OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 01:52:43 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: Orthodox on post-1054 Catholic saints  (Read 8385 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 709


St. George


« on: August 22, 2005, 12:23:48 AM »

This thread actually concerns two sets of questions that I have.ÂÂ  The first set concerns the Orthodox understanding of non-Orthodox "Christians."ÂÂ  The second set more specifically concerns the Orthodox attitude towards Roman Catholic saints.

1a)
I am having difficulty grasping the Orthodox perspective of those "Christians" who are not Orthodox but rather are Roman Catholic, Protestant, etc. 
Do the Orthodox consider members of schismatic and heretical groups as good as damned?ÂÂ  Or, do the Orthodox claim a less assertive position of "We know that salvation is through the Orthodox Church, but we are not sure about other 'Christian' churches"?

I notice that, in the early Christian works, there is a sense that all heretics and schismatics cannot achieve salvation, no matter how holy and noble.ÂÂ  However, I have also heard from some Orthodox that the Orthodox do not know whether or not those not Orthodox can be saved.ÂÂ  The one side says that "all schismatics and heretics are wolves"; the other side seems to say "those in the Orthodox Church are the lambs, but who knows which ones outside are not wolves."ÂÂ  

1c)
I know that there are many who might object, but I just can't fathom how certain Catholic saints who gave everything away to the Lord and who dedicated themselves to the Lord can be damned.  St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of the Cross, St. Malachy--these are just a few of the earlier Roman Catholic saints that I would have a hard time considering as "damned," if that's the Orthodox belief.  I mean, I suppose that if you're a hardcore Coptic Christian, you could consider all post-Chalcedonian saints in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches as Nestorian and therefore accursed, damned.  There goes Cyril and Methodius.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

What are your reflections on this?ÂÂ  Is it fathomable for a holy person who gives his life to Christ and his possessions to the poor, who lives a morally righteous life, to go to hell because he has a slightly different Christological understanding?ÂÂ  

1d)
Do the Orthodox see the Eastern Catholics as any different from other non-Orthodox in terms of their potential for salvation?ÂÂ  



2a)
I already touched on this in 1c quite a bit, but what is the Orthodox attitude towards Roman Catholic saints who follow 1054?ÂÂ  I know of one Orthodox friend who has expressed to me an interest in the writings of St. John of the Cross.ÂÂ  I am sure that there are other Orthodox who have read Roman Catholic spiritual works and feel that they have gained at least some spiritual substance from reading them.ÂÂ  For example, I know that in his book, The Orthodox Way, Bishop Kallistos quotes from the work of Julian of Norwich, an English anchoress who lived after 1054.ÂÂ  

So, I guess what I'm asking is, how do Orthodox approach Roman Catholic spiritual literature that was written after the Schism of 1054?ÂÂ  

2b)
 Is there an attitude of, "Its author was a heretic and therefore his or her work should not be read as spiritual literature"?ÂÂ  Or, is there an attitude of, "All right, this guy (or gal) might not be Orthodox, but he clearly seems to have had an intimate and selfless love for Christ, and therefore there might be some great spiritual wealth in what he has written"?

2c)
I know that I am bound to get a variety of answers.ÂÂ  I'm presently reading the journal entries of a Cistercian monk who stayed on Mt. Athos for several weeks (I can't remember the exact length of time), during which time he writes down the views of the Orthodox monks there.ÂÂ  In the book containing these journal entries, there seems to be the prevailing view that spirituality should flow from doctrine, and therefore that Roman Catholics should not use Orthodox books in spiritual development (and vice versa).ÂÂ  However, Bishop Kallistos, present at the island during this monk's stay, supposedly told this Cistercian monk that, despite differences, the core of the Orthodox and Catholic tradition is one, and therefore Roman Catholics could make use of Eastern spiritual works.ÂÂ  The implication I received from reading this is that, if there exists some kind of common tradition, the Orthodox could also learn from some Roman Catholic writers.

What do you think?ÂÂ  
« Last Edit: August 22, 2005, 01:03:43 AM by StGeorge » Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2005, 02:53:33 AM »

Quote
St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of the Cross, St. Malachy--these are just a few of the earlier Roman Catholic saints that I would have a hard time considering as "damned,"

Many Orthodox do consider Francis of Assisi to be damned. See http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx where there is a comparison of Francis and St Seraphim of Sarov.

