Orthodoxy, Papacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimCBrooklyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interestingly, a number of accounts credit Jews with intervening to stop the violence, and with giving eye-witness accounts.
That’s very interesting. I would like to hear more about this.
I agree that facts are hard to come by and bias is hard to eliminate. Is it then too much to ask, that posters don’t present their potentially limited and biased histories as fact, with no qualifications, particularly when they are so blatantly disrespectful of the Catholic church?
Absolutely. St. Josaphat was first mentioned by a Catholic, with absolutely no qualms or qualifications, as an example of a convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. I suggested that we ought to hear the Orthodox side of things. I do not take the Orthodox accounts uncritically either.

By and large, Catholic scholarship is more likely to be fair to the Orthodox than the other way round. Though between Aidan Nichols (my favorite Catholic scholar of Orthodoxy) and Kallistos Ware, I think it’s hard to choose–they are both sterling examples of fairness and accuracy, as far as I know!

Edwin
 
That’s very interesting. I would like to hear more about this.
It’s in the reading that I posted.
Absolutely.
Too much to ask? No I think it is appropriate to ask, and to ask it of all.
St. Josaphat was first mentioned by a Catholic, with absolutely no qualms or qualifications, as an example of a convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. I suggested that we ought to hear the Orthodox side of things. I do not take the Orthodox accounts uncritically either.
I think that of the billion Catholics in the world, few have a much of an idea of the “Orthodox side” or for that matter any idea of Catholic views against the Orthodox. The reverse is not true: Hesychios knows better. And it is not true in general. From the internet, one would think growing a chip on one’s shoulder about 1204, or even gulping down Fr. Romanides’s alternative history of the western world, is a requirement for being received into Orthodoxy.
By and large, Catholic scholarship is more likely to be fair to the Orthodox than the other way round. Though between Aidan Nichols (my favorite Catholic scholar of Orthodoxy) and Kallistos Ware, I think it’s hard to choose–they are both sterling examples of fairness and accuracy, as far as I know!
That is a good point. In terms of apologetics, the discussion is inherently tilted, because Catholics really don’t have a dog in that hunt. We are seeking commonalities and healing, looking to history of the first millenium to inform ideas on how much uniformity is necessary, and seeking the end of excommunication. That perspective is also found among the Orthodox. But in Orthodoxy there is also strong opposition to this outlook - people who are all about anti-Catholic polemicism. That current is strong in the Orthodox church, and has little or no counterpart in the Catholic church.
 
From the internet, one would think growing a chip on one’s shoulder about 1204, or even gulping down Fr. Romanides’s alternative history of the western world, is a requirement for being received into Orthodoxy.
Yes, that’s one of the reasons I have never converted to Orthodoxy–probably an insufficient one, though.

Edwin
 
Quite instructive, what Josie L and dvdjs already linked. Those who post only the polemical side of the story are wasting their own time and other readers’ time. Such as “St. Josaphat was accused of violence in a letter from the P/L government official.” Well, how about also telling that he defended himself and his defense was accepted. How about telling also that Latinizators on one side, and Cossack-supported anti-Unia people on the other side, had vested interests to smear him.

This is like telling that Pope Pius XII was accused of being Hitler’s Pope. The Apostles were accused of stealing Jesus’ cadaver from the tomb and faking his resurrection. Many people were accused of many things in history. But it’s not fair to present only one side of the story.

Here’s a historian’s podcast on St. Josaphat’s times and his story, click on Podcast #249 - The Formation of an Identity - Part I. It’s an almost 50 minutes long lecture, but it was a treat to listen to it:

catholicunderthehood.com/2010/07/11/250-the-formation-of-an-identity-part-1/

Also, here’s what Griego Catholico posted in the byzcath forum:
I have a personal devotion to Saint Josaphat. Two summers ago, I had the great blessing to pray before his incorrupt relics in Saint Peter’s basilica where they are currently enshrined.
I am saddened that the misinformation about him continues to be propagated and believed.
I would like to recommend the book, “Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity” by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are quotes from sworn testimonies given during the canonization process by eyewitnesses to Saint Josaphat’s holiness.
Included are excerpts of letters from Saint Josaphat in which he denies using any form of violence against Orthodox Christians as well the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.
When Saint Josaphat was martyred, many Orthodox Christians came to venerate his relics, admitting their wrong doing in persecuting a holy man.
God bless,
Griego Catolico
amazon.com/Josephat-Kuntsevych-apostle-Church-unity/dp/B00071AX86/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278903566&sr=1-8

I also reject the notion that the Catholic Church would “sanitize the hagiography” of its beati and canonized saints, that it would deliberately suppress the information provided by the contemporary eyewitnesses, in the form of sworn testimonies. St. Josaphat died in 1623, and was beatified in 1643, only 20 years later. Plenty of people who knew him and witnessed everything were still alive and testified for his beatification. That’s what I call evidence - first-hand, sworn, eyewitness testimony.
 
Quite instructive, what Josie L and dvdjs already linked. Those who post only the polemical side of the story are wasting their own time and other readers’ time. Such as “St. Josaphat was accused of violence in a letter from the P/L government official.” Well, how about also telling that he defended himself and his defense was accepted.
By whom? By the Catholic government, right?
How about telling also that Latinizators on one side, and Cossack-supported anti-Unia people on the other side, had vested interests to smear him.
Agreed.
This is like telling that Pope Pius XII was accused of being Hitler’s Pope. The Apostles were accused of stealing Jesus’ cadaver from the tomb and faking his resurrection. Many people were accused of many things in history. But it’s not fair to present only one side of the story.
Exactly. Yet this is precisely what you did when you first mentioned him.
I also reject the notion that the Catholic Church would “sanitize the hagiography” of its beati