www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St. Gregory Palamas

Dear Francisco,

I would take Stuart's advice, if I were you!

Having Stuart as a teacher and theological advisor, as I do, means that one is well on the way to getting a solid grounding in the entire field.

And the person who first recommended veneration of St Mark of Ephesus to me was not Orthodox, but a Roman Catholic priest stationed in the Near East.

Thank you for sharing the beautiful propers of his feast with us!

Alex

I have deleted the contents of this post. The material was offensive to many here, including myself. I ask that the poster please be aware of the nature of this board and to refrain from posting material that does not build up the Kingdom but which in fact, tears it down.

Edward, deacon, sinner and moderator

Dear Francisco,

I'm sorry you have trouble understanding my sense of humour!

But it was you who started posting Troparia, not me! I thought you want all of us to use them - otherwise why post them? I don't understand your difficulties here.

Did you post them to make fun of them? That is not allowed on this Forum.

Here we have Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrians.

We treat everyone with equal respect.

No one says you must venerate their saints.

But you should not disrespect them or call their sainthood into question as you have with your parentheses around "Saint."

How would you like it if someone referred to "Saint" Francis of Assisi or "Saint" Dominic?

Again, I would ask you to demonstrate the kind of respect for our Brothers and Sisters and remove those parentheses or the term "Saint" if you like and simply refer to them by name alone without titles.

If you do not, I shall have to report this to the Administrator, since such offense is breaking the rules governing conduct on this Board.

You seem also to have trouble understanding liturgics and hagiography in the Eastern Church.

It is true that there are services in the Orthodox Church that are anti-Roman and vice-versa.

In the services to St Josaphat, my Church refers to Orthodox Christians as "Schism-loving brothers" "rozdorolyubny braty."

St Dioscoros of Alexandria was the nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria - he was never condemned as a heretic and, in terms of his doctrinal views, was completely Orthodox. He was censured for his behaviour - but do you not also venerate ST Nicholas? The same St Nicholas who also used his fists in fighting with Arus and was censured by the First Council as well.

St Severus of Antioch was also a partisan in the defence of Cyrillian theology. Do you remember the hymn "O Only Begotten Son" in the Byzantine Catholic Liturgy? Did you know it was composed by St Severus?

Doctrinally, we today know that these saints, although not in our calendars yet, can be there once the Churches formally unite.

If Honorius I is a saint in the Nestorian calendar, it would be difficult for RC's to venerate him since Roman Popes until the 13th century repeated the anathema against him for his Monothelitism.

If he is rehabilitated, that is another story.

Nestorius' life is being reexamined by Catholics and Orthodox (although you seem to prefer having an agnostic secular scholar involved as well!).

We know that Nestorius agreed with the statement of faith issued by St Flavian of Constantinople.

I've met Catholic Chaldean priests who say that historical research has shown that language, rather than actual theological issues, are involved and they do concelebrate with Assyrian priests. It is not such a major issue today with what we know. Overcoming historical prejudices that exist in modern Catholics is a much more difficult matter.

You have presented liturgical prayers and you must know that words are meant differently in accordance with usage.

When St Peter Mohyla of Kyiv issued his Catechism, he meant something specific by his use of "Orthodox Catholic." This did not prevent Ukrainian Catholics later from using his Catechism or services and keeping that term, by which they meant something else.

Did St Mark of Ephesus defend Orthodoxy? Absolutely! As one Basilian priest studying his life told me, he "defended his Church and her theology." Pope Eugenio at the time respected him greatly and when he heard that all the Greek bishops at Florence signed the Union, except for Mark, the pope said, "We have accomplished nothing."

The Orthodox service to St Volodymyr the Great contains an "anti-Rome" reference to it.

We use the same service, but have changed the reference. There are other examples when we simply keep the service as is since what is "Orthodoxy" is based on one's point of view.

As Fr. Holweck and other hagiographers show, saints implicated with heresy are in the Catholic calendar.

