Grand Unifying Theory

[Addai]

I was interested in the ways people avoid "Cognitive Dissonance" when trying to reconcile East and West. For instance many people would have trouble wrapping their mind around how an some Orthodox saints could also be revered by Eastern Catholics when the saint could be very polemical against Rome, various western beliefs etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


Is there anything like a Grand Unifying Theory (other than the common Christological declaration/s) to reconcile such things? Most of the reasoning I've seen on the board has been based on technicalities such as:
1) This saint was not anathemitized by a Ecumenical counsel
2) canonizing saints in the old church and the East was purely a local affair...
3) Stating that infallibitlity does not rest in the individual but in the Church or the Pope (You can be a respected saint but still wrong in some of the things you advocate)
And so on....




As an excercise I wanted to ask a "what if" type question. If the Coptic Orthodox Church through some miracle decided to enter in Communion with Rome next week what do you think would happen to its honoring some of its traditional saints like Saint Samuel the Confessor?

1) Would they have to renounce him (because he was contradicting an established Dogma)
2) Keep him as a saint (because canonization of a saint is simply a local affair if your not a Latin).
3) Rationalize his outspoken stance against Chalcedon etc. as saying "he was attacking his flawed understaying of it or the flawed ways it was applied" etc.
4) Do something else?

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Samuel_the_Confessor

[mardukm]

I don't have time right now to respond to your very incisive post. I have some definite POV's on the matter, but I need time to find a way to properly express them. For now, I just want to say...


I AM VERY BLESSED TO SEE THAT YOU ARE STILL WITH US!!!!



Abundant blessings,
Marduk

[Addai]

Cool! I was hoping I would hear from you.


Hopefully I will also see Ghosty.

[Aramis]

Option 3: Venerate him for his faithfulness in pursuit of what he knew of was truth, despite his error in his understanding of the councils.

After all, We venerate St. Gregory Palamas...

[mardukm]

Three "unifying theories" that you can ponder for now.

1) Invincible Ignorance
2) The Church's judgments against a person are not infallible acts.
3) Glorifications can and do occur at the level of the local Church.

I don't have time to expand on these three "unifying theories" at the moment. Perhaps later in the week, or sooner.

Blessings,
Marduk

[hazcompat]

sensus fidei?

Saint Samuel the Confessor, pray for me.


peace

[Addai]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Three "unifying theories" that you can ponder for now.

1) Invincible Ignorance
2) The Church's judgments against a person are not infallible acts.
3) Glorifications can and do occur at the level of the local Church.

I don't have time to expand on these three "unifying theories" at the moment. Perhaps later in the week, or sooner.

Blessings,
Marduk

#2 Is interesting because depending on what you believe about Magisterium in the Church that could be up for debate. (Many EO seem to believe that when their Church says somebody is a heretic "The Tradition has spoken" and reading some Catholics they seem to believe much the same except you also get to add the pope's offical Charism into the mix).


I will say that for clergy involved in ecumenical discussions such things tend to be "highly nuanced".

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Addai

I was interested in the ways people avoid "Cognitive Dissonance" when trying to reconcile East and West. For instance many people would have trouble wrapping their mind around how an some Orthodox saints could also be revered by Eastern Catholics when the saint could be very polemical against Rome, various western beliefs etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


Is there anything like a Grand Unifying Theory (other than the common Christological declaration/s) to reconcile such things? Most of the reasoning I've seen on the board has been based on technicalities such as:
1) This saint was not anathemitized by a Ecumenical counsel
2) canonizing saints in the old church and the East was purely a local affair...
3) Stating that infallibitlity does not rest in the individual but in the Church or the Pope (You can be a respected saint but still wrong in some of the things you advocate)
And so on....




As an excercise I wanted to ask a "what if" type question. If the Coptic Orthodox Church through some miracle decided to enter in Communion with Rome next week what do you think would happen to its honoring some of its traditional saints like Saint Samuel the Confessor?

