www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News New Byzantine Catholic candidate for sainthood

Dear Kurt,

We will agree to disagree with your assessment of St Nicholas Romanov.

Excuse me, but my profs also held to what they believed was a "standard" textbook view of the antisemitism of Pope Pius XII and the entire Catholic Church, that of Popes before him, and of the Crusades and of the murder of Jews by Catholics, sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

And if you talked to them about this, they would simply dismiss you as a Catholic who will defend his Church, right or wrong.

"Standard texts" can be wrong. I've seen many such social science "standards" deemed right in one decade, become despised by the establishment in another.

The point is those who detract against Tsar Nicholas have no real proof of any of the malicious charges against him. The standard texts I've read present no proof other than tired truisms that are repeated over and over again in the hope that they will be accepted as truth in time.

Some of these texts seem also to be Western attempts to defend the actions of western countries that led to the fall of the Romanovs and the rise of communism.

When the American President heard of the execution of Nicholas Romanov, he left his dinner table and said, "We (the U.S.) have unleashed a terrible thing on the world."

As for antisemitism, what would you call what the U.S. did with the boatloads of Jewish refugees escaping Hitler? Kindness?

I have it from Russian historians, former communists at that, who even spent time in Siberia, that the punishments meted out by the Tsars, even really cruel ones, of which there certainly were, were "pussycats" by comparison with what the Soviet Union and other dictatorships did.

The main promoter of the cult of Nicholas Romanov was one Avdonin, himself a card-carrying member of the Communist Party and a television producer at that.

When Communists in Russia convert, they often become monarchists and supporters of the Russian monarchy.

Your contention that Russian monarchists are all right-wing fanatics and against constitutional reform is simply wrong.

There are para-military groups like that, to be sure.

But there are also legitimate monarchist organizations with approved schools and other institutions who are working to bring a constitutional monarchy to Russia.

I know them and have met them, I support their efforts and I have worked with them on four projects within Russia.

The government of Boris Yeltsin even gave this particular monarchist group a building for their activities.

I was personally invited to work with them on a long-term contract in Russia through a consulting firm, but could not go, regrettably, due to personal responsibilities here.

I think we agree to disagree, Kurt, and I, for one, will now turn to the interesting issue raised by Mor Ephrem on prayer beads . . .

Have a good day and keep the faith,

Alex

Dear Kurt,

Oh, yes, one more thing. Your point on the gulags.

What got me thinking about "textbook" attitudes toward the Tsar was the fact that when the Bastille was stormed by the revolutionaries in France, they did find two horse thieves there among the total of seven inmates there.

Four others were drunks.

So much for the "oppression" of King Louis and so much for the French Revolution.

Alex

No, I don't accept that the canonization process of the ROC is a mystical, sacramental, infallible act that the Holy Spirit works contrary to all evidence of facts and history.

Then talking to you about healing the Schism is a waste of time. So why are you here?

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

Actually, you've touched on a very important point.

Historically, the Catholic Church has never questioned the canonizations of the Orthodox Church, whose actions, liturgical, sacramental etc. it recognizes and acknowledges.

There were Catholic Bishops present at the Glorification of the New Martyrs of Russia, including that of the Royal Family, Tsar Nicholas and the others.

So it is clear that Rome acknowledges the Royal Passion-Bearers as saints legitimately canonized by WORLD Orthodoxy, since all the other Orthodox Churches had representatives in Moscow who participated liturgically in the Act of Glorification.

To question the canonization of the Romanovs at this juncture would be, in my view at least, to really be injurious to both ecumenical relations and to Catholic doctrine about the Orthodox Church.

As an aside, Rome has now opened the Cause of canonization for the Dominican preacher, Jerome Savonarola. There are already detractors writing against him for being "dictatorial" etc.

Catholic conservatives have traditionally "not liked" him for the fiery monk's opposition against Pope Alexander VI - not the nicest pope in history, however.

Even Sts. Catherine of Genoa and Philip Neri had their Canonization Causes stalled when the "Devil's Advocate" complained that both their Florentine Saints were devoted to Savonarola and even wore reliquary-medals of him around their necks!

Today, however, his Cause is advancing, despite detractors which there always will be.

Even the Beatification of Pope John XXIII took a long time (more than 300+ miracles were approved by the canonical medical examiners!) since there were people around who worked under him and who were critical of him - believe it or not.