St Artemius of Egypt was an Arian, killed when he was destroying pagan temples. The fact that he was also, at the same time, destroying Catholic churches was overlooked by the Church.

The Eastern Churches in communion with Rome have many saints in their calendars who lived during the time of separation from Rome and were canonized locally.

The Oriental Church of Georgia's "Monophysite" saints are now all part of the Orthodox Calendar.

Again, I agree with Stuart that your views on these matters are based on rather outdated research.

And if you don't trust Catholic or Orthodox authors, what makes you think that secular ones will be more believable?

Isn't that like saying that one prefers to read an unbiased account of religion written by an atheist?

Alex

Dear moderator,

I disagree with your attitude, I think that my massage was no offensive for anybody. I have not said that Dioscorus, Severus, Nestorius, Gregory Palamas or Photius were heretics 9some of them are heretics both for the catholic and Orthodox church). But if (I ASK I DO NOT AFIRM) you, Orthodox in communion with Rome, believe that you can share the faith of Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus (id est that Latins are heretics)
and to keep the communion with the Church of Rome, I must tell you that you are completely wrong. From Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Theodorus Studitis and Mark of Ephesus I have learn on single thing "death is better than to be in communion with the heretics". I ask you, if (I ASK I DO NOT AFFIRM) you share the faith of Mark of Ephesus, Genadius Scholarius, Gregory Palamas and Cosmas The Aetolian (i. e. that Latins are heretics and, according to Cosmas the Aetolian, the pope is the Anti-Christ), then you consider the Church of Rome heretic, and, if ( I ASK I DO NOT AFFIRM) you consider the Church of Rome heretic and want to be coherent with the attitude of of Mark of Ephesus, Genadius Scholarius, Gregory Palamas and Cosmas the Aetolian, then you should not be in communion with the Church of Rome. I wonder: Were Mark of Ephesus, Genadius Scholarius, Gregory Palamas and Cosmas The Aetolian in communion with Rome? certainly they were not. You can not pretend to have the same faith of the Orthodox not into communion with Rome have just because you are Orthodox in communion with Rome. I love and respect Byzantine Catholics. I respect those who venerate these orthodox saints like teachers of virtue and defenders of the Church but I do not respect those who put in doubt the "orthodoxy" of the Church of Rome (GENERALLY SPEAKING I DO NOT ACCUSE ANYBODY OF DOING IT) and continue in communion with it. I frighten that this post of my will be also found offensive by our administrator.

Francisco,

With all due respect, your post is one that indicates a very incomplete understanding of the Christian East. You are attempting to present the worst of Orthodox polemics against of the best of the Latin. I could not blame an Orthodox member of this Forum if he chose to present examples that pit the best of Orthodox theology against the worst of Roman Catholic polemics. To judge the poorest example of someone else's behavior against the best of your own is unchristian.

Do we affirm the theology of St. Gregory Palamas and St. Photios? Yes. But we can affirm their good theology and acknowledge that they were poorly treated by the Roman Catholics without concluding that they were heretics. The fact that the entire Catholic Church holds them both as saints should speak loudly to you. St. Mark of Ephesus? He was primarily against a false union and there is no Roman Catholic theologian who will say that the Latin Church's attempt to force a union with the Orthodox was acceptable Christian behavior. Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint Theodorus Studitis? Both contributed greatly to Byzantine theology and it is not necessary to judge them solely upon their distrust of the Latins (and this distrust is certainly understandable given the high-handed behavior of the Latins of that day).

To affirm Orthodox theology one need not also affirm that the Latin West is heretical. Theology is not something that is black and white.

I should add that while I was not the one who edited your original post I do agree and support the decision of the moderator. I did review the troparia you posted. You should know that the troparia of St. Photios the Great and Saints Cyril and Methodius you posted are sung by the Byzantine Catholic Church and are in the Slavonic language Byzantine liturgical books published for us by Rome. St. Gregory Palamas is also remembered on the Second Sunday of the Great Fast.

