Catholic devotion to Orthodox saints and vice-versa

[5Loaves]

Is it possible without excommunicating yourself?

Not to minimize the gravity of the schism, but for us little people (the laity) who need all the help we can from pious saints, is it wrong to pray to or show devotion to saints in the other lung?

To return to the topic:
In my parish we commemorate the Orthodox Saints, including righteous Father Alexis Toth.

We have a Saint laying incorrupt three blocks from us at Holy Virgin Cathedral and our clergy and laity visit St John the Wonderworker regularly, and are present at the Cathedral for various services during his Feast.

I’ve been told by various Russian Orthodox that St. Therese of Lisieux is venerated by many Orthodox in Russia and her icon found in many homes there.

 

[pablope]

Why would soldiers care what religion someone was?

They would not…they protected the interests of the king of spain…so if there was threat against the kingdom and its interests…they would torture that person…regardless of religion…

That the priest ordered the torchure is consistent with other historically recorded torchures ordered by Catholic priests or bishops, like during the inquisitions.

 

[Ion]

Did somebody try to recover the remains of the saint?

 

[Rawb]

Still I have wondered how it could be that Franciscan Missionaries were responsible for his death.

Doesn’t the story say that the reporting Alaskan thought they were Franciscans, but in actuality it was a Jesuit? Might be a small difference, but an important one, IMO.

Did somebody try to recover the remains of the saint?

No, St. Peter was martyred, then five years passed, then the Alaskan Native who told us the story escaped and told someone at, I believe, Fort Ross. It would’ve been like looking for a needle in a haystack, and really (remember what 5Loaves has said) nothing more than drudging up what was probably the horrific work of a single priest who’d “gone rogue” one day and disrupted what were the otherwise good relations between the Orthodox and the Spanish missionaries. Let sleeping dragons lie. We don’t require the relics of a saint for glorification.

But 5Loaves is also correct - we should probably return to the topic. I’d not heard that about the Little Flower before (not to doubt it, meant to be “oh that’s interesting”)

 

[dvdjs]

Doesn’t the story say that the reporting Alaskan thought they were Franciscans, but in actuality it was a Jesuit? Might be a small difference, but an important one, IMO.

No. The first letters (1820) on the matters did not identify the clergy apart from their being Spanish. The idea that they were Jesuits only appeared in the 1865 account. This identification was included in the official accounts of the OCA until a few years ago, when some scholarly studies of the history began (see links). There were no Jesuits in California at that time. Since then, accounts have been amended to note that the clergy identified as Jesuits must have been Franciscans. Read the links.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

1.They would not…they protected the interests of the king of spain…so if there was threat against the kingdom and its interests…they would torture that person…regardless of religion…

 

[dvdjs]

pablope;11001341:

Please explain how you think St. Peter was a political threat against the Spanish kingdom?

A moot point really, since in view of the paucity of support for the story of his torture by the Jesuits - er Franciscans.

I’m saying that Catholic priests and bishops have a history of ordering the torchure of those who do not submit to them or their Catholic Faith.

Well that Franciscans do not have that history at all. And that this the relevant point to the story of Peter who what not even Aleut.

One can read about the inquisition and the use of torture even in the Catholic Encyclopedia. newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm.

There is no doubt that torture was used in interrogations as a means to determine the truth, in particular in outting heresy. In earlier time, this was thought to be essential to determining the truth - and some think that even to today. There could be severe punishment of heretics, by the state, especially when there were seen as a threat to the well-being of the state. But the idea of torture to force individual conversions, is not a documented practice. These activities of course were by no means limited to the West. Torture, punishment by mutilation, penalties of death, and death by fire were common practice in the Byzantine Empire - even though you will have a hard time finding as candid an account by EO soources as that given in the CEnc.

The fourth Crusade is nothing to be proud of - by any one. But playing the victim and whining and foreight centuries and counting is tiresome. The Crusades started with the request for help by the East after the devastating loss at Manzikert. The Byzantines were of mixed minds on their relationship with the Crusaders and treated them with duplicity,

The fourth Crusade is a good example. In the years leading up to it, the political rivalry between parties amicable to the West, and those who detested them continued. When the latter group had gained power, there were murderous riots against Westerners in Constantinople. There were more probably deaths and more indiscriminate killing in this 1185 pogrom than in 1204.

