Question related to "cut off date for Western saints" thread

[buzuxi02]

Could you elaborate? How did that happen? Edward the Confessor died in 1066 and was only canonised in the West in the mid-twelth century, so long after the 1054 Schism. He died in communion with actual Roman Catholicism then. By what hook or crook did this occur? How did an English King AFTER the Schism become an orthodox saint?

That 1054 date is more of a blurry line of when the schism occurred. It was more a process of estrangement that began alittle before 1054 but didn't reach to a severing of relations till 1204

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

because when East and West split, it's not like today where the info would have been known quickly. England only became truly loyal to Rome (as Rome wanted it) AFTER the Norman invasion, which occurred after St Edward died.

Sorry, so the Orthodox claim is that the English Church was unaware of the excommunication, or flouted it, from 1054 to 1066? This is a bit far-fetched. Afterall, they had regular relations with Rome, Englishmen often served in the Varangian Guard and even powerful nobles like Sweyn Godwinson went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Not being aware of a spat between the two chief patriarchs for 12 years is doubtful. The English church unequivocally still kept to Rome, with filioque and asking papal acceptance of ecclesiastical appointments. Edward the Confessor's Archbishop of Canterbury, and close confidant, was the Norman Robert of Jumieges after all.

While the English Church did have investiture problems, this kept on being a problem after the Norman Conquest. That is why Thomas a Becket was killed, or why the Magna Carta assures the liberty of the Church in 1215. I don't see how this can be argued to be continued adherence to Orthodoxy. After all, no one thought the English Church not of Rome back then.

I am not trying to argue though, but trying to understand the position. When was Edward the Confessor added to Orthodox saint lists then? Or given a feast day? I can see perhaps northern English fleeing the Harrowing of William I, entering the Varangian Guard and propagating a cult for Edward. I can also speculate that some antiquarian tinkering in the 19th century to add such a prominent saint-king, would be plausible. The Greeks were trying hard to gain English support for Greek Independance, and had close ties to the Romantic movement (Byron) that idolised Anglo-Saxon England and abhorred the Norman.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That 1054 date is more of a blurry line of when the schism occurred. It was more a process of estrangement that began alittle before 1054 but didn't reach to a severing of relations till 1204

True, as in 1054 many chroniclers didn't even record the mutual excommunations as very significant. It was the last date though, and from henceforth they did consider the other schismatic. That is why the Crusaders appointed Latin clergy when Orthodox clergy were already present, or why ceremonial of 'joining' the other Church was done when royal families intermingled, or why attempts like the Council of Florence were made. The Eastern-Western schism was long in coming, from Quartodeciman through council-in-Trullo and Iconoclasm, till this 'final straw'.

I am told Edward the Confessor was the last mutual saint. If the border wasn't that clear, why not many others? Strictly speaking from a legitimatist point, Edward the Confessor was excommunicate from the Orthodox Church, and remained in communion with Rome his entire life.

I find his inclusion decidedly odd in the extreme. I don't want to derail this thread further, so I'll make a separate one in Christian History.

The Norman Conquest, Orthodoxy, and Edward the Confessor

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sorry, so the Orthodox claim is that the English Church was unaware of the excommunication, or flouted it, from 1054 to 1066? This is a bit far-fetched. Afterall, they had regular relations with Rome, Englishmen often served in the Varangian Guard and even powerful nobles like Sweyn Godwinson went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Not being aware of a spat between the two chief patriarchs for 12 years is doubtful. The English church unequivocally still kept to Rome, with filioque and asking papal acceptance of ecclesiastical appointments. Edward the Confessor's Archbishop of Canterbury, and close confidant, was the Norman Robert of Jumieges after all.

While the English Church did have investiture problems, this kept on being a problem after the Norman Conquest. That is why Thomas a Becket was killed, or why the Magna Carta assures the liberty of the Church in 1215. I don't see how this can be argued to be continued adherence to Orthodoxy. After all, no one thought the English Church not of Rome back then.

