OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 26, 2014, 12:36:14 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: veneraton of Post-schism western saints and date of schism  (Read 4133 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« on: April 30, 2011, 02:58:38 AM »

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:
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.

Your thoughts?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 03:11:49 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2011, 03:18:30 AM »


I would like to know if it is permitted to publicly celebrate matins/vespers/mass any of the the following Saints:




No, a priest may not serve any service for a Saint who is not in the Menaion - 12 (monthly) liturgical books with the services of the Saints.

In the case of Celtic, Old English, Spanish, French and other pre-schism Saints who are not in the Menaion he is obliged to seek a blessing from his bishop before performing any service to them..   

At this present time (since 2007) the Russian Orthodox Church is occupied with examining the lives of several thousand pre-schism Saints of the British Isles and Ireland.  Some of these have already been added into the Russian Church Calendar, others are still waiting.

Aug 21 2007
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3507
Russian church to annually honor early British Isles saints

Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,973


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2011, 03:24:18 AM »

I would like to know if it is permitted to publicly celebrate matins/vespers/mass any of the the following Saints:

...
St Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)
...
With this particular figure, you run into another problem; many EO consider him a heretic. As Irish Hermit suggested (forgive me if I'm wrong) there shouldn't be a general cut off "date" for approved vs. unapproved saints. Each western saint within the 1000-1300 period should be individually evaluated, as every case is different.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 03:26:19 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2011, 07:23:20 AM »

Quote
many EO consider him a heretic.
Yes, he is. Read orthonorm's tag line for details.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2011, 07:57:39 AM »

Quote
many EO consider him a heretic.
Yes, he is. Read orthonorm's tag line for details.

+1

For what it's worth, I think Western Christianity really, really, really went off the rails with Anselm.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2011, 08:26:14 AM »

As Irish Hermit suggested (forgive me if I'm wrong) there shouldn't be a general cut off "date" for approved vs. unapproved saints. Each western saint within the 1000-1300 period should be individually evaluated, as every case is different.

I don't know about public liturgical services, but I personally think this is a good guideline for personal prayer/devotion.

While a pre-schism saint, the praying of a post-schism chaplet to St Patrick was part of how I came to discern him as my patron saint while I was a catechumen.

A couple of saints from that time period that would be good examples are Francis of Assissi, known for living a holy life in dedication to Christ, and Anthony of Padua, known for a life of prayer and seeking inner quiet and peace through prayer. Also, although much later after the schism, John Vianney is known for how he made God's love known in confession leading many to repentence and living holier lives, also quoted as saying in a prayer "My God, if my tongue cannot say in every moment that I love You, I want my heart to repeat it to You as often as I draw breath."

Just my opinion.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2011, 02:23:04 PM »

Private veneration is permissable, but public veneration is a bit more of a mind field. I would agree that there shouldn't be one set-in-stone date though, and for a period of several hundred years there should be some leeway granted.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2011, 05:51:31 PM »

Obviously I meant mine field in the last post... not "mind field"  Cheesy
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2011, 12:45:07 AM »


Private veneration is permissable,


I do not agree.   One of our older parishioners has a statue of Francis of Assisi and an icon of Josaphat Kuntsevich among her icons. She was raised in Poland.    I have asked her to remove them a few times but she keeps them there for her veneration.

Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2011, 12:49:36 AM »

I do not agree.   One of our older parishioners has a statue of Francis of Assisi and an icon of Josaphat Kuntsevich among her icons. She was raised in Poland.    I have asked her to remove them a few times but she keeps them there for her veneration.

I appear to have been mistaken then... so I take back what I said in my previous post.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2011, 12:58:53 AM »

I do not agree.   One of our older parishioners has a statue of Francis of Assisi and an icon of Josaphat Kuntsevich among her icons. She was raised in Poland.    I have asked her to remove them a few times but she keeps them there for her veneration.

I appear to have been mistaken then... so I take back what I said in my previous post.

Other priests may not agree with me. 
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2011, 01:16:45 AM »

Here are a number of Western saints we are permitted to venerate, along with their eastern rite service materials:

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zliturgics.htm

I've known Orthodox who actually prefer earlier dates than 1054 for dating the Schism, because theology started diverging and communions were broken earlier than that, but it seems that 1054 is as good a cutoff as any.

