www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox Saints for Catholics

Question:

I am curious as to the topic of Catholics praying through Orthodox saints. Canonically, what is the status of Orthodox saints for Catholics, and may Catholics pray to such saints canonized only in the Orthodox Church (ie: may a Catholic pray to St. Silouan). Additionally what exactly, ecumenically speaking, is the status of Orthodox saints in the view of the Catholic Church?

As a corollary to this question what is the status of Catholic saints amongst the Orthodox? May Orthodox Christians pray through saints canonized in the Catholic Church alone?

And finally is the canonization process for Eastern Catholic saints different from the process for Latin Catholics?


-Predánije

Dear Predanije,

We've dealt with this issue here before, but you put it in an interesting way.

The difference must be made in terms of "liturgical veneration" and "private veneration."

Anyone may pray or honour any Saint of any Church privately, of course. Fr. John Meyendorff (+ memory eternal!) once wrote me to say that "the private veneration of good persons who were not Orthodox is not condemned by Orthodoxy."

You will find Eastern Catholic parishes who venerate all Orthodox saints, glorified 800 years ago or over the summer! This is often local to the parishes who wish to do so (i.e. St Michael's UGC parish in Welland is a good example).

Rome has and does acknowledge the sanctity of Orthodox saints who lived and died after 1054 AD such as St Gregory Palamas (1973) and St Seraphim of Sarov.

As Fr. Archimandrite Sergius taught me many years ago, "We do not question each other's canonizations." RC prelates are invited to and attend Orthodox canonizations (e.g. that of St Herman) and they venerate the icons/relics and take away souvenir icons with them.

Orthodoxy does not accept Catholic saints who lived after 1054 AD although individual Orthodox do venerate Catholic saints privately (St Francis, St Bernadette, St Therese of Lisieux).

The canonization process for EC saints is the same as that for Latin Catholic saints - unfortunately!

Alex

Officially, no.

Alex:

Thank you for your information, most interesting. I have a great devotion to a couple Orthodox saints and a few other non-Orthodox venerables not in formal union with Rome, so it is good to know the canonical value of such prayers.

"The canonization process for EC saints is the same as that for Latin Catholic saints - unfortunately!"

I fear John Paul II cheapened much of what canonization used to mean. I realize he had good intentions "a saint for every people," but saints are not to be used as sociopolitical pleasantries (not that this was an idea new to JP2, but the Escriva process was a bit over the top even for JP2).

-Predánije

Dear Predanije,

With respect to Pope John Paul the Great, I believe the numerous Beatifications he did on his many Papal tours were meant to put the spotlight on the Local Church and the saints of the Local Church.

This was the beginning of the return of the local canonization process (for that is essentially what beatification is) to the domain of the local/particular Churches.

Pope Benedict has gone so far as to emphasize this further by having prelates beatify rather than himself (such as the recent beatification of 188 Martyrs of Japan).

There was a debate in the UGCC way back when as to how to go about canonizing St Josaphat - should Rome do it or the UGCC itself? The former won out, but it was by no means clear at the time that Rome should canonize a saint for an Eastern Catholic Church.

As it turned out, even though Rome canonized St Josaphat in 1875 (I believe), this was done exclusively for the Eastern Catholic Churches - his cult was not extended to the Latin Catholic Church until 1888. This also suggests that Rome could have very well NOT been involved in the canonization of EC saints, despite Pope Urban VIII's bull that reserved beatifications and canonizations for the Holy See alone.

Latin Catholic bishops to this day have the right to declare miraculous images i.e. "canonize" them for that is what it is - a canonization of an icon or statue for local veneration.

There is no reason why the Local Church, in either East or West, should not be able to glorify its own local saints for local veneration.

Even after Pope Urban VIII, Italian bishops, for example, continued to beatify local saints, such as Blessed Peter Lombard, Blessed John Scotus Erigena (who was later beatified by Pope John Paul the Great) and others.