1) Would they have to renounce him (because he was contradicting an established Dogma)
2) Keep him as a saint (because canonization of a saint is simply a local affair if your not a Latin).
3) Rationalize his outspoken stance against Chalcedon etc. as saying "he was attacking his flawed understaying of it or the flawed ways it was applied" etc.
4) Do something else?

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Samuel_the_Confessor

Really a very fascinating topic!!

This matter was given considerable attention by the EO-OO ecumenical commission in their final report.

They discussed, as an example, the person of St Dioscoros, the nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria. They concluded that in the event of reunion, he would continue, of course, to be honoured by the Oriental Churches without the need for the Byzantine side to "adopt" him into their calendar.

When Eastern Churches came into union with Rome, those saints that were particularly known for their "anti-Roman" stance were expunged from the local calendar. All the rest remained.

Today, there are EC churches like certain very Eastern Ukrainian, Byzantine and Russian Catholic ones, who honour all of the Orthodox saints in the Russian synodal calendar, even those who are canonized after the various union agreements were made. I understand that one could find an icon of the "Pillars of Orthodoxy" (I'm not referring to either Ciero or Apotheoun! ) in EC churches and monasteries.

There was an RC article about Orthodox saints who had expressed certain "misgivings" about Rome during their lives and such-like. In fact, they repeated the "prejudices of their environment" and so this didn't take away from their sainthood etc.

But in the case of St Dioscoros and St Samuel, these were at the heart of the Christological issues of their day.

The fact remains, however, that the EO-OO commission found that the Cyrillian Christological formula was not only misunderstood in the Byzantine "province of the Church," - it was and is perfectly Orthodox.

Language always poses a barrier that is mainly cultural (even though it can have negative impacts on the Church). Churches can be estranged from one another under mistaken pretenses. The Oriental Orthodox today regard Chalcedon as being orthodox in its expression of Christology, but would have wished it used more articulate language etc. There is also alot of emotional, historical baggage that comes with Chalcedon for the Oriental Orthodox churches which is why they don't want to be associated with it and want to stick with the original three Ec. Councils.

However, be that as it may, there really is no reason why the Oriental Catholic and even the Roman Catholic Churches could not include these Saints in their own calendars or at least acknowledge their sanctity. In fact, one way of reestablishing union between their Churches, the EO-OO commission decided, was to simply lift the anathemas pronounced against each other's Saints and Teachers (St Severus, for example - he is not acknowledged as a saint by the Armenian Church as well).

Saints beating up others should not be a reason not to do so. Pope St Pius X, for example, as a young curate, heard a parishioner, after Mass, would you believe, curse boldly. Being a former amateur boxer, and having grown up in a tough Italian neighbourhood, he gave a knee-jerk reaction, grabbed the feckless parishioner and knocked him out with one punch!

Somehow the Devil's Advocate didn't see this as a reason to stall his canonization process though . . . They realized he came up from the school of hard knocks . . .

I have an icon of St Dioscoros (on papyrus) and don't see any reason why the nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria shouldn't be honoured for his piety and extreme dedication to fighting the Nestorian heresy.

In the EO case, the Oriental Orthodox Church of Georgia came into union with Eastern Orthodoxy and kept all of its Oriental Saints, including some who fought long and hard with the Byzantine Chalcedonians of their day e.g. St David of Garesja who was called by Byzantine theologians "that putrefaction from Georgia." Today, however, it is common to see St David of Garesja on all Orthodox calendars . . . And the only Saint in the Ethiopian Catholic calendar that was expunged from the Ethiopian Orthodox calendar is . . . Saint Pontius Pilate. St Gebra Manfas Keddus and St Takla Haymonot etc. are all there otherwise.

May Sts Dioscoros and Samuel pray unto God for us!

Alex

[WetCatechumen]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Really a very fascinating topic!!

This matter was given considerable attention by the EO-OO ecumenical commission in their final report.

