How much credibility such story of the man gains or how much recognition it commands is not our dispute here, we can discuss it at some other time for the sake of historical verification and validation.
I think youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re missing the point if you think that objective historical truth is not relevant to this discussion. It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter what factors the Church expressly considered or what factors She apparently did not consider in her canonisation of a particular Saint. The relevant facts are as follows:
1) Canonisation of a particular figure is a most serious issue that cannot be regarded as any less than Spirit-inspired by virtue of the fact that it quite seriously affects Orthodox praxisÃ¢â‚¬â€we harbour and venerate the SaintÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s relics and icons, we chant doxologies and praises to them, we seek and plead for their intercessions, we read their Synaxarium accounts before the Gospel reading during the Divine Liturgy etc.
2) If, as per objective historical truth, the figure in question was indeedÃ¢â‚¬â€in actual historical factÃ¢â‚¬â€outside the canonical boundaries of the Church, it thus follows that the Holy Spirit directed the Church to recognise a particular person as a Saint in spite of their technical position in relation to the canonical boundaries of the Church. Whether the Church consciously recognised or believed that it was canonising one who existed outside of her Canonical boundaries as per what may be inferred from the various historical traditions, the fact remains that She was inspired by a higher authority to do soÃ¢â‚¬â€the Holy Spirit. This higher authority, unlike the human members that constitute the body of the Church, is not capable of missing objective historical truth.
The historical veracity of the historical traditions you allude to, and the inferences that can reliably be drawn from them, are thus of central and crucial importance to the very nature of our discussion.
Often historical traditions like this vary, even from local Church to local Church within the very same Communion, so we must not think by virtue of some false reductionist conception of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Church TraditionÃ¢â‚¬Â that we are challenging or questioning the authority of the Holy Spirit by seeking to endeavour whether these historical traditions you allude to are in fact reliable and valid or not.
I suggest therefore that we consider this line of direction for our discussion, and so I ask you to please share your references for the sources of the works which account for the traditions in question; hopefully I will be able to gain access to them. If I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t, I will have to ask you to present your accounts in more specific detail, with specific references to dates, places, and names. I think it will furthermore be prudent of us to investigate the historical traditions of these Syrian Saints by other OO Churches, particularly the Syrian Orthodox Church, to see if there is even a consistent historical witness within the Church to begin with.
John Climacus is neither a saint nor is he recongized as a saint or a saint to be in our church, and that should seal the matter for him. A man who wrote some good things, like C.S. Lewis, nothing more and nothing less.
The consensus of our ChurchÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s treatment of John Cliamcus testifies to his Sainthood. In every instance that has been observed where John Climacus has been appealed to or mentioned, it has always been the case that he has been appealed to or mentioned as more than just Ã¢â‚¬Å“a good manÃ¢â‚¬Â.
His Holiness Pope Shenouda III refers to him as a Saint, and I have never seen His Holiness quote anyone as an authority upon the mere basis that that person is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“good manÃ¢â‚¬Â. Fr. Tadros Malaty also quotes John Climacus as a Saint, as does H.G. Bishop Mettaous. These are some towering authorities and theologians of our Church; I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean any sarcasm or mockery when I say that I would be very interested to witness a dialogue/debate between you and these three prominent hierarchs/theologians of our Church as to whether it is appropriate or not to regard John Climacus a Saint.
More significantly, the Armenian monastic community has preserved his writings in classical Armenian for over a millennium as Salpy points out. Monastic communities of old only ever preserved and maintained the writings of Saints and Fathers of the ChurchÃ¢â‚¬â€those whose works were of intrinsic value and significance to Orthodox spirituality and doctrine. Conversely, such communities went out of their way to destroy the works of heretics. Can you explain why an Orthodox monastic community would go through the strenuous effort of preserving the works of an heretic, in order to integrate their spiritual principles to the Life of the Church, even if the principles in question were not themselves heretical? There is no evidence to suggest that monastic communities ever went out of their way to preserve and maintain copies of anotherÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s writings (which at the time would have been a very tedious and difficult thing to do in the absence of the technology we have todayÃ¢â‚¬â€photocopiers, printers etc.) upon the basis that that person was merely a Ã¢â‚¬Å“good manÃ¢â‚¬Â¦nothing moreÃ¢â‚¬Â.
Nobosy yet has dealt with the testimony of the great Fathers that i brought forth.
But I did my friend. No one here is disputing their testimony, only your interpretation of the implications of their testimony. I offered you a quote from one of the proponents of the patristic maxim you appealed to--St. Augustine of Hippo, which qualifies the patristic maxim, placing it into context accordingly. If St. Augustine himself did not intend the maxim in the absolute sense you implied he did, then why would it follow that any of the other Fathers did either? I also appealed to H.G. Bishop Youssef, who is no more or less a Father of the Church, who affirmed the particular interpretation of the patristic maxim that I am arguing for.
Till then, be well brother.
May you be well also.
It might be a good idea to postpone this discussion till after the Great Lent, if you don't mind. If you would like to put a last response in, that would be fine, but I think it's preferable that we concentrate on more important things for now (as this is the kind of discussion that I sense will require lots of time and research).