www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Father Keleher and St Mark of Ephesus

On the thread that was closed, there was a reference to the late Fr. Archimandrite Sergius (Brian) Keleher (+memory eternal!) who translated a work into English where the statement is contained that "those saints who worked against the church . . .etc."

The conclusion was then drawn that "Mark of Ephesus is definitely out . . .".

For everyone's information, I personallh spoke with Fr. Keleher about the case of St Mark of Ephesus with respect to Catholicism - on more than one occasion.

As those who personally knew Fr. Keleher would also know, he himself venerated St Mark of Ephesus personally (as part of the icon of the "Pillars of Orthodoxy" especially) and said that nowhere was St Mark of Ephesus ever condemned by the Catholic Church. Therefore there would be no reason to remove his name from the calendar in any future church union.

And St Mark's point that he raised at Florence, Fr. Keleher continued, that affirmed that one should not tamper with the Nicene Creed as it was defined by the Ecumenical Councils - is a good and true one. Fr. Keleher could not disagree with St Mark of Ephesus on that at all.

Also, with respect to the veneration of Orthodox Saints - Fr. Keleher used the St Herman Orthodox Calendar in his chapel of St Seraphim of Sarov here in Toronto and read out the names of ALL of the Orthodox Saints contained in that Calendar every day during Matins and the Divine Liturgy which he celebrated there.

He convinced me to use that same Calendar as well - which I have continued to use . . . religiously . . .

With respect to the saints of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, Fr. Keleher reiterated time and again that "we (Catholics and Orthodox) do not question each other's saints."

On a point of process, Fr. Holweck SJ in his "Biographical Dictionary of the Saints" 1924 (in case anyone would like to verify things . . .), lists a number of not only "schismatic" saints but also "heretical" individuals who are currently listed in the Catholic calendar.

Does that mean the Catholic Church canonizes "heretics" and "schismatics?" Not at all.

The entire discussion on that thread seems to assume that the saints in the Roman Martyrology were all subject to the same kind of canonization process that obtains today - NONSENSE!!!

There were various groups, including the Arians, who when their heresies and schisms were resolved and they came into union with Rome (either as entire bodies or in part) the saints they venerated (and who were often implicated in the heresies themselves) remained in their local calendars and, over time, were often received into the Roman Calendar.

The only times when this did not obtain was when a given saint had been formally condemned by an Ecumenical Council - such as Dioscoros, Severus etc.

However, such anathematizations could be lifted, as the Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox ecumenical commission concluded. But even then, that does not mean that one said must somehow be obliged to accept the other side's saints.

EC Churches today will often "adopt" Orthodox saints who have not been "vetted" by Rome or their own Synods. The icon of All Saints of Rus', for example, is widely popular in UGCC churches. I have even seen an Icon of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, including St Mark of Ephesus, on a tetrapod in an EC monastery . . .

There is a UGCC cathedral in one of the western provinces that has an icon of St Job of Pochaiv who did opposed the Union of Brest, but whose overall life was not focused exclusively on that.

One Roman Catholic priest, who is well-known and who therefore will be nameless, published the icon of the Pillars of Orthodoxy in a journal and, in a letter to me personally, said that "we Catholics are entitled to venerate St Mark of Ephesus privately."

But my main point overall is that Orthodox saints whose cultus is well established will continue to be venerated by the Churches who liturgically honour them even after any future ecclesial reunion with Rome is achieved.

That includes St Alexis Toth and others who "left the Church."

As the Monk of the Eastern Church, Fr. Lev Gillet, wrote when he left Rome for Orthodoxy, "I do not go to a different light - I go to a clearer light."

As for Mr. Stuart Koehl - I wish I had in my own brain the intelligence and scholarship he carries in his socks and shoes.

Let us not presume to judge others on the basis of our own understandings of what Catholic is.

If the last thirty years have taught me one thing, it is that there are all kinds of viewpoints within Catholicism.

As Shakespeare put it best, "Rome and roome enough!"

Alex

This is sound reasoning, especially when we consider how many Orthodox really have warm attitudes toward St. Augustine, most especially in the classical Russian school. I am aware that some Orthodox --and Catholics -- who oppose St. Augustine tend to lay it on a bit thick (I am thinking of the Romanides school) but their reasons have always struck me to be rather reductionist. (I do like a lot of Archpriest John's reminders about late antiquity.) I think I heard that in the case for St. Augustine, and in all cases, it is the man who is canonized and not his body of work. If it were about their work, I suppose there would be less to hold against St. Mark than against the bishop of Hippo.

"Trust but verify," but interesting argument about Mark of Ephesus. Thank you. As I wrote in the original thread, I support nec plus. Fr. Serge was a Russian Catholic.