Fwiw, I'm aware of an Antiochian priest who is assembling a proper book of hagiographies of pre-schism Western saints. When that's done it'll probably be a good resource for these kinds of questions.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2011, 01:20:33 AM »

I do not agree.   One of our older parishioners has a statue of Francis of Assisi and an icon of Josaphat Kuntsevich among her icons. She was raised in Poland.    I have asked her to remove them a few times but she keeps them there for her veneration.

I appear to have been mistaken then... so I take back what I said in my previous post.

Other priests may not agree with me. 

Perhaps, but I was really just giving my opinion, which is not based on anything substantive, but was (to put it plainly) my gut instinct. I really need to try to stop answering every single, solitary, last thread I come across.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2011, 01:24:24 AM »


Fwiw, I'm aware of an Antiochian priest who is assembling a proper book of hagiographies of pre-schism Western saints.


I have done this for the Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish and Old English Saints, thousands of them.  Hopefully all of them will eventually be approved for inclusion in the Calendar of the Russian Church as its Commission slowly investigates these Lives.

See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints


Where icons, Vigil services, akathists, etc., exist, I have included a link.

Logged
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,506



« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2011, 03:18:54 PM »

Obviously I meant mine field in the last post... not "mind field"  Cheesy
No, dear friend, considering it's you, it's not obvious  Grin
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2011, 03:28:50 PM »

Obviously I meant mine field in the last post... not "mind field"  Cheesy
No, dear friend, considering it's you, it's not obvious  Grin

 Tongue angel
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2011, 04:10:58 PM »

As someone mentioned earlier, each should probably be case-by-case. I personally view the 1054-1204 period as kind of "grey".
Some things, such as the following: The Sarum Rite, Romanesque Architecture, The Cistercian Rite, The Franciscan Order, The Dominican Order and the Rosary. As being permissible in non-Byzantine Rites within the Orthodox Church. Of course, they have to be made sure that they are Orthodox in doctrine/theology, etc...
(in the case of Romanesque, it's just architecture, but I regard it as more "venerable" for ecclesiastical architecture than Gothic or other later styles, which created churches inconsistent with the Orthodox view of Church & our relationship with God)
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2011, 04:37:49 PM »


Fwiw, I'm aware of an Antiochian priest who is assembling a proper book of hagiographies of pre-schism Western saints.


I have done this for the Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish and Old English Saints, thousands of them.  Hopefully all of them will eventually be approved for inclusion in the Calendar of the Russian Church as its Commission slowly investigates these Lives.

See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints


Where icons, Vigil services, akathists, etc., exist, I have included a link.



Forgive me, Father, for my ignorance, but I'm not sure what you mean. Is your list of Christians who might be saints, and you're trying to get the Church's canonization of them, or are they Western saints that, for some reason, the Russian church has to "investigate" or "recognize" in order to be legit?

I'll be the first to tell you I'm not terribly familiar with the canonization process, but my understanding was that saints were sort of "revealed" as local churches began to venerate individuals and start to see prayers answered, etc. Which, if that's the case, why would there be any question about pre-schism individuals that were recognized as saints by the Church? Why does Russia have to "approve" them? Am I missing something?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14,092


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2011, 04:48:57 PM »

I would think that the earlier the saint lived, the safer it would be to venerate them, but it probably is best to check the Menaion, or see if the bishop's office can help.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2011, 08:21:11 PM »


Fwiw, I'm aware of an Antiochian priest who is assembling a proper book of hagiographies of pre-schism Western saints.


I have done this for the Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish and Old English Saints, thousands of them.  Hopefully all of them will eventually be approved for inclusion in the Calendar of the Russian Church as its Commission slowly investigates these Lives.

See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints


Where icons, Vigil services, akathists, etc., exist, I have included a link.



Forgive me, Father, for my ignorance, but I'm not sure what you mean. Is your list of Christians who might be saints, and you're trying to get the Church's canonization of them, or are they Western saints that, for some reason, the Russian church has to "investigate" or "recognize" in order to be legit?

I'll be the first to tell you I'm not terribly familiar with the canonization process, but my understanding was that saints were sort of "revealed" as local churches began to venerate individuals and start to see prayers answered, etc. Which, if that's the case, why would there be any question about pre-schism individuals that were recognized as saints by the Church? Why does Russia have to "approve" them? Am I missing something?

A priest may not serve Services to Saints who have not been officially recognised by the Church.  This means they have been included in the Menaion.   

