Engaging with the Eastern Orthodox liturgy

[LausTibiChriste]

Michael,

If it is a matter of Divine Law then why have Catholics been permitted to receive Orthodox sacraments on their deathbed if necessity dictates? Is the Church thus allowing mortal sin to take place?

If St Pius X really wrote that - is he thus giving his nod to mortal sin?

Here are a bunch of other instances of "communicatio in sacris" which I pulled from the blog of the monks at Papa Stronsay. Feel free to cross reference their references, I am too lazy to do so and will take their word for it:
1
Pope Benedict XIV
(A Pope universally considered to have been
a great authority in Canon Law.)

We have a further clarification to hand:

The judgment
on Communicatio in sacris
given by Pope Benedict XIV
in the 24 February, 1752,
session of the Holy Office
was precisely:

"Communicationem in divinis cum haereticis non posse nec debere tam facile ac tam generaliter pronuntiari in omni penitus circumstantia de iure vetitam."

Which is to say:
"Communicatio in divinis with heretics cannot and should not be so readily and so generally pronounced forbidden in absolutely every circumstance."

The reference for the quote is:
De Martinis, luris Pontificii de Propaganda Fide, Pars II (Rome, 1909), p. 324.
2
Pope Benedict XIV
(31 March 1675 – 3 May 1758)
Benedict XIV is best known to history as a student and a scholar.

258 years ago, in 1752,
Pope Benedict XIV concluded that communicatio in sacris
with schismatics and heretics
is not always contrary to the divine law:
for example in a marriage between a Catholic and a Non-Catholic.
3
In 1244
Pope Innocent IV
permitted the Dominican missionaries
among the (Non-Catholic) Jacobites and Nestorians
to share with them
"in verbis, officio et cibo"
(literally in words, offices and food;
better english: in speech, in offices, in meals).

In 1245 he gave the same permission to Franciscan Missionaries.
From the context it is obvious that the words
"in officio" is are equivalent to "in sacris"
(in sacred things).

The following Popes,
Nicholas IV (1288),
John XXII (1316-34), and
Benedict XII (1334-42)
gave the missionaries
the same permission many times
as can be verified in the books of the
Sources of the Codification of Oriental Canon Law
published by the Vatican in 1943.

[Reference: Codificazione Canonica Orientale, Fonti, Serie III, Vol. IV, 1, p. 11, nn. 25- 27; p. 37, n. 72; Vol. V, 2, p. 142, n. 300; VII, 1, p. 26, n. 69; VII, 2, p. 22, n. 27, p. 95, n. 155, p. 151, n. 252, p. 173, n. 289; VIII, p. 62, n. 154; etc].
4
An example of Communicatio in sacris permitted
to those who lived under tyranny in the Ottoman Empire
is the Instruction of 6 August, 1764,
from the Congregation of the Propaganda of the Faith.

The Instruction authorised the Apostolic Vicar of Aleppo,
in Northern Syria,
to allow the faithful, if in danger of persecution,
to have their children baptized by schismatic or heretical priests,
to marry before a non-Catholic minister,
and to have him bury their dead.

The reason for this was that the Ottoman Empire
recognised only certain Non-Catholic communities of Christians.
There was no protection for a minority of newly converted Catholics.

If they were not to be forced to become Muslims
they had to have recognised certificates of Baptism and Marriage.
Valid death certificates were also issued by the recognised religious leaders.

Therefore, these isolated Catholics were permitted
Baptism, Marriage and Burial by Non-Catholics.

(Source: R. De Martinis, luris Pontificii de Propaganda Fide, Pars 11 (Rome, 1909), p. 342, n. 615.)
5
Blessed Urban V's cultus
was approved by
Blessed Pope Pius IX (1846–78)
in 1870.

Blessed Urban V gave his legate in the East,
St Peter Thomas, Latin Patriarch of Constantinople,
permission to share with non-Catholics "in divinis",
with this limitation,
that the permission did not extend
to those excommunicated by name.

(No reference for this so take it as you will)
6
Pope Clement VI
gave a very general permission
to Armenian priests
who had returned to the Catholic Church
to administer the sacraments among the schismatics,
not in approval of their schism,
- this is stated -
but to lead them back to obedience to the true Church.