Fr. Lev (Gillet) is an interesting case. According to Fr. Serge when I asked him in person, Fr. Lev was a sort of secret agent like Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad, a born Orthodox and indeed a double agent, also working for the KGB. Crypto-Catholics, in Fr. Lev's case a pseudo-convert. (In Fr. Serge's masterly book Metropolitan Andrew, he mentions that until Fr. Lev died in 1980, he told Catholic authorities he was really a Catholic priest undercover; he "converted" with Metropolitan Andrew's knowledge, and, Fr. Serge claimed to me, blessing.) I sympathize but see the point that such dishonesty, making the already suspicious Orthodox distrust us more, probably isn't the best policy. They accuse just about anyone who doesn't hate us as much as they think one should of exactly that!

Fr. Serge also told me as of 15 years ago there were a few crypto-Catholics in Russia: Orthodox priests using Catholic antimensia. See above, but the thought still warms my heart. The great Russian people are still at heart Catholic.

Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam: not "my understanding" of Catholicism, but Catholicism's understanding of itself.

Christianity is fighting a few formidable enemies the likes it hasn't seen for hundreds of years in some countries. (Atheism and outright and outspoken haters of the Church and Christ in the U.S. and Europe. Boko Haram in Africa, and ISIS in the Middle East).

Russia and the countries of the Soviet block fought its own formidable enemy of Christ for sixty years.

Do you really think that it matters in the greater scheme of heaven and earth, who is Catholic and who is Orthodox?

Thank you for your posts, Alex/Alice.

Mark, I'm reminded of what I discussed with a friend about saints: many are venerated and canonized, for a variety of reasons. This is why I'm often fond of the term, or phrase: theological vision of the Whole Church (laity and clergy)

Yes.

You DO realize that preaching this relativism makes it HARDER to be an unlatinized Byzantine Catholic?

Ah, so you are a secret Templar, are you Serge?

Catholicism is such a beautifully rich and historical faith - I don't believe any one person or group of persons could ever lay claim to being able to grasp its essence fully, in every age. There are always subjective layers to our understanding of this or that. You and I also impress our own subjectivity onto the matter and our subjectivity says more about our own personal views/biases than the Faith itself.

Fr. Keleher of blessed memory was a great lover of all things Eastern Orthodox and East Slavic, as you know. When he visited an Old Rite Orthodox Church, he came away with a very high view of the Old Rite Orthodox, their saints and the like.

Also, St Mark of Ephesus did come to Florence as a supporter of church reunion theologically (apart from the political aspect of obtaining church union for purposes of military aid for the Byzantine Emperor against the Turks).

Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff, in more than one of his publications, affirms this and stated that Markos Eugenikos believed that if the West removed the "Filioque" from the creed, then church reunion could be had. And, over time, all else could have been resolved, Latin theologoumena notwithstanding. But without that minimal condition, Eugenikos delivered a "non possumus" to the Latin Church. And we know the rest of the story.

Fr. Serge was a Russian Catholic (privately he preferred "Orthodox Catholic" and I use that moniker here on byzcath.org in his honour). But he worked mostly with Ukrainian Catholics, some of whom suspected him of being "too Russian" while others, the "very Eastern Greek-Catholics" just adored him.

He really followed the strict observances of the Russian-Byzantine tradition while in the UGCC. So much for that.

Again, in terms of verifiability, one need only begin by reading the Forward of Fr. Holweck's book (he provides many other sources) to see that there are truly many saints in the Roman Canon who were not Catholic at all.

Fr. Keleher was more than correct - the only ones who could not enter the calendar were those who were formally condemned by a Council. The Emperor justinian, however, in his dealings with the Miaphysites told them repeatedly that if reunion could be achieved with them, then the anathemas against their teachers and saints could be lifted - so it isn't a matter written in stone.

Again, this all leads to one of SEVERAL ways in which saints are recognized. 90% of all saints in the Roman Canon were never canonized in accordance with the process in vogue today. And even today, popes will and have simply ordered the inclusino of a locally venerated saint into the universal calendar e.g. Blessed John Duns Scotus, the Franciscan theologian of the Immaculate Conception, was beatified by St John Paul II, but he was locally venerated in Italy for a few centuries as a local Italian bishop beatified him for his diocese. St Thomas More was canonized in 1935, or 400 years after his martyrdom. However, Rome established his local cultus as a saint of the city of Rome in 1575 and he has been venerated in Rome since that time.

Even with the directive of Pope Urban VIII that even beatifications be done only with Rome's permission (Rome never said that local bishops could not beatify their own saints), Italian and other RC bishops continued to establish the local cultus of their worthies.

This also happened, as I found out last year, in London, Ontario where a local Catholic soldier, who prayed for hours before the Blessed Sacrament, and who died after contracting consumption because he continually worked with ill Irish immigrants, had a local cultus established for him there as late as the 19th century, a cultus that was renewed by successive Bishops of London until the early decades of the 20th century.

Fr. Lev became Orthodox, but without repudiating anything about his Catholic past. Now, one would surmise that the act of becoming Orthodox meant just that. I spoke with a Studite monk who interviewed him once on this matter - we don't really know how he viewed Catholicism after his joining Orthodoxy. He cleared did see and acknowledged a difference and said so, for example, in his publications he referred to EC's as "Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite."