The Saints of the West have, the great majority of them, fallen out of remembrance in the Orthodox Church.   In 2007 the Russian Orthodox Church commenced the task of investigating the Lives of the Saints of the British Isles and Ireland and will include those it considers rightfully Saints in its Calendar and then, slowly, official Services to each one of them will be composed for the Menaion.

The local bishop/s may short-circuit this process.  For example, Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London gave permission to venerate quite a number of Celtic and English Saints in his diocese.

Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,862



« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2011, 08:27:42 PM »

Aug 21 2007
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3507
Russian church to annually honor early British Isles saints

It's good to see that Western saints are gaining official recognition.

Maybe we'll see a similar feast for All Saints of Scandinavia some day... Cool
Logged

Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2011, 08:47:46 PM »


Fwiw, I'm aware of an Antiochian priest who is assembling a proper book of hagiographies of pre-schism Western saints.


I have done this for the Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish and Old English Saints, thousands of them.  Hopefully all of them will eventually be approved for inclusion in the Calendar of the Russian Church as its Commission slowly investigates these Lives.

See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints


Where icons, Vigil services, akathists, etc., exist, I have included a link.



Forgive me, Father, for my ignorance, but I'm not sure what you mean. Is your list of Christians who might be saints, and you're trying to get the Church's canonization of them, or are they Western saints that, for some reason, the Russian church has to "investigate" or "recognize" in order to be legit?

I'll be the first to tell you I'm not terribly familiar with the canonization process, but my understanding was that saints were sort of "revealed" as local churches began to venerate individuals and start to see prayers answered, etc. Which, if that's the case, why would there be any question about pre-schism individuals that were recognized as saints by the Church? Why does Russia have to "approve" them? Am I missing something?

A priest may not serve Services to Saints who have not been officially recognised by the Church.  This means they have been included in the Menaion.   

The Saints of the West have, the great majority of them, fallen out of remembrance in the Orthodox Church.   In 2007 the Russian Orthodox Church commenced the task of investigating the Lives of the Saints of the British Isles and Ireland and will include those it considers rightfully Saints in its Calendar and then, slowly, official Services to each one of them will be composed for the Menaion.

The local bishop/s may short-circuit this process.  For example, Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London gave permission to venerate quite a number of Celtic and English Saints in his diocese.



Doesn't this imply, then, that the pre-Schism Western Church didn't really know what it was doing? I'm sorry, perhaps I'm still misunderstanding, but that just seems so arrogant and presumptuous...
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2011, 09:14:48 PM »


Fwiw, I'm aware of an Antiochian priest who is assembling a proper book of hagiographies of pre-schism Western saints.


I have done this for the Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish and Old English Saints, thousands of them.  Hopefully all of them will eventually be approved for inclusion in the Calendar of the Russian Church as its Commission slowly investigates these Lives.

See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints


Where icons, Vigil services, akathists, etc., exist, I have included a link.



Forgive me, Father, for my ignorance, but I'm not sure what you mean. Is your list of Christians who might be saints, and you're trying to get the Church's canonization of them, or are they Western saints that, for some reason, the Russian church has to "investigate" or "recognize" in order to be legit?

I'll be the first to tell you I'm not terribly familiar with the canonization process, but my understanding was that saints were sort of "revealed" as local churches began to venerate individuals and start to see prayers answered, etc. Which, if that's the case, why would there be any question about pre-schism individuals that were recognized as saints by the Church? Why does Russia have to "approve" them? Am I missing something?

A priest may not serve Services to Saints who have not been officially recognised by the Church.  This means they have been included in the Menaion.   

The Saints of the West have, the great majority of them, fallen out of remembrance in the Orthodox Church.   In 2007 the Russian Orthodox Church commenced the task of investigating the Lives of the Saints of the British Isles and Ireland and will include those it considers rightfully Saints in its Calendar and then, slowly, official Services to each one of them will be composed for the Menaion.

The local bishop/s may short-circuit this process.  For example, Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London gave permission to venerate quite a number of Celtic and English Saints in his diocese.



Doesn't this imply, then, that the pre-Schism Western Church didn't really know what it was doing? I'm sorry, perhaps I'm still misunderstanding, but that just seems so arrogant and presumptuous...

Somebody has to make the decisions on these things and I am glad that my own Church has commenced work on officially including these Western Saints in its Calendar.

