Surely there is a difference between acknowledging someone as a saint and considering it disrespectful to criticise anything they had said, done or written?
That is true, but remarks like "Consider the source" (in reference to Pope St. Leo) imply that St. Leo is not trustworthy and are disrespectful.
If someone wants to write, "I think Pope Leo was in error because of A, B, C," where A, B, and C are actual points of contention and not merely assaults on Leo's character, then I have no problem with that.
peterfarrington: For all of our saints I mean?
Surely proper historical analysis must be allowed weight without being disrespectful. I mean generally of our own common saints and of our particular ones.
If you read 'The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined' for instance, by the Indian Orthodox theologian Fr V.C. Samuel, then we find criticism of Dioscorus without disrespect, likewise criticism of Leo of Rome without disrespect.
And the writings of Fr John Romanides are criticical of Leo of Rome also, I am quite sure that as a conservative and traditionalist Orthodox he did not mean his criticism to be disrepectful.
I think we should be careful not to speak as though people and events are beyond criticism, that is the way of cults. Yet we should speak carefully and not seek to cause offense, and listen carefully and not be easily offended.
True. It is possible to analyze history and the actions of individuals without being disrespectful.
I did not tell Stavro he could not write about Pope St. Leo. I don't have the authority to do that anyway, even if I wanted to.
I merely cautioned him that Pope St. Leo the Great is revered as a saint and a Father of the Church by Orthodox and Roman Catholics alike.
I read what he said and saw it verging on disrespect. That is why I wrote what I wrote.
It is also well to remember that we should not turn every thread and every forum here into a running criticism of Chalcedon and of Chalcedonian saints.
That is, as I understand it, why we have a Non-Chalcedonian Forum.