www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Sainthood?

Dear Serge,

Yes, I can't disagree with you (I'm now afraid to - kidding, kidding . . .).

But the Ukrainian Orthodox Church had, for years previously, relied on Constantinople to officially ratify its saints, even though the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolitan later did the glorifications himself, beginning with Clement Smolyatych.

The Ukrainian Eastern Catholic Church began a local process for the canonization of two of its early saints, Josaphat AND Meletius Smotrytsky. An icon was written and published in Meletius' honour but Rome did not take up his even more controversial cause.

Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky took the initiative at the beginning of the twentieth century and asked Rome to approve for Eastern Catholic veneration all the Orthodox Saints hitherto glorified. Rome granted this in 1904 and so, in a sense, Met. Andrew participated in a kind of canonization of the Orthodox saints for the Eastern Catholic Church.

The other time this came up was with St Job of Pochayiv. The Basilian Fathers actually introduced his cause in Rome and it was taken up. When the Pochayiv Monastery returned to the Orthodox in the 19th century, the cause was quietly dropped. I have a "Catholic" medal of our Lady of Pochayiv from the time of Her Catholic coronation (an antique I picked up in England) and it has the icon of St Job on the other side.

The glorification of its own saints is something that needs to be developed in the Ukr. Cath. Church and will be a future measure of our sense of truly Eastern identity.

I'm wondering about how this works in Russia today as well.

Can localities glorify their local saints which need to be approved by Moscow? Or can they just proceed without it? I wonder if St Theodore Ushakov the Russian Admiral and nephew of St Theodore of Sanaxar needs to be "confirmed" as a local saint.

I know that the Moscow Patriarch may glorify local saints as well as saints for the universal Russian Church.

Alex

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

But the Ukrainian Orthodox Church had, for years previously, relied on Constantinople to officially ratify its saints, even though the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolitan later did the glorifications himself, beginning with Clement Smolyatych.

Apples and oranges. The patriarch of Constantinople was their patriarch. The Pope is not the patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. You don't want the Orthodox to think "universal pastor' means "having another patriarch, of another rite, canonize your saints for you'*, do you?

*Which in practice is what happens now.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

That is a crucial question, as you know.

The Unia, in effect, DID make the Kyivan Church part of the Roman Patriarchate, rhetoric about particularity notwithstanding.

The Ukrainian bishops at the time who went in for the Unia were more concerned about the calendar, the Sign of the Cross, married priesthood etc.

We know that the Pope at the time refused any of their demands and it took months before he would even speak with the Ruthenian bishops.

Evidence seems to show that the bishops entering communion with Rome saw this as changing allegiance to Constantinople with that to Rome in the same way.

So, yes, the Roman Pontiff did become the Eastern Catholics' Patriarch in that sense as well, and Pope Paul VI, I understand, once reminded Josef Slipyj of this in a, shall we say, rather heated debate on the subject of a Patriarchate for the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

It would seem that both sides were operating with similar language but with differing ecclesiologies and understandings of each other's positions and expectations.

Certainly, Rome has always expected the Ukrainian and other Eastern Catholic Churches to canonize their saints via Rome.

Otherwise, why has no Eastern Catholic Church ever canonized its own saint or saints? Surely, not for lack of candidates.

Alex

So, yes, the Roman Pontiff did become the Eastern Catholics' Patriarch in that sense as well, and Pope Paul VI, I understand, once reminded Josef Slipyj of this in a, shall we say, rather heated debate on the subject of a Patriarchate for the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

What you say is too true in practice, certainly from 1596 until the 1960s, and even true today. Man, if I were Patriarch Joseph and that little blunderer Pope Paul VI threw that in my face after all I'd been through, that Milanese would have been served a can of Ukrainian whupa*s.

It would seem that both sides were operating with similar language but with differing ecclesiologies and understandings of each other's positions and expectations.

Orthodox-oriented Byzantine Catholics in good standing say the Unia as it happened (the way you describe) was a mistake.

Certainly, Rome has always expected the Ukrainian and other Eastern Catholic Churches to canonize their saints via Rome.

Otherwise, why has no Eastern Catholic Church ever canonized its own saint or saints? Surely, not for lack of candidates.

Reminds me how, on the Byzantine Catholic wall calendars I remember, church history/the communion of saints seems to stop abruptly around 900 (!), except for Josaphat who was killed by the "schizmatics' (sic).

Not only have Byzantine Catholics been unable to glorify their own, but Rome hasn't done so for them either. And their monasticism died out and was replaced by copies of Roman Catholic orders.

