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

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?

Makes sense to me.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Catholicos,

A very good question. Let's see if I can come up with a good answer . . .

Actually, 90% of all the saints in our respective Calendars are local.

Let me start with an example.

At the time of Hilary of Poitiers, one Bishop Lucifer (Luciperro) of Cagliari and Vallombrossa strongly opposed the Catholic policy of leniency toward those Christians who had lapsed during the time of persecution.

Lucifer (sounds funny, doesn't it?) maintained that any Christian who denied Christ, no matter what the circumstances, should not be received back into the Church.

He got into an argument with the Pope and with St Hilary . . .

He retired to Sardinia where the people truly loved him. After his death, the local bishop declared him a saint and churches and shrines were built in honour of St Lucifer of Cagliari (he is in the Orthodox calendar).

When his cult started to expand, the popes grew concerned and forbade his cult to move beyond the confines of Sardinia. The local nature of his cult was firmly established. The same is true of the local cult at Aachen of the emperor Blessed Charlemagne, canonized by an antipope.

So Rome allows for their local cultus. And so what does that mean?

Rome does not commit to saying anything "official" about these local saints, since that was done by the local authorities.

Rome simply admits to the legitimacy of the cultus in its particular locale.

For Rome to say anything further would be to almost make an "equipollent" canonization or informal canonization for universal veneration.

We can press the point further by noting the qualitative difference between what is implied by a Beatification (the quintessential local cult approved by Rome) and Canonization.

Beatification is simply an affirmation celebrated liturgically, today made only by the Roman Pontiff, that a candidate is in Heaven. The papal charism of infallibility with respect to such an affirmation does not apply here. It does apply to the Act of Canonization whereby the Pope declares a candidate to be in Heaven and commands the entire Church to venerate him or her as a saint interceding on our behalf.

Local saints continue to be honoured and, over time, a number of them have even been forgotten and their cult has disappeared.

One famous example of a cult that disappeared and then came back through miraculous means is that of the Orthodox New Martyrs under the Turks, Sts. Raphael, Nicholas and Irene with Olympias.

The Turks attacked the Isle of Chios way back when and brutally martyred two Orthodox monks, a nun and the daughter of the local Mayor.

A church was built in their honour and people would make a pilgrimage to them annually on Bright Tuesday during the week of Pascha.

Their cult was somehow forgotten, although people kept coming to the place on Bright Tuesday.

In the sixties, the land-owners of the property on which the church stood began having nightmares of Turks sawing a monk's jaw right through etc.

Soon they could, with uniform accuracy, describe the names, the nature of the martyrdom and even the physical characteristics of the martyrs.

Even the place of their buried Relics was revealed to them, and these were found with further archaeological evidence and information about their lives.

The great icon painter Kontoglou also visited the Isle and he too began having recurring nightmares and dreams about these saints.

The now famous icon of Sts. Raphael, Nicholas and Irene was written by him and is based on those dreams!

These local saints are now honoured by world Orthodoxy.

We all have the right to venerate whom we wish. We also have the right to "adopt" those who are venerated by others.

In the case of Pontius Pilate, that is a local cult in Ethiopia and will probably always remain so. The Ethiopian Catholic Church was obliged to expunge his name from the Calendar when it joined with Rome. But that wouldn't be a problem today in ecumenical talks.

Rome simply recognizes the right of other Churches to canonize and venerate their own saints (e.g. Dioscorus and Severus, remember what the Orthodox liturgy has to say about them?).

Hopefully, I've addressed your question . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

"The Headless Severus" -- Eastern Orthodox Liturgy

"Our Patriarch Mar Severios, the Crown of the Syrians, the Eloquent Mouth, the Pillar and Doctor of the Holy Church of God as a whole, the Meadow abounding in blossom, who preached all the time that Mary was undoubtedly the God-bearer" -- Syrian (Oriental) Orthodox Liturgy

Which "Orthodox" do you mean?

Dear Catholicos,

You got me, Big Guy, touche, touche!

You are not just a pretty face. Does your girlfriend know what a real treasure she has in you?

I should have said "Byzantine" or "Eastern Orthodox."

I'm going to feel that one for some time . . .

Have a great day!

Namastay!

Alex

Yes. The Catholic Church would, as a general principle, recommend to Orthodox Christians they follow the canons of their own community, a recommendation she makes regarding non-reception of communion in the Catholic church, for example.

The Catholic Church would generally have no comment if an Orthodox canonization was appropriate, but would see it as canonical.

The point remains that public veneration of Nicholas Romanov is not permitted in the Catholic Church and his saintliness or lack of saintliness is a private matter.