Admin

Francisco:

You write: I found it offensive, and I was not the only one. I had been monitoring this thread, but had also received complaints about that particular post.

Just for the record, I am a Latin deacon with bi-ritual faculties. I serve both a Latin and a Melkite parish. I have no problem with recognizing both the good and the bad in these saints -- and that no saint is perfect. If we were looking for reasons to discount various saints then I suspect one would have to toss St. Thomas Aquinas out as his writings are heretical -- he denies the Immaculate Conception which is the teaching of the Latin Church. All of the saints had positions that, at one time or another, were not in harmony with the Church's teaching. This is a part of being human and it's why no one saint is held above Church teaching. This is why Ecumenical Councils are called -- the Holy Spirit is heard most clearly when many people are listening as that helps us to get rid of our onw biases.

Again, I ask you to consider the purpose of this forum and to refrain from denigrating any aspect of the Church. Although your English is better than my Spanish, let me try it this way: De nuevo, yo le pido considerar el prop�sito de este foro y abstenerse de denigrar cualquier aspecto de la Iglesia.

Edward, deacon and sinner

My dearest Edward and Administrator,

Believe me I have nothing against Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus or Cosmas the Aetolian. As far as I know no "Orthodox" member of this forum did complained or considered my opinions about them blasphemous. That were some of you, "Byzantine Catholics" or "Orthodox in communion of Rome" who considered my oppinions “offensive”. I admire Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus and Cosmas the Aetolian because their life and they behavior in the Church were COHERENT with their believes. They believed that the Holy Spirit “proceeds form the Father” and that to say that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” was an adulteration of the faith of the Church in Holy Trinity, they also believed that the bishop of Rome has no right to claim any primacy over the Church of Christ, they also refused the Latin idea of the purgatory and the use of unleavened bread in Holy Liturgy (a minor liturgical problem for us that had for them rather dogmatical character) and finally they refused to be in communion with the Church of Rome (Congratulations for your COHERENCY!!!). I do not agree with them but I admire their attitude. I respect very much our Orthodox brothers (not in communion with Rome) and I accept that they may consider them saints and they may celebrate their memory with special feasts during the liturgical year. Personally speaking I consider them an example of Christian COHERENCY and love for the Church and the idea of “Orthodoxy”, but I can not consider them saints of the Church because my Church does not believe what they believed and is not in communion (at least full external communion) with those who believe what they believe (i.e. our Orthodox brothers). I think that my attitude is COHERENT with my faith, and I think that no Orthodox brother would expect from me to celebrate the memory of Gregory Palamas, for instance.

