|
|
Post by OrthodoxBrit on Oct 15, 2012 22:20:58 GMT 2
Hi all,
I was wondering your view on the idea Holy men being recognised as Saints if they are from outside of the Orthodox Church.
I am asking this since some Orthodox Saints are from outside of Orthodoxy or lived/died as part of other Orthodox family and are yet recognised by both.
Some examples inslude Saint Isaac of Nineveh, who was a Nestorian (Assyrian Church of the East) Bishop and Peter the Iberian, one of the founders of the Georgian Orthodox Church but was until his death a Non-Chalcedonian Monk.
As well as this, many OO celebrate and venerate St Martina, though she died long after Chalcedon and was a Chalcedonian.
My question is simple, what are your views on the veneration of Saints from outside of the Church?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 17, 2012 18:55:47 GMT 2
As far as I know, people who died for Christ, even if they weren't members of the Church, go through what we call "the baptism of blood", and they are honoured as martyrs. There are many examples in the history of the Early Church - people who persecuted Christians, but when they saw their bravery, they said something like "Their God is a true God indeed", and they were killed immediately, and now they are honoured as martyrs.
This is the simplest and most clear example.
As far as Saints from unrecognised Churches are involved, I say: what's the problem? If they were members of unrecognised Orthodox Churches, such as OCA, and they were, after all, 100% Orthodox (in every aspect - dogmatics, liturgics etc.), why shouldn't they be honoured as Saints? If the Romanian Patriarchate doesn't recognise OCA, I shouldn't recognise Saint Herman of Alaska as Saint, or Saint John of San Francisco?... Or Saint Nicholas Velimirovich?...
|
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoxBrit on Oct 17, 2012 20:13:10 GMT 2
I'm more with the issue that he was a Bishop in the Nestorian Church. I know that St Isaac's writings which we know of do not deal with his Nestorian Christology and Mariology but wouldn't this mean also that post Schism Roman Catholic Saints are also to be recognised if they didn't write anything which is against Orthodoxy?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 17, 2012 21:45:42 GMT 2
Well, I'd ask a theology professor... Or a Holy Synod of an autocephalous Church.
|
|
|
|
Post by simplyorthodox on Oct 22, 2012 12:57:23 GMT 2
As far as I know, people who died for Christ, even if they weren't members of the Church, go through what we call "the baptism of blood", and they are honoured as martyrs. There are many examples in the history of the Early Church - people who persecuted Christians, but when they saw their bravery, they said something like "Their God is a true God indeed", and they were killed immediately, and now they are honoured as martyrs. This is the simplest and most clear example. As far as Saints from unrecognised Churches are involved, I say: what's the problem? If they were members of unrecognised Orthodox Churches, such as OCA, and they were, after all, 100% Orthodox (in every aspect - dogmatics, liturgics etc.), why shouldn't they be honoured as Saints? If the Romanian Patriarchate doesn't recognise OCA, I shouldn't recognise Saint Herman of Alaska as Saint, or Saint John of San Francisco?... Or Saint Nicholas Velimirovich?... I agree with Andrei. I venarate all the Orthodox Saints. But, even though I agree on "the Baptism of Blood", I wouldn't venerate a Saint outside Orthodoxy. Not because he's not a Saint in the eyes of God, but because of respect in my Church and in my Churches Saints. |
|
|
|
Post by theophilus79 on Oct 26, 2012 1:16:40 GMT 2
Agreed. There is holiness found outside of the Church, but it isn't a holiness within the perfection of the Holy Church. To venerate a saint from a schismatic group such as protestants, would be akin to venerating Nestorius or Arius in my eyes. They were strong defenders of their faith, giants in theological learning and did many good things... but they are outside the community of saints that is the living body of the church.
|
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoxBrit on Oct 27, 2012 9:16:00 GMT 2
So what about st Isaac of Syria? He is venerated by EO and OO but was of the Nestorian Church.
|
|
|
|
Post by immerlein on Jan 5, 2013 11:00:13 GMT 2
I've been wondering a bit about this myself. I feel sort of bad about no longer venerating the saints I did while Catholic (the Catholic specific ones) but I do understand why I shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by JamesfromTA on Jan 5, 2013 14:05:14 GMT 2
I agree. I found it hard at first when I was converting because as an Anglican there were people who we venerated as Saints (coming from the Anglo-Catholics) such as Thomas Aquinas, Theresa of Lisieux, Francis of Assisi etc. But I no longer venerate them for the same reason stated by Theophilus. With regard to St. Isaac the Syrian I have read that his veneration is acceptable because during his life the Church of Persia had not fallen into Nestorianism in that they had imperfect translations of the Greek writings and that because of this the Church which he belonged to remained "fraternally open" with the Orthodox Church. I guess it would be like some of the views of Britain and Ireland that they remained largely Orthodox (even though they were in Communion with Rome) until the Norman Invasion. orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Orthodoxy_in_the_British_Isles |
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoxBrit on Jan 5, 2013 15:22:11 GMT 2
Mar Isaac is a real odd one, and it seems the rabbit hole goes deeper, as with James' post.
Some say he can be venerated since his writings are Orthodox (He never wrote on Christology), others that he wasn't really Nestorian but just ordained by them, now it seems it is also possible that Persia wasn't Nestorian then, though they did venerate Nestorius as a saint at the time.
I suppose that is what makes it interesting. He never wrote on Christology and therefore is a Saint for the Diaphysites, Miaphysites and Nestorians since what he did write is seen as orthodox (small o) by all 3 groups.
|
|