As the fourth Crusaders were seeking to head to Egypt and in need of funds, a claimant to the Byzantine throne offered support in return for the armies help is establishing him on the throne. This group had already been excommunicated after a similar deal with Venice, which led to the besieging of a Hungarian city on the Adriatic. Still in need of funds, the Crusaders diverted to Constantinople and were successful in the mission. However the deposed emperor made off with much of the treasury. The new Emperor levy a harsh tax to fulfill his bargain with the Crusaders; before payment could be made, he was assassinated. The Crusaders collected on the debt. War is hell.

 

[pablope]

Do the Spanish missionaries.

Let sleeping dragons lie. We don’t require the relics of a saint for glorification.

Just out of curiosity…does the Orthodox, before saying one is a saint…does it not want to ascertain the stories attributed to the person as true, and sift out the legend…and also ascertain that the person is real and actually lived? And also ascertain the cause of death?

Isn’t there a lot of investigative work done before saying someone is worthy of veneration?

 

[Rawb]

Just out of curiosity…does the Orthodox, before saying one is a saint…does it not want to ascertain the stories attributed to the person as true, and sift out the legend…and also ascertain that the person is real and actually lived? And also ascertain the cause of death?

Isn’t there a lot of investigative work done before saying someone is worthy of veneration?

Not always, no. Just as in the early church saints arise from popular acclaim, not from a pronouncement by a pope. We have no categories of “venerable” “blessed” and “saint.” For example, Augustine is often referred to as Blessed Augustine, but it means exactly the same as St. Augustine. We also will call someone “Holy ______.”

We don’t require a certain number of miracles, no verification from doctors, and who cares if something is “legend”? We care more about the example of the person’s life, the prayers they say for us and we say for them, and rejoice when our brothers and sisters are healed, protected, and preserved. People in an area start venerating someone who has died, then it spreads out, eventually their bishop OK’s services done in their name and Icons commissioned, and then if their veneration is widespread enough they are put on the calendar.

Remember too that this has been the practice of the Romans until very recently when the system for making saints was instituted. That’s why your calendar dropped so many ancient saints, such as Ss. Christopher and Barbara.

 

[pablope]

Huh? Where did I mention anything about St. Peter the aluet?
I was responding to what you said here:

Why would soldiers care what religion someone was? That the priest ordered the torchure is consistent with other historically recorded torchures ordered by Catholic priests or bishops, like during the inquisitions.

You were trying to connect the actions of spanish soldiers with the actions of priest. You already had a conclusion in mind…that the actions of the soldiers was somehow tied to some orders from a priest. Do you even know the motives of the soldiers in acting the way they did?

All I pointed out is…That spanish soldiers would act independently on their own.

1. No, I’m not. I’m saying that Catholic priests and bishops have a history of ordering the torchure of those who do not submit to them or their Catholic Faith. The Inquisitions

, by the way there was more than one, are an historical example of that. The Crusades are another example. Based on the massive scale of the Inquisitions & Crusades, they can’t be Equated to the torchure and slaughter of one person.

At what do you think were the inquisition? All over Europe? Limited in scope? In area?

The Crusades are another example. Based on the massive scale of the Inquisitions & Crusades, they can’t be Equated to the torchure and slaughter of one person.

Well…now you are saying this? When in your statement here…that the priest ordered the torchure is consistent with other historically recorded torchures ordered by Catholic priests or bishops, like during the inquisitions.
…you tried the contrary…to equate it with an Inquisition?



How many do you think were actually tried and how many were excuted in the inquisition? In the several thousands?