I too used to be a fan of John of the Cross. However, I realised that the Orthodox have enough of their own fine writers that you don't even need to read heterodox literature. Instead of John of the Cross, why not check out St John Climacus?

Quote
However, Bishop Kallistos, present at the island during this monk's stay, supposedly told this Cistercian monk that, despite differences, the core of the Orthodox and Catholic tradition is one, and therefore Roman Catholics could make use of Eastern spiritual works.  The implication I received from reading this is that, if there exists some kind of common tradition, the Orthodox could also learn from some Roman Catholic writers.

What His Eminence probably meant that the Eastern works before 1054 belong to the Roman Catholic Church too, so Roman Catholics should be more keen on reading St John Climacus, St Simeon the New Theologian, St Basil the Great, etc. The Orthodox have nothing to learn from post-1054 Roman Catholic writers, because to do so would be to suggest that the Orthodox Church doesn't contain the whole truth within itself, which is heresy.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2005, 03:18:30 AM »

This thread actually concerns two sets of questions that I have.ÂÂ  The first set concerns the Orthodox understanding of non-Orthodox "Christians."ÂÂ  The second set more specifically concerns the Orthodox attitude towards Roman Catholic saints.

You will not find unanimity on soteriological issues in Orthodoxy; neither amongst modern Orthodox, nor amongst the Fathers. There tends to be two soteriological schools of thought, Alexandria and Antioch (with the Cappadocians tending to take most their soteriology from the Alexandrians), in spite of my adamant aruging in defence of Chalcedon on other boards, I do tend to favour the more Philosophical Alexandrian tradition, at least in Creation, Soteriology, and other philosophical issues, so I will answer your questions that perspective, specifically from a posistion fairly close to St. Clement of Alexandria's. But keep in mind, there is another side, the Antiochian side.

Quote
1a)
I am having difficulty grasping the Orthodox perspective of those "Christians" who are not Orthodox but rather are Roman Catholic, Protestant, etc.ÂÂ  
Do the Orthodox consider members of schismatic and heretical groups as good as damned?ÂÂ  Or, do the Orthodox claim a less assertive position of "We know that salvation is through the Orthodox Church, but we are not sure about other 'Christian' churches"?

No, they're not 'as good as damned,' they may be wrong and even subject to the harsh sentence of anathema, but Salvation, of both the Orthodox and heterodox, is ultimately in God's hands, and I suspect that he will grant salvation to any who ask it of Him in the life to come, for any other act would be inconsonant with Divine Love and Mercy.

Quote
I notice that, in the early Christian works, there is a sense that all heretics and schismatics cannot achieve salvation, no matter how holy and noble.ÂÂ  However, I have also heard from some Orthodox that the Orthodox do not know whether or not those not Orthodox can be saved.ÂÂ  The one side says that "all schismatics and heretics are wolves"; the other side seems to say "those in the Orthodox Church are the lambs, but who knows which ones outside are not wolves."ÂÂ  

Then you're not reading the right early Christian works, try St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory the Theologian. Yes all schismatics and heretics are wolves, but there will come a time when the lion will lay down with the lamb...why not the wolf as well, God is a Merciful and Forgiving God.

Quote
1c)
I know that there are many who might object, but I just can't fathom how certain Catholic saints who gave everything away to the Lord and who dedicated themselves to the Lord can be damned.  St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of the Cross, St. Malachy--these are just a few of the earlier Roman Catholic saints that I would have a hard time considering as "damned," if that's the Orthodox belief.  I mean, I suppose that if you're a hardcore Coptic Christian, you could consider all post-Chalcedonian saints in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches as Nestorian and therefore accursed, damned.  There goes Cyril and Methodius.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

They may heretics, but they are not necessarily damned, for God is Merciful; however, as they lived their lives in heresy, they can hardly be called Saints either.

Quote
What are your reflections on this?  Is it fathomable for a holy person who gives his life to Christ and his possessions to the poor, who lives a morally righteous life, to go to hell because he has a slightly different Christological understanding? ÂÂ

Yes, this is possible, if he is too proud to submit to God's truth in the life to come; but, it's also possible for someone with a correct Christology and fits all the criteria above to go to Hell, if he is too proud to accept the forgiveness of God or unwilling to forgive their neighbour in the life to come.

