www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Saint Josaphat:Apostle of Union

Yeah, but I'm not so sure that this comparable. If I'm not mistaken, astrology was considered to be a science in St. Thomas' day like astronomy is to us. It was different from what astrology is today.

Pax Christi,
John

Hey Robert brings up an excellent point: reconciling devotion to controversial saints. It ahs larger implications for all Churches, such as the status of saints not recognized in others like "Saint" Constantine the Great (denied canonization in the West). Amusingly though, the East can point to "Saint" Liberius I, while the West doesn't recognize this pontiff as such. Then there are the controversial "saints", like Mark of Ephesus or Leopoldo of Castelnovo. They were clearly polar opposites in their viewpoints regarding the Schism.

I like this question he raises, but am afraid I have no answer myself.

Pax Christi,
John

I haven't seen any Orthodox sites condemning St. Teresa of Calcutta (she's a saint IMHO, canonization or no), the ones that do seem to be mostly fanatical Protestants. This one is the most despicable site I've ever seen from a supposedly Christian group. They take potshots at St. Teresa and others quite a lot:
http://www.godhatesfags.com

I seriously hesitate to provide a link to this revolting site, and apologize to anyone who offended, but I only do so to provide the most disgusting example I can to respond to your question. I strongly urge that people think twice about going there for any length of time!

Pax Christi,
John

But does his election have to be ratified by Rome? If so, then Robert's objection is valid. It seems to me that if the Eastern Catholic Churches are really going to be sui juris than Rome has no business being inolved in the election of their bishops. He is not their patriarch and this is not a function of his Petrine primacy.

Pax Christi,
John

I went to the online Catholic Encyclopedia for more information on St. Josaphat and I'm curious as to how much the following helps to engender the hostility of Orthodox against him:

"Among his converts were included many important personages such as Ignatius, Patriarch of Moscow, and Emmanuel Cantacuzenus, who belonged to the family of the Greek Emperor Pal�ologus." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08503b.htm

Pax Christi,
John

Hey Robert brings up an excellent point: reconciling devotion to controversial saints. It ahs larger implications for all Churches, such as the status of saints not recognized in others like "Saint" Constantine the Great (denied canonization in the West). Amusingly though, the East can point to "Saint" Liberius I, while the West doesn't recognize this pontiff as such. Then there are the controversial "saints", like Mark of Ephesus or Leopoldo of Castelnovo. They were clearly polar opposites in their viewpoints regarding the Schism

I know Constantine is a Saint of the Eastern Church, but does the same hold true for Justinian? I think I read he is one also, but may be wrong

God Bless,

Joseph

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Our Greek School curriculum includes courses on The History of Orthodoxy. The older students study the history of the various Eastern Unions with Rome.

St.Josaphat is not held in high esteem by our children. Even if he is completely innocent of the charges made against him, the movement he is associated with is not. The Orthodox were terribly persecuted: churches were confiscated and destroyed; the bodies of Orthodox believers were disinterred and violated; Orthodox presses were destroyed and literature banned; the practice of Orthodoxy was prohibited and Orthodox were essentially declared criminals and outlaws in the land of their birth. It is also well known that many of the leaders of the union, among the Orthodox, were opportunists who benefited from the unions.


So, even if St.Josaphat is personally whiter than snow, his movement (from the Orthodox historical perspective) is drenched in the blood of our brethren.

It is unfortunate that we must teach our children these historical facts, but "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." It seems to me that fair-minded Byzantine Catholics would agree.



[This message has been edited by Vasili (edited 01-08-2001).]

Christ is born!

Quote:

(St Thomas Aquinas believed in astrology!); perhaps his approach to his former co-religionists was one of his.

Yeah, but I'm not so sure that this is comparable. If I'm not mistaken, astrology was considered to be a science in St. Thomas' day like astronomy is to us. It was different from what astrology is today.

OK, but there are other examples that come from the Fathers. (I admit, especially for an Eastern, I am abysmally ignorant about the Fathers... almost as bad as my knowledge of the Old Testament. ) St Gregory of Nyssa didn�t believe condemned souls would be in hell forever. (That � apocatastasis � might be an allowable opinion. God IS all-loving and all-merciful and maybe an eon in the demons� motel is punishment enough, even for the most evil soul.) St Augustine (whose first-class relic, a tiny bone fragment, has a place of honor in a little reliquary on the wall in my icon corner) believed, based on logic and not cruelty, that unbaptized babies go to hell. Also, though I don�t know the details, his opinions on original sin are, as those in the know can tell you better, rejected at least by the Orthodox. Saints can and do make mistakes and, as long as they are not formal heresy or mortal sin, these don�t keep them from being saints.

