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,

Your posts are not "helpful." In fact, they have been offensive. If you want to be a member of this forum, I suggest--strongly--that you come with questions when you want to learn about the differences between the Eastern Churches. They are all of Apostolic origin, too.

If you have read anything about the Catholic Church--which is a communion of 23 sui juris Churches--and her position toward Churches with which she is not in communion, you would know that Vatican Council 2 has stated unequivocally that these Churches are true Churches and that they have every right to claim to be the Church mentioned in the Nicene Creed as the Catholic Church. So your posts are not only not representative of the Catholic Church, but they are offensive to the Churches whose members regularly post here. Your posts seem to indicate that you have been schooled by those in the Catholic Church who are in the fringe area that has not fully embraced the teachings of Vatican 2.

I am the Moderator to whose inbox all your posts come for approval before they see the light of day. I strongly suggest you review before you post. Otherwise, going forward, I will just delete your posts before allowing them to take up bandwidth here.

FYI, Florence is not considered an ecumenical council by many of our Eastern Christian members because of the way councils were commonly held to be inspired by the Holy Spirit prior to the 20th century. The Bishop of Rome did not think Florence was a success and is specifically recorded in history as stating it was a failure because of St Mark of Ephesus' refusal to endorse it. Beyond some early councils--7 recognized by the Chalcedonian Orthodox; 4 by the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox and only 3 by the Armenians--most are considered to be local councils of the Latin Church and not binding on anyone else. So take your Latin arrogance and return here only with a more humble attitude of learning. Your task will be to see the world through the eyes of our Eastern brethren here.

By the way, you owe Orthodox Catholic an apology.

Bob
Moderator

Wow - the things that happen when one is away . . .!

I thank our Moderator Theophan for his kind comments about me.

Perhaps Giovanni and I got a bit derailed from things when we began talking about too many things at once. And for that I apologize to both Giovanni and to our Moderator.

At this juncture, I would like to say that what I see as the difference between our perspectives is simply that - where "perspective" reflects the specific spiritual cultures to which we belong.

There is the essence of orthodox Catholic Faith and then there are its varied expressions based on the spiritual culture of the various Particular Churches.

We Easterners see the Catholic Church as a Communion of Churches, including the Latin Rite Church of course. And it is always very difficult, if not near impossible to separate a point of dogma from the way in which it is expressed since we all think within the particular theological modalities of our Churches.

As Eastern Catholics, I think we are also in the best possible position to understand the Orthodox Churches and also the Oriental and Assyrian Churches - unless of course we are Eastern Rite Jesuits studying the Christian East for in that case, they know it better than anyone . . . a fact.

I think it would be disappointing if whatever I said would derail what is an interesting exchange in this regard. May I suggest that we keep the points of discussion to a few at a time? I would like to invite Giovanni to raise the points he would like to discuss first and I promise to be more disciplined in the ensuing discussion.

Again, I am sorry in that I do not intend to offend anybody. My only point here was simply to state one detail about what the Catholic Church cannot do, that is, canonize individuals who split away from it in bad faith.

I do not disagree that the Orthodox are our seperated bretheren and that there have been many unfortunate disagreements and issues in history that led to this position and I hope for a reconciliation soon. There is a big distinction between those Orthodox in general, and those Orthodox who are not "separated in good faith from the Catholic Church" - Orientalium Ecclesiarum, that is, seperated in bad faith i.e. genuine and personal (that is knowingly and willingly held despite knowing what is actually true) schism or heresy. Not those who are looking for the truth.

I have fully embraced the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as it is a legitimate council.

I simply wanted to state that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to ever hold as Saints those who have split away from the Church and if they had held positions in bad faith.

Again, I am sorry if I seem offensive to you, this is not my intention. Again, what I have stated in this individual post here is what I intended the entire time. But this is what the Catholic Church absolutely teaches and has taught. If I am being offensive by presenting what the Church has and will teach, then I cannot say anything else. But if I am somehow not presenting what the Church is teaching, I am only saying what I am saying in good faith that it is correct. I do not seek and did not ever seek to be offensive here on this forum, and only wish to present what the Catholic Church will not do in the situation regarding Mark of Ephesus.

