January 12, 2005

Polemic Vacuum

I'm surprised no one took the bait with the last entry. Either my suggestions are so far outside the pale for my Ortho-readers that they don't merit discussion or my readership has dropped off considerably. Probably the latter.

Posted by david at January 12, 2005 11:06 PM | TrackBack
Comments

If it helps, I wanted to kick the dog. But the truth of the matter is that I really don't know that much about post-schism western saints. I have a vague notion that they are very often social workers and philanthropists, and hence not overly interesting, but I could be wrong. So I hesitated to speak from ignorance: my usual condition. : }

Posted by: James at January 13, 2005 03:01 AM

Recent western saints (or at least beati) often include philanthropists and social workers. I'm thinking of all of the medieval saints who happened to die on the wrong side of 1054.

And of course I was reaching to the deeper issue of the ontological validity of the Schism. This is especially true in light of some recent views that the technical cause (or clause) of the break - the Filioque issue - may have as much to do with language difference and semantics. I'm suggesting the West hasn't moved into error since, with such things as papal infallability and the Immaculate Conception, but if the initial break was invalid, political, or semantical, then these later issues have to be addressed in a different way.

The apparent validity of Western saints, as evidenced in their miracles, would seem to me to be an argument for being cautious in saying we are THE Church and some of them may be Christians too, but only if they're lucky.

Posted by: Dave at January 13, 2005 03:18 AM

Naaaah, I just took time out to think about it :-)
I have a great fondness for dear old Thomas a Becket, ever since visiting Canterbury Cathedral as a young child, where, incidentally, I saw my very first icon !

Was he a brave man ?
Yes.
Was he a Christ-loving man ?
Yes.
Was he a Saint ?
I don`t know.........
as an educated man, he would undoubtedly have been exposed to and almost certainly espoused many heterodox doctrines, notably papal authority.
His own life was of personal holiness, yet whether his beliefs make him a saint, I truly don`t know.
I still think he was a great man, operating within the confines of his world and belief-system, upon whom Christ will undoubtedly have had mercy.

Posted by: Elizabeth at January 13, 2005 07:56 AM

There were many pre-Schism western saints (including Popes) who would have held the same views on papal authority (and others western doctrinal developments) as Becket, yet they qualify. These were not views that developed between 1054 and 1170. Various bishops of Rome have believed in their own authority over the entire Church without being excommunicated by other patriarchs - going back as far as the early Paschal calendar controversies of the 2nd century.

So I don't that that holding to tolerated heretodox beliefs disqualifies him. After all, we are fond of saying that 100% of the Fathers were 85% orthodox.

Posted by: Dave at January 13, 2005 11:01 PM

I'm not sure if this is exactly to the point or not, though it seems that conspicuously manifest holiness would have something to do with being a saint. But a few years back, at an Orthodox bookshop David & I both frequented in Indianapolis, there was a lecture entitled "Elisabeth Elliot - Spiritual Formation of a Protestant 'Eldress'". Unfortunately I didn't make it to the lecture, but I thought it was interesting to note that some Orthodox would acknowledge in this way the level of spiritual maturity which Mrs. Elliot clearly displays. Richard Wurmbrand, a Lutheran, has attained similar esteem by some (gratifying to me, since I'm also a Lutheran, albeit not a very good one). So, I don't have an answer either about whether these people are "saints."

Posted by: Michael at January 15, 2005 07:23 PM