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 01-08-2001).]

That � apocatastasis � might be an allowable opinion. God IS all-loving and all-merciful and maybe an eon in the demons� motel is punishment enough, even for the most evil soul.)


I believe that opinion was the opinion of Origen that was condemned by the 6th ecumenical council. Anyone know for sure?

anastasios

>>>Hey Robert brings up an excellent point: reconciling devotion to controversial saints. It ahs larger implications for all Churches, such as the status of saints not recognized in others like "Saint" Constantine the Great (denied canonization in the West). Amusingly though, the East can point to "Saint" Liberius I, while the West doesn't recognize this pontiff as such. Then there are the controversial "saints", like Mark of Ephesus or Leopoldo of Castelnovo. They were clearly polar opposites in their viewpoints regarding the Schism.
---

The answer I think is to let some saints stay local saints. Hence Sts. Dioscoros Severus can remain on the Coptic Calendar after the reunion but they will not be forced to accept St. Leo on theirs, for instance. It would be a non issue.

The Assyrian Church of the East dropped all references to "the wicked Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria" from their liturgy in 1997. Perhaps we could do the same to any texts condemning Nestorios, who was not really as Nestorian as some would claim.

anastasios

[This message has been edited by anastasios (edited 01-08-2001).]

I went to the online Catholic Encyclopedia for more information on St. Josaphat and I'm curious as to how much the following helps to engender the hostility of Orthodox against him

As better as pre-Vatican II was, not everything from that period is golden, as this article abundantly shows. It is definitely in the �pouring gasoline on a fire� category. I�ve seen far worse, though, but not from an official Catholic source: the Lefebvrist Redemptorist order (which includes their version of Eastern Catholics, a teeny-tiny group) in England: <a href="http://www.redemptorists.org.uk/">Transalpine Redemptorists</a>.

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 01-08-2001).]

The answer I think is to let some saints stay local saints. Hence Sts. Dioscoros Severus can remain on the Coptic Calendar after the reunion but they will not be forced to accept St. Leo on theirs, for instance. It would be a non issue.



Good answer for saints whose issues are now determined to be nonissues, as with the Coptic/Orthodox misunderstanding. People who were killed by one side like St Peter the Aleut or the Pratulin victims, or persecuted the other side, as it seems Josaphat did, are a harder issue to solve.

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

I believe that opinion was the opinion of Origen that was condemned by the 6th ecumenical council. Anyone know for sure?


Aw, man! I�m a material heretic?! Of course, seriously, I defer to the ecumenical councils.

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

John M. Betts asks:


Why not? Other than private opinion that is. (BTW, I respect private opinion, but I do think the claim "it should not be this way" rather than "it cannot be this way" requires some more support than a simple assertion).

Since the Catholic Church is not (or should not be) a "business", the business relationship between the Unviersal Pastor and the Particular Churches is not a valid starting point. Communion is the starting point. We Eastern Catholics have never asserted that what we are seeking is the bare minimum degree of communion with the Universal Pastor. That, more than various liturgical usages, is a Latinism, though a graeophile Latinism.

The current practice for Major Archepiscopal churches is that they elect their own Head. As they are part of the Catholic Church, the Head-elect sends a statement of communion to the Universal Pastor and the Head-elect becomes Head upon the acceptance of the request for communion by the Universal Pastor. (sidebar: A Patriarch-Elect, however, becomes Patriarch when he makes the act of communion with the Universal Pastor rather than when the Pope accepts it). While it is christian and charitable for any bishop anywhere in the world (including the Bishop of Rome) to provide fraternal and pious advice to brother bishops as to the election of new bishops, the Universal pastor does not decline communion to a Major Archbishop because he might judge that a different individual would make a better Head. He would only do so if the person selected is outside the bounds of Catholic communion. I think "ratification" is not the proper or accurate term for this practice.

As to sui iuris (which, since it is a term of the Latin language, I don't view it as the preferable term for us, but since you use it...) it simply means a particular church under its own law (it doesn't really speak to who is the lawmaker). It really has nothing to do with the method of selection of bishops either in the current day nor traditionally. Again, if someone wants to introduce a new understanding definition of the term, we should not be bound to dead tradition on what is a matter of church order, not theology.

K.



[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 01-12-2001).]

Oh indeed, John. I wasn't saying that saints do not have their personal gaffes and foibles (I can list a few too), but that astrology was believed to be a science in St. Thomas' day. This wasn't just a simple matter of him personally erring, but of how the subject was viewed in his day. Astrology was the astronomy of the 12th century in Western Europe at least.

Pax Christi,
John