I am very sorry to say that I observe a lack of COHERENCY, this COHERENCY I appreciate very much in the lives of Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, in those who consider them “champions of Orthodoxy” ”guides of the true faith” (as the Orthodox Chuch proclaim them in its liturgy) and are in communion with Rome. Some of you (generally speaking) pretend that to be “Orthodox” and “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is exactly the same. Well allow me to say that our Orthodox brothers disagree with your point of view, they think that you do not share their same faith and it is because of it that “in communion with Rome” means (unfortunately) “not in communion with Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch…”. You can discuss if the “Generals Councils” of the Latin Church are “Oecumenical” or not but the truth is that your bishops (some of them not enough proud of being Easterns to refuse a tittle of “priest”-cardinal of the Church of Rome or to stop using these ridiculous Latin rings and solideos toguether with the Byzantine ornaments) will always take part in these “Latin Councils” and will (unfortunately) always accept whatever Rome will tell them to accept (and not only the dogmatical definitions). You can pretend that to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is some kind of “third” religion different form “Orthodoxy” and “(Roman) Catholicism”, someone has used in this forum the expression “conversion from RC to BC”, but all of us know that RC and BC are in communion of faith and love. You can pretend that Mary is called Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all the graces in Byzantine liturgical tradition, but the truth is that our Orthodox brothers, who share the same liturgical tradition, will never accept these dogmatical definitions. You can pretend that there is a Ukranian Catholic Patriarchate, but everybody knows that Lvov Major Archbishop is not a patriarch (please notice that I have nothing against the idea of an Ukranian Greek Catholic Patriarchate). To be in communion with Rome should not be an alternative to Constantinople's or Moscow's jurisdiction. I do not know many things about the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but I know that many times Orthodox Christians, so many times in history victims of foreign domination, have used the communion with Rome for political or national or national-ecclesiastical purposes (Florence Council is a good example), and unfortunately Rome has also used Eastern Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome for political and ecclesiastical purposes. I repeat that I do not blame Byzantine Catholics for it (I said that you were victims, unfortunately I can not say the same about the Church of Rome ) but for me the union with Rome should be only union of faith and love(One Lord, one faith, one baptism) without national or politic character. I hope that my opinions (I do not pretend that I know everything), although “painful” (bishops with latin rings, Eastern patriarchs and archbishops that are "priest"-cardinals of Rome, historical circumstances of the Union with Rome) will not be found “offensive” for any of you. I do not pretend to teach you how to be “good” Orthodox in communion with Rome nor I do put in doubt the sincerity of your membership in the Catholic Church. I am just saying that I observe a lack of COHERENCY in the attitude of some of you in this topic.

You say “your post is one that indicates a very incomplete understanding of the Christian East”. Well nobody knows every thing, but do not forget that I am writing you form the heart of the Christian East and because I love very much Christian East. I think that many Easterns have also problems to understand the Christian East. Edward sais “I am a Latin deacon with bi-ritual faculties. I serve both a Latin and a Melkite parish” well, although I am a Western Catholic and I have not receive any ordination, I also serve in a Byzantine Catholic Church. You are a half -time (that was a joke) Melkite deacon, and I am supporting my ideas with references to the work of a Melkite bishop, a “great” Melkite bishop of the XX century, Neophytos Edelby, who in his frech translation of the "Liturgikon" does not include the feast of Gregory Palamas on the Second Sunday of Lent, as does not call him "saint". The Yours in Christ, Franciscointroduction or re-introduction of his office in the Slav Catholic liturgical books must be recent too.

Dear Edward,
I though that only forum administrator could delete other people's massages. Probably someone should tell me again about the rules of this forum. I do not know what the English verb "denigrate" means but Spanish "denigrar" means "to make campaign against someone or to spoil someone's good name or reputation by using deliveratetly lies". All of us have different oppinions about the Church, this forum is supposed to exist to dicuss our faith, but I take for granted that the reason for taking part in it of almost all of us is our love for Christ and His Church. You can agree with me or not, I can be right or wrong, and if I am wrong I expect from you to help me to find the truth, but "I am not using deliveratly lies against the Church, against my Church". If I make critics about different aspects of the life of the Chuch is because I think I can help the Chuch to advance in the way of the fidelity to the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, not because of any other reason. Now, can you tell me what "denigrate" means in English?

Dear Francisco,

For the record, Sts. Maximus the Confessor and Theodore Studitis have ALWAYS been recognized as Catholic saints!!

Maximus opposed Honorius, but then again he opposed all the Eastern Patriarchs as well - since they all held the Monothelite heresy.

Your argument that to have a saint included in the calendar, he or she must have been in full theological agreement with this or that Church - this is simply ahistorical and just not the way it is.

There are many saints in the Latin calendar who were Arians, for example. The Spanish Mozarabic Church's liturgy was descended from Gothic traditions i.e. Arian. St Hermenigild of Spain was, in fact, an Arian.

Holiness is not something that is dependent on full theological agreement between Churches either.

Photios reposed in full communion with Rome - he is therefore a Catholic saint in the sense of being in communion with Rome.

Gregory Palamas is today accepted by Rome as a saint in her own calendar.