Fr. Lev was Metropolitan Andrew's private secretary and told him that he was converting to Orthodoxy. They remained friends always.

One of our priests in my parish here in Toronto decided to join the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada. Our Eparch, Bishop Isidore Borecky, actually gave him a letter of very positive reference to the UOCC Metropolitan as to his priestly qualifications etc.!

So I suppose what I'm saying, sir, is that there are EC's and Orthodox who simply do not have a siege mentality when it comes to each other.

You do come across as an SSPXer annoyed at all the "fuzzy good will" being shown to "schismatics" etc. in the aftermath of Vatican II.

I don't doubt your sincerity or your Catholic commitment.

I just find your perspectives in this regard to be rather medieval, having nothing to do with what has occurred between Catholicism and Orthodoxy since.

Verify that.

Alex

Dear Alice,

(Are you still mad at me?)

You are more than correct and, as Fr. Holweck also stated, in many cases it would be IMPOSSIBLE to know which saints, in the Roman Canon no less, were Catholic or were members of heretical sects.

St Isaac the Syrian is a good case in point. He was certainly a Nestorian/East Syrian bishop while his ascetical writings have been embraced by the Church in general. In his writings, he does make reference to Nestorian teachers like Theodore of Mopsuestia - and these tend to be edited out of Orthodox publications of his work.

St Nicetas the Goth was himself an Arian priest, as was St Sabas the Goth. St Basil the Great, although an uncompromised opponent of all heresy, actually thought the "Semi-Arians" had some intelligent things to say. And it was St Basil who composed a panegyric for an Arian martyr (I'm not sure which one it was - it could have been either St Nicetas or St Sabas).

Also, the Bollandists, mentnioned by Holweck, discovered that the St Lupus associated with St Demetrius is none other than the Arian "Apostle to the Goths" Wulfila ("Lupus" being Latin for "Wulfila" i.e. a little wolf).

He had a cathedral built in his honour in Bulgaria (where an annual "recreation" festival is held).

Also, even the arch-heretic Arius himself was in the Roman Canon until the Bollandists discovered who "St Arpotis" under June 6th really was . . .

Alex

Serge, Serge,

What Alice has said has been reiterated by Fr. Holweck and others he quotes.

It is not relativism, but she is talking about the union of the Saints on both sides in heaven.

PLEASE go borrow Fr. Holweck's book and read his introductory articles . . .

(By way of verification . . .)

Alex

Dear Serge,

(First of all, is "Serge" the name you go by? I hope I'm not assuming something that isn't true and thereby giving you offense!)

Your second point here re: Byzantine Catholicism.

Do you really think Eastern Catholicism has a long-range future?

That really is interesting!

Alex

"Serge" is fine! Even though nobody uses it in person. Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt; the Russian Catholics venerate St. Sergius. Good enough for me.

Does Eastern Catholicism have a future? In its homelands, except those threatened by the Mohammedans (Iraq), I don't see why not!

America, sad to say, is another story. I would LOVE it if our dominant form of Catholicism were Byzantine, but Eastern Catholics are fading away. Immigration doesn't restock them anymore, the Ukraine notwithstanding.

The Orthodox lose people like crazy too: by the third generation in America, they're no longer interested in a cult of ethnicity so they leave, such as when they move away or marry out.

Byzantine Catholic Americans have the same problem plus "Catholic is Catholic" backfired. After the Chornock schism they so emphasized the universal over the particular (so the Ruthenian Greek Catholics renamed themselves "the Byzantine Catholic Church") that when many people move, they go Roman Rite.

So I think eventually American Byzantine Catholicism will be extinct. Archbishop John Ireland and Cum Data Fuerit have nothing to do with it. They accelerated the process but didn't cause it.

American Orthodox will be smaller versions of what they are now, immigrant/ethnic chaplaincies, mostly Balkan or Russian.

As will the American Roman Catholic Church. It will bottom out, its funds depleted, its assets sold off. Catholic liberals are dying out. The only people who still go to Mass are conservative. So in 50 years, it will look like the church in the '50s but won't have the clout of the church in the '50s. I hope, though, that America's cultural memory of us will remain; that's fertile ground for us to flourish, albeit on a smaller scale.

By the way, if this forum is nonsectarian, its domain name shouldn't be byzcath nor should it be based at a site called the Byzantine Catholic Church in America.

I certainly hope so. For one thing, where would the Maronites or Italo-Byzantines go?

Well, we can at least be sure that it mattered to St Mark of Ephesus.

But anyhow, I like (even if it's been posted here before) http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e

Dear Peter,

Perhaps they would go nowhere, just disappear - I'm not suggesting ECism will unite with Orthodoxy as a body. Some do, while others simply become RC's and also join Protestant groups.

I'm simply talking about surviving numbers over time.

Alex