Quote
1d)
Do the Orthodox see the Eastern Catholics as any different from other non-Orthodox in terms of their potential for salvation?ÂÂ  

Personally I'd say they're in worse shape, more akin to Schismatics than Heretics; people who are knowledgable of the ways of the Church, and thus cannot be said to reject them out of Ignorance, but rather out of Pride and self-righteousness; but in the end, all is up to God's mercy.

Quote
2a)
I already touched on this in 1c quite a bit, but what is the Orthodox attitude towards Roman Catholic saints who follow 1054?ÂÂ  I know of one Orthodox friend who has expressed to me an interest in the writings of St. John of the Cross.ÂÂ  I am sure that there are other Orthodox who have read Roman Catholic spiritual works and feel that they have gained at least some spiritual substance from reading them.ÂÂ  For example, I know that in his book, The Orthodox Way, Bishop Kallistos quotes from the work of Julian of Norwich, an English anchoress who lived after 1054.ÂÂ  

They followed heresy, or possibly even Schism, they're not saints. There have been some good Buddhists as well, but they're not saints either.

Quote
So, I guess what I'm asking is, how do Orthodox approach Roman Catholic spiritual literature that was written after the Schism of 1054?ÂÂ  

Read it objectively from an Academic Perspective it it is in a subject of Interest or Research, I still read the Summa Theologica, though I read it Critically. But for edification of one's spiritual life, I would recomment one stick with Orthodox Sources; Medieval Latin spirituality became very carnal, focusing primarially on such tings physical pain and physical passions, relegating the spiritual to almost a seconday posistion, dependent on the physical.

Quote
2b)
 Is there an attitude of, "Its author was a heretic and therefore his or her work should not be read as spiritual literature"?ÂÂ  Or, is there an attitude of, "All right, this guy (or gal) might not be Orthodox, but he clearly seems to have had an intimate and selfless love for Christ, and therefore there might be some great spiritual wealth in what he has written"?

I'm often skeptical of spiritual literature, even when the Author is Orthodox; if they are not Orthodox I would be Extremely Cautious. I think good advice in general is to analyse any writing academically before using it spiritually. As I hinted at above, there are probably some very well written and helpful buddhist texts, that may even convey a message consonant with Christianity, that doesn't mean I'm going to use them in my spiritual life.

Quote
2c)
I know that I am bound to get a variety of answers.ÂÂ  I'm presently reading the journal entries of a Cistercian monk who stayed on Mt. Athos for several weeks (I can't remember the exact length of time), during which time he writes down the views of the Orthodox monks there.ÂÂ  In the book containing these journal entries, there seems to be the prevailing view that spirituality should flow from doctrine, and therefore that Roman Catholics should not use Orthodox books in spiritual development (and vice versa).ÂÂ  However, Bishop Kallistos, present at the island during this monk's stay, supposedly told this Cistercian monk that, despite differences, the core of the Orthodox and Catholic tradition is one, and therefore Roman Catholics could make use of Eastern spiritual works.ÂÂ  The implication I received from reading this is that, if there exists some kind of common tradition, the Orthodox could also learn from some Roman Catholic writers.

What do you think?ÂÂ  

The emphesis in Spirituality is quite different between the East and the West; for example you have hesychasm in the East and stigmata in the West, the differences in emphasis here are profound. It's probably not prudent for someone of one tradition to embrace the spirituality of the other. I am not entirely certain of what His Grace was trying to say as I don't have the full context, but I would assume that His Grace was suggesting that the Latins may learn something from the Eastern Fathers.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,462


« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2005, 07:16:19 PM »

I suppose I should start another thread, but conversely, are there pre-1054 (western) Orthodox Saints that Rome does not consider Saints?  For example, they hold St. Augustine in such high regard, theologically speaking, while we may hold him in high regard, point out his shortcomings as well - where one of his contemporaries, St. John Cassian has done in a gracious matter.  Does Rome consider St. John Cassian a Saint?
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2005, 07:16:59 PM »

Many Orthodox do consider Francis of Assisi to be damned. See http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx where there is a comparison of Francis and St Seraphim of Sarov.


