www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Tomb of Saint Josaphat

Dear Incognitus,

Yes, the book by Met. Ilarion Ohienko on the history of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is one and it contains a bibliography on the subject.

The Old Believers' "istynno" is different from the one that was used in western Ukraine under Poland - no Muscovite gendarmes, Reverend Sir, you again seem intent on confusing things when they contradict your view of the world - or add a dimension to it that you might not have been aware of . . . forgive my impertinence, but you do tempt me so!

Eugene Ivankiw wrote an article on the history of the Filioque in the UGCC for Visnyk where he discusses the use of "istynno" in place of "I Syna" and I used to have a copy and may still do.

If you are willing to pay me a visit to do some spade work in my disorganized files to locate that article, you are welcome. And I promise not to even think of asking you to remove your paper bag from your head!

We know from the life of St Josaphat that he was not against the use of civil fines in the spreading of the Unia - this is presented in subtle form in the book on St Josaphat published by the Basilians. People under the EC Metropolitan of Kyiv had to make their confession to an EC priest and had to obtain a certificate that they did so (in effect, ensuring they were EC's and not Orthodox). Without that certificate or paper, they were liable to civil fines. That was standard practice in those days.

In addition, he did go directly to the Orthodox to openly debate with them in efforts aimed at getting them to come under Rome. He did this when he went to the Kyivan Caves Lavra and tried to convince the Orthodox monks there to become Catholic on the basis of their own liturgical books where references to St Peter and his position among the Apostles are found. There was lots of agressive proselytising, as you know.

The relics of St Josaphat were moved around in the early years following his Beatification - as were those of other Basilian martyrs, especially those murdered at the order of Tsar Peter I.

This was discussed in the History of the Church in Ukraine.

If you feel I did not read this anywhere but am making it up, that is your prerogative.

Episodes from the life of St Athanasius of Brest show why he reacted the way he did to the Unia - that was when he saw gendarmes try to impose the Unia in the villages etc.

This provoked him to go directly to the Polish Sejm and distribute copies of the miraculous Icon of the Kupyatytska Theotokos to the parliamentarians there assembled and warn them of God's punishment for the use of secular power over church affairs.

There is a life of St Athanasius in Ukrainian and the above are quoted directly from historic sources.

But that's fine, whatever.

If you feel that there was no force of any kind used in the imposition of the Unia, that is your prerogative.

I believe Orthodox historiographers go overboard in commenting on this period of history, but that doesn't mean they are completely wrong either.

St Athanasius himself was tortured for a couple of days to get him to accept the Unia. He refused, was taken to the woods by the gendarmes, forced to dig his own grave and was buried alive after being shot twice. We know that he was buried alive from his fingers when he was later exhumed.

The use of relics of those Basilians killed by Orthodox to promote the Unia in direct "conversion campaigns" is something that I thought was well known. Certainly, Orthodox priests I've spoken to know about them.

As for "it ain't so," history is a matter of interpretation. "Facts" as such don't exist outside frameworks of interpretation, as you know.

If you don't accept this, please believe me when I tell you that I PRAY that none of the above is true. I would rather not believe that even in the 20th century in E. Europe, people like my wife's grandfather had their baptismal certificates changed from "GC" to "RC" so they could get better jobs.

I'd rather not believe that such things could happen. . .

Alex

I am only too well aware of atrocities committed against both Orthodox and Greek-Catholics by Roman Catholics in 20th-century Poland. There's an excellent book on the subject. But that has nothing at all to do with Saint Josaphat.

I am also aware of the martyrdom of Saint Athanasius of Brest. This event also has nothing to do with Saint Josaphat.

Demanding that people produce proof of having gone to Confession for purposes of the civil government is a stench in the nostrils of God - but Saint Josaphat did not invent the practice.

The Tsarist government conducted a terrible persecution of the Old Ritualists - and that too had no connection with Saint Josaphat (although it is fascinating to follow the history of Tsarist persecution of the Old Ritualists and Tsarist persecution of the Greek-Catholics; there are lots of parallels, too many to be mere coincidence, and I sometimes wonder if either of the persecuted communities understood the connection between them).

By way of reductio ad absurdum, China persecutes Buddhists in Tibet. This has no connection with Saint Josaphat. Blaming the poor man for all the evils of the world is pointless.

Far from being enthusiastic about him, the Greek-Catholics at the time of the canonization were uninterested and paid almost no attention to the event (cf. John-Paul Himka). He was viewed as a Polish saint; the Poles were responsible for promoting the canonization. Such is life - but again, one can hardly blame it on Saint Josaphat, of all people.

I would gladly accept your kind invitation, but neither my bank account nor my work obligations allow me to at the moment. Should the opportunity arise, I'll leave the paper bag at home!

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

Yes, I agree with all of the above - in fact, one could make the case that EC's as well as Orthodox preferred St Athanasius of Brest over St Josaphat!

I accept that he was innocent of any and all charges laid against him by you-know-who.

That doesn't mean that his person is not controversial among the Orthodox and even among EC's to this day for a number of reasons, how his memory was used etc.

The issue of separating fact from fiction is what has no bearing on the issue of the controversy of his memory.

If you are saying that the controversy is based on fiction - I would say you are right, but many Orthodox would dispute that.

If you are saying that controversy needs to be based on fact - then you've obviously never been at the centre of one!

And that is a good thing!

Alex