www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Do eastern Catholics venerate all the saints Rome canonizes?

Christ is in our midst!!


Giovanni1,

Please explain what you mean by this. I have never heard that any Christian group--certainly not the Orthodox Churches--advocating or allowing this practice. I ask you to bring your sources to us for critical examination. This sounds like the claim of someone completely unfamiliar with our Eastern Christian brethren--an ignorant polemic, if you will.

Bob
Moderator

Christ is in our midst!!


Giovanni1,

Perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that the Council of Florence is not recognized as an ecumenical council by our Orthodox brethren, whether Chalcedonian or Non-Chalcedpnian. In fact our brethren in the Orthodox Church whose bishops participated note the fact that St. Mark of Ephesus specifically rejected that council. And, according to universal Tradition--capital "T" indicating the "life of the Holy Spirit lived in and guiding the Church--the Holy Spirit speaks in a genuine ecumenical council in only one of two ways: by the unanimous consent of the bishops present OR through the mouth of the lone dissenter.

There are many terms for the way that Christ's Saving Sacrifice is brought into our lived experience, but the action is the same. Mass, Divine Liturgy, Divine Praises, Quobono, Badarack--all terms in different languages for the same action of God with His People.

The issues you so lightly dismiss are taken very seriously and have caused much anger and polemics over the centuries. Would that things could be as simple as you seem to think they are. But they are not or we would not be divided in our Eucharistic celebrations.

Bob
Moderator

Christ is in our midst!!


Giovanni1,

ROFLOL I don't know where you received your Latin education, but adding "-que" to a word is identical to having "et" between it and its antecedent. But what really has me in tears is that you haven't been around long enough to know Dr. Roman. I have. His knowledge of these issues and his ability to explain them in great detail, as well as his ability to express the opposite side of an issue with which he disagrees, has left me in awe. Please don't pretend to school other members here on these very complex theological issues which have occupied many of the best minds in the various Churches for a millennium and more.

Bob
Moderator

Christ is in our midst!!

Giovanni1,

I am sorry to paste a comment I recently made to another new member who seemed to have the same attitude I am detecting by your post in this thread. But it seems to fit so here it is.


We are not here to be schooled by Latin or other Western Christians. This is a place to discuss and learn about the Eastern Churches, whether in communion with Rome or not.

Bob
Moderator

This here: https://www.oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/divorce-and-remarriage for an example.

The question still objectively remains, does a bond between two individuals exist or not who were married. It cannot seem that for example for Catholics somehow in reality that they have an unbreakable bond, while the Orthodox who claim to profess that Matrimony is a Sacrament as well, treat it as a breakable bond. I understand that it has always been permitted to marry after the death of one's spouse. But if a bond objectively exists that no power on Earth except death can sever, I am not sure how many Orthodox groups can claim in objective reality then to be married to someone else while they their original spouse is still alive.

Yes, I understand that the Council of Florence is rejected by the Orthodox. But I am stating that the Council of Florence settled the issue of the Procession of the Holy Spirit certainly. Now, it is either that the Catholic Church was wrong, and by the Pope applying infallibility to the Council of Florence the Church was in grave error. Or that whoever rejects the Council of Florence is in grave error.

I cannot see the possibility of say someone in the Catholic Church today explicitly rejecting Papal Infallibility, and then somehow remaining correct?

Yes, and I understand your point, but I was simply trying to make the claim of what specifically divides the Churches today.

If I have been in error regarding the actual definition in Latin about the "Filioque" clause, then I admit that I am wrong.

But, my point in my thread first of all was trying to emphasize how certain individuals could not be canonized in the Catholic Church such as Mark of Ephesus, due to his rejection of the Council of Florence and as far as I know, no subsequent retraction of that denial.

My purpose further too was stating how for example of the Catholic Church teaches that marriage can never be broken, that Orthodox groups can even teach divorce and remarriage clearly contradicts what the Church teaches and thus people who would support it could never be canonized by the Church. So too for those who would deny explicitly say the theology behind the Procession of the Holy Spirit defined at the Council of Florence, or that the Epiclesis is not needed, and other issues.

This was solely my point in this, I did not make those points in an attempt to try to say that I know more about the history and traditions of the East more than anyone else. Just simply to make this one point which was related to the original topic.

This was simply it, I do not seek to try to argue about every point of what many Orthodox Churches hold that are against Catholic teaching. But only to state that those who would explicitly break away from the Catholic Church, or accepts things that the Catholic Church does rejects, or the opposite, cannot be held to be Saints in the Catholic Church if they persisted in their claims or schism from the Church.

To put it simply, again, I am not arguing about which individual specifically may or may not be in Heaven, because I do not know nor understand the soul of every person and therefore I cannot judge every person or individual.

