www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St. Origen?

Dear PaxTecum,

Your second question first . . .

In the case of martyrs, and all the Arian saints we've been talking about were martyrs, the Church (as Fr. Holweck affirms) has tended to overlook the "defect of their orthodoxy."

St Basil the Great, it was, who wrote a panegyric in honour of St Nicetas the Goth. In martyrdom for Christ, all were equal.

But the cult of local Arian saints entered the Church only after the Arian and Semi-Arian heresies fell.

The Gothic Churches, for example, that became one with the Catholic Church again kept their locally venerated saints although they were Arian - except in the case of Arius himself.

The Bollandists found that Arius had himself entered the Catholic calendar under June 6 as "Saint Artotis" - thanks to an Arian scribe sometime way back when. Rome then formally expunged him from the calendar.

In the same way, the Assyrian Churches that became one with Rome (Chaldean) or with Orthodoxy (Assyrian Orthodox) were obliged to expunge the names of those who originated the schism and heresy involved, namely: Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius.

(Holweck believes, however, that Diodore was innocent of Nestorianism. Some historians today believe it was Theodore, not Nestorius, who espoused formal "Nestorianism.")

Again, the principle is involved here that when Churches reunite, there is a process by which local saints continue to be venerated and sometimes they are adopted by other communities, despite their association with heretical or schismatical movements.

As for your comment on St Gregory Palamas, are you serious?

You compare the Orthodox Catholic Gregory Palamas with Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr?

Palamas was not in communion with Rome. But he was a living member of the Body of Christ in every which way, sacramentally etc.

So, for you, if one is not in communion with Rome, one is equal to a Hindu?

I would ask you to reconsider this position.

If you truly believe it, I think you have no place on this forum.

Sorry.

Alex

To me, Origen will always be remembered as the man who had himself castrated. Which personally, I feel, was a pretty good indication, that he didn't have all his oars in the water.

Alex:

My point was, where does one draw the line, as far as what non-Catholics get to be canonized as Saints?

Obviously, the answer is "the Magisterium." My question was not meant as a criticism, but a sincere inquiry. If an Orthodox and and Arian can be considered Catholic saints, why not Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, et al?

Dear Lawrence,

Origen did make that mistake - for which he was severely censured by his bishop.

I think the crime itself was punishment enough, don't you?

Alex

In fact, if I recall correctly, Buddha was accidentally given a local cult, as a "Saint Josaphat" (No, not the Eastern Catholic martyr).

Was the fictious Saint Josaphat ever entered into the Roman Martyrology, or was it just a local cult that came and went?

Dear PaxTecum,

Well, non-Christians are non-Christians and they could never be canonized as Saints.

I have yet to hear about a Protestant being offered as a candidate for sainthood (I think most of them would resist the project).

But here we are talking about those Apostolic communities, whether they are in union with Rome or not, that have valid Sacraments and liturgical life, the episcopate, and the Apostolic doctrine of the veneration of Saints.

Not to be in union with Rome does not mean that one doesn't have these things as certainly the Eastern Churches do.

The Arian Goths worshipped Christ in their liturgy, even though they denied He was equal to the Father (and there were different Arian positions on this, not just one - Ulfilas the Goth, who ordained St Nicetas the Goth a priest, believed that Christ was a "great God" but not equal to the Father).

The Gothic liturgy remained after Arianism lost its steam as well. Their sacraments were valid and Constantine himself was baptized by an Arian priest.

So, simply put, the Catholic means of sanctification were open to the Arians nevertheless.

In the case of the Orthodox Church, the RC Church has always recognized her Saints.

RC Bishops and Cardinals even attend Orthodox Canonization/Glorification ceremonies e.g. St Herman of Alaska and in Moscow.

They venerate the icons of these Orthodox saints and take copies home with them, and I have some priests in my family that have witnessed this.

If it is your view that outside of direct union with Rome there is no difference between an Eastern Orthodox Christian and a Hindu - who in the Roman Catholic Church today believes that any more?

Alex

And non-Catholics are non-Catholics, and one would think they could never be canonized as saints. But they have been.