The Orthodox Church has always glorified its own Saints and all these the West acknowledges during the first 1,000 years. A growing number of Orthodox Saints are also being included in the Roman Calendar, such as St Gregory Palamas, Seraphim of Sarov, Sergius of Radonezh (I think you know about him, Serge!) and others.

Moreover, these are being included in the Roman calendar without any additional Roman form of "canonization" having to be applied to them.

This means that Rome accepts the inspired validity of Orthodox Canonizations.

Alex

Let me go point by point.


I can't comment on your profs. If they held that view they are bigots. The generally cited negative references regarding Pius XII, even by those who accept them, are acknowledged not as striaght histories but those making an argument. The sympathetic reviews in the Times, and such have admitted it.


And unsupported statements contrary to standard texts can be wrong as well.


Golda Meir is a liar? The Union of Councils of Jews is a liar?


Like Pius XII, this is a point of contraversy. i think the record shows the US was quite humane. But this is another topic. No matter what happen, it doesn't make Nicholas' anti-semitic actions saintly.


Still doesn't make him saintly.


Sadly, it is not uncommon that the totalitarian left has become the totalitarian right when fortunes change. I've spent my life in sync with the late Lane Kirkland who always maintained that the totalitarian left and the democratic left had no common interests.



They seem to have eescaped the notice of the NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, Kenyon Research Institute, Freedom House, etc.


Could we have their names?



I've prefaced all of this by saying this is an issue that might best be left uncommented on. Is the Orthodox view that Nicholas' saintly is a pre-condition of efforts to heal the schism?


Neither questioned nor affirmed.

[quote]There were Catholic Bishops present at the Glorification of the New Martyrs of Russia, including that of the Royal Family, Tsar Nicholas and the others.[/quotes]

Names? Is certainly was not reported here, nor in the popular, Catholic or Orthodox presses.

Dear Kurt,

My final response, which won't settle the issue (alas).

1) Whether my profs were bigots, I don't know. But you quoted a number of Jewish sources who are against Tsar Nicholas. Did you know that there is a committee in Israel which is also against the canonization of Pope Pius XII? Are they bigots too?

2) "Unsupported statements" are in the eye of the beholder. What you've quoted was just that, statements where there was no documentary support for the people's views whatever. I am not going to bring bibliographies onto this Forum. There are plenty of resources out there on Nicholas Romanov, reassessing him, written by "bigots" and otherwise. Perhaps you might tap into the documents of the Russian Orthodox Church on this issue, or are they all bigots too?

3) I never called Golda Meir a liar. And she NEVER said anything nasty about Tsar Nicholas personally. She also defended Pope Pius XII and his assistance to Jews during World War II. You are putting words into my mouth. I would ask you to kindly refrain. One may also have a view of someone or something and one may disagree with same without there ever being a question of "lying" involved. Sorry but I see where you are coming from with your positivist perspective and that, moreso than "facts" that either of us can present, is the source of our disagreement on this matter. Also, the Russian Jewish Council responded favourably to the project of the canonization of Tsar Nicholas which is more than the Jewish world has said of Pope Pius XII.

4) I admit your point on the treatment of refugee Jews by the U.S. and on the point of the Russian historians.

5) I also admit your point on the totalitarian left and I thank you for your candor.

6) As for the Russian monarchist movement, they, like Pope Paul VI's humanae vitae, Pope Pius XII's efforts to assist Jews and other issues, regularly escape the mainstream press. I wonder why? And how is that possible, given the "fact" that the press and other journals are objective and have no ideological axe to grind? This really escapes me . . .

7) The monarchists I have met with include Count Tolstoy who is the head of the monarchist movement centred in Britain, also two secretaries to the House of Romanov, and three Russian generals whose names I have on a government visitors' list, but which I would not release without their permission, Danilo, Leo and Evphimy who are close personal friends working in Russia on behalf of the Russian Royalist movement. These are the people I have met with personally. If you don't believe me, you don't believe me.

8) Your point that the Catholic Church has not "affirmed" the canonizations is simply wrong. The Catholic Church does indeed affirm Orthodox Canonizations and has included a number into its own Calendar without requiring that they undergo a Rite of Canonization by Rome. That means that Rome affirms the Canonizations.