(Source: Codificazione Canonica Orientale, Fonti, Serie III, Vol., IX, p. 150, n. 309).

[Michael Wilson]

E.W. That Russian Imperial Stout sounds like a real great beer!
Back to the "minor issue" of the Filioque.
Here is the Duay Rheims' note on this passage:

26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.  27 And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.

[26] "Whom I will send": This proves, against the modern Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, as well as from the Father: otherwise he could not be sent by the Son.

This stands out so clear; The Son will send the Holy Ghost; therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.
I have these quotes from "Catholic Answers" citing both Latin and Greek Fathers on the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son (or through the Son)

Tertullian
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
"We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).
Maximus the Confessor
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
Gregory the Wonderworker

"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).Didymus the Blind

"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
Epiphanius of Salamis

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
Basil The Great

"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).
Gregory of Nyssa

"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).
The Athanasian Creed

"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
Cyril of Alexandria

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).
John Damascene

"Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son" (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).

"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (ibid., 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).
Council of Nicaea II

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).

[Bonaventure]

Charles Coulombe raised an interesting point (even more so considering he's a Feeneyite):



The interesting part starts at 2:25.

I'm sure both of you would find it interesting.

[EastWest7]

E.W. That Russian Imperial Stout sounds like a real great beer!
Back to the "minor issue" of the Filioque.
Here is the Duay Rheims' note on this passage:

26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.  27 And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.

[26] "Whom I will send": This proves, against the modern Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, as well as from the Father: otherwise he could not be sent by the Son.

This stands out so clear; The Son will send the Holy Ghost; therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.
I have these quotes from "Catholic Answers" citing both Latin and Greek Fathers on the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son (or through the Son)

Tertullian
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
"We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).
Maximus the Confessor
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
Gregory the Wonderworker

"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).Didymus the Blind

"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
Epiphanius of Salamis

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
Basil The Great

"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).
Gregory of Nyssa

"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).
The Athanasian Creed

"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
Cyril of Alexandria

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).
John Damascene

"Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son" (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).

"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (ibid., 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).
Council of Nicaea II

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).

Yes, my quote the other day of John 15:26 was from a Douay, but the Douay - Confraternity translation.

Yes, the Eastern father St Cyril of Alexandria apparently supported the theology of the filioque. I noticed in the Catholic Answers quotes of some of the eastern Fathers (and as you indeed did mention) the formula of the procession of the Holy Spirit "from the Father through the Son" is used. (eg., St John of Damascus, St Basil the Great, St Gregory of Nyssa, perhaps more.)

As far as I can recall from my seminary studies, many or most Eastern fathers supported "and through the Son" but not all. I seem to recall efforts were made in the disagreements between East and West over the addition of the filioque that an unsuccessful attempt was made to heal the breach with the language "and through the Son". And again, if memory serves, the opinion from professors at my seminary was that "and through the Son" was; well, orthodox. 

One thing I've come to learn only later in life was that there is plenty of variation in opinion of the Church Fathers. Sometimes even among differing written works of the same father. I have a book that I bought (used) a few years ago that has many quotations of the Church Fathers in support of sola scriptura. The book is Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume 3, "The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura by David King and William Webster (both protestants, of course). In Chapter 2, entitled The Ultimate Authority of Scripture, there are quotations of St Basil the Great, St Cyril of Jerusalem, St John Chrysostom, St Jerome, St Augustine, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Gregory the Great and one name I had never heard of, Bishop Optatus of Milevus. From everything I can tell the quotes are valid and are well documented. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say these patristic sources absolutely support sola scriptura, I would say that they support a high view of scripture. No issue there.
(BTW, "Sola scriptura" is often misunderstood to mean that if I read my Bible that the Holy Spirit will guide me to understand its meaning. At least, that's what I once mistakenly believed. As I understand it, the term correctly means that scripture is to be exegeted by other scriptures within the Bible. Not simply "personal interpretation." But I have digressed enough.
Thanks...     

[EastWest7]

Charles Coulombe raised an interesting point (even more so considering he's a Feeneyite):



The interesting part starts at 2:25.

I'm sure both of you would find it interesting.