What have other Churches done?   For example, what does the Church of Antioch do when it is the festival day for Saint Ailbhe of Emly or Saint Maelrubha of Appleshot or Saint Dareca?   Has it composed Vigil Services for them?
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2011, 09:21:43 PM »

The composing of services is one thing. I was understanding you to mean that the "saints" of the West aren't really saints until the Russian Church (or any of the "Eastern" Orthodox Churches) say so. Is this what you're implying, or are you merely speaking of ways to get some of the more obscure saints celebrated on a regular basis?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: May 01, 2011, 09:39:14 PM »

The composing of services is one thing. I was understanding you to mean that the "saints" of the West aren't really saints until the Russian Church (or any of the "Eastern" Orthodox Churches) say so. Is this what you're implying, or are you merely speaking of ways to get some of the more obscure saints celebrated on a regular basis?

I am asking who decides in the Antiochian Church which Western Saints are venerated?   Is it left to the priests, or can parishioners decide?   People here have suggested Francis of Assisi, John Vianney, Bernard of Clairvaux.... can an Antiochian priest make a decision to celebrate them liturgically or is he obliged to ask for a decision from his bishop?  Sorry, I am just confused.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #25 on: May 01, 2011, 10:22:07 PM »

We can venerate any Western saint prior to 1054, liturgically speaking. As far as which ones they end up being, aside from the fairly major ones like St. Benedict or St. Patrick, I believe that is up to the priest's discretion.

As far as I know, and for sure at my own parish, there are no post-Schism individuals venerated in our services. Are these the ones who are being investigated for your calendar? That's the bit that confuses me. If we're talking about pre-Schism saints, what is it exactly that needs to be investigated??
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2011, 12:05:23 AM »

can an Antiochian priest make a decision to celebrate them liturgically or is he obliged to ask for a decision from his bishop?  Sorry, I am just confused.

My personal opinion that I gave earlier was only relating to private veneration. As far as liturgical celebration, it would be my opinion that a priest should stick to celebrating those which have hymns, prayers, services, etc written for liturgical use that have been blessed for use by their bishop.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #27 on: May 16, 2011, 01:59:58 AM »

Why shouldn't Western Rite Orthodox be able to venerate Western saints who are dear to their traditions and local Churches, even if they were after the supposedly big rupture of 1054?  Most scholars agree that, while Rome and Constantinople may have officially broken communion with each other on this date, the complete falling away of both east and west was a far more gradual process then some would make it out to be. 

If Western Rite Orthodox are only supposed to venerate pre schism saints, then this would leave them high and dry when it came to venerating any recent examples of sanctity from their respective traditions.  There would be plenty of Eastern saints for them to venerate, but those saints would not be properly on their calendar as many Roman rite saints are not on the calendars of Eastern rite Churches in the RCC. 
I know that the Vatican has no problem with allowing those Eastern rite Catholics who enter into communion with them from venerating all the saints they previous did before the reunion was reached. 
Why can't the Orthodox hierarchies, in an act of Ekonomia allow the same for their Western rite brethren?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Monk Cyprian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 70


Hooray! I'm useful!


WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 16, 2011, 11:21:21 AM »

Why shouldn't Western Rite Orthodox be able to venerate Western saints who are dear to their traditions and local Churches, even if they were after the supposedly big rupture of 1054?
I'm sorry, but I must point out that the Great Schism isn't a "supposedly big rupture".  It really was a schism that involved theology, politics, linguistics and abrasive personalities.  Sure, one might, from our perspective, attempt to minimize the last three issues I listed, but that doesn't mean the theological problems dissipate.  There are still huge differences between the Orthodox and the Catholics, regardless of how many RC scholars try to dismiss it as unimportant.  Attempts to do so tend to come across as a more than a little condescending, and rather uninformed on theological matters.
Most scholars agree that, while Rome and Constantinople may have officially broken communion with each other on this date, the complete falling away of both east and west was a far more gradual process then some would make it out to be.
Agreed.
If Western Rite Orthodox are only supposed to venerate pre schism saints, then this would leave them high and dry when it came to venerating any recent examples of sanctity from their respective traditions.
How so?  The Western Rite Orthodox are first and foremost Orthodox.  They're Orthodox in theology, and that distinguishes them substantially from groups like the SSPX and various continuing Anglican groups.  They aren't just Roman Catholics or Anglicans that like baclava or perogies occasionally.
There would be plenty of Eastern saints for them to venerate, but those saints would not be properly on their calendar as many Roman rite saints are not on the calendars of Eastern rite Churches in the RCC.  
I know that the Vatican has no problem with allowing those Eastern rite Catholics who enter into communion with them from venerating all the saints they previous did before the reunion was reached.  
Why can't the Orthodox hierarchies, in an act of Ekonomia allow the same for their Western rite brethren?
Are you trying to ask why the WRO simply don't just venerate the saints of the entire RC calendar, as it is?  That's because the post-schism saints on that calendar belonged to a Church that has gravely different theology than the Orthodox Church.  That's the problem.  Sure, many of them were likely very nice people and probably very sanctified, but they, in our opinion, believed "not-so-much" correctly.