They discussed, as an example, the person of St Dioscoros, the nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria. They concluded that in the event of reunion, he would continue, of course, to be honoured by the Oriental Churches without the need for the Byzantine side to "adopt" him into their calendar.

When Eastern Churches came into union with Rome, those saints that were particularly known for their "anti-Roman" stance were expunged from the local calendar. All the rest remained.

Today, there are EC churches like certain very Eastern Ukrainian, Byzantine and Russian Catholic ones, who honour all of the Orthodox saints in the Russian synodal calendar, even those who are canonized after the various union agreements were made. I understand that one could find an icon of the "Pillars of Orthodoxy" (I'm not referring to either Ciero or Apotheoun! ) in EC churches and monasteries.

There was an RC article about Orthodox saints who had expressed certain "misgivings" about Rome during their lives and such-like. In fact, they repeated the "prejudices of their environment" and so this didn't take away from their sainthood etc.

But in the case of St Dioscoros and St Samuel, these were at the heart of the Christological issues of their day.

The fact remains, however, that the EO-OO commission found that the Cyrillian Christological formula was not only misunderstood in the Byzantine "province of the Church," - it was and is perfectly Orthodox.

Language always poses a barrier that is mainly cultural (even though it can have negative impacts on the Church). Churches can be estranged from one another under mistaken pretenses. The Oriental Orthodox today regard Chalcedon as being orthodox in its expression of Christology, but would have wished it used more articulate language etc. There is also alot of emotional, historical baggage that comes with Chalcedon for the Oriental Orthodox churches which is why they don't want to be associated with it and want to stick with the original three Ec. Councils.

However, be that as it may, there really is no reason why the Oriental Catholic and even the Roman Catholic Churches could not include these Saints in their own calendars or at least acknowledge their sanctity. In fact, one way of reestablishing union between their Churches, the EO-OO commission decided, was to simply lift the anathemas pronounced against each other's Saints and Teachers (St Severus, for example - he is not acknowledged as a saint by the Armenian Church as well).

Saints beating up others should not be a reason not to do so. Pope St Pius X, for example, as a young curate, heard a parishioner, after Mass, would you believe, curse boldly. Being a former amateur boxer, and having grown up in a tough Italian neighbourhood, he gave a knee-jerk reaction, grabbed the feckless parishioner and knocked him out with one punch!

Somehow the Devil's Advocate didn't see this as a reason to stall his canonization process though . . . They realized he came up from the school of hard knocks . . .

I have an icon of St Dioscoros (on papyrus) and don't see any reason why the nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria shouldn't be honoured for his piety and extreme dedication to fighting the Nestorian heresy.

In the EO case, the Oriental Orthodox Church of Georgia came into union with Eastern Orthodoxy and kept all of its Oriental Saints, including some who fought long and hard with the Byzantine Chalcedonians of their day e.g. St David of Garesja who was called by Byzantine theologians "that putrefaction from Georgia." Today, however, it is common to see St David of Garesja on all Orthodox calendars . . . And the only Saint in the Ethiopian Catholic calendar that was expunged from the Ethiopian Orthodox calendar is . . . Saint Pontius Pilate. St Gebra Manfas Keddus and St Takla Haymonot etc. are all there otherwise.

May Sts Dioscoros and Samuel pray unto God for us!

Alex

I realize that I have to acknowledge St. Photios I of Constantinople and St. Gregory Palamas.

I don't think I can ever bring myself to venerate Mark of Ephesus.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Really a very fascinating topic!!
...

May Sts Dioscoros and Samuel pray unto God for us!

Alex

I have always learned much from you Alex.

God bless you!

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by WetCatechumen

I realize that I have to acknowledge St. Photios I of Constantinople and St. Gregory Palamas.

I don't think I can ever bring myself to venerate Mark of Ephesus.

You don't have to venerate anyone, and not all saints are on all calendars.

Most saints none of us will ever know in this lifetime, I am pretty sure. For any number of reasons they are hidden from our view.

[hazcompat]

May Sts Dioscoros and Samuel pray unto God for us!