Thank you Bonaventure. I listened to some of this and will try to respond later...I have a late lunch planned in the Pittsburgh area tomorrow with a fellow retiree and former boss, a longtime business friend and colleague. Discussing composite/plastics materials, manufacturing and market fluctuations will provide a nice respite from the finer points of online theology!    
Relative to CC's comment on the schismatic nature of the Orthodox - RC divide, I think that discussion is very important. I often read opinions from trads on Orthodoxy who don't differentiate between schism and heresy. I have experienced the same thing among the Orthodox toward Roman Catholicism as well. As far as I can tell, even the very definitions of schism and heresy differ between Orthodox and Catholic theologians.

Ah oh! I gotta go! My wife just told me the game I was going to watch (Guardians - Astros) has started and Josh Naylor just hit a home run with two people on bases!

     

[Michael Wilson]

E.W.
On the "sola scriptura" quotes from the Fathers; yes, I have seen many of those, and of course the Protestants take the quotes from the Fathers on the authority of S.S. As being equivalent to their novel idea of "Scriptura w.o. Church authority".
The Protestants take their erroneous theological principle and try to mine the Fathers for quotes that may support their position; which can easily be proved false.
But this has no relationship with the "Filioque" controversy; the two positions are mutually exclusive and incompatible; either the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son as from one principle or He only proceeds from the Father and not the Son. Both the Catholics and the Orthodox have affirmed their respective position as the true one and anathematized the contrary one. For both sides it is a matter of faith and heresy. The truth or falsehood of both Catholicism or Orthodoxy rests on the truth or falsehood of one or the other of the positions. If a Church or a group of churches (Orthodoxy) can teach a major falsehood about the nature of God, then it cannot be the true Church.
Any attempt to attenuate the doctrine in the name of a perceived charity, is very misguided. 

[Michael Wilson]

Here is a quote from St. Augustine of Hippo, considered a saint in the Orthodox Church

Augustine

"t must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term 'principally' because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit' [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

There is no way to interpret this where one would have St. Augustine teaching that the Holy Ghost only proceeds from the Father and not from the Father and the Son.

[EastWest7]

E.W.
On the "sola scriptura" quotes from the Fathers; yes, I have seen many of those, and of course the Protestants take the quotes from the Fathers on the authority of S.S. As being equivalent to their novel idea of "Scriptura w.o. Church authority".
The Protestants take their erroneous theological principle and try to mine the Fathers for quotes that may support their position; which can easily be proved false.
But this has no relationship with the "Filioque" controversy; the two positions are mutually exclusive and incompatible; either the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son as from one principle or He only proceeds from the Father and not the Son. Both the Catholics and the Orthodox have affirmed their respective position as the true one and anathematized the contrary one. For both sides it is a matter of faith and heresy. The truth or falsehood of both Catholicism or Orthodoxy rests on the truth or falsehood of one or the other of the positions. If a Church or a group of churches (Orthodoxy) can teach a major falsehood about the nature of God, then it cannot be the true Church.
Any attempt to attenuate the doctrine in the name of a perceived charity, is very misguided. 

Yes, "perceived charity" is a good way to put it. And such misplaced "understanding" flies in the face of dogmatic precision. 

[Michael Wilson]

Bonaventure,
I was just listening to the video that you posted; and while I tend to agree that being a schismatic in the formal sense of the word involves an act of the will; what that gentleman was describing viz: "an Orthodox person who accepted the Pope as the head of the Church"; was probably not a schismatic; I would have to disagree. To accept the Pope as head of the Church in the Orthodox sense, is to empty the office of its essence. Secondly he states that if a person is a member of an Orthodox Church, is he a schismatic? He responds: "Probably not"; there is no way of knowing this, since it involves the interior disposition of the soul, known only to God. Then he states (in support of the foregoing) that "we are allowed to venerate a number of post schism Orthodox saints": Yes, this is true, but only since Vatican II; while the Church has never said that everyone who does not die as an "actual" member of the Church will go to Hell; neither does she ever encourage people to have the idea that its O.K. To die outside the Church; in fact the contrary is the case (EENS). He admits that "before 1964 things were simpler"; right, both sides agree that there were two different religions and one was false and the other true; only one could be right.
The gentleman even goes on to state that an "Orthodox that does not hate the Church, has as much chance to save his soul and a Catholic does". So why try to convert the Orthodox to the true faith? The response from the Vatican since the Council is: "We don't try to convert them; in fact we prohibit any attempt to convert them (Treaty of Balamand). He goes on to practically say that both sides are equally guilty of the current state of affairs; which the Popes in the Past have condemned such statements, such as Pius XI in Mortalium Animus.
This gentleman is in good faith, but he has imbibed the "indiferentist" and "latitudinarian" spirit which the Council and the Conciliar Church are filled with and no longer has a firm grasp on the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the sole custodian of truth and salvation.   

