I would like to know if it is permitted to publicly celebrate matins/vespers/mass any of the the following Saints:
St Thomas (Becket) of Canterbury (1118 – 29 December 1170)
St Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)
St Osmund of Salisbury (died 3 or 4 December 1099)
St Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 – August 20, 1153)
If one judges the schism as beginning in toward 1204 toward the time of the fourth crusade, rather than 1054, it would seem to potentially be permissable to publicly venerate these individuals?
It would be a major concession for myself to fully to abandon for official recognition/veneration, all saints who died after the year 1054, as there were a crucial number of importantant people living between the 1054-1204 time period.
I personally would think that setting 1204 as the date to no longer acknowledge publicly latin saints as Orthodox is a much more reasonable and historically accurate approach than 1054.
If I recall correctly, my idea stems from an answer which Fr. Edward Hughes the vicar general of the AWRV had given me regarding why so many post-schism solemnities in the proper of the season were included on the calendar. He made a similar suggestion that because one might potentially date the schism to only solidifying in the 13th century this was why one could rightfully include the festival and procession of "Corpus Christi/Most Holy Body of Christ" in the current AWRV calendar. "The feast of our Most Holy Body of Christ was only made a univerally obliged festival in all the latin rite in year 1264.
I would also note that it is perhaps a flaw of the AWRV to include so many post-schism saints within it's official breviary/divine office books, complete with long lessons about some of their lives. It is most edifying but it does serve to confuse some as to who is orthodox and who is not.
For the record, my most un-orthodox/liberal area may be the Communion of Saints. On the one hand I recognize that it is inconvenient or impossible to unequivably accept all later Latin saints as legitimate, but on the other hand I have strong suspicions and personal feelings that many post-schism Latin saints are indeed truly saints. Someone such as Catherine of Siena for example.. I agree with orthodoxy 99.9%, yet I cant help but at least privately feel God's mercy made up for their human sinfulness or schism from the "True Church."
Isaac of Niniveh was I have heard technically a schismatic but also a saint..
From the byzantineforum I quote:
In addition, saints and martyrs who were, in fact, Arians, made it into the universal calendars of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, notwithstanding their formal implication with the Arian heresy - which really IS a heresy wink .
The Arians still had valid sacraments and their saints were still saints (barring Arius and some other pro-Arian bishops - in fact, Arius was listed in the Roman calendar as a saint under June 6 for centuries until the Bollandists realized that "St Artotis" was none other than the ancient heretic.
St Nicetas the Goth, St Sava the Stratelate and his 70 warrior-martyrs and St Artemius of Egypt are all honoured in the Catholic and Orthodox calendars - and yet they were all Arians.
St Basil the Great even wrote a panegyric in honour of St Nicetas as a great martyr of Christ . . .
Their martyrdom led the Church to overlook the defect of their Orthodoxy, as Fr. Holweck discusses in his "Dictionary of Saints."
Fr. Holweck also notes that even the lives of the anti-popes were read by Catholics for purposes of their inspirational value . . .
And even though the Celtic Christian traditions were condemned at the Synod of Whitby in the 8th century, and a number of Celtic Fathers refused to submit to the changes and so left for northern Scotland - this did not prevent them from being honoured as saints by the Roman Church and even praised for their great devotion, continual prayer and constant study of the scriptures.
There were, however, in the early Church groups of wild gnostic sects who had their own saints and martyrs. The Church absolutely forbade its members the veneration of such and they could never be considered for inclusion in the Church's calendar.