I am not trying to argue though, but trying to understand the position. When was Edward the Confessor added to Orthodox saint lists then? Or given a feast day? I can see perhaps northern English fleeing the Harrowing of William I, entering the Varangian Guard and propagating a cult for Edward. I can also speculate that some antiquarian tinkering in the 19th century to add such a prominent saint-king, would be plausible. The Greeks were trying hard to gain English support for Greek Independance, and had close ties to the Romantic movement (Byron) that idolised Anglo-Saxon England and abhorred the Norman.

because it's not like the Schism is like it was today, where once it happened everyone knew and took a side. the differences between Rome and the Orthodox were also not as great at that time as they are today.

do I know when St Edward was added? personally no. a lot of Orthodox saints from the West are being added, as more Western Christians become Orthodox.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

because it's not like the Schism is like it was today, where once it happened everyone knew and took a side. the differences between Rome and the Orthodox were also not as great at that time as they are today.

do I know when St Edward was added? personally no. a lot of Orthodox saints from the West are being added, as more Western Christians become Orthodox.

So if they don't technically need to be in communion, could Margaret of Scotland become an Orthodox saint then (circa 1090s)? You said Edward the Confessor was the last mutual saint, so Western saints added I presume to be mostly pre-schism then?

When would the doctrinal differences be too large to still consider someone eligible? I assume someone like Francis of Assisi or a New World saint would be out of the question.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So if they don't technically need to be in communion, could Margaret of Scotland become an Orthodox saint then (circa 1090s)? You said Edward the Confessor was the last mutual saint, so Western saints added I presume to be mostly pre-schism then?

When would the doctrinal differences be too large to still consider someone eligible? I assume someone like Francis of Assisi or a New World saint would be out of the question.

that is above my pay grade, haha.

 

[dzheremi]

Perhaps this is off-base relative to the answer that an EO person would give (and I did purposely start this thread on your board, so feel free to correct as necessary, EO people), but I would think that if a Western saint were to be added to an Orthodox church's calendar, it might not be a matter of when, but of why. Like in the case of the chronologically latest saint shared by OO and EO, St. Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7th century), he became very influential via monasticism due to the popularity of his ascetical homilies, and so it makes sense that OO and EO, both very much steeped in monasticism, would recognize him. It's not so much about the time or place that he was born, because there are plenty of other people from the same background (Eastern Arabia) and time period that are not recognized by either communion, such as Gabriel of Qatar, Dadisho Qatraye, and others who are of the Nestorian confession (their "Church of the East" was big in the region at that time). Of course nobody who venerates him (except for the Nestorians themselves, of course) believes that he actually was a Nestorian (theologically speaking), as there is a distinct lack of that viewpoint in his homilies (at least the ones that I have read; I have had some Nestorian acquaintances claim that they are "scrubbed" in their translations, but I don't buy that, as the Syriac Orthodox still venerate him, and they don't have to read him in translation).

I'm not sure under what similar circumstances a distinctly post-Great Schism Western saint might be popular among the EO, especially if you consider that by the time of St. Isaac's death, the Nestorians had been out of communion as a Church not just for a bit (so it's not like these guys who died in 1068 or whatever), but for several centuries.

To the extent that I have had it happen both here and in real life with EO friends that they did not know that some of our modern desert fathers were actually "ours" and not "theirs" (that is to say, OO and not EO), I could actually see something like that happening in the future between OO and EO with regard to, e.g., Fr. Matta el Meskeen/Matthew the Poor (I don't know that he is technically a saint yet, as he only died in 2006, but he is certainly already popularly thought of like that by many Copts, and that's kinda how the ball gets rolling in Eastern/Oriental Christianity). Who in the modern Western church is recommended by those not even of that communion, to be published by their publishing houses (as the English translation of his Orthodox Prayer Life was, and a few others), etc., as in this case? I'm not going to say it wouldn't happen, but I don't have a ready example of someone who might occupy that space, which is probably fairly instructive in itself.

If there were/is such a person, however, then of course they could come from anywhere and any time. While it's not exactly the same as the point I'm making, it is worth thinking about how we (the Coptic Orthodox Church) have already added the New Martyrs of Libya to our syanxarium (February 15/Amshir 8), and hence publicly venerate not only our own Coptic Orthodox people, but also one person who was not even any kind of Orthodox (the Ghanaian Matthew Ayariga, who some say was not even a Christian originally), because when pressed, he reportedly said "their (the Coptic Christians') God is my God", and hence was executed along with the Copts.

Even if some combination of factors might make it more or less likely that a saint may be found here or there (in the sense that it's not a mistake or an oversight that there aren't any recognized Orthodox saints among the population of Vatican City, by the very nature of the place), it's ultimately not a matter of background, culture, time period, or any of this stuff. It is a matter of faith.