1. I have only read about the Inquisitions from Catholic texts with Imprimatur. As I am in the habit of giving away to Libraries books I’ve read and studied, I no longer have any in my possession at this time to give you specific book titles. On the otherhand re: the Catholic Crusades, I initally only read from Catholic texts with Imprimaturs and was shocked at what Catholic historians say was done to fellow Christians by Catholic laity and priests! I have since read about the Crusades from Orthodox sources as it was New Rome aka Constantinople and my Orthodox anscestors which was attacked and slaughtered and the holy cathedral Agia Sophia that was sacked by one of the Catholic Crusades.

If it is a history book, why would it need an imprimatur? Did you even check if there was as imprimatur?

Imprimatur is Latin for “let it be printed.” When a Roman Catholic bishop grants his imprimatur to a printed work, he assures the reader that nothing therein is contrary to Catholic faith or morals. This imprimatur is not given lightly; only after a thorough review process.

And besides…I wonder why you did not mention…that it was actually secular authorities who led the inquisitions…and the Church actually provided theologians to defend those accused…thereby those accused sought help from the Church authorities…and reduced the number of trials and increased those found innocent…

Did you forget that fact in what you read?

 

[pablope]

Not always, no. Just as in the early church saints arise from popular acclaim, not from a pronouncement by a pope. We have no categories of “venerable” “blessed” and “saint.” For example, Augustine is often referred to as Blessed Augustine, but it means exactly the same as St. Augustine. We also will call someone “Holy ______.”

We don’t require a certain number of miracles, no verification from doctors, and who cares if something is “legend”? We care more about the example of the person’s life, the prayers they say for us and we say for them, and rejoice when our brothers and sisters are healed, protected, and preserved. People in an area start venerating someone who has died, then it spreads out, eventually their bishop OK’s services done in their name and Icons commissioned, and then if their veneration is widespread enough they are put on the calendar.

Remember too that this has been the practice of the Romans until very recently when the system for making saints was instituted. That’s why your calendar dropped so many ancient saints, such as Ss. Christopher and Barbara.

Thanks, RAWB.

From what you said here…We don’t require a certain number of miracles, no verification from doctors, and who cares if something is “legend”?

Well…why would you not care? Don’t you want to sift out the “legends” from the actual true accounts?

Legends soon become folklore…isn’t it?

 

[dvdjs]

Found a link to the article by an Orthodox priest:
scribd.com/doc/127873140/St-Peter-the-Aleut-Did-Not-Exist

 

[dvdjs]

… who cares if something is “legend”? We care more about the example of the person’s life, the prayers they say for us and we say for them, and rejoice when our brothers and sisters are healed, protected, and preserved. People in an area start venerating someone who has died, then it spreads out, eventually their bishop OK’s services done in their name and Icons commissioned, and then if their veneration is widespread enough they are put on the calendar.

Two problems in the context of Peter the Aleut.

1. There was no local tradition of veneration that spread out, etc. The process was completely inorganic.
2. This particular legend includes a horrific charge other people. Such a charge should not be made and perpetuated without probative evidence.

 

[Ion]

Me:
When you read the story you might see other possibility; maybe because he didn’t want to convert he was left to be judged and punished by the soldiers; what other reason could have been used in order to save him?

Why would soldiers care what religion someone was? That the priest ordered the torchure is consistent with other historically recorded torchures ordered by Catholic priests or bishops, like during the inquisitions.

You were trying to connect the actions of spanish soldiers with the actions of priest. You already had a conclusion in mind…that the actions of the soldiers was somehow tied to some orders from a priest. Do you even know the motives of the soldiers in acting the way they did?

All I pointed out is…That spanish soldiers would act independently on their own.

Lets say that the soldiers capture them in what they thought is spanish teritory and wanted to teach them a lesson; the priest found out and offered the prisoners to convert to save their life ; the conversion would have made them subjects of the king of Spain and allowed them to hunt there (I suppose). From the prisoners point of view might look like they are condemned because they are not catholics, and because they didn’t want to convert. From the soldiers point of view, their refusal was an offence, so they added up to the condemnation…
Otherwise I can’t make sense of the whole story…Also there might have been misunderstandings because of the language…

 

[Rawb]

Thanks, RAWB.

From what you said here…We don’t require a certain number of miracles, no verification from doctors, and who cares if something is “legend”?

