Orthodox Church And Saints

[Nihil Obstat]

Question for discussion:
Does the Orthodox Church enjoy infallibility when recognizing/glorifying saints in their own tradition? The example that I have in mind is the last generation of the Romanovs, i.e. Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei, who are called passion bearers in the Russian Orthodox Church, and certain others associated with them, i.e. "their court physician, Yevgeny Botkin; their footman Alexei Trupp; their cook, Ivan Kharitonov; and Alexandra's maid, Anna Demidova[...], two servants killed in September 1918, lady in waiting Anastasia Hendrikova and tutor Catherine Adolphovna Schneider."

Have fun. This is an interesting topic.

[Maggyie]

I have always wondered about this too!!!! I was a Romanov-phile for a long time during high school and I thought it was so cool they were "saints." And my inner monarchist is pleased too. But my brain doesn't really agree that just being murdered by the Soviets counts for sainthood....

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Maggie' date='08 December 2009 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1260292601' post='2016121']
I have always wondered about this too!!!! I was a Romanov-phile for a long time during high school and I thought it was so cool they were "saints." And my inner monarchist is pleased too. But my brain doesn't really agree that just being murdered by the Soviets counts for sainthood....
[/quote]
There was apparently some controversy for the same reason. Anyway, it was an interesting example to illustrate the question.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1260289308' post='2016106']
Question for discussion:
Does the Orthodox Church enjoy infallibility when recognizing/glorifying saints in their own tradition? The example that I have in mind is the last generation of the Romanovs, i.e. Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei, who are called passion bearers in the Russian Orthodox Church, and certain others associated with them, i.e. "their court physician, Yevgeny Botkin; their footman Alexei Trupp; their cook, Ivan Kharitonov; and Alexandra's maid, Anna Demidova[...], two servants killed in September 1918, lady in waiting Anastasia Hendrikova and tutor Catherine Adolphovna Schneider."

Have fun. This is an interesting topic.
[/quote]

Of course not. For a canonization to be infallible it has to be an act of the Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium of the Church can only be exercised by the Roman Pontiff and those bishops in communion with him.

I would just like to add that there are many Catholic saints have never been infallibly canonized. Most of the saints from the first millennium simply had cults that arose on a grassroots level, after which they became recognized as saints. Not until the Holy See took it upon itself to canonize saints did they become infallible. I would also like to note that the formula used in canonizing the saints is very important in determining whether a saint has been infallibly canonized. The formula is (with the essential part in bold):

"For the honour of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the fostering of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayers for the divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of our Brother Bishops, [b]we declare and define that the blessed N. is a saint[/b] and we enroll her among the saints, decreeing that she is to be venerated in the whole Church as one of the saints. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Beatifications do not use this formula, and for that reason beatifications are not considered infallible.

[Nihil Obstat]

I've read some literature that indicates that even commonly recognized saints before the official process was in place are considered infallibly 'canonized.' Have you heard something like that before?

Lol, it might have been Jergens actually, because that's all I've read in the last 24 hours. Probably in his forward.

[Nihil Obstat]

Found it. Page x of Volume 1.

"No doubt the early Church venerated many as saints who could never have escaped the barbs of a devil's advocate. But it was an infallible Church which initiated their veneration; and they are saints as certainly as those who attained the honors of the altar only after due canonical process. In general we may say that those to whom ecclesial tradition has accorded the title of saint fulfill the requirement of sanctity of life.


Love this book.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1260300056' post='2016175']
I've read some literature that indicates that even commonly recognized saints before the official process was in place are considered infallibly 'canonized.' Have you heard something like that before?[/quote]

I'd disagree with that. Except maybe in the case of the a few saints (e.g. Peter and Paul) whom we would consider infallibly canonized by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, I don't think that it would be correct consider as canonized those who have not been canonized by a definitive act of the Roman Pontiff.

In any case, those persons "glorified" by the Eastern Orthodox Churches are definitely not infallibly canonized by any means since the Eastern Orthodox bishops have absolutely no teaching authority.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1260300409' post='2016179']
Found it. Page x of Volume 1.

"No doubt the early Church venerated many as saints who could never have escaped the barbs of a devil's advocate. But it was an infallible Church which initiated their veneration; and they are saints as certainly as those who attained the honors of the altar only after due canonical process. In general we may say that those to whom ecclesial tradition has accorded the title of saint fulfill the requirement of sanctity of life.


Love this book.
[/quote]

I would think about most saints who were not canonized by a definitive infallible act of the Roman Pontiff (i.e., those who were glorified before the institution of the canonization process) in the same way we think about Beati (i.e. those who have been beatified). We consider them holy and in heaven, indeed the Church considers them holy and in heaven, and they are venerated in the Liturgy of the Church, but they have not been infallibly declared to be holy and in heaven.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='08 December 2009 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1260300518' post='2016182']
I'd disagree with that. Except maybe in the case of the a few saints (e.g. Peter and Paul) whom we would consider infallibly canonized by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, I don't think that it would be correct consider as canonized those who have not been canonized by a definitive act of the Roman Pontiff.

In any case, those persons "glorified" by the Eastern Orthodox Churches are definitely not infallibly canonized by any means since the Eastern Orthodox bishops have absolutely no teaching authority.
[/quote]
[quote name='Resurrexi' date='08 December 2009 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1260300736' post='2016186']
I would think about most saints who were not canonized by a definitive infallible act of the Roman Pontiff (i.e., those who were glorified before the institution of the canonization process) in the same way we think about Beati (i.e. those who have been beatified). We consider them holy and in heaven, indeed the Church considers them holy and in heaven, and they are venerated in the Liturgy of the Church, but they have not been infallibly declared to be holy and in heaven.
[/quote]
For the sake of argument I'll accept that part about the Eastern Orthodox, but couldn't we consider "pre-process" saints to have been canonized by a sort of "College of Bishops" acting in concert? Certainly if every bishop were to agree on a point, we consider it an infallible act of the Magisterium, do we not?