Why don't you ask someone in Rome how this can be so? Oh, I forgot - you are afraid you might be connected to someone belonging to Opus Dei . . .

The policy of Rome for several hundred years with respect to Eastern Churches who come into communion with it is to leave, for the most part, the local saints alone.

Only saints who were very vocal in opposing Rome were dropped from the calendar.

But upon reunion, the "anti" whatever of such saints is forgotten and their veneration remains.

Upon reunion of both East and West, St Mark of Ephesus and some others would remain in the respective calendars of their Churches. It would be up to other Churches if they wished to liturgically venerate them and include them in their calendars.

I met a Roman Catholic priest of the Latin Rite who himself venerated St Mark of Ephesus. St Gennadios Scholarios opposed false union with Rome, as the Administrator so astutely observes.

But he himself accepted the western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

And please don't say how can this be since it was years before the doctrine was proclaimed.

This doctrine was around in the Western Church for centuries.

The Church in Spain and the Spanish Empire, by the 17th century, declared the Immaculate Conception a local doctrine, to be held by all members of the Catholic Church of Spain and its empire - including New Orleans and Louisiana which, to this day, has a shrine to the Immaculate Conception at its old Ursuline Convent from Spanish times.

You seem to want to choose what you wish to believe.

That is not Catholic or Orthodox.

Alex

Obviously Saint Maximus and Saint Theodorus are catholic saint, they were always in communion withthe Church of Rome, I used their names because they, as Mark of Ephesus, believed that death is better than the communion with the heretics.

Are recreational drugs legal in Spain? Well, I will ignore this. You say "You seem to want to choose what you wish to believe". Well, I will ignore this too.

You say "Spanish Mozarabic Church's liturgy was descended from Gothic traditions i.e. Arian". Hispanic liturgy is not Visigothic (period of Visigothic domination) nor Mozarabic (period of Arab dominatio) but Hispanic (i. e. Hispano-Roman, previous to Visigothic and Arab domination). Hispanic Liturgy has got a strong "anti-Arian" character. Saint Hermenegildus was died as martyr in 567 by his father (Arian) king Leovigildus becuse his son had became "Catholic" or "Orthodox" if you prefer so. His brother, kign Recaredus, was the first "Catholic" ("Orthodox")Visigothic king of Spain, who proclaimed "Catholicism" official religion of his kingdom in one of the Councils of Toledo. On Hermenegildus coins this frase appeared "Haereticum hominen devita" "Avoid the heretics". He is considered a saint also by the Orthodox Church (St. John the Divine Society Calendar).

I fell quite ridiculous talking about the Church of Spain in a Byzantine forum. In Jose Escriva forum some said somethig about St. Josaphat, I have read no many things about him and the circunstances of his canonization during II Vatican Council but I prefered not to say nothing about him because 1) I know very little about his life and 2) probably you would find it offensive taking into account that you are Ukranian and Saint Josaphat is a Ukranian Greek Catholic martyr. Probably you should have done the same thing I did.

I think that we should stop sometime, but I would like to make you one single question, you say "St Gennadios Scholarios opposed false union with Rome", my question is: Why do you keep this "false" union with Rome? Is your union with Rome different from that false union of Florence Council?

Dear Francisco,

I was joking about the drugs - I included a smiley - don't be so sensitive. I apologise for offending you.

The fact is that there are many Arian saints in the Catholic calendar. Yes, Hermenigild died in union with the Catholic Church, but he was Gothic and from an Arian milieu. We will agree to disagree on the Gothic influence on the Spanish liturgy.

You may say what you will about St Josaphat - he is your saint as much as he is ours and he is in the universal Catholic calendar under November 12 or Nov. 25 on the old Calendar.

Don't be upset about the "false union" business.

False union is not union with Rome, if that is what you are implying we are saying.

False union is when union occurs because of political necessity (as was largely the case at Florence when the Greeks came to the west to ask for military help against the Turks) and when there are otherwise secular concerns dictating the union, rather than spiritual ones.