Correction SOME Orthodox believe St. Francis of Assisi to "damned."  Most Orthodox Christians, if we think of him at all, think that he's a nice Roman Catholic saint.  Not part of our tradition but we have enough of our own things to concern ourselves about rather than speculating about the fate of people who have been dead for many years. 

Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2005, 07:34:44 PM »

The Church teaches it is not our place to know or decide the fate of other people.  This should be differentiated from pointing out the shortcoming os Francis of Assisi and how his spirituality is not Orthodox.  For example we say that Arians do not hold the Orthodox faith because they don't.  But in so saying we do not presume to judge the fate of their souls. 
Logged
StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 709


St. George


« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2005, 07:53:47 PM »

Thank you everyone for your posts!ÂÂ  

I think it was Tatian the Assyrian or some other 2nd century writer who I vividly remember asserting that no schismatic, heretic, fornicator, etc. can enter heaven.ÂÂ  I have yet to really read the Cappadocian Fathers in their entirety, much less anything written during that time, but I hope to do so soon.ÂÂ  Smiley

Quote
Originally Quoted by Elisha:

I suppose I should start another thread, but conversely, are there pre-1054 (western) Orthodox Saints that Rome does not consider Saints?ÂÂ  For example, they hold St. Augustine in such high regard, theologically speaking, while we may hold him in high regard, point out his shortcomings as well - where one of his contemporaries, St. John Cassian has done in a gracious matter.ÂÂ  Does Rome consider St. John Cassian a Saint?

I honestly don't know if Catholics regard John Cassian as a saint.ÂÂ  It's interesting, since one book I have on Catholic spirituality does not mention him in the entry title as a saint, but it does conclude with, "when he died, he had already attained the reputation of being a saint" (Catholic Spirituality from A to Z)

It seems that the Roman Catholic Church does not focus as heavily on the monastics as they do on other saints.ÂÂ  I am not sure if these saints are all considered saints in the West.ÂÂ  However, I know that the West does recognize the spiritual contributions of these monastic saints.ÂÂ  Sometimes when I come across one of the monastic saints, he is described as a "saint"; at other times, he is simply described as an ascetic.ÂÂ  

For some reason, the Western Church, in popular representations, presently emphasizes the martyred and converted saints, more than the "monastic" ones--at least in its stained-glass windows, and at least in the churches near me.ÂÂ  
« Last Edit: August 22, 2005, 08:03:25 PM by StGeorge » Logged
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2005, 08:24:10 PM »

The Church teaches it is not our place to know or decide the fate of other people.ÂÂ  This should be differentiated from pointing out the shortcoming os Francis of Assisi and how his spirituality is not Orthodox.ÂÂ  For example we say that Arians do not hold the Orthodox faith because they don't.ÂÂ  But in so saying we do not presume to judge the fate of their souls.ÂÂ  

Very well said Smiley
Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2005, 12:11:29 AM »

St. John Cassian is a Roman Catholic Saint, although they cringe when you read some of his matereal. Yet, I think that he is not given much focus to.   Then again, I also remember reading of the great Russian "Roman Catholic Saints," St. Sergeius of Radonezh and St. Seraphim of Sarov in a 1970s Catholic Directory of Saints.  Perhaps the writers couldn't think because of the pants.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2005, 12:59:48 AM »

Quote
I suppose I should start another thread, but conversely, are there pre-1054 (western) Orthodox Saints that Rome does not consider Saints?  For example, they hold St. Augustine in such high regard, theologically speaking, while we may hold him in high regard, point out his shortcomings as well - where one of his contemporaries, St. John Cassian has done in a gracious matter.  Does Rome consider St. John Cassian a Saint?

I believe Pope John Paul II considered Orthodox saints to be saints (well, maybe not St. Photios), which is all based on the "two lungs theory."

The only problem is that Unam Sanctam stated that all beings must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation, so to go with the "two lungs theory" would be to go against previous infallible statements of previous Popes. Although, the "two lungs theory" was never a "magisterial" teaching, but one which was discussed in the ecumenical circles.
Logged
Tags: saints 
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 0.07 seconds with 36 queries.