Question On 'orthodox' Saints

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
concerning the saints that the orthodox Churches venerates, if they (the Churches) were ever to come back into the fold of the Catholic Church, how would the Catholic Church incorporate those saints, considering that they were 'elevated' to the status of sainthood without 'approval' of the Catholic Church?

i hope this question makes sense, and i'm looking for a honest answer, not an argument.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1782414' date='Feb 16 2009, 12:46 PM']+J.M.J.+
concerning the saints that the orthodox Churches venerates, if they (the Churches) were ever to come back into the fold of the Catholic Church, how would the Catholic Church incorporate those saints, considering that they were 'elevated' to the status of sainthood without 'approval' of the Catholic Church?

i hope this question makes sense, and i'm looking for a honest answer, not an argument.[/quote]
Would it not depend on when they became saints?

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
well, that's part of what i'm asking. sorry for not making it clear. so if they were elevated to sainthood status in the orthodox Church after the split, how would they be incorporated into the Catholic Church if/when we re-unite?

[Aloysius]

the Eastern Catholic Churches venerate many saints never canonized by the Roman Church and who can even be said to have died in schism from the Roman Church.

the Ecumenical Effort of Rome to the East has in modern times ammounted to an appeal of "we will not interfere in your Church at all, whatsoever; we just need to come to an agreement on Ecclesiology which affirms the primacy of Rome"... they would operate as a full sui-juris Church. I think a lot of people don't get the real implication of "sui juris" or "self-governing"; what it means is that Rome is not the day to day governor of that Church; they theoretically should not need the Pope's permission to consecrate Bishops (they would need their own Patriarch's position); Easter Catholic (in union with Rome) Ecclesiology tends to see Rome and the Pope as the ultimate guarantee of unity, the final arbiter when there is an important issue of disagreement... this would be consistent with the model of the first millenium.

what all this means is that Rome would continue to permit any and all saints glorified in the Eastern tradition to be venerated in these Churches unless there arose a large divisive problem that only the Pope could solve for them. for instance, there are conspiratorial rumors around about the possibility of Stalin being re-habilitated and even potentially canonized in the Russian Orthodox Church... it'll never happen, but there are various factions of that Church which would like to see that happen; such an event might merit the intervention of the Pope of Rome were the Russian Orthodox Church to be in communion with Rome.

Rome's permitting of the veneration of these saints, especially the large number of them who lived during the time of the Great Schism (I am now speaking as if they were reunited) would not be a validation of their sainthood by Rome... ie, Roman Catholics would not be required to believe them to be saints, nor would devotion to them be properly imported to Roman Churches. but that's probably how Rome would deal with it... by not dealing with it.

[Resurrexi]

While it is of course true that the Eastern Catholic Churches are governed sui iuris, I it is also certainly true that "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (Lumen Gentium 22). Therefore, I would think that, unless the Pope concedes the authority to permit consecrations of bishops to the Patriarch of the sui iuris Church, it is he who has the authority to permit episcopal consecrations.

[Aloysius]

it is my understanding that Ecumenical efforts with the Eastern Orthodox Churches have all but said the Pope would not assume such a role with the placement of their bishops; and it is my assessment of the tone from Rome that it is considered desireable that a form of the Eastern Churches come about wherein their bishops are independently chosen.

a true and proper ecclesiology rooted in the experience of the first Millenium of the Church would have bishops be approveable only by their patriarch with the theoretical possibility of Roman intervention against any bishop who proved to be problematic; the authority of the Pope over the sui juris Churches is not to be manifested by regular governance over these sui juris Churches but by extra-ordinary intervention possible for Rome in order to secure ultimate unity.

he can always exercise authority (for the sake of ultimate unity), but ought not to regularly exercise authority in the Eastern Churches; he ought only to excercise authority there in cases of necessity for unity, not regularly.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1782537' date='Feb 16 2009, 02:10 PM']for instance, there are conspiratorial rumors around about the possibility of Stalin being re-habilitated and even potentially canonized in the Russian Orthodox Church... it'll never happen, but there are various factions of that Church which would like to see that happen; such an event might merit the intervention of the Pope of Rome were the Russian Orthodox Church to be in communion with Rome.[/quote]
That would frighten me.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1782414' date='Feb 16 2009, 12:46 PM']+J.M.J.+
concerning the saints that the orthodox Churches venerates, if they (the Churches) were ever to come back into the fold of the Catholic Church, how would the Catholic Church incorporate those saints, considering that they were 'elevated' to the status of sainthood without 'approval' of the Catholic Church?

i hope this question makes sense, and i'm looking for a honest answer, not an argument.[/quote]

I don't think the post-Schism saints would be integrated into the Latin calendar or liturgies, at least not right away. Maybe a few would be added down the road, but I don't see any reason why much would change. Of course, devotions to those saints could be encouraged among Latin Rite Catholics. Most of our Western saints were not "approved" as we know it today until after the Council of Trent.