9)I don't know who the Catholic participants were, they were there in response to an ecumenical invitation, as they have been at almost every major Orthodox canonization in recent years. I have a video of one such where the Catholic participants, including a Cardinal in red, are visibly present. The fact that this was not reported doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Western press reports what it reports.

Finally, with respect to your comments to Serge, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both believe in the principle of local saints. That is, that every Church has the right to canonize and venerate its own saints. Upon reunion, there is no question that the cult of St Nicholas Romanov would be somehow made universal for the Catholic Church as well. That was not what Serge was saying. He was saying that if you question the principle of canonization in the Orthodox Church, which Rome itself acknowledges, then what you are saying, Kurt my friend, is that you deny the Orthodox Church the fullness of its ecclesial reality that Rome also acknowledges.

Again, I am not somehow "imposing" this cult on you or anyone. One can make the argument against the inclusion of a number of saints in both the Catholic and Orthodox calendars.

You have the right to hold your belief, as I do mine.

We both have our biases based on our perspectives of history.

Let's neither of us pretend that there is some "absolute" deposit of facts out there that gives an "objective" conclusion to this issue.

That is only true in mathematics, not history or the social sciences.

What we have here is a fundamental ideological disagreement on history in the first instance.

I really do want to go back to prayer beads . . .

Have a nice day, Kurt, I appreciate your learned and precise intellectual approach and do respect it - and you - greatly,

Feel free to beat me about the calves and ankles, I've said my piece, er, peace.

Alex

No devotional practices are being forced on anyone. Catholicism disagrees with Kurt, at least in practice (why, then, do the Russian Catholics venerate everybody the OCA does?), about Orthodox canonizations. If the saints of each side aren't recognized by the other (at least allowed locally), then dialogue is pointless.

Not being personally devoted to, say, St Tsar Nicholas II, or any other saint, is fine. Denying that they are saints, IOW denying that the Orthodox Churches canonize real saints, is another matter.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

Now that Kurt has indirectly given new impetus for increased interest in the veneration of Tsar St Nicholas, what resources would you recommend in this regard that are on the web (and on your website in particular?).

Alex

Alex,

Visit my Slavic page! There are relevant links there.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

Who was that American writer who wrote "Nicholas and Alexandra?"

He converted to Orthodoxy after finishing that book didn't he?

And he keeps their icon on his desk, I understand, with a burning oil lamp before it.

May the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers of Russia protect you always!

Alex

Alex,

Robert Massie wrote that book, which I have read and is my main source on them. I know nothing about his religion before or after writing the book. (He also wrote Peter the Great, which I haven't read yet.)

Do some research on the Web and learn about Mr Gibbes, the royal tutor who helped the children with their English, who after escaping Russia, after having known the family so well, ended up back in his native England — as an Orthodox monk.

http://oldworlrus.com

.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Kurt ]

I have, where they consider that the czar's murder was part of a Jewish ritual killing.


Read Gold Meir's autobiography. She certainly does have something to say about him. The Union of Councils of Jews has spoken against Nicholas II and has been highly unfavorable.


I am sure there is much more we agree on.


On this you may be right.


Your response includes a certain vagueness. Let me re-present it this way: Does the Catholic Church allow the public (communal) veneration of all persons who are canonized by the Orthodox Church, both respectively and prospectively?


Again some vagueness in your reponse. Did a Catholic prelate actively participate in the canonization ceremony of Nicholas II? If you are sure this was the case and feel the western press suppresses this, what of CNS, Zenit, the Vatican Press? These things are usually noted by the Holy See. Should we do a search on the Vatican website?


I don't believe canonizations by a local church are infallible and history has many examples of errors. I don't claim to have any knowledge of what MUST be done under reunion.


Here you have proven my point that the Catholic Church's lack of a permited cult of Nicholas Romanov is not an antiecumencial act.

If you and I, Catholics in formal communion with one another, can have our differenting beliefs and practices on this matter, than the Russian and Catholic Churches also could, without precluding the hope for formal communion.


Fine. Again, if you and I can accept the above statement while in communion with each other, than the Catholic and Orthodox Churches could so agree without precluding the hope for communion.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Kurt ]

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Dear Kurt,

O.K., I can live with most of what you said.

The official Russian Orthodox Church documents that were prepared for the canonization don't talk about Jewish ritual killing in this instance, although other sources and individuals certainly do.