Well…why would you not care? Don’t you want to sift out the “legends” from the actual true accounts?

Legends soon become folklore…isn’t it?

If someone reads that St. Norbert of Wowza (made up) was able to free a man from his addiction to pornography, or miraculously healed a woman of her barrenness, or helped a family make ends meet, does it matter if it happened? If hearing the story gives another man the courage to keep resisting his temptations and pray to the saints for help, and gives a woman the hope that God will answer her prayers too, or a family learns that God cares about their material needs too from the story and so learn to trust Him more, hasn’t the story done it’s job? What is the point of the stories of the saints? To strengthen us, to give us an example, to teach us. Sometimes yes, the factuality of the story might be important, but a lot of the time it’s not - unless you have people who base their faith off of miracle accounts in Saint stories, which is a mistake in the first place and is a very weak faith. If you’re caught up in trying to prove your faith by reason you’re completely missing the point. Attempts to constantly prove this or that person really did this or that is relying too much upon human intellect.

Besides, I trust that my Great-Grandmother was named Edna and was a huge clean freak because my family has told me so. I have no reason to doubt my brother Aleut who originally told the story.

dvdjs, I can see you’re posting, but not what you’re writing. You’re on my ignore list. If you’re writing to me I’m not reading it, just to save you the hassle if that’s the case.

 

[dvdjs]

dvdjs, I can see you’re posting, but not what you’re writing. You’re on my ignore list. If you’re writing to me I’m not reading it, just to save you the hassle if that’s the case.

Thanks, but it’s no hassle. I am happy that other readers are able to get the information even if you choose not to.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

St. Peter the Aleut / Sept. 24th

Troparian (Tone 1)

O Peter, upon the rock of thy faith hath Christ built His Church, and in the streams of thy blood hath He hallowed our land. In thee thy people hath been sanctified, O Aleut; from the farthest islands of the west hath He raised thee, a light unto all. Glory to Him that hath glorified thee. Glory to Him that hath crowned thee. Glory to Him that worketh healings for all through thee.

My Icon of St. Peter the Aleut reads: A native of Kodiak Island, Alaska, Tchounagnak, whose Christian name was Peter, worked at the Russian outpost of Ft. Ross in California. When the Spanish colonial government ordered the expulsion of the Russian-American settlers in 1816, Peter was arrested with 13 other Aleuts. Roman Catholic monks came to the prison at night to torture them to renounce Orthodoxy and embrace Romanism. They cut off Peter’s fingers one joint at a time, then his toes, until they had cut off his hands and feet. He bled to death. Upon hearing this from one of the surviving Aleuts, St. Herman stood before an icon and pronounced, “Holy New Martyr Peter, pray for us!” He is holding a Cross to show his martyrdom. His hand is raised to show that it is fully restored in the resurrection! - www.comeandseeicons.com

---

A Catholic Saint I like is: St. Jose the Cristero Fighter

 

[Rawb]

A Catholic Saint I like is: St. Jose the Cristero Fighter

I think my favorite, though he isn’t fully a saint in their church yet, is Bl. Pier Giorgio Frassati. He really is an excellent example for contemporary Christian men.

 

[EIF5A]

If hearing the story gives another man the courage to keep resisting his temptations and pray to the saints for help, and gives a woman the hope that God will answer her prayers too, or a family learns that God cares about their material needs too from the story and so learn to trust Him more, hasn’t the story done it’s job? What is the point of the stories of the saints? To strengthen us, to give us an example, to teach us.

But…don’t you want a factual account…? How can I pray to a saint who turned out to not exhibit all the qualities of a saint? In fact, how do I know such a person is part of the Church Triumphant?

I thought the purpose of saints in the Apostolic Churches is the communion of saints…not just inspiring stories that may be folklore…

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

But…don’t you want a factual account…? In fact, how do I know such a person is part of the Church Triumphant?

I thought the purpose of saints in the Apostolic Churches is the communion of saints…not just inspiring stories that may be folklore…

Do you pray to Catholic St. Christopher?