As for the concept of "valid" vs. "invalid" canonization, this seems to be a rank latinism.

K.

The point remains that public veneration of Nicholas Romanov is not permitted in the Catholic Church and his saintliness or lack of saintliness is a private matter.

Why not? Have your authorities issued an order banning it? I didn't think so. Therefore, he is as publicly venerable on your side as two of today's feast-day saints (Julian reckoning), St Paisius Velichkovsky (Alex's relative) and St Herman of Alaska, the latter of whom is in fact venerated by Russian Catholics.

If you don't want to hang up an icon of him, fine. But don't deny he is a saint.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

The other Serge in my life, Fr. Serge Keleher, told me that he attended the Orthodox canonization of St Herman of Alaska.

He saw a number of Catholic bishops there who kissed the icon of St Herman, received a blessing with the Saint's Relics and who took copies of his icon home with them.

Fr. Serge then said, "If they don't recognize him as a saint, then why did they attend the canonization, venerate the icon and relics etc?"

But they did do this and they did so as representatives of the Catholic Church.

In terms of St Nicholas Romanov, if the Catholic Church did NOT recognize his canonization, then this would constitute a very serious breach in ecumenical relations what have you and would also be a denial of what the Catholic Church believes about the Orthodox Church.

Individual Eastern Catholic Churches are, of course, welcome to adopt his cult, if they so wish, and, as you say, they are, just as they have adopted the cult of St Paisius, St Herman, St John Maximovitch and so on.

By affirming, as it implicitly does, the canonization of Nicholas Romanov and his family, the Catholic Church does not, in any way therefore, deny their "worthiness" as saints.

It is just that it has not accepted their liturgical cult.

There are also many ways in which a cultus to the saints can be expressed, everything from a full Service and Akathist, to a simply commemoration in the calendar with no liturgical prayer addressed to them at all.

Many Byzantine emperors who supported the Church and have a claim to the Church's gratitude were included into the Orthodox calendar, but that is where their commemoration ends.

There is, however, and in this Kurt is quite right, getting around the fact that the reception of the cultus of St Nicholas Romanov and his family into the universal Catholic calendar (there is the universal Russian calendar and so on) would be a controversial issue, something Rome would tend naturally to shy away from right now in any event.

Again, this doesn't mean, in the least, that Rome doesn't acknowledge the canonizations of the Orthodox Church nor does it argue with the claims to holiness of those the Church canonizes.

Similar issues have occurred with other Catholic saints as well.

King Henry VI of England, killed in the Tower, had his canonization process fall victim to politics, even though he was personally innocent of any wrongdoing as time bore out.

Perhaps the greatest example is that of King Charles I.

An Anglican martyr acclaimed so by Parliament, he is today venerated by Catholics, Anglicans and even Orthodox who are members of the Society of King Charles the Martyr.

I am also a member and I have written an Eastern Akathist in his honour which will be published before the New Year and, as I understand, has passed an examination by a Greek Orthodox Bishop (many years, Despota!!).

Yet, there are those, even within the Anglican church who simply cannot stand King Charles, calling him a tyrant and murderer.

There is even an alternative society that meets on January 30th, the day of his beheading, to publically put him down (!).

Also, Pope Pius IX, formally beatified by His Holiness recently, was also attacked by groups for his alleged antisemitism. Another Yugoslav bishop beatified by the Pope has been criticized as a Nazi sympathizer. St Jan Sarkander of Bohemia, also recently canonized, has been attacked as a murderer and torturer of Protestants.

It is no secret that the criticism of Pius XII became so loud that his beatification was deferred and that of Pius IX was brought forward.

The fact is that many famous saints will have their detractors. Even St John Chrysostom has been branded an "anti-semite."

I believe, along with many, that St Nicholas Romanov and his family were a very holy family and that they will be, in time, completely exonerated.

I leave this in God's Hands to do in God's good time.

Alex

I do deny his saintliness.

And yes, my Church has banned it, in that communlal veneration is reserved to those to have been positvely approved for veneration, not those who have been actively disapproved (an action of which they Catholic Church does not undertake).

Trust me, I lose little sleep fearing that I will walk into a Catholic Church and be subjected to the corporate veneration of Nicholas Romanov. Chances are better at finding a birth control clinic there.

Dear Kurt,

You are right, of course.

But the Church hasn't "banned" anything simply because it hasn't received the cultus of particular saint from another Church.

That is saying too much . . .

To "ban" implies condemning. There are many local saints in Italy that continue to be locally venerated with Rome's approval, even though their actual cult has not even been approved!

