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

Your prerogative: It is my detailed post versus your "I don’t buy it." Also, synod is borrowed from the Greek for council. So in the letter -- and it's a letter not a solemn address by contrast -- we find there are numerous contextual references to Lyons as an ecumenical council in the original Latin text on the Vatican website, for example:

What exactly is it that is oficially "held" by the Melkite Synod?

It may not be relevant to the Orthodox but that is NOT the question or the point. Returning to it:

So if VCII is an ecumenical council as you believe it is, how many ecumenical councils are recognized as such by "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"?

I hedge my bets and venerate all the saints, East and West. I need all the help I can get.

If I may cut through a lot of the verbiage, and, sadly, some of the bad feelings that have been expended on this thread, I'd like to offer this quote from The Catechism of the Catholic Church that doesn't say it all, but says a lot: "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

Add to this the fact that Saint Gregory of Narek (Grigor Narekatsi) of the ancient Armenian Apostolic Church (long seperated from Rome and Constantinople) was made a Doctor of the Church by the Bishop of Rome, Papa Francesco, on Febrruary 26, 2015. May St. Gregory pray for us all! Enough said.

This previous post of mine ended up as a blank page; perhaps this will correct that.

The words in quotes are from Pope Paul VI in 1975; it is now 2023. Do the Orthodox reciprocate the sentiment?

Is this to be understood as a general endorsement of the veneration of Armenian saints? Do the Armenians reciprocate? What's the Orthodox position?

Yes, the words are from Pope Paul VI in 1975, but they are incorporated into a catachism that I believe still reflects the official position of the Church of Rome and those Churches in communion with her. Who can speak for the Orthodox? I do feel things have moved in the right direction as contacts and gesture have increased over the years.

And, yes, I do feel that Pope Francis' elevation of St. Gregory Narek does constitute a genenral endorsement not only of Armenian saints, but a warm embrace of the Armenian Church. I've always had the impression that the Armenan Apostolic Church has always expressed warm feelings toward Rome even though no formal nechanism for achieving union has been established at this point.

I was not questioning Pope Paul or the CCC only that, although in 1975 "it lacks little to attain the fullness," it is now 48 years later.

And perhaps it will take another 48 years of deep understanding, dialogue, good will, prayer and that little imperative called necessity to pare down those little differences that keep us separated, and bring about that union which all our Saints now enjoy. I have the feeling that the UGCC and the OCU may pave the way; but who knows.

I've felt for many years that the non-Chalcedonian Churches have had a warmer and less hostile attitude toward Rome than the Orthodox, so called; and, perhaps, a union with them may come even sooner. Invoking one anothers Saints is a good start.

Utroque, you wrote:

"And perhaps it will take another 48 years of deep understanding, dialogue, good will, prayer and that little imperative called necessity to pare down those little differences that keep us separated....."[/ quote]

*****What a discriminating and polite way to express that hope.

"......and bring about that union which all our Saints now enjoy." [/ quote]

*****This is especially beautiful.

"I've felt for many years that the non-Chalcedonian Churches have had a warmer and less hostile attitude toward Rome than the Orthodox, so called...." [/quote]

***** Were there ill- feelings about Canon 28 of Chalcedon among Oriental Orthodox toward the Eastern Orthodox? If so, do they yet linger? Rome ( Pope Leo I) rejected that Canon.......I suppose that's a whole other topic, but just wondering.....

I feel quite certain that, for a long time (perhaps since 1 Constantinople in AD 381) the Church of Alexandria felt upstaged and offended by the usurpation by the Church of Constantinople of its second position within what had been a Patriarchal Tetrarchy of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This resentment was no doubt reinforced with the introduction of Canon 28 and played a role in withdrawing themselves and other churches from Chalcedon in AD 451. Ecclesiastical politics aside, they did reject the dogmatic definition of the Two Natures/One Person, and hence the separation that exist to this day. Pray, Lord, it's time to heal!

A bit off-topic, but akin to the Thread - Saints preserve us!

I do not know why my previous post (2/28/23) was misplaced by Giovanni1's older post from 2/20/23, but here it is mine again! I hate to think I was being sabotaged.

Dear Utroque,

The documents of the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Ecumenical Commission make for a fascinating read!

It appears that the Oriental Orthodox have always affirmed that the One Person of Christ is both Divine and Human without intermixture etc.

They have always clung to the Christological formula of St Cyril of Alexandria: "One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate."

At one point in the back and forth between the theologians, both sides came to the realization that when the Oriental Orthodox use the term "Nature" or "Physis" they apparently mean "Person!"

The theologians involved in those ecumenical talks were satisfied that both sides affirmed the same Christology using their own terminology. Yes, they rejected Chalcedon but not, apparently, the essentials of Chalcedon. They talked about that as well and came to the conclusion that since their Churches were not represented at Chalcedon and since they accept the theology of Chalcedon as expressed according to their Miaphysite formulation, they wouldn't need to accept that Council upon any future reunion. Methods of reunion were discussed and included a mutual act of the lifting of the anathemas pronounced by both sides against each other's teachers and Saints (including the Oriental Orthodox Saint Dioscoros and Saint Severus of Antioch, St Dydimus the Blind). That was one possible model of an act of reunion. All that would have to be approved by their respective Churches before proceeding any further, of course.

Interestingly, some Eastern Orthodox parishes have been dropping the names of those Oriental teachers from those mentioned in the Sunday of Orthodoxy services . .

I know, for example, Chaldean Catholics who privately venerate . . . Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia and others honoured in the Assyrian Church of the East because they believe there was misunderstanding on both sides with respect to the unity of Christ's Two Natures. There is so much one could say about this here but I will leave it on the level of "Theology Lite" as per my acknowledged style!

A Blessed Great Fast!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Glad to see that you that seem to have changed your mind about leaving the forum!

May you, and all here, have a Blessed Great Fast!

JM

I would like to ask for Fr Deacon's AJK's forgiveness and pardon for having given offence and of all of you here too.

Guess it is too late for me to grow up finally at 67 . . .

In answer to the original question of this thread - no, Eastern Catholics do not venerate all the saints canonized by Rome. They could and nothing is stopping them from that, but many of them are just not in the church calendars of Eastern Catholic Churches.

Certainly, all EC Churches acknowledge the canonizations by His Holiness the Pope of Rome to be true canonizations.

A Blessed Great Fast, to you!

I hope we would extend this forgiveness to all on the forum; typos and all. I'm on to my 82 year, but I love the give & take of this forum. It's so good to have your voice back; I do miss the old voices of those who've gone elsewhere since I joined 17 years ago.

Your last, simple sentence was the direct, clear and truthful answer to Giovanni's initial query. Whether t's the answer he was seeking, I know not; but it's the truth.