[LausTibiChriste]

Then he states (in support of the foregoing) that "we are allowed to venerate a number of post schism Orthodox saints": Yes, this is true, but only since Vatican II;

Wrong again.

Ven. Sheptytsky petitioned Rome in the early 20th century (I think 1905 but could be mistaken) to have all Orthodox saints included on their calendar. This was granted by the Vatican with some exceptions (St Mark of Ephesus being one of them).

On top of that, Pius XII approved the liturgical calendar for Russian Catholics (still trying to get my hands on one) that included numerous post-schism saints, including St Sergius of Radonezh (A personal favourite of mine).


It's no wonder the Orthodox have no interest in swimming the river when you have people who wax lyrical about the papacy but also think it's been vacant for 60 years, then start making stuff up about the praxis of those Easterns who've decided to stay loyal to Rome.

It's also hardly surprising as to why so many Eastern Catholics feel abused and abandoned by Romans and would love to return home, as it were.

Latins should get their own shitty house in order first and foremost.

[Bonaventure]

Bonaventure,
I was just listening to the video that you posted; and while I tend to agree that being a schismatic in the formal sense of the word involves an act of the will; what that gentleman was describing viz: "an Orthodox person who accepted the Pope as the head of the Church"; was probably not a schismatic; I would have to disagree. To accept the Pope as head of the Church in the Orthodox sense, is to empty the office of its essence. Secondly he states that if a person is a member of an Orthodox Church, is he a schismatic? He responds: "Probably not"; there is no way of knowing this, since it involves the interior disposition of the soul, known only to God. Then he states (in support of the foregoing) that "we are allowed to venerate a number of post schism Orthodox saints": Yes, this is true, but only since Vatican II; while the Church has never said that everyone who does not die as an "actual" member of the Church will go to Hell; neither does she ever encourage people to have the idea that its O.K. To die outside the Church; in fact the contrary is the case (EENS). He admits that "before 1964 things were simpler"; right, both sides agree that there were two different religions and one was false and the other true; only one could be right.
The gentleman even goes on to state that an "Orthodox that does not hate the Church, has as much chance to save his soul and a Catholic does". So why try to convert the Orthodox to the true faith? The response from the Vatican since the Council is: "We don't try to convert them; in fact we prohibit any attempt to convert them (Treaty of Balamand). He goes on to practically say that both sides are equally guilty of the current state of affairs; which the Popes in the Past have condemned such statements, such as Pius XI in Mortalium Animus.
This gentleman is in good faith, but he has imbibed the "indiferentist" and "latitudinarian" spirit which the Council and the Conciliar Church are filled with and no longer has a firm grasp on the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the sole custodian of truth and salvation.   

Interesting perspective and I would love to present to him for a response. He is a traditionalist feeneyite , so it would be an interesting one indeed.

[Bonaventure]

It's no wonder the Orthodox have no interest in swimming the river when you have people who wax lyrical about the papacy but also think it's been vacant for 60 years, then start making stuff up about the praxis of those Easterns who've decided to stay loyal to Rome.

It is certainly a river of shite.

We will both have to, rather soon, explain to our young children that:

There has been what appears to be a great apostasy of the faith. In 99.999999% of supposed Catholic Churches, a liturgy is celebrated which has been aptly described as a bastard rite or a striking departure from Trent, religious indifferentism masquerading as ecumenical endeavors reign supreme, Christ the King has been uncrowned in favor of religious liberty, and the supposed hierarchy and popes allegedly obtruding this on the faithful have either:

1. Professed heresies and have thus lost their offices. There appears to be no human means in sight for how these sees will be filled again (Arian Crisis did not entail the Petrine See being vacant).
2. Cannot be hierarchy/popes as this would contradict indefectibility.
3. Are somehow still popes/hierarchs (Fr. Cekada's "cardboard, cutout pope" analogy).