I would certainly hope you would share your knowledge about the Spanish Church with us!

The Spanish Mozarabic Church is a Particular Church of the West and I understand Rome has allowed the Rite to be more widely used.

It was one of Spain's saints, I forget who, who challenged Rome's primacy over the Iberian peninsula at one point as well.

You suggested I should have followed your lead in remaining silent on St Josaphat with respect to Spain.

It is incumbent on someone like you to teach us about the Spanish Catholic tradition.

And it is incumbent on us to teach you about our tradition, our self-understanding as Orthodox in communion with Rome, and our Orthodox theological tradition which is the tradition of Gregory Palamas, Photios and Mark of Ephesus who refused to compromise on the Filioque, although he was in favour of communion with Rome if Rome agreed to removing it from the Creed.

Mark Eugenikos regarded the Filioque as heresy, yes. If taken to mean that there are TWO Sources of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity - then the Filioque is indeed heresy even from the Roman Catholic point of view that has ALWAYS taught there is only ONE Source - the Father.

The Filioque is, at best, an imprecise theological expression that COULD very well lead one into a heretical understanding of the Procession of the Spirit. And all Churches, including Rome, agreed that no additions to the Creed would be made outside of an Ecumenical Council.

That is the context of this debate - the Greeks saw the Filioque as an heretical statement and preferred to say, with St John Damaskinos and St Maximos that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father through the Son."

But my words are clearly offending you and I think we have a difference of perspective as well as opinion.

I apologise and will remain silent as I am called to my responsibilities at work - and to them I now go.

Alex

Francisco,

I am trying to be fair and to allow for the fact that English is not your primary language. I also allow for cultural differences and the impact that may make on communictionl. Nevertheless, it appears from your posts that you are attempting to pick a fight. Your question about a "false union" is out of place here. If you are unable to post in a civil fashion, then perhaps it is time for you to take some time to calm down before you continue to post here.

And, to clarify, I am the moderator of this forum and moderators can edit/delete messages. The English word "denigrate" is very similar in meaning to the Spanish "denigrar" -- although denigrar can also mean to revile which is stronger than the English connotation of denigrate. It means to demean, to ridicule, to reduce in importance.

Edward, deacon, sinner and moderator

If I am not wrong that was our common friend Alex who said "St Gennadios Scholarios opposed false union with Rome, as the Administrator so astutely observes". Well I do not know if it was you (I am not accusing you, I have not looked in all your posts)or Alex who first said that the Union of Florence was false but I have never said that Florence Union was false.

Our dear brother Francisco,

I think it was Stuart who applied the "false" epithet to Florence . . .

Again, "false" not in the theological sense, but in the sense that there were pressing secular interests involved that tended to supercede the theological ones.

However, I do not believe that Florence was "false" in terms of its theological conclusions at all. I don't believe I even implied that - and if I did I must have had too much to drink over lunch . . .

There could have been a better set of conclusions from both sides, as Meyendorff states when he said that "union could have been achieved by the unilateral rejection of the Filioque and agreement, by both sides, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son." (Byzantine Theology).

Today's ecumenical Orthodox/Roman Catholic commissions are beyond Florence and their work is truly inspiring as a modern example of rapprochment between East and West.

Alex

Interesting ideas...

False Union is an interesting concept. In the end, is there only "union"?

True Union, I suppose is a union based on love and a common profession of faith. False Union (even this union not all bad, perhaps it is better than heresy or schism) is founded upon a common profession made under fear or some kind of pressure. It is certainly less perfect than the first kind of Union, I think we would all agree.

I am edified by the example of those participants who are sensitive to the feelings and hurts of all participants in this place. We all accept and understand when there is no deliberate attempt to give offence or cause scandal or hurt.

Of course, if we wish, it is always possible to be offended by almost anything! I think on the forum we are always right to presume the good intentions behind one another's posts.