. Her brother became Holy Roman Emperor Henry II. St. Stephen and Gizella had at least three children: sons Imre ("Henry" or "Emeric") and Ottó, and a daughter Hedvig. All of St. Stephen’s children died before him. Thus there were no direct descendants to claim the throne upon his death.

Between 995 and 997, Stephen (still known as "Vajk") was the ruling prince of Nitra present day Slovakia. He succeeded to the throne of Hungary in 997. St. Stephen sent Abbot Astricus to Rome to petition Pope Sylvester II for the royal dignity and the power to establish Episcopal sees. He did this in order to make Hungary a Christian nation and to solidify his temporal power. Stephen achieved supremacy over other Magyar nobles, most notably his pagan uncle, the powerful warlord Koppány. This victory over was achieved also thanks to Stephen's German retinue and the military assistance from the noble Poznan and Hunt families. Thus, Stephen became the Sovereign of Magyars in Transdanubia in 997 and managed to successfully unite virtually all Magyar clans by 1006.

St. Stephen became the first King of Hungary on Christmas Day in 1000 A.D.. Pope Silvester II sent a magnificent jeweled gold crown to Stephen along with an apostolic cross and a letter of blessing in January, 1001, officially recognizing Stephen as the Christian king of Hungary.

He founded a monastery in Jerusalem and hospices for pilgrims at Rome, Ravenna, and Constantinople. He was a personal friend of St. Bruno of Querfurt and corresponded with Abbot St. Odilo of Cluny.

Stephen established a system of tithes to support churches and pastors and to relieve the poor. Stephen divided Hungary into 40-50 counties. He continued the work of his father Géza by applying the decimal organizational system of his ancestors. He set up ten dioceses in Hungary. He ordered that out of every 10 towns, one had to build a church and support a priest.

He founded the cathedrals of Székesfehérvár and Esztergom, the Nunnery of Veszprém, the Benedictine Abbey of Pannonhalma, and the Monastery of Saint Peter and Paul in Óbuda. Inside the abbeys and monasteries, schools were established, and they became important centers of culture. Saint Astricus served as Stephen's advisor, and Stephen also had Saint Gerard Sagredo as the tutor for his son Saint Emeric (Imre).
Stephen discouraged pagan customs and strengthened Christianity with various laws, including ending the use of the old Hun-Magyar runic alphabet and making Latin the official language of the royal court. Stephen gave generously to the churches, personally visited them often, and supervised their construction. He often disguised himself as a peasant whenever he traveled and freely gave money to any poor people he met (in one account, Stephen was beaten and robbed by a group of beggars to whom he was giving alms, but he forgave them and spared their lives).

St. Stephen intended to retire to a life of holy contemplation and hand the kingdom over to his only surviving son Imre, but in 1031 his only surviving son, St. Emeric (Imre), was wounded while on a bear hunt and later died. Thus his hope was lost of transferring his power to a pious Christian prince was shattered.
This is an excerpt of a letter he sent to his son:

My beloved son, delight of my heart, hope of your posterity, I pray, I command, that at every time and in everything, strengthened by your devotion to me, you may show favor not only to relations and kin, or to the most eminent, be they leaders or rich men or neighbors or fellow countrymen, but also to foreigners and to all who come to you. By fulfilling your duty in this way you will reach the highest state of happiness. Be merciful to all who are suffering violence, keeping always in your heart the example of the Lord who said, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." Be patient with everyone, not only with the powerful, but also with the weak.

Finally be strong lest prosperity lift you up too much or adversity cast you down. Be humble in this life, that God may raise you up in the next. Be truly moderate and do not punish or condemn anyone immoderately. Be gentle so that you may never oppose justice. Be honorable so that you may never voluntarily bring disgrace upon anyone. Be chaste so that you may avoid all the foulness of lust like the pangs of death.

All these virtues I have noted above make up the royal crown, and without them no one is fit to rule here on earth or attain to the heavenly kingdom.

After his son’s death he wrote:

By God's secret decision death took him, so that wickedness would not change his soul and false imaginations would not deceive his mind – as the Book of Wisdom teaches about early death.

Emeric became a popular name. The Italian form is Amerigo. The name America is derived from Amerigo Vespucci, the Italian explorer. After St. Emeric’s death, a dispute arose among his nephews concerning the right of succession. Some even took part in a conspiracy against his life.

Stephen mourned a very long time over the loss of his son. The loss took a great toll on his health. He eventually recovered, but he never regained his original vitality.

Having no children left, he could not find anyone among his remaining relatives who was able to rule the country competently and willing to maintain the Christian faith of the nation. Unable to choose an heir, King Stephen died at Székesfehérvár (a city he built in central Hungary) on the Feast of the Assumption and was buried there in the year 1038 A.D.. Both his nobles and his subjects were said to have mourned for 3 straight years afterwards.

He was buried beside his son at Stuhlweissenburg, and both were canonized together in 1083. In Hungary his chief festival is observed on August 20, the day on which his relics were transferred to Buda. His incorrupt right hand is treasured as the most sacred relic in Hungary.

Stephen appointed his nephew Peter Urseolo to be his heir. Peter and Samuel Aba, Stephen’s brother-in-law contended fro the crown. Nine years of instability followed until Stephen's cousin Andrew I was crowned Hungarian King, re-establishing the Árpád dynasty in 1047. Though Hungarian historiography saw both Peter and Samuel as a member of the Árpád dinasty.

Still, by the time of his death, St. Stephen had created a stable nation -- one that would become a bulwark against the Ottoman Empire, an asylum for refugees, and rich in cultural achievements.

Shortly after Stephen's death, healing miracles were said to have occurred at his tomb. Stephen was canonized by Pope Gregory VII as Saint Stephen of Hungary in 1083. Catholics venerate him as the patron saint of "Hungary, kings, the death of children, masons, stonecutters, and bricklayers." His feast is August 16, but in Hungary his chief festival is observed on August 20, the day on which his sacred relics were transferred to the city of Buda. This day is a public holiday in Hungary.

Stephen was also canonized by the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2000.

The crown known as the Holy Crown of St. Stephen, has been enshrined in the Hungarian Parliament building in Budapest since 2000.

Thank you for posting this article, Father David!

Ray

During his visit to Hungary in the year 2000,Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I declared that the Orthodox Church recognizes Saint Stephen as a saint.

I am not aware of Saint Stephen having undergone a process of glorification by the Church of Constantinople.

It may be a case of a formal recognition of the Catholic Church's canonization. This has since been accepted by the other Orthodox Churches.

If anyone can find further details about this, I would love to hear about it.

This has happened before when the Catholic Church formally recognized the glorification of Saint Sergius of Radonezh by the Russian Orthodox Church.

I do note that St. Stephen was a pre-schism saint. He lived and died prior to the schism.

Joe

Dr. Alex, I think you missed my point. I did not say that non-Orthodox were devoid of sanctity nor did I say that non-Orthodox could not be venerated privately by Orthodox. What I was pointing out was along the lines of what you are thinking here, that is, that in order to be canonized, one has to be a part of the Orthodox communion, which sees itself as the true Church and Body of Christ.

Joe

Dear Friend,

I did not say that you said other Christian churches were devoid of sanctity but was just calling attention to the ecclesial dimension of holiness within Orthodoxy.

Alex