[Aloysius]

likely the Roman Church will never approve of public devotion to these saints in the Roman Church... the only way to venerate them in public devotion for a Roman would be to attend a Divine Liturgy on their feast day in an Eastern Church.

Rome will neither import their saints into her calendar at all nor interfere in their calendar (unless they tried to pull a St. Joseph Stalin or something ridiculous like that).

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1784497' date='Feb 18 2009, 12:03 PM'](unless they tried to pull a St. Joseph Stalin or something ridiculous like that).[/quote]
*shudders*

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1784497' date='Feb 18 2009, 02:03 PM']likely the Roman Church will never approve of public devotion to these saints in the Roman Church... the only way to venerate them in public devotion for a Roman would be to attend a Divine Liturgy on their feast day in an Eastern Church.

Rome will neither import their saints into her calendar at all nor interfere in their calendar (unless they tried to pull a St. Joseph Stalin or something ridiculous like that).[/quote]

Never? If somehow the Catholic and Orthodox Churches ever unite under a common celebration of the Eucharist -- and that's a huuuge if -- then relatively minor details like this should be entirely possible. I could see the Roman Church importing a feast day for one or two Eastern saints who have some relevance to the West, at least to celebrate our sharing in one communion. I'm sure there are some Eastern saints who pushed for reunion with Rome during their lives.

[Aloysius]

I personally don't think it would ever be at all appropriate; the Eastern Churches do not want latinization, nor do we want easternization.

[LouisvilleFan]

I've been under the impression that the Roman Church has been edging more to the East in its theology and ecclesiology... nothing dramatic, obviously. But if some of the Orthodox venerate St. Francis of Assisi, it doesn't seem so odd that some Roman Catholics might venerate saints from an Eastern Church. I wouldn't expect anything widespread, but it shouldn't be impossible either. Unless there's some canon law thing I'm not aware of...

[Aloysius]

like I said, I don't think the Roman Church should approve them for public veneration. that doesn't stop any Roman Catholic from privately praying to them, they simply cannot be invoked in public worship (and for good reason, for instance: an invocation to St. Photius might be scandalous to some Romans who believe he died outside of unity with Rome or at least that his life was largely lived tearing unity with Rome apart)... most Easterners would be bothered to find that their Church had erected a statue of St. Francis (or actually a statue rather than an icon of any saint, theoretically)... and I would probably be bothered with any depection in a Roman Church of some saint of the East who died out of union with Rome.

this is not to say that this should be a definitive absolutue line drawn. The Society of St. Josaphat, which is somewhat associated with the SSPX (has had priests ordained by the bishops of the SSPX), of Eastern Catholics who wish to maintain some of the latinizations of history because it was the devotion and experience of their immediate fathers... I partially support that effort myself, as these latinizations became some of their living traditions and they do not wish to wake up one day and be told no longer to pray the latin version of the Rosary because it is a latinization which should be removed. some blurry lines are possible when it comes to maintaining the living tradition passed down to you in your Church. I don't support the effort to keep all Eastern Catholic Churches from de-latinizing, but there should be a place for the living tradtion passed down from the times when the Eastern Churches were latinized, if this is the devotions which have been passed down to some people.

I think we've been edging a little more towards a 1st millenium ecclesiology (not specifically Eastern, rather, first millenium western); I think the move towards eastern theology is a bad move if it abandons the theological patrimony of our Church, though; I would oppose easternizing our theology too much just as I would oppose latinizing Eastern theology too much. we should be faithful to that which was passed down to us as much as possible... please God don't let the West throw out Trent or the scholastics or Augustine just because the East disagrees with their formulations of things.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1785499' date='Feb 19 2009, 12:32 PM']I personally don't think it would ever be at all appropriate; the Eastern Churches do not want latinization, nor do we want easternization.[/quote]
Is it really healthy to look at it this way?
We're looking at it from our perspective, but we should be looking from God's (as much as possible).
We don't want Latinization or Easternization for either church; we want truth. Both the East and the West contain the fullness of truth preserved in the Catholic Church, so what it comes down to, as I understand it, is what is culturally the best and most clear way to present it to the people.
If certain Eastern understandings are currently beneficial for the Latin church, then by all means we can adopt them, and ditto for the East.