Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox are known to venerate and pray to those whom they consider to be saints who have died: Cyril of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, etc. These traditions also are known to reject the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints: those who come to be saints at one point in life are thereafter capable of apostatizing, losing the salvation which they once possessed.
This leads to a question: do these traditions have grounds for believing that it is impossible that those whom they regard as saints apostatized on their deathbeds? Raising this hypothetical may be thought of as offensive, but if it is possible or may even have happened, the real offense would be against Christ.
Supposing it is possible that some of those whom these traditions regard as saints apostatized, is it not also possible that members of these traditions are venerating and praying to someone who is actually in hell? Orthopraxy depends on orthodoxy. If we cannot be sure someone is orthodox, should that not have implications for one's praxis involving them? Surely, veneration of and prayer to one who may be in hell cannot be obligated. I expect most of the aforementioned traditions would reject this supposition.
What is the alternative? Infallible assurance of another's faith (let alone perseverance) is ordinarily impossible. If these traditions argue that it is not possible that those whom they regard as saints apostatized - if one can have infallible assurance that those who are venerated and prayed to remained saints unto death - such can only be the case if they accept an extraordinary source of and means for such knowledge. I can think of no other possibility than that it somehow has been divine revealed which saints persevered.
The mechanism by which these traditions believe God has revealed those who persevered currently differs among these traditions. For example, papal approval obviously will not be viewed as necessary in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Actually, though, while Roman Catholics would argue that papal approval is now required by canon law, the process of canonizing saints is apparently revisable. In fact, it seems that even Roman Catholics admit that papal involvement was not only unnecessary but also entirely absent in the first nine centuries (link). A Roman Catholic, then, would have to be open to defending different mechanisms.
Another consideration is that Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy consist of autocephalous or self-governing churches. This may lead some churches within these broader traditions to venerate as saints those who are not venerated by another church within the same, broader tradition. For example, within the broader tradition of Oriental Orthodoxy, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church venerates John of Damascus (link), whereas the Coptic Orthodox church does not.
This is interesting in that John of Damascus opposed miaphysitism, a Christology typically characterized as distinctive to the tradition of Oriental Orthodoxy. In fact, as a Chalcedonian, John of Damascus is ironically anathematized by the Ethiopian Orthodox. Here, the problem is even more obvious than the hypothetical I posed above: how can one coherently venerate or pray to a theologian whom he regards as having been anathematized?
One possibility is that anathematizations can be lifted. One case of this happening occurred when the Roman pope and Eastern Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople mutually agreed to nullify the anathemas of 1054 (link). This appears to be mental gymnastics, however, and I know of some within the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church who would sooner admit John of Damascus should be removed from their synaxarium than defend the possibility that John of Damascus is venerable or worthy of hearing one's prayers.
Another possibility is to suggest that a synaxarium (or parish, priest, bishop, or any other vehicle of communicating a list of saints) is only infallible indirectly, i.e. insofar as those who are listed as saints have been declared so by that which is the direct mechanism of divine revelation - say, a synod.
Regardless, the logical end of each of the aforementioned traditions is a hyper-realization of solo ecclesia. These traditions might speak of "historical investigation" that goes into their decision-making. These traditions might speak of only "recognizing" who already is or is not a saint. But this cannot be.
Given their rejection of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, to rule out deathbed apostasies as a live possibility presupposes that these traditions not only have the prerogative of interpreting divine revelation but also have the prerogative of actively creating such ex nihilo, upon which they further obligate the consciences and practices of their members.
For these traditions, new and public divine revelation is ongoing. They are not merely drawing out inferences from the God-breathed Scriptures but are claiming themselves to be able to draw out the breath of God - through their papal, synodal, or popular voice - at will. Protestations to the contrary will logically entail, as has been pointed out, that members of these traditions could be venerating and praying to someone who is actually in hell.
2 comments:
Your argument rests on several misunderstandings, both of Orthodox ecclesiology and of how sanctity is discerned, and it treats distinct Christian traditions as if they were interchangeable.
First, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy are not one body; they have been in schism since the fifth century, maintain different conciliar authorities, and do not universally share calendars, saints, or theological formulations. Therefore, to treat “Orthodoxy” as a monolithic system with one mechanism of canonization is historically imprecise.
Second, Orthodoxy does not claim infallible knowledge of a saint’s interior perseverance in the Protestant sense. Canonization is not an assertion that we possess divine omniscience. Rather, it is the Church’s recognition, over time, through liturgical memory, witness, miracles, martyrdom, doctrine, and communal experience, that a believer’s life bore the marks of deification. The operative assumption is not “we know with certainty who is saved,” but rather, “the life and fruits of this person manifested Christ to such an extent that we receive them as an intercessor.”
This differs fundamentally from the caricature you present: Orthodoxy does not teach that a saint cannot theoretically fall away on their deathbed. What it teaches is that the Church is not merely a historian but a sacramental organism that discerns holiness within the life of the Spirit. The Church canonizes only after decades or centuries precisely to avoid premature judgment or error.
Third, the argument that Orthodoxy must be generating “new revelation ex nihilo” misunderstands its self-understanding. Orthodoxy claims no new revelation beyond the apostolic deposit. Rather, it claims the Spirit’s ongoing illumination of that revelation within history. This is no more extraordinary than the Protestant claim that the Spirit guides interpretation of Scripture; yet Orthodoxy grounds it corporately rather than individually.
Finally, the hypothetical that Christians might venerate someone “in hell” carries no more logical force than the Protestant possibility that a preacher believed saved may secretly apostatize. The difference is that Orthodoxy does not build assurance on private interior certainty but on visible fidelity, sacramental participation, martyrdom, doctrine, and communal discernment. In that sense, its method is actually more historically cautious, not less.
You are not breaking new ground in noting that OO and EO are distinct. If you look at the most recent post on this blog, you should see that I don't treat "Orthodoxy" as monolithic. I am well aware of the different perspectives each has regarding Chalcedon.
Nevertheless, as I mention in the original post, both EO and OO reject the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, and both traditions "are known to venerate and pray to those whom they consider to be saints." That overlap is all I need for the dilemmas I already presented and which I will represent below.
You say:
"The operative assumption is not “we know with certainty who is saved,” but rather, “the life and fruits of this person manifested Christ to such an extent that we receive them as an intercessor.”"
On your own grounds, those who have passed away can only be intercessors if they are among the heavenly host. Correct? If so, my point is that because you admit that you can't actually know that those who your tradition has canonized (examples of which I have already listed) are among the heavenly host, you are operating on an assumption that could be false.
Now, on your own grounds, you can indeed appeal to evidences that they "bore the marks of deification" at some point in their lives. But that is irrelevant to my point, which is: does your tradition obligate veneration to those who may be damned? The answer appears to be yes, since you admit:
"Orthodoxy does not teach that a saint cannot theoretically fall away on their deathbed..."
Continuing:
"...the Church is not merely a historian but a sacramental organism that discerns holiness within the life of the Spirit. The Church canonizes only after decades or centuries precisely to avoid premature judgment or error."
I understand your view of your own tradition. But again, is it impossible for canonization to be erroneous? Have you not just admitted such is possible by allowing that people can fall away on their deathbeds?
"Orthodoxy claims no new revelation beyond the apostolic deposit."
This just means you have rejected one horn of the dilemma (that there is no new revelation) only to fall on the other horn (you cannot know that those whom you are obligated to venerate are among the heavenly host, so you may be obligated to venerate those who are damned).
"Finally, the hypothetical that Christians might venerate someone “in hell” carries no more logical force than the Protestant possibility that a preacher believed saved may secretly apostatize."
There is no tu quoque. Protestants are not obligated and Protestantism does not obligate the veneration of preachers whom one supposes are saved.
"The difference is that Orthodoxy does not build assurance on private interior certainty but on visible fidelity, sacramental participation, martyrdom, doctrine, and communal discernment. In that sense, its method is actually more historically cautious, not less."
Let's test that: are you "assured" that no canonized saint whom you are obligated to venerate is actually damned? If so, please define "assurance."
Post a Comment