As an interesting example, the Cause of Jerome Savonarola of Florence is proceeding slowly (one Irish Dominican told me that Savonarola will be canonized "when the Jesuits stop opposing his Cause"). But the Dominican Order itself long venerated Savonarola as a "Beatus", publishing prayers for his Mass and Office, minting medals of him with the title "Blessed" and so on. The people of Florence were and are especially devoted to him and observed his day of death, May 23rd, with processions and the laying of flowers at the site of his martyrdom. Two Catholic Saints, St Philip Neri and St Catherine of Genoa were both devoted to him and St Philip Neri wore a medal with a relic of Savonarola around his neck (that was found after his death when his body was prepared for burial). This fact was reported to Rome and the Pope of the day ordered that it be "passed over" and not constitute a hindrance to his canonization (because of Savonarola's controversy with Pope Alexander VI and his opposition to him as constituting a "black mark" against the fiery Dominican preacher).

And the recently beatified Bl. Piorio Giorgio (hopefully I have spelt his name correctly) was a Dominican tertiary who also venerated Savonarola as a saint and took his name when he became a tertiary.

Savonarola's cult is known to have extended to Russia where Orthodox theologians commended his writings and St Maximus the Greek was a former student of Savonarola's who escaped to Russia after his Master's demise, horrified at how the Florentine mob treated Savonarola, and became an Orthodox monk there (defending Old Rite Orthodox traditions for which he was obliged to suffer much).

The thing is that there are officially canonized Catholic saints who do not have such widespread fame and acclaim as does this yet-to-be canonized Dominican.

Alex

I think you will find many ECs who venerate Orthodox saints post-1054. The late Holy Father himself had devotion to St. Seraphim of Sarov. One of my first spiritual fathers, a priest of our UGCC Eparchy, was the one who really got me interested in St. Seraphim. I have icons of several of these saints in my bright corner, including St. Seraphim, the Optina Elders, Theophan the Recluse and several of the Pochaiv and Pecherska-Lavra fathers. And of course, a most beautiful icon painted by our own Chtec here of St. Pavel Florensky that adornes our bright corner.

AMM mentions that Orthodox can't privately venerate non-Orthodox saints? Is this true? Are the Catholic and Orthodox "rulings" on this different, in reality?

Alexis

I meant there is no official, public commemoration of post schism saints and there are none on the calendar that I'm aware of. What's done privately is a different issue.

Actually there was little interest among Greek-Catholics in the canonization of St. Josaphat - it was considered a Polish matter. It was not until the Basilians of the Dobromyl reform picked up the possibility of spreading devotion to St. Josaphat as part of an anti-Orthodox ideology that the Greek-Catholics became involved.

My name having been invoked, I may add that there are some Orthodox canonizations (a small minority) which the Catholic Church considers problematic, to put it mildly. One of the more recent examples is, of course "Saint Alexis [Toth] of Wilkes- Barre". There are also perfectly acceptable Saints whose commemorations have been disfigured by the composition of polemical services.

Fr. Serge

Actually, Pope John Paul formally beatified John Duns Scotus, the "Doctor Marianus" and "Doctor Subtilis", founder of the "Scotist" school of Scholasticism and the great explicator of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not John Scotus Erigena (who lived centuries before Duns Scotus)

John Duns Scotus' "double" beatification is a very interesting case. He had been informally venerated for hundreds of years, and his cultus was finally recognized by the Bishop of Nola in 1906. Thus, technically, he was already a "blessed" since 1906. However, in 1993, instead of being canonized, Duns Scotus was instead beatified (again?)

Bl. Duns Scotus' case illuminates two very interesting facts:

1) The lines between the different levels of "recognition of cult" and formal beatification / canonization have never really been drawn properly. There are literally thousands of people in the Catholic Church who have never been formally beatified and canonized but who are, nevertheless, venerated either as blessed or saint. To act as a sort of official "control" or "filter" to these devotions, the Church has developed the practice of "recognition of cult" on the basis of immemorial cult, either by the local bishop or by Rome itself. People whose cult has been officially recognized can be called "Blessed."

The most recent example are the 800 Matryrs of Otranto. They were killed by the Turks in 1480. Their relics fills a whole chapel, and have been venerated for hundreds of years as the relics of beati, and they themselves venerated as such; they are even in the official Roman Martyrology of John Paul II. However, Rome gave official recognition to their cultus only this year.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/161401?eng=y

If anyone thinks that the Orthodox have a confused system of "glorifications", let him think again!