Also, some Protestant sacraments are valid, for example Baptism and Matrimony. Even if all their sacraments were valid, how heretical can one get before they are "un-canonizable"?

Even non-Christians can be open to the external influence of God's grace, and can be saved upon death. Who's to say they can't be canonized?

That is most certainly not my view.

The Church has never taught that all non-Catholics are "equal," at least not in the sense you're thinking.

Dear PaxTecum,

Yes, but the Church's Magisterium, by accepting the Saints of Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian tradition and even Arianism has ALREADY decided this matter for both of us.

Protestant communities are not Churches or has there been a change in RC teaching of late?

They do not have the FULLNESS of the Catholic Sacraments, Apostolic Tradition, liturgical life, episcopacy et al. that the Eastern Churches have always had.

The Protestants also don't hold to the Apostolic doctrine of the veneration of Saints, even though some do have calendars with the names of their servants of God.

No one is saying that saints don't exist among Protestants. We know they do. But we are talking about the formal canonization of saints for purposes of liturgical veneration.

And privately, of course, one may venerate Protestant servants of God AND holy people who belonged to other, non-Christian religions.

I once met a Jesuit priest who told me he venerated Ghandi as a saint.

I met a Latin missionary to Indonesia who said he allowed his Buddhist converts to Catholicism to keep their home shrines to the Buddha.

But the distinction is in the matter of public liturgical veneration that would be allowed only to the Saints of those Churches that are truly "Catholic."

And again, if you believe that if one that doesn't accept the Pope is no longer a "Catholic" in ANY sense, then perhaps you could explain how.

Alex

No, not really. Lack of a historical precedent does not mean that the Church can't establish new ones.

I'm sure if you were to ask the Ante-Nicene Fathers if a heretic could be a canonized Saint they'd say something along the lines of "Hell, no!"

And apparently they'd be wrong . . .

It's unfortunate that many missionaries do not know where to draw the line between syncretism and inculturation.

I believe what the Catholic Church teaches: that all non-Catholics of good will are in an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, but are not, strictly speaking, Catholic. With some, of course, this communion is greater than with others.

Dear PaxTecum,

In his introduction to his "Dictionary of Saints," Fr. Holweck shows how the Fathers often read the lives of even antipopes for purposes of spiritual edification.

St Basil the Great, as I've noted, wrote a panergyric to an Arian saint - knowing full well his background.

And also, sometimes it was very difficult to establish who was in which Church or community or implicated, seemingly, in which heresy or schism.

This, if you will, "leniency" with respect to saints has existed from the very beginning, especially with respect to martyrs.

The RC Church does not accept its own Pope Liberius as a saint, but the Orthodox Church does and so on.

My point is that "Catholic" as a term was and is shared by both East and West before and after the schism sometime between 1054 and 1204.

Both Churches still use that word to describe themselves.

Orthodox Christians will readily say they are "Orthodox Catholic" or even "Catholic" without further ado.

Many of them will consider Roman Catholics as not really being Catholics but "Latins." And the same from the point of view of the RC's.

So I fail to see how the use of "Catholic" necessarily implies acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Pope.

It could and does in common parlance. But not necessarily so.

With respect to your final point, I have no disagreement with you.

Alex

Alex:

Dude, give me some credit. I know all that stuff about the history of the term "Catholic." I'm use both terms, "Orthodox" and "Catholic" in the sense they are most commonly used today.

And I knew that about Saint Liberius; thanks for posting it for others, though.

Does this mean you and I are no longer in schism?

;-)

I believe Saint Jerome/Hieronymos of Vulgate fame castrated himself...

Now HE'S a eunuch!

Dave

Saint Jerome never castrated himself! Where's you hear that?

Perhaps I have it wrong... it might just be one of these things you hear that isn't substantiated.

Backing up a bit, I wouldn't consider Fr McNichols, SJ, doing an icon of anyone to signify much of anything: the guy has done all sorts of non-canonical icons, was taught by the infamous [and very talented] Robert Lenz, he of Harvey Milk and Gahndi icon notoriety, and openly identifies himself as a homosexual. In charity I assume he is celibate, but should one identify oneself by one's sinful tendencies?