Edited December 8, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1260300807' post='2016187']
For the sake of argument I'll accept that part about the Eastern Orthodox, but couldn't we consider "pre-process" saints to have been canonized by a sort of "College of Bishops" acting in concert? Certainly if every bishop were to agree on a point, we consider it an infallible act of the Magisterium, do we not?
[/quote]

I think the argument could be made for a few "pre-process" saints that they have been infallibly canonized by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. I would include in this number, as I stated before, saints like John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul, saints whose cults can doubtless be said to have universal status. They have always been venerated in every church that is in communion with Rome.

[Nihil Obstat]

Interesting idea...
Obviously it accounts for 'saints' who may not technically be real, or who may not have done what we traditionally say they have done, like St. George and St. Christopher.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1260301437' post='2016201']
Interesting idea...
Obviously it accounts for 'saints' who may not technically be real, or who may not have done what we traditionally say they have done, like St. George and St. Christopher.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say that St. George and St. Christopher were not real. I would say that all we know about them is that they existed, they were Catholic, they were holy, and (if I recall correctly) they were martyred. That said, I definitely wouldn't consider them to have been infallibly declared saints.

[Nihil Obstat]

I can't wait to see what Apotheoun says.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1260306304' post='2016289']
I can't wait to see what Apotheoun says.
[/quote]

@@

[Nihil Obstat]

I plan on stepping back and letting you two duke it out; I learn a lot that way.

[Apotheoun]

The members of the Russian royal family are passion-bearers, which means that they died in a Christ-like way, but that they were not killed explicitly for the faith.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 December 2009 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1260306304' post='2016289']
I can't wait to see what Apotheoun says.
[/quote]
I posted the information below some time ago in response to a question related to the subject of this present thread:

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='31 August 2009 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1251786857' post='1959341']
[quote name='StColette' date='31 August 2009 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1251749135' post='1958961']
Todd, could you provide a reference to this, please? I've tried searching one online and found like one from wiki and one that didn't seem very scholarly or give too much detail.
[/quote]
Not many of the liturgical books (and they are voluminous in number) of the Byzantine liturgy are available online. In fact, the only online resources tend to be for the major feasts of the liturgical calendar, and St. Gregory of Sinai's memorial is not a major feast in the liturgical cycle, but the feast of St. Gregory Palamas (+ A.D. 1359) is a major celebration (i.e., it is the Second Sunday of Great Fast), and English version of the liturgical texts for his feast are available online through the Ruthenian Catholic Church's "Metropolitan Cantor Institute" at the following link:

[url="http://www.metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/GF2SundayGreatVespers.pdf"][u]Vesper Propers for the Second Sunday of the Great Fast: Memory of our Holy Father Gregory, Archbishop of Thessalonica[/u][/url]


In addition to St. Gregory Palamas the Eastern Catholic Churches also recognize St. Sergius of Radonezh as a saint (n.b., he has also recently been added to the newest version of the Roman Martyrology, which means that his feast is no longer peculiar to the Eastern Catholic Churches, but is now also a feast in the Roman Rite). St. Sergius (circa A.D. 1322 - A.D. 1392) lived and died at a time when the Russian Orthodox Church was not in communion with Rome; and moreover, he was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1452, which was eleven years after that Church had rejected the decrees and authority of the Council of Florence, and yet Rome itself has added St. Sergius to its own calendar.

St. Sergius is the ninth of eleven saints listed for September 25th in the latest edition of the [i]Martyrologium Romanum[/i] published in Rome in 2004 (page 536):

Here is his entry in Latin (minus the accents):

[indent][i]In monasterio Sanctissimae Trinitatis in Mosquensi Russiae regione, sancti Sergii de Radonez, qui, primum in silvis asperis eremita, dein vitam coenobiticam coluit et hegumenus electus propagavit, vir mitis, consiliarius principum et consolator fidelium.[/i][/indent]

Finally, Pope Pius X in the early 20th century gave his approval to the Russian Catholic Church's liturgical books, which are identical to the Russian Orthodox books of that time period, and when questioned about whether or not Russian Catholics should follow Orthodox liturgical practice, he answered by saying that their practice should be "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter" (no more, no less, no different) than that of the Russian Orthodox Church. That means that all the saints canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church up to the first decade of the 20th century are recognized as saints by the Russian Catholic Church, which is in communion with the bishop of Rome, and -- of course -- because the Russian Catholic Church recognizes the saints glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church it follows by extension that all those saints are also recognized by the other Eastern Catholic Churches.
[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

I disagree with what you said about St. Sergius having lived while Russia was out of communion with Rome. Russia hadn't yet formally made the decision to split with the Roman See. Russia at that time saw no reason to split with Rome.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 December 2009 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1260349668' post='2016525']
I disagree with what you said about St. Sergius having lived while Russia was out of communion with Rome. Russia hadn't yet formally made the decision to split with the Roman See. Russia at that time saw no reason to split with Rome.
[/quote]
Russia was not in communion with Rome at the time, either formally or informally. The pope was not commemorated during the Patriarchal or Metropolitan liturgies, and he was often held to be a heretic. Now if you do not count that as being "out of communion" then the Eastern Orthodox of today are also in communion with the pope.

[loveletslive]

my orthodox friend told me that there is no official process for someone to become a saint like in the catholic church. if the patriarch if one area deems the person worthy, they are called a saint and generally all the other patriarchs accept