Meanwhile, the Russian menaion has a slew of new saints from the early Middle Ages to today.

http://oldworldrus.com

The UGCC maintains an office for the review of candidates for public veneration who were members of the UGCC. I think Bishop Kumuzka (sp.?) heads it, I'm not sure. I understand it is a great joy to the UGCC (rather than a matter of some power crazed Polish ham actor "interfering") when a candidate or person venerated only within the particular church is viewed as a person of whom universal veneration might in service to the Church's mission.

It might help to understand this that in common speech among Catholics, the term 'saint' is used for persons universally venerated, with 'blessed' for those venerated within a particular church.

The fact that the Eastern Orthodox use different terms has never been raised by them as a problem towards ecumencial relations, only by individuals with their own agendas at varience with canonical Eastern Orthodoxy.

Again, many Greek catholics like a system which results in the veneration of those of their own ethnicity AND other ethnicities.

K.

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

<sanctimonious horse manure deleted>

Oh, well. A risk that goes with using that metaphor. Go away.

Cracks me up: after being told for years traditionalists have no sense of humor, I crack a few jokes and the liberals show what pills they are. Turnabout!

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

To answer Alex's question about the Russian Orthodox Church: Yes, their local eparchies can glorify their own saints for local veneration. This was the case recently with an Admiral of the Russian Navy who was glorified, and it was done by an obscure eparchy in Northern Russia. The Patriarch was not even present at the glorification, but sent a letter.

I believe that the Archeparchy of L'viv does have an office for candidates of beatification. This office did the work for the preparation of materials for the new blesseds. I know that a member of this office is the Leningrad schooled, now Basilian hieromonk (I forget his name).

To answer Alex's question about the Russian Orthodox Church: Yes, their local eparchies can glorify their own saints for local veneration. This was the case recently with an Admiral of the Russian Navy who was glorified, and it was done by an obscure eparchy in Northern Russia. The Patriarch was not even present at the glorification, but sent a letter.

Makes sense! The Church in its fullness is wherever the bishop, the local apostle in communion with all other Orthodox bishops, and his community are gathered celebrating the Eucharist, so on this level it can glorify. Glory to God, &#1089;&#1083;&#1072;&#1074;&#1072; &#1041;&#1086;&#1075;&#1091;, doxa tou Theou.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Serge and Daniiel,

Yes, L'viv does have an office that examines the lives of candidates for sainthood.

This is the office that examined the lives of the New Martyrs before their beatification by the Pope last June.

However, this office does NOT have any power to authorize the public veneration of anyone - regrettably.

Serge is correct about the Unia and it is not my aim to somehow try to justify what is unjustifiable concerning the rights of the Particular Churches and how they have gone by the wayside.

The uniate model has been rejected by one and all as a model for any future united Church. But we live with what we have to live with - unless, of course, our hierarchs develop more boldness with respect to Rome and just go among their own business without paying attention to what Vatican bureaucrats might have to say.

Alex

The Darling of the Docks

www.anglocatholicsocialism.org/dolling.html [anglocatholicsocialism.org]


Dancing the Magnificat

www.anglocatholicsocialism.org/dancing.html [anglocatholicsocialism.org]

Dear Sonny,

And the relevance of your post to this thread is . . . .?

Alex

The "Holy Orthodox Church of North America" (HOCNA) has glorified Metropolitan Philaret, the reposed First Hierarch of ROCOR. However, ROCOR does not recognize this canonization. Some of the HOCNA monasteries and parishes, as far as I know, used to belong to the ROCOR jurisdiction including the famous Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, Massachusetts and Holy Nativity Convent. They even produce icons of the newly glorified St. Philaret of New York. I have a gold crucifix that the new Saint blessed for me personally and I treasure it. Meeting him was truly a blessing in my life.
HOCNA has also glorified Elder Joseph the Cave-Dweller of Mt. Athos and I have a beautiful icon of him, halo and all, as well as some oil from the lampada over his grave on the Holy Mountain.
It is interesting to me that HOCNA glorified Metr. Philaret but ROCOR does not recognize it. Maybe that's because there is a fracture in the relationship between the two jurisdictions?
Just my .03 worth.
Silouan, old monk

Bless me a sinner, Venerable Father in Christ!

Yes, ROCOR and HOCNA have gone their separate ways and do not recognize each other's canonizations.

I have no problem honouring St Philaret as I know you do not.

If ROCOR and HOCNA ever came to be in communion with Rome, like us two, one change they would notice is that they would have so many more saints in their respective calendars!

One can dream, can't one?

Alex

That the holy saints of God know no jurisdictional boundaries.

And God knows no jurisdictional boundaries.

(And, of course, the posts relate to my own spiritual-economic agenda.)

Dear Sonny,

Well in that case . . .!

A happy King Charles the Martyr's Day on Wednesday, if I don't communicate with you before then!

And a happy Blessed Charlemagne's Day today!

You have a spiritual agenda here? I don't think I've ever met someone with an agenda here . . . NOT!

God bless,

Alex