www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholic Saints

Fr. Serge, do you have any idea how I can have access to that writing of Archbishop Slipyi or, at least, to some secondary reading about this "incident" of introducing Gregory Palamas in that Anthologion?

Check Jaroslav Pelikan's biography of Patriarch Joseph.

The original votum by Patriarch Joseph is certainly in the files of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is unlikely to grant access. A copy was kept in the Patriarchal Archives in Rome, which is the one to which Jaroslav Pelikan gained access. Those archives are now in Ukraine.

And I'm willing to risk the opinion that Patriarch Joseph would have written his votum in Latin!

Fr. Serge

Shlomo SAHmommy,


The Maronite Church lately has produced a number of saints. Including:

Mart Rafqa [rafca.org] ;
Mar Sharbel (or Charbel) [charbel.org] ; and
Mar Hardini [hardini.org] .

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Fr. Serge, I've been vexed by the issue of the sainthood of St. Gregory Palamas since 2007, and because he is officially a Catholic saint as you ably demonstrated, I've argued for his sainthood vis-à-vis extra ecclesiam nulla salus, based on his many virtues (including his Hesychastic practice) and miracles recorded by reliable witnesses. To answer detractors I've defended the saint's distinction between the divine essence (God-as-what-He-necessarily-is-apart-from-what-He-does-ad-extra) and energy (God-as-what-He-eternally-does), and proposed that he refused union with the Holy See because he was misled by an incorrect Greek translation of Filioque (το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον και του Υιου), which destroys the monarchy of the Father by making the Son the unoriginate πηγή (source) and αἰτία (cause) of divinity.

I ask you, Fr. Serge, do you know how St. Josyf Slipyj, who had so much more erudition than I, argued (in his Votum) for the sainthood of St. Gregory Palamas, in light of the dogma of no salvation outside of the Church, the visible communion with which Church includes union with the Holy See of Rome? God bless you for sharing your expert knowledge! Glory to God forever! Amen.

I, too, pray to St. Seraphim of Sarov, but not John of Kronstadt, Nicholas of Japan, and Herman of Alaska. While most Catholics would be repugnant to the idea of venerating the lad Peter the Aleut because he refused to convert to Catholicism, the one true faith, it may well be the case that Peter is a saint. This is because he can be considered to have suffered martyrdom in order to testify to the truth that baptism cannot be reiterated, in accordance with the inspired Scriptures that speak of the one baptism [Eph 4:5] as (1) spiritual regeneration [Jn 3:5], which occurs only once; (2) the one-time erasure of original sin [Rom 5:18]; and as (3) being in Christ's one-time death [Rom 6:3-4,10; Heb 6:6].{1} The Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments, so Peter was validly baptized by the missionaries of Herman of Alaska. Thus when we repose in the Lord, it would be no surprise to find that Peter the Aleut joins us in seeing and praising God forever. Amen.

What do you think? Please correct and forgive me, fellow Catholics, if my speculations run counter to the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

God bless you and yours.

<b><u>Notes & References</u></b>
{1} St. Thomas Aquinas (Doctor Angelicus), [i][u]Summa Theologica[/u][/i] III, q. 66, art. 9, corp. [newadvent.org]

Raphael,

I rather think that you have mistaken the nature and composition of this forum community.

You're unlikely to find here many, if any, who embrace or are even sympathetic to the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and even fewer who would be inclined to allow of it as dogmatic. At the risk of sounding unwelcoming, I think it is important that you understand that we do not deal well with triumphalism or the hurling of anathemas.

On the other hand, you're very likely to discover that the number of those here who acknowledge Peter the Aleut as a Saint, whether or not they personally venerate him regularly or routinely invoke him in prayer, is rather considerable. (And, that the vast majority of us would take no small exception to terminology such as "the lad Peter the Aleut" or a suggestion that veneration of him would be "repugnant" - those who might suggest such would find their welcome here short-lived.)

This is a community of Eastern and Oriental Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, with a fair number of Latin Catholics with an interest in and love for the East, as well as a few Protestants, Jews, and Muslims, of similar ilk.

While we welcome all who come whether they are already familiar with or of the East, or merely curious, you'll find that footnoted passages from Aquinas are neither necessary nor particularly relevant to the typical discussion. It is often said that introduction of oneself to a new environ is best accomplished by treading softly and getting to know the populace before speaking loudly - experience suggests that to be very much the case here.

Many years,

Neil

Since the very existence of Peter the Aleut is unproven, venerating him as a Saint seems dubious.

And I was unaware that anyone has proclaimed Patriarch Joseph (Slipyj) to be a Saint. Not that I doubt his eternal destiny, but there are still steps to be taken leading to his glorification.

Fr. Serge

I've always wondered why we defer to Rome regarding whom we can and cannot venerate. The centralized process of declaring saints is something of an innovation, and certainly runs counter to the Tradition in the Eastern Churches, where the cult of the saints grows organically and is overseen by each particular Church. The Greeks do not tell the Russians whom they can glorify, and vice versa. The cult of a particular saint begins at the local level, and if popular expands to the regional and finally to the ecclesial level. Exchanges or mutual recognition of saints among Orthodox Churches is common, and the way in which new "universal" saints are acknowledged.

The entire forensic approach used by the Latin Church, and imposed on the Eastern Churches, strikes me as rather mechanistic and subject to abuse, but it is their way, and they should be allowed to do things their way. But we are not them, and it strikes me as contrary to the spirit of the Eastern Churches that men and women who are widely recognized by our faithful as martyrs, confessors, ascetics and others made perfect in faith cannot be venerated by us as we see fit, particularly when it is clear that ecclesiastical politics guarantee that certain worthy persons, such as Metropolitan Andrij, Patriarch Joseph, and many others, will never be canonized by the Holy See. Rather than waiting on the Bishop of Rome to declare these men to be saints, we should do it ourselves, adding them to our Menaion, composing Kontakia and Troparia to their memory, writing icons for their veneration, and commemorating their names in our liturgies.

Anyone wishing to pursue the subject of how and by whom saintly glorification should be promulgated is welcome to take the subject up in a new thread. The OP's query is long since addressed (albeit not particularly well), but the thread is old and off-topic, as so often happens when threads are resurrected afte such a long period and for an agenda never envisaged in their inception.

The thread is closed.

Many years,

Neil