Thank you, and I apologize as well if I may have seemed offensive to you as this was certainly not my intention.

What I was basically trying to discuss was one main point which you brought up regarding not questioning eachother's canonizations, and I wanted to state the opposite view of how it would be impossible for certain individuals to be canonized if they held certain points or did certain things.

In one case for example Alexis Toth, who though clearly suffered unjustly by Bishop Ireland, still broke away from the Church.

My point was simply to argue this main point by bringing up topics that the Catholic Church holds as truth, and ask how could the Church canonize those who reject the Church's view on topics. I did not intend to debate on specific points that I brought up here (e.g., the Council of Florence or the Epiclesis) but intended to discuss the differences that would make it impossible for the Church to claim that a certain individual is a Saint.

There is just too much here to which I'd like to respond, and have already in other threads. Orthodox Catholic and Theophan present popular views of the Eastern viewpoint that, as an Eastern Catholic, I would characterize as "theology light" and reject as lacking sufficient depth. And I would hope this forum does not embrace a parochialism and promote and present as though dogmatic, an Eastern triumphalism just as bad as the West's.

The presentation about the communion of churches, though often repeated, is superficial . And the Catholic East-West presentation --harmonization -- of marriage as a unified sacramental theology is a debacle; see my post Ministers of Matrimony and the thread (if you have the stamina).

The Catholic Church -- that is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH not just the western Catholic Church -- officially, formally, recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils. As a corrective to Latin -- western Catholic -- misconceptions, we Eastern Catholics need to get rid of our own and then better or even start to explain our unity, articulate an Eastern Catholic theology, instead of misrepresenting or diluting it. The Orthodox theology of the Ecumenical Councils is Orthodox, and it is NOT the Catholic view. Can they be reconciled? Yes. Is the Eastern Catholic view the Orthodox view? No.

Dear Father Deacon AJK,

Clearly, I am far too beneath your theological brilliance and education to deserve to be on this Forum with someone of your great theological breadth and depth.

Please forgive my intrusion with my idiotic and nonsensical comments - for the last twenty years or so - and allow me to remove myself permanently from this Forum to allow the Light of Catholic Teaching, which is so clearly beyond my comprehension and capability, tinged with uneducated parochialism to boot, to keep other Forum Members from reaching the heights you will undoubtedly lead them to.

Perhaps Giovanni will come back to discuss the many issues I'm sure you will spend a good deal of time unraveling for the common good of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I thank this Forum, the Administrator John, my friend Theophan, Mother Alice and the many others I've had the privilege and blessing of knowing over the years and I commend myself to your prayers with the assurance that I will most certainly keep you all in mine.

Am just too old for this kind of nonsense.

Signing off - Alex/Orthodox Catholic

Dear Giovanni,

You raised a good many number of excellent points and there is nothing in what you say that I disagree with.

That the Catholic Church does not question the canonizations of the Eastern Churches does NOT mean that those same Orthodox saints find, or will ever find, a place in the universal Roman calendar and for the reasons you cite.

On another level, representatives of the Roman Catholic Church do attend Orthodox canonization ceremonies and receive icons of the newly glorified Orthodox saints. Archbishop Lustiger of Paris not only attended the Orthodox glorification/canonization of St Maria Skobtsova, he publicly recommended that every Catholic venerate her for her martyric witness.

Historically, and as Fr Holweck discusses in his Forward to his Dictionary of Saints, there are numerous entries in the Roman Calendar of Saints whose orthodoxy can be called into question, but whose martyrdom and heroic example of faith in Christ seemed to "cancel out" any defects of their orthodoxy.