Alex

Amen.

Saints of God, pray us the Holy Spirit. That we may see as clearly as our disposition allows. You who see the face of God and live, pray for the healing truth to fill us with the knowledge of Jesus which leads to unity in the Spirit, to the Glory of God the Father.
Amen.

peace

[mardukm]

Dear brother Addai,

Sorry for taking so long to respond to this thread.

Originally Posted by mardukm

Three "unifying theories" that you can ponder for now.

1) Invincible Ignorance

Invincible ignorance is one of the standards that can be used to judge whether a Saint in one particular Church is worthy to be venerated in another Church. Many non-Catholics, and probably not a few Catholics, misunderstand what the teaching on invincible ignorance is. Many think it refers to mere intellectual ignorance, or stupidity. Invincible ignorance actually has to do with conditions beyond one's control that causes one to be incapable of perceiving or accepting a particular Truth. In other words, it is a sincere lack of belief in something due to circumstances outside one's control. There are several conceivable causes of invincible ignorance, but only two need concern us as it relates to this topic - inaccessability to the necessary data and indoctrination.

Inaccessability to the necessary data can come in two forms - physical inaccessability (you literally cannot access, or don't have access to, the data), and intellectual inaccessibility (it is impossible to perceive or understand). Physical inaccessibility really needs no explanation. One cannot be blamed for not believing in a Truth about which you have never heard or read.

Before I go on, I do feel compelled to make a comment on this point. I realize there are those who challenge the principle of invincible ignorance by the following logic:
(i) If God wanted a person to have access to the Truth, He would have sent a preacher to that person.
(ii) If that person died without ever having heard the Truth, then that was due to God's providence because God foreknew that such a person would not have accepted the Truth if he/she heard it.

One of the greatest authorities who utilized this logic was St. Augustine of Hippo. It is amazing how many non-Catholic Christians (Protestants and Orthodox alike) utilize this logic to oppose the Catholic principle of invincible ignorance. The particular Protestants who utilize this logic are often of the Calvinist camp - and whatever else may be said of Calvinist beliefs, they are at least very consistent about proposing this logic. But Orthodox who utilize this logic are utterly inconsistent and oppose their own Faith. Why? Because the logic detailed above is one of the main features of the heresy of double-predestination. As stated, Calvinists who utilize the above logic are being perfectly consistent, but Orthodox, who reject double predestination, expose their inconsistency when they utilize an argument in support of double-predestination simply to oppose the Catholic teaching on invincible ignorance.

Intellectual inaccessibility refers to an incapacity to understand the data because it is in a different language. This has been the cause of much of the theological differences and conflicts between the different Churches/Traditions over the centuries, and even today. This difference in language refers not just to a difference in dialect, but also to a difference in theological terminology. Can one really be culpable for lack of belief if there was a lack of understanding due to this circumstance that was beyond any one person's control?

Indoctrination is another cause for invincible ignorance. Indoctrination can conceivably come under the rubric of "intellectual inaccessibility," especially with regards to the difference in theological terminology, but it is more than that. The invincible ignorance due to indoctrination comes from the powerful moral and psychological imperative attached to a life-long belief in which one is raised. Anyone here can testify to this subjective internal imperative within themselves, and the power of it. To be sure, there is a fine line between this internal imperative, on the one hand, and hardness of heart, on the other, but that is not for the Church to judge. Only God can judge if a person does not have belief due to invincible ignorance borne of indoctrination, or if one's lack of belief is due to hardness of heart.

The Catholic Church teaches that being in a state of invincible ignorance leaves one incapable of moral offense for lack of belief. If one accepts and understands this mitigating factor in the lives of Saints who are not Catholic or who opposed the Catholic Church "back in the day", then it would be easier to accept such Saints universally.

CONTINUED

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

2) The Church's judgments against a person are not infallible acts.

In case I have been misunderstood so far on this point, permit me to be perfectly concise:
The Church's judgments against a person are not infallible acts, but the Church's judgments against the teaching proposed by a person are indeed infallible acts.