And again, my point was not to enter here into disputes against others about any other point except for the question "Will the Catholic Church ever hold to be Saints those who explicitly and formally either split from the Church, or, willfully and in full knowledge, hold positions contrary to what the Church teaches?" And according the view of the Church, do these specific individuals display virtue as a result of these actions and lack of reconciliation with the Church until death, in order to ever be called models of virtue?

This was the entire point of what I am stating here, and I do not pretend in my explanations to know every issue in its entirety, and in its depth, as if I had figured out on my own every single piece to the puzzle which confused many people and needed multiple Ecumenical Councils in order to clarify the truth, as in the issue of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. I just simply wanted to share what I knew about the basics of who can ever be canonized by the Catholic Church, or not. I am not attempting to say, nor am I claiming, that I know more than any person has ever before on these issues specifically. But I do intend to state, as I have been trying to, this single point.

Also, I understand now that I was wrong about the specific word "Filioque", you are absolutely correct in that adding "que" after a word's base form is the equivalent of putting "et" before a word and its base form.

Correction, if the previous post was amibigious:
See:
https://www.oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/second-marriage-for-a-roman-catholic
https://www.oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/conversion-after-divorce
https://www.oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/second-marriage

in which it is stated that even if a marriage wasn't declared non-existant in the first place (an annulment), that a married person has no problem to be with another person in, at least, the OCA.

I would also like to ask, what do you mean specifically by that basically there is truth in a Council by either the unanimous consent of the bishops present or the lone dissenter? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying but this is how it seems by reading this.

Does this mean that any council that does not have unanimous consent is invalid? Or that the lone dissenter overrides the council?

I know the tradition regarding the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers on Church teachings, but not of bishops regarding the validity of an ecumenical council.

If this is the case, can't any genuine council just be overturned by either of those requirements? In this case, would simply by the fact of say the Council of Florence being rejected by Mark of Ephesus mean that the Council of Florence was not a genuine ecumenical council? Applying this to the modern day, it is certain that not all bishops voted yes on all of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, would by this logic since it lacked unanimous consent by all bishops present, therefore it would not be a genuine ecumenical council? Certainly there maybe are other instances where individual present bishops had rejected individual councils, or decrees or canons, I think if I am correct an example would be the Council of Nicaea which didn't have unanimous consent, but close to unanimous consent?

Again, this how what you are saying seems to me, but I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.

Christ is in our midst!!


Giovanni1,

The link you post is the short answer. It is by no means the complete answer to the question if one asks an Orthodox priest. Please stop the straw man approach. Setting up a short answer as the entirety of Orthodox theology and practice in this area is not the way to compare Catholic and Orthodox approaches to the sacrament and its application in real life.

Bob
Moderator

Christ is in our midst!!


And I am stating that that council did not because there was the lone dissenter speaking for the Holy Spirit. The idea that a council could be ecumenical without unanimous consent did not occur before Vatican 2. Even Vatican 1 had the Pope's emissaries going from diocese to diocese to obtain the signature of those bishops who left before the vote on papal infallibility because they objected to it, threatening them with excommunication if they did not sign. That's hardly the way Tradition had councils decided.

Bob
Moderator

Christ is in our midst!!


I have to ask. What is your purpose in coming here?

Bob
Moderator

Christ is in our midst!!


Again, what is your purpose in coming to this forum?

Bob
Moderator

My purpose was to participate on this forum helpfully and to post and then now to answer questions.

The question came up through my response to the original poster which was basically, can the Catholic Church claim that individuals such as Photius and Mark of Ephesus are Saints? I argued no, that the Church cannot hold that these people are Saints, but certainly not the latter due to his rejection of the Council of Florence.

I stated then that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church today to recognize any modern in history Orthodox individuals who willfully and with full knowledge hold until their death knowingly contrary positions to the Catholic Church if they knew and understood full well what is the objective truth and persisted in error.

I didn't create a strawman argument. In particular the OCA says that divorce and remarriage is possible of which I showed multiple sources. One of which explicitly teach that a Catholic who divorces their spouse and joins the OCA can marry another person, while their spouse is still living. The source further says that though the OCA would recognize the marriage, the Catholic Church will not.

The Catholic Church said that this is impossible. Therefore I ask, can the Church canonize individuals who hold (in this example) the position of the OCA? That was the argument. I didn't create a strawman. According to the Church, marriage is an unbreakable bond and divorcing and being with another person is adultery. The OCA teaches otherwise and claims that it can use the "principle of economy." Therefore according to the Church, this person would still be married to someone, and attempting to contract a marriage with another person even though they are married. This is a summary of what I have been trying to explain on this specific post after the aforementioned question was essentially posted.