Similar to how the RCC does not officially venerate St Seraphim of Sarov.  Most RC's (if they've ever read about him) would likely have no problem considering him a very sanctified and holy man who worked miracles, etc., but he would never be celebrated officially in the RCC simply because of the theological differences.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 11:25:08 AM by Monk Cyprian » Logged

Was it Divine Liturgy in English in XIXth Century Russia?  No, it was not I am the telling you!  Is OUTRAGE!  Now is to be Slavonic music and Byzantine vestment in same church. This is what when KGB run the seminary.
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #29 on: May 17, 2011, 01:13:38 AM »

Can you prove to me that all the pre schism saints venerated by WRO today believed in the Orthodox faith without any Romnan additions or any western theological understanding added to it?  After all, by historical admission the entire West suddenly didn't just "fall away" over night in 1054, but it was a gradual estrangement that took centuries and had its roots well before the ten hundreds came along.  Are you sure that the pre schism Western saints were 100% Orthodox in all things just because the schism didn't officially happen when they reposed?  You don't think that, being western clergy under the Roman patriarch didn't mean that they were at risk, if not actually under the developments of Roman theology, liturgy, and pr axis that were occurring during these times?  Can you just magically declare them all to be "officially" OC because they lived and died before a certain date on the calendar?

Also, I have heard that the small Russian Rite Catholic community scattered throughout the world venerates St Seraphim of Sarov as well as the other post schism Russian saints who were glorified up until the union of the Russian Catholics with Rome (Which was around 1910, I believe).
 
Food for thought.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: May 17, 2011, 02:03:38 AM »

Can you prove to me that all the pre schism saints venerated by WRO today believed in the Orthodox faith without any Romnan additions or any western theological understanding added to it?  After all, by historical admission the entire West suddenly didn't just "fall away" over night in 1054, but it was a gradual estrangement that took centuries and had its roots well before the ten hundreds came along.  Are you sure that the pre schism Western saints were 100% Orthodox in all things just because the schism didn't officially happen when they reposed?  You don't think that, being western clergy under the Roman patriarch didn't mean that they were at risk, if not actually under the developments of Roman theology, liturgy, and pr axis that were occurring during these times?  Can you just magically declare them all to be "officially" OC because they lived and died before a certain date on the calendar?

This is the reason that the Russian Commission on the Saints of the British Isles and Ireland is working its way through the Lives of these Saints.  A few of them, Irish missionaries working on the Continent or closely associated with the court of Charlemagne (the Carolingians in general) were strong supporters of papal supremacy or of the filioque.    Decisions will have to be made about these Saints - were they simply innocent children of their day whose holiness was not affected by these errors?
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #31 on: May 17, 2011, 05:01:39 PM »

Can you prove to me that all the pre schism saints venerated by WRO today believed in the Orthodox faith without any Romnan additions or any western theological understanding added to it?  After all, by historical admission the entire West suddenly didn't just "fall away" over night in 1054, but it was a gradual estrangement that took centuries and had its roots well before the ten hundreds came along.  Are you sure that the pre schism Western saints were 100% Orthodox in all things just because the schism didn't officially happen when they reposed?  You don't think that, being western clergy under the Roman patriarch didn't mean that they were at risk, if not actually under the developments of Roman theology, liturgy, and pr axis that were occurring during these times?  Can you just magically declare them all to be "officially" OC because they lived and died before a certain date on the calendar?

This is the reason that the Russian Commission on the Saints of the British Isles and Ireland is working its way through the Lives of these Saints.  A few of them, Irish missionaries working on the Continent or closely associated with the court of Charlemagne (the Carolingians in general) were strong supporters of papal supremacy or of the filioque.    Decisions will have to be made about these Saints - were they simply innocent children of their day whose holiness was not affected by these errors?