It's a shit sandwich.

[Michael Wilson]

Then he states (in support of the foregoing) that "we are allowed to venerate a number of post schism Orthodox saints": Yes, this is true, but only since Vatican II;

Wrong again.

Ven. Sheptytsky petitioned Rome in the early 20th century (I think 1905 but could be mistaken) to have all Orthodox saints included on their calendar. This was granted by the Vatican with some exceptions (St Mark of Ephesus being one of them).

This is impossible; as only Catholics can be canonized as saints.

On top of that, Pius XII approved the liturgical calendar for Russian Catholics (still trying to get my hands on one) that included numerous post-schism saints, including St Sergius of Radonezh (A personal favourite of mine).

See above.

It's no wonder the Orthodox have no interest in swimming the river when you have people who wax lyrical about the papacy but also think it's been vacant for 60 years, then start making stuff up about the praxis of those Easterns who've decided to stay loyal to Rome.

The Eastern schism has been going on for about 1000 years; their reluctance to cross the Tiber has nothing to do with yours truly posting on a small trad forum with only a few readers. 

It's also hardly surprising as to why so many Eastern Catholics feel abused and abandoned by Romans and would love to return home, as it were.

How about the numberless Easterners that preferred martyrdom, to embracing Orthodoxy? Were they crazy? Or did they know their faith better than many modern Catholics?

Latins should get their own shitty house in order first and foremost.

Absolutely; but you have to realize that the current situation in the Church is something that has not happened in  its history; there is no "blueprint" for getting out of it, except waiting for a true Pope to occupy the See of Peter. Meanwhile the situation in Orthodoxy i.e. disunity, is the very essence of their rejection of a central supreme authority. There is a cure for our situation in the very constitution of the Church; their only solution is to convert to the Faith.

[Wenceslav]

Michael Wilson is absolutely correct that only Catholics can be recognized as Saints. That schismatics like the heretic Palamas are recognized today (even by the Ukrainian Catholics) is a post Vatican-II novelty.

The following quote is from Professor Michael Petrowycz's (presently at Ukrainian Catholic University, L'viv Ukraine] dissertation "Bringing Back the Saints: The Contribution of the Roman Edition of the Ruthenian Liturgical Books (Recensio Ruthena, 1940-1952) to the Commemoration of Slavic Saints in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, p.363.

URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OKxWD8l4mTnnpPQtyBp-cOsULWh_DvKY/view?usp=drivesdk

...As mentioned above, even when the moral evaluation of a candidate was positive (even eminently so, as in the case of Metropolitan Phillip), the candidate was nonetheless disqualified when it was accepted beyond doubt that he or she had been out of communion with Rome. This means that the Commission accepted into the RR only saints that it believed to be, or presumed to be, in communion with Rome. The category of a "material schismatic, who did not provoke, but inherited the schism in good faith, and therefore, according to Jugie and St. Augustine, carried no responsibility for the schism, was not considered by the Commissions as a candidate for the RR and RV sanctorale.

RR = Recensio Ruthena (Ukrainian Catholic sanctorale)
RV = Recensio Vulgata (Russian Catholic sanctorale)

The above quote from Petrowycz's dissertation is quite clear. The Russian saints approved during the pontificate of Pius XII had to be in communion with Rome. Even hose who inherited the schism and were of good faith were not considered for sainthood in either the Russian or Ukrainian Catholic Churches.

[Bonaventure]

Absolutely; but you have to realize that the current situation in the Church is something that has not happened in  its history; there is no "blueprint" for getting out of it, except waiting for a true Pope to occupy the See of Peter. Meanwhile the situation in Orthodoxy i.e. disunity, is the very essence of their rejection of a central supreme authority. There is a cure for our situation in the very constitution of the Church; their only solution is to convert to the Faith.

Indeed.

As Erick Ybarra tells people who feel tempted to go 'Dox, do it. Be a catechumen for a year.

You'll soon see it doesn't solve the "problem."