For example, His Holiness is a great admirer of St Louis de Montfort, and has even expressed a wish to declare him a Doctor of the Church. The Pope's papal motto, "Tuus Totus" is actually taken directly from St Louis de Montfort's writings.

St Louis goes to great lengths to quote one "Blessed Alan de la Roche" also known as "Blessed Alan de Rupe."

This Dominican was responsible for the form of the Rosary as we know it today and for the legends surrounding St Dominic's vision etc.

The Pope himself has quoted from him. Yet "Blessed Alan" has never had his cult approved by Rome, liturgical or otherwise. As far as I know, there are no plans to proceed with a formal Beatification of him as yet.

He is popularly venerated and Rome and the Pope admit this, but do not approve of his cult. So he is not "banned" in the sense that he is condemned in any way.

The Pope has also quoted extensively from the writings of the Russian Saint Theophan the Recluse, who had not a few unkind things to say about the Roman Catholic Church in his lifetime (essentially repeating the prejudices of his environment).

The Pope obviously approves of St Theophan enough to quote him as representative of Eastern theology as well.

The Pope also has hanging in his own private chapel the icon of All (Orthodox) Saints of Russia. Again, the Catholic Church does not acknowledge most of those depicted there for liturgical veneration, but there is no "banning" of them or Catholic "ukaze" forbidding Eastern Catholics from venerating them.

So the two ideas are quite different and one doesn't imply the negative connotations of the other.

But I understand where you are coming from . . .

Alex

Alex,

Of course, you are right. "Banning" is Serge's term, whihc really doesn't fit into Catholic ecclessiology. No one is prohibited from venerating anyone. I venerate George Meany (St. George the Plumber). Perfectly legit. The question is the approval by the Church Universal or a particular Catholic Church of public veneration.

The pope has his private devotions, each of us have ours. Public veneration of Nicholas Romanov is still not permitted in the Catholic Church.

K.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Of course each Christian has the right to choose which saints s/he will personally venerate. I choose to venerate the Holy Royal Passionbearers Nicholas, Alexandria, Tatiana, Maria, Olga, Anastasia, and Alexis. By their intervention one of my children was assisted in the healing of her body and spirit following the murder, by criminals, of her fiance. I have a strong veneration for these particular saints and their heavenly intervention on the behalf of my family (indeed 3 of my grandchildren are named for the Royal Passionbearers Alexis, Tatiana, and Anastasia).

It is of some interest that,in the past several years, the KGB archives have been opened and we are getting a very differing view of the Holy Passionbeaer Nicholas. He is indeed being seen in a different light. In his earlier days (the time cited around 1905) the Tsar, although believing himself autocratic, was getting a great deal of family and bureaucratic pressure. Many acts were being done in his name without his signature or authorization. His extended family (not the Tsarina) would later advise him that to discipline those who acted in his name would show him as a weakling and damage the dynasty.

It is interesting to note that by 1914, he began to look again at the issues of Jewish Rights (which indeed began to be open again about that time) and greater reforms (to be done on a specific time table) that would increase stability of industrial Russia and maintain the rights of the "peasants" and the industrial labor force. It is for that reason that the Revolutionaries felt they needed to strike before further positive changes occurred. Information taken from the Archives of Romanov Family Letters to the Tsar, located in 1999 and 2000 note that for this he came under massive anger from the extended Royal Family (his mother and other relative) who actually threatened removal of all family support if he continued to pursue these "radical" ideas and the support of rights for the Russian Jews.

It is important to also realize that Tsar Nicholas following his abdication took upon himself responsibility for all the actions that were done in his name (whether he had authorized it or not). The writings of those who surrounded the Royal Family while under arrest and through to their Execution note that the family was in prayer for the Russian People and prayed constantly for the salvation of the Russian People. To every act of depredation done to them the Royal Family responded by silent acceptance of it as a penance and prayed for those who hurt them.

Why were the Romanovs glorified as Saints? They were glorified because of the passion that they bore leading to their eventual death and martyrdom. Why do we look to them today? We see a family who, although at times they made mistakes, bore their persecution in full faith of the Lord. The love of family and nation seen in the last days of the Royal Passionbearers indeed were those of Saints.

To Roman Catholics and Byzantine Catholics it is important to realize that all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, but by the Holy Spirit one changes their life and they become holy and who knows, we mayt gains the homage of Sainthood. Look at Francis of Assisi, we see a youth who wasted his early youth but by the power of God renounced it an became a Roman Catholic Saint. We look at Blessed Augustine who lived a life in "sin and heresy" but repented, became a bishop and father of the Church. Why do people have problems when they look at the many witnesses of the changes found in Tsar Nicholas? He and his family are examples of Sainthood with a devoted married couple and the results of that household upon their children who also partook of the passionbearers death.