The Catholic Church certainly did not participate liturgically in the glorification of the New Martyrs of the Soviet Yoke, but their presence as invited guests does have implications for what the respective Churches believe about each other's liturgical and ecclesial acts. I am sorry if that's vague . . .

This doesn't mean, as you correctly state (and you state so much is both correct and inspiring, Friend in Christ!)that the Catholic Church feels that the Canonization of Saints by another Apostolic Church binds it to their universal or even local veneration.

But that also doesn't mean that the Catholic Church doesn't acknowledge the validity of the canonical acts of the Orthodox Churches either.

The fact that the Catholic Church has sometimes placed saints canonized by the Orthodox Church alone in its own calendar means that it acknowledges the validity of those canonizations.

Certainly, the Catholic Church or anyone is not bound to the veneration of all the local saints of the apostolic Churches everywhere.

For example, the Ethiopian Church canonized as a saint the procurator who sentenced our Lord to death, Pontius Pilate. That would certainly remain a local devotion in the event of reunion and the other Oriental Orthodox Churches don't honour Pontius Pilate even though one of their Communion does.

So, perhaps we could agree, which I think we already do, that each Church has the right to canonize its own saints and that these acts are perfectly valid as far as the liturgical rite and act of canonization are concerned.

The veneration of saints is a matter that is decided by each local Church.

Even the beatification of the married couple (the ones whose common feastday is their wedding anniversary) in Rome by the Pope implies a local veneration of them in Rome alone. Other national episcopal conferences in other countries are, of course, welcome to receive their veneration, but they would have to formally receive it before that could happen.

The same is true about the veneration of St Thomas More. Although canonized four hundred years after his martyrdom, he was in fact venerated as a local saint in Rome beginning in 1575, by special permission of the Pope.

The recent announcements that the cases of Savonarola and Jan Hus will be examined by Rome has provoked some serious misgivings about these potential saint candidates by traditional Catholics. And I am sure the debates about whether they should even be considered to be saints will be endless. Yet, our awareness of their historical role and meaning to the Church might change over time, after we've had a chance to review their lives etc.

The same would be true for Pope Pius XII against who there is a lot of ill feeling. My father belonged to an underground Catholic organization that assisted the Jews, the Roma and others the Nazis were exterminating. This group, Caritas, was under the direct orders of Pope Pius XII and those working with it had to take an oath of both loyalty to the Pope and one of silence for 25 years after the war about their activities. I only found this out two years before my father's death and this through the families of the two Polish Jews whom he helped escape and who are now living in Israel.

My grandparents assisted a number of Russians and Russian aristocrats escaping the Bolshevik terror. They were Ukrainians and so didn't have an especial reason to like the Tsar. But they did change their minds after their experiences with the Russians whom they described as a "totally different kettle of fish" from the Bolsheviks who later "came on in."

Again, antisemitism isn't something that is the monopoly of any one group or nation in Europe. Antisemitic feelings run through the writings of Catholic saints as well.

As Robert Massie said, antisemitism in Russia was based on religion, rather than on the later Nazi understanding of being Jewish in terms of race.

That doesn't excuse it, as I know you would, correctly again, point out.

If a Jew became an Orthodox Christian, he or she would be free to ascend to any height within Russian society or the Church.

The first Bishop of Novgorod who was the Chaplain of St Volodymyr the Great was actually a converted Jew, St Luke "the Jewish."

There was a New Martyr, a Jewish Doctor who converted to Orthodoxy, St Alexander, who caught the attention of his patients in hospital since they knew, by his surname, that he was Jewish, and yet he crossed himself constantly and gave icons to his charges.

When asked what religion he was, he simply replied, "I am an Orthodox Jew."

Sorry to go on about this, Kurt, but you know how much I love saints!

God bless and have a great day,

Alex

Dear Alex,

This is what I'm a little foggy on. The Catholic Church accepts Orthodox canonisations. This seems to mean that the Catholic Church accepts the notion that those canonised by the Orthodox are in heaven, the same way they regard their own saints as being in heaven. Now, if the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has canonised Pontius Pilate, does that mean that, while the other Orthodox and Catholic Churches don't have to officially have a veneration for this "local" saint, that they must still affirm that this "local" saint is in heaven with all the others? How does this work?