Could you not say the same thing about many of the post schism Western saints as well (men s such as Anthony of Padua or Bernard of Clairvaux)?  They did their best to live holy lives and preach the Gospel in lands which were dominated by the Papal supremacy and really had little if any choice to embrace Orthodoxy 9Assuming that they really knew much about it in the first place beyond polemics).
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 05:02:19 PM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #32 on: May 17, 2011, 11:15:40 PM »

Can you prove to me that all the pre schism saints venerated by WRO today believed in the Orthodox faith without any Romnan additions or any western theological understanding added to it?  After all, by historical admission the entire West suddenly didn't just "fall away" over night in 1054, but it was a gradual estrangement that took centuries and had its roots well before the ten hundreds came along.  Are you sure that the pre schism Western saints were 100% Orthodox in all things just because the schism didn't officially happen when they reposed?  You don't think that, being western clergy under the Roman patriarch didn't mean that they were at risk, if not actually under the developments of Roman theology, liturgy, and pr axis that were occurring during these times?  Can you just magically declare them all to be "officially" OC because they lived and died before a certain date on the calendar?

This is the reason that the Russian Commission on the Saints of the British Isles and Ireland is working its way through the Lives of these Saints.  A few of them, Irish missionaries working on the Continent or closely associated with the court of Charlemagne (the Carolingians in general) were strong supporters of papal supremacy or of the filioque.    Decisions will have to be made about these Saints - were they simply innocent children of their day whose holiness was not affected by these errors?


Could you not say the same thing about many of the post schism Western saints as well (men s such as Anthony of Padua or Bernard of Clairvaux)?  They did their best to live holy lives and preach the Gospel in lands which were dominated by the Papal supremacy and really had little if any choice to embrace Orthodoxy 9Assuming that they really knew much about it in the first place beyond polemics).


Many Orthodox regard Bernard of Clairvaux as the last of the Fathers in the West, the last theologian to live and think within a fully patristic mindset before it was replaced by scholasticism (a movement which Bernard despised.)  I have a place in my heart for him.

None the less, his preaching of the Second Crusade makes him a bit iffy, although I imagine that he never had in mind the horrors which it would bring upon the Eastern Christians.


Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2011, 01:35:13 AM »

Quote
None the less, his preaching of the Second Crusade makes him a bit iffy, although I imagine that he never had in mind the horrors which it would bring upon the Eastern Christians.

I doubt any westerners participating in the crusades purposely intended to bring horrors to eastern christians, specifically because they were eastern christians alone... they would have (and sometimes did) committed many of the same crimes towards western christians if they had stayed there. The people involved in fighting battles are easily corrupted, the temptation is great. The fact that a schism had began/was developing at the beginning of the crusades was a convenient excuse to take power over them and possibly replace their hiearches and clerics in conquered churches, but it could have been anything else otherwise.. Bulgarians were not exactly the friends of byzantium, yet they were eastern christians.

The bulgarians and turks probably did more to destroy the byzantine empire than the crusaders ever did.
 

The Battle of Anchialus for example.
Quote
The battle of Achelous was one of the worst disasters that ever befell a Byzantine army, and conversely one of the greatest military successes of Bulgaria.[1] Among the most significant consequences was the official recognition of the Imperial title of the Bulgarian monarchs, and the consequent affirmation of Bulgarian equality vis-à-vis Byzantium.

I condemn the behaviour of crusaders against fellow christians as much as anyone but I dont view the crusades themselves as misguided or bad by any means. And I also condemn the behaviour of the bulgarians toward constantinople.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 01:40:42 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2011, 01:46:16 AM »

Were I fully in communion with an Orthodox Church I would gladly not commemorate saints from after 1054, however I would never stop encouraging the official recognition of saints from after that date either. I find that the latin saints existing up to 1204 are quite often free of conflict with 99% of orthodox teachings. St Francis and Dominic and the many of the most popular Latin saints that exist in the typical Western christian mind of today were not saints before 1204, so it seems to me personally to be a relatively safe date..or some date slightly later than 1054. My personal view only here.

Over time..this area is likelt to become more relaxed I think, but I do agree it is important to obey the authority of your church and not make yourself disobient. That goes without saying I hope..that is what faith is all about.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 01:47:13 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,862



« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2011, 02:37:34 AM »

Many Orthodox regard Bernard of Clairvaux as the last of the Fathers in the West, the last theologian to live and think within a fully patristic mindset before it was replaced by scholasticism (a movement which Bernard despised.)  I have a place in my heart for him.

Father, do you any English translations of books of his where he critisizes scholasticism?
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.137 seconds with 63 queries.