Holy Royal Passionbearers Nicholas, Alexandra, Tatiana, Maria, Olga, Anastasia, and Alexis pray for us!

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas

[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Thomas ]

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for sharing such a wonderful witness of your faith and devotion!

Thank you also for sharing your scholarly insights into the lives of the Royal Passion-Bearers.

Of course, anyone who names one of their children with such a classy name as "Alex" or "Alexis" certainly has my vote!

Alex

What were these unnamed rights? The Dictator Nicholas Romanov expelled the Jews from Moscow and St. Petersburg, restoring the restirctions of the Pale of Settlement, he expelled Jews from the universities, another step backwards, he personally financed the Black Hundreds, a terrorist organization, he abolished the elected Duma, rolling back this reform, he increased rather than relaxed censorship.

On another thread:



OK Alex! Another question related to saints, along a similar vein. The Ethiopians venerate Pontius Pilate as a saint. I guess I have no problems with that, after all, I assume they say he converted or something. But this? Both Churches venerate a saint who in actuality is the Buddha. Granted that this may not have been known with certainty back then, there is no longer any doubt, as you say, that this is the Buddha. Now since there is no evidence that the Buddha ever became a Christian (that would be a feat, considering that Christ hadn't come yet), how is it that we can continue to publicly venerate someone as a saint, who at least wasn't a part of the Jewish tradition (all the OT Saints)? The Romanovs? Fine. Pontius Pilate? Alright. The Buddha? Help me out here.

[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

Dear Catholicos,

Is this Forum fascinating or what? Where else can one discuss such intensely interesting questions in such wonderful company?

First of all, let's put Pontius Pilate to rest, shall we . . .

The East, especially the Oriental Orthodox tradition, always had a much more positive view of him than the West. The tradition in the west was that he committed suicide.

But that was a later tradition.

The Ethiopians cherish a series of letters written between Pilate and Herod at the time of the Passion of Christ.

We know from the New Testament that the two fellows had a falling out, but became friends after they both saw Christ following our Lord's arrest.

In this letter of Pilate to Herod, the procurator complains to him that he did wrong in following his advice to condemn him to death.

He also tells him that his wife, St Claudia Procla, left him after he broke his promise to her not to harm Christ.

Afterwards however, she came back to him with the Believing Centurion and some other soldiers who were at the Tomb and who also came to believe in Christ.

They told him that "the Lord awaits you."

He then went with them to a field where, the letter says, "there were about 500 people surrounding Him."

"He saw me and approached me. I fell to the ground as it seemed to shake under my feet. He put His hands on me and I could see the marks of the nails on them. He then said, "Blessed are you, for in your time was fulfilled the prophecies of old concerning Me."

Pilate is then summoned to Rome by Tiberius who sentences him to death for crucifying Christ. By this time, Pilate has apparently become a Christian and as his head is sliced off, an angel catches it. St Claudia Procla (whom we all venerate a saint) then dies from joy that her husband has found peace with God and Christ.

It was on this basis that Pilate was canonized in Ethiopia and his and his wife's feast there is on June 25. I once mentioned this to a Coptic priest who was totally surprised and told me he had never heard of that.

I once met an Ethiopian priest and asked him if it is true his Church venerated Pontius Pilate a saint. He eagerly looked at me and said, "Yes, don't you . . .?"

Getting back to the Buddha, there is still formal disagreement as to the identity of "St Joasaph, Prince of India." Some say he was a Christian Prince and that the fact that his life resembles that of the Buddha is coincidental etc.

The Bollandists and other serious hagiographical scholars have no doubt about this and I am inclined to agree with them.

The removal of the name is another matter and one gets involved in all sorts of issues with that.

It certainly would not be the first time that a "saint" would be removed from the Calendar once new information is made available.

The arch-heretic Arius was in the Catholic calendar for centuries under a slightly modified name "St Artotis" under June 6. No one had heard of this fellow until the Bollandists made a comprehensive study and discovered that an Arian copyist had decided to keep him in the Catholic calendar this way (nasty, nasty!).

The Bollandists found all sorts of spurious saints or names associated with milestones and non-existent persons in the calendar which they promptly expunged.

Spain and other countries, in a sort of contest to see who had more saints, would adopt wholesale saints who lived in Palestine and the Middle East and who have never been anywhere near the Iberian peninsula.

Such is life . . .

Alex