Hey, excuse my red face... my scarf is on too tight.

[Mor Ephrem]

Being Orthodox would in fact be a prerequisite to be considered a Saint, or even a Baptized Christian for that matter. The foundation of the Church (and therefore the saints) is Christ, who is the Truth. Without this truth we can speak neither of the Church or of a Saint. A Bad tree does not bear good fruit.

And yet, in your calendars, you have Arians, Nestorians, and Monophysites listed as saints, and I'm sure you don't regard these groups as in any way Orthodox. How do you reconcile this?

[joasia]

And yet, in your calendars, you have Arians, Nestorians, and Monophysites listed as saints, and I'm sure you don't regard these groups as in any way Orthodox. How do you reconcile this?

Interesting comment...do you have any names in particular? Just to clarify things for me...what Church does OOD belong to and which one do you belong to? I'm asking because, your comment doesn't make sense to me if I don't know where people are from. I'm with ROCOR.

Personally, I agree with OOD's comment. A true saint is the one that follows the Orthodox tradition. The catholics and the rest of the denominations that broke away are lacking in the full truth.

If we don't believe that our faith is the full Truth, then why try to witness it? It would become like an opinion and there are a plethora of opinions in the world.

Joanna

[Mor Ephrem]

Interesting comment...do you have any names in particular? Just to clarify things for me...what Church does OOD belong to and which one do you belong to? I'm asking because, your comment doesn't make sense to me if I don't know where people are from. I'm with ROCOR.

I am a layman of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (non-Chalcedonian). OOD can specify which Church he is a member of if he wants.

Some of the saints I had in mind...

Saint Nicetas the Goth was, if I am not mistaken, an Arian. In addition, Saint Constantine was baptised by an Arian. Many Greek churches are named for an emperor who was baptised by a guy who confessed the heresy for the condemnation of which he (Constantine) convoked the First Ecumenical Council.

Saint Isaac of Nineveh belonged to the Persian Church--in other words, he was a Nestorian. Some say he was canonised because his ascetical writings are very valuable. That may be the case, but he was still outside of the Church. And what if it may not be the case? After all, how can good fruit come from a rotting tree?

Saint David of Garej and other early Georgian saints were Monophysites*. The Georgians were allowed to "keep" these upon uniting with the Byzantines, in spite of the fact that they were heretics and thus "outside" the Church (cultural attachments aside, I find this very inconsistent, and wonder how this is justified in particular by the Georgian Orthodox Church, supposedly known for its anti-ecumenical stand, particularly against Monophysites).

I am curious how one can reconcile the claim often heard here that heretics are de facto outside the Church with the fact that there are at least a handful of saints on your calendars who belonged to churches which you would call heretical and outside of the true Church, and yet who are regarded as having been saints, whose writings are read, whose example is imitated, and to whom prayers, liturgical and private, are offered.

*One note. My use of the term "Monophysite" does not mean that I accept that term as an accurate description of the group these saints came from, as they came from us. Rather, I think it is useful in this instance to use terms you are more comfortable with and which would get your attention and spark further thought on the matter.

[Aristokles]

You do bring up some interesting points, Mor Ephrem

I've not studied Arianism as much as I perhaps should but my little understanding was that his heresy , while there and an error, was so subtle that some could be Arian without meaning to. It seems many heresies are that way. But, if I 'm not mistaken, Arianism was a heresy 'within' the Church - there was not so much a wholesale schism with altar-against-altar, separate churches/synods, etc. It was met and defeated in the Church . Being baptised by an Arian apparently was not an invalid act.

I am not familair with St Nicetas the Goth, but will be soon now

Since the rolling battles between Farrington and Linus7 last year at OC.n, I've learned a bit about the Church of Georgia and it's 150 years of 'monophytism' until after the 5th Council I find it interesting that their local saints were accommodated as you describe - thanks for the info. I do wonder that you would criticize this given an almost identical local saint problem between our communions now. At least we've a precedent to resolve the present issue - if....

Demetri

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Joanna, I am with the GOC of Greece.

Mor Ephrem,

I did have the thought of St. Constantine in mind when I wrote that, as I have been long aware that his Baptism has been questioned. Despite the repeated claims that he was Baptized by an Arian, there is absolutley nothing that shows this to be true. Bishop Eusebius was in fact of the Arian camp at one time, but was not a great defender of the heresy. After the First Ecumencial Council, there is nothing to suggest he did not repent, as did many bishops to be in the graces of the Emperor. Anyone who says he was an Arian simply doesn't know what he's talking about - it is secular historian myth and Roman Catholic propaganda. The fact is nobody knows (unless you trust the Church!)

Saint Isaac was not a Nestorian. This is a very long description of history, but essentially Assyrians were not Nestorians until they met you! When they were confronted with your views of the one-nature of Christ, the only theological formula they had access to, being cut off from the Roman Empire by the Arabs, and that which was written in their language, was Nestorian. Falling back on this, they actually became Nestorians combatting your polemics! I could go into more detail on this if you like.

As for the others you mention, I am admitedly not familiar with them. But I would like to point out that the heretic converts accepted by the OCA - the New Skete, still consider St. Francis and others as Saints. They are in effect "allowed" to keep their "Saints" by the ecumenist church. This in no way means they are saints, because error does not justify a new norm or example to follow.

Do you think these other examples are siginificant enough of an example that I should look into them? (I don't want to write it off if you think it proves your case.)

[Justin Kissel]

OOD,

Saint Isaac was not a Nestorian. ... I could go into more detail on this if you like.

If you have time, I would be interested in hearing more about this. I think the issue is a rather significant one.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Justin,

It has been a while since I studied this so my memory is not as sharp on this as it once was. And I don't have the time to brush-up to get all of the names and dates in order.

As in many cases with the Orthodox, we were never theologically well-versed on a subject until a heresy sprung up and challenged it. There was nothing established among the Assyrians concerning the two natures of Christ since the Assyrian Church was far removed from the quarrels of Nicaea.

In the early 600's the Persian Army, after defeating the Romans in several great battles, finally conquered Egypt and the surrounding territories (I believe the Arabs cut the Assyrians off from teh Empire long before that, but it may have been the Persians). With these new conquests, Armenia included, their was a flood of Monophysites who fled the former territories of the Roman Empire and for the first time came into substantial contact with the Assyrians. Well by now, the Monophysites were well-versed in their polemics of one-nature, and the Assyrians were not, and were therefore forced to dig up whatever theological texts they could. Unfortunatley what they found was Nestorian, the homilies of Afraat. The more the Assyrians fell back on the concepts expressed by these documents, the more they were trapped by Nestorianism - having no other theological texts (most were written in Greek and in the West, which they had been cut-off from for centuries.).

Bottom line - St. Isaac was not Nestorian because Assyrians could not be considered Nestorian in his day.

Anyway, this is all I can offer. I tried to find this on the net somewhere and all I could find was this, and I'm not sure if it agrees with what I said or explains this history very well.

http://www.aina.org/books/itthotac/itthotac.htm#c29

EDIT: this part of the document does seem to illustrate my point is some detail - http://www.aina.org/books/itthotac/itthotac.htm#c31