As judgements against persons are not infallible acts, they can be revoked. On the other hand, since judgments against teachings are infallible acts, they can never be revoked.

So on what basis can judgments against persons be revoked? It may be discovered at a later time that the teaching that the Church infallibly condemned did not really apply to the person who was purported to hold that teaching. The classic example is Pope St. Dioscorus. The Church formally condemned the teaching of Eutyches traditionally known as monophysitism. This condemned teaching was thought to have been supported by Pope St. Dioscorus (and other OO Saints), but further study between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches has revealed that Pope St. Dioscorus did not really teach what was condemned by the Catholic Church (the utter absorption/obliteration of the human Nature into the divine Nature). Similarly, this same study revealed that what the Oriental Orthodox Church condemned (the utter separation of the Natures) was not really taught by Pope St. Leo. The teachings that were infallibly condemned are still condemned, and the condemnation of those teachings can never be revoked. This same principle has been applied in talks between the CC and the ACOE regarding Nestorius. What is known as the heresy of Nestorianism was infallibly condemned and the condemnation of that heresy can never be revoked. The issue of the condemnation of the person of Nestorius, however, is another issue altogether.

The standard currently discussed also has a converse effect. For example, the Fourth Ecumenical Council condemned Nestorianism, but the Fathers of that Council did not regard Ibas, Theodore and Theodoret as holding that heresy, and exonerated their persons. The Fifth Ecumenical Council overturned that previous decision after much controversy.

Brother Addai, I believe your comment about the EO being less likely to accept this standard is correct. Though, as brother Alexander Roman has pointed out, there has been evidence that such a standard is not altogether out of the question in the EO communion, there has been no complete synodal acceptance of the deliberations of those OO-EO commissions to date. While you may have heard individual Catholics deny this standard, the decisions of the Catholic Magisterium are evident and have more bearing on the matter (an understatement ), wouldn't you agree?

3) Glorifications can and do occur at the level of the local Church.

This standard is the most practical. Not all Saints need have universal recognition. In fact, not all Saints that are venerated today have universal recognition today. Even within the Latin Catholic Church, for example, there are locally venerated Saints such as St. John Cassian who do not have universal recognition. So it is not necessary for a Saint to have universal recognition for a particular Saint to be venerated in a local Church.

There are still some foreseeable problems with respect to this third standard, particularly on two points:
(a) A saint venerated by one particular Church might have been anathemized by another Church. Standard #2 can settle this matter.
(b) The reason a particular Saint is venerated. If a particular Saint is venerated by one Church primarily for his/her opposition to another Church, that would present a big problem, and there are probably not a few who view their own saints that way. Perhaps the Churches can discuss and come together on a common, formal statement on what makes one a Saint - e.g., defense of objective orthodoxy, holiness in life, orthodox preaching, etc.

Blessings,
Marduk

[Vico]

Originally Posted by mardukm

...

There are still some foreseeable problems with respect to this third standard, particularly on two points:

(a) A saint venerated by one particular Church might have been anathemized by another Church. Standard #2 can settle this matter.

(b) The reason a particular Saint is venerated. If a particular Saint is venerated by one Church primarily for his/her opposition to another Church, that would present a big problem, and there are probably not a few who view their own saints that way. Perhaps the Churches can discuss and come together on a common, formal statement on what makes one a Saint - e.g., defense of objective orthodoxy, holiness in life, orthodox preaching, etc.

Blessings,
Marduk

I see you have done much thinking on the topic. For the third standard item "(b) The reason a particular Saint is venerated." it would be logical to say that a Saint is one that lives a holy life, yet we know that nobody is perfect, so it cannot be an absolutelly objective standard. If the subjective element is allowed, then the person that believes himself to be keeping the faith, perhaps even defending the faith strongly, could be in a dogmatic conflict with a different saint having a different understanding of the faith. How could we determine their sainthood? The Supreme Pontiff may be able to decide in his universal role.