But returning to the original theme of this thread, no Eastern Catholic will never question Rome's canonizations, of course - I think that our gentleman AJK above is alluding to that or may have been intending to. But the organization of the liturgical calendars of the respective Eastern Catholic Churches is the responsibility of those same Particular Churches = Rome does not and will not impose the cultus of any contemporary Saint on them.

It was very nice to make your acquaintance and it is always wonderful to come across someone so truly theologically literate and widely educated as yourself! As you can see, I feel I am not welcome here and so will sign off the Forum to leave it to the experts!

May God bless you always, Sir!

Alex

ajk writes:
“The Catholic Church -- that is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH not just the western Catholic Church -- officially, formally, recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils. As a corrective to Latin -- western Catholic -- misconceptions, we Eastern Catholics need to get rid of our own and then better or even start to explain our unity, articulate an Eastern Catholic theology, instead of misrepresenting or diluting it. The Orthodox theology of the Ecumenical Councils is Orthodox, and it is NOT the Catholic view. Can they be reconciled? Yes. Is the Eastern Catholic view the Orthodox view? No.”

Fr Deacon,

Can you point me to a list proclaimed by a Pope that defines 21 Councils? I don’t think you can. Most of those Popes have conceded most were Synods of the Latin Church concerned with that particular Churches’ problems. The latter 14 certainly don’t deal with matters of universal importance like the first 7. I think most of the Melkite Synod who signed the Zoghby initiative would not agree with you either.

I never stated there was a "list," rather "... officially, formally, recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils" : ALLOCUTIO IOANNIS PP. XXIII IN SOLLEMNI SS. CONCILII INAUGURATIONE [vatican.va]

Opening Address To the Council by Pope Saint John XXIII [catholicculture.org]


What Popes and where? This interpretation may come from a faulty translation; see Re: First Seven Councils.

A prior discussion of this topic that may be of interest: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints.

No faulty translation. General Synod and Ecumenical Council are not the same thing. Nor have you answered the Melkite Synod’s statement.

You are focusing on the wrong words. I made my case in some detail.
Didn't think I'd have to compare it to a Pope's formal address opening the Council; it's a matter of relative proportion. But, if you insist: Sincere statement, poor ecclesiology, rejected by both Catholic and Orthodox communions.

CLOSING OF THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL [vatican.va]

Was Vatican II an Ecumenical Council or was it not?

And for all that detail I don’t buy it.

Yet still held by the Melkite Synod. So claims that one view represents the “Eastern Catholic” view are false. Not everyone is in agreement.

I believe it was. But it also wasn’t dealing with heresy or proclaiming dogma so its relevance to the Orthodox is negligible.

Though the Second Vatican Council did not proclaim any new teachings. It indeed reaffirmed past teachings, for example Papal Infallibility in Lumen Gentium. Therefore if one accepts Vatican II as an ecumenical council, Vatican II says that one must believe in Papal Infallibility (which was defined in Vatican I). So too was it re-stating things that were not defined in an ecumenical council such as the Immaculate Conception and the Dormition.

Vatican II explicitly states for example in Sacrosanctum Concilium that those decrees within that document mainly apply to the Latin Church (such as the use of Latin or the high place of Gregorian chant or polyphony), but also apply to the other Rites of the Church. Hence it is clear that Vatican II in general in documents such as Dei Verbum or Lumen Gentium is intended to be binding for all Catholics.

For relevance to this discussion, I would just like to add that Vatican II in Lumen Gentium (section 22) defines an ecumenical council as only being an ecumenical council if it is at least recognized as one by the Pope, and there is no exception to an ecumenical council being ecumenical unless it is recognized by the Pope.

I'm not sure how could the 8-21st Ecumenical Councils not deal with matters of universal importance, the Fourth Council of Constantinople certainly did, so did the Fourth Lateran Council (defining Transubstantiation, the Papal Primacy, etc.), the Second Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, Vatican I, and Vatican II certainly dealt with matters of universal importance. And certainly every other council that proclaimed truths by the very fact of peoclaiming truths deals with matters of universal importance.