Rome's attitude towards people whose cults have been "recognized" without formal beatification by the Pope or his representative is quite mixed. For example, when someone who has been officially recognized by the local bishop or by Rome itself as a blessed comes up for official "glorification" by Rome, will he be canonized, or simply "beatified'? There have been cases of "re-beatification", and there have been cases where Rome proceeded straight to canonization. Conversely, there have been cases of people being included in the Roman Martyrology without ever being officially beatified or canonized, or without even a definite recognition of their cult!

2) John Duns Scotus was a Franciscan. That he has a "cult" is partly due to the fact that the Franciscans have always claimed the freedom to venerate many of their holy men and women as blessed even without formal Roman approval. For example, all of St. Francis' original companions have been informally "beatified" by the Franciscans and venerated as blessed.

I think that, if one looks closely at the history of local diocesan "recognitions of cult" as well as the history of religious orders inserting the names of their holy men and women into their liturgical books without official Roman approval, one can make a very strong case indeed for the right of the local churches to beatify on their own. Indeed, it already exists in the form of "recognition of cult" by the local bishop, such as has been given to Charlamagne in Aachen, John Duns Scotus in Nola, etc.

Don't forget, too, that there are many "spontaneous" ways by which popes can beatify someone. In 1982, for example, John Paul II declared Fra Angelico "blessed" by Motu Proprio, without need for formal investigation and on the basis of his sacred art! And, perhaps, one of the most celebrated cases was that of Pope Gregory XIII, who in 1583 allowed the English martyrs between 1533 to 1583 to be portrayed in church frescoes as if they were already beatified by the Church. This was recognized in the 19th century as having been an "equivalent beatification"

What is preventing the UGCC from asking the Pope to bypass the process and do something similar?

Dear asianpilgrim,

Yes, the two men (both venerated locally as saints since their deaths) have very similar names. I've seen sources who name them identically except that for the later Bl. John they add "Duns." "Eriugena" I believe refers to their Irish provenance. This I found in a book I picked up at the Franciscan monastery at Cimiez near Nice, France last May.

The 9th century John Scotus Eriugena was and continues to be venerated as a local saint and in the U.S. he is honoured by the "Celtic Churches" and the independent "Celtic Orthodox" church who actually have some parishes named for him under "St John Scotus."

Fr. Geoffry O'Riada had an excellent article about the earlier John Scotus Eriugena on his website "Celtic Orthodox Christianity".

What I find personally fascinating about Blessed John Duns Scotus, beatified by Pope John Paul the Great, and according to the book I have about his theology, is that he formulated a view of the Immaculate Conception that is actually closer theologically to the Eastern Church's understanding of Original Sin than that of St Augustine - bringing him closer theologically to John Scotus Eriugena as well (according to how I read Fr. O'Riada).

You raise a number of further interesting points with respect to "Equipollent beatification" and the role of the pope.

In Charlemagne's case, his cult as "St Charlemagne" was well established at Aachen and elsewhere but this emperor was canonized by an antipope, as you know, and so, in his case, it was a matter of the Church actually "reducing" the extent of his cult and limiting it to Aachen. There are a number of these fascinating cases of "limiting veneration" in the West, especially the limiting of the cult of "St Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari" to the island of Sardinia alone - not because of his peculiar name, but because he apparently died in an excommunicated state, refusing, as you know, to allow those who had denied Christ under the persecutions, to be reconciled with the Church.

As for the UGCC, our Church has never canonized anyone without the pope and it is highly doubtful that it ever will. UGCC Causes begin and end with Rome but when Pope John Paul the Great visited Ukraine, he beatified a group of martyrs solely on the basis of the eparchial process having been completed and waved the requirement of referring their Causes formally to Rome for further review.

The only time the UGCC went ahead and did anything with one of her saints without Rome's prior approval is when Patriarch Lubomyr translated the Relics of Bl. New Hieromartyr Nicholas Charnetsky and established a new feast-day for it.

Given the division among our bishops with respect to the role of Rome in our church life, there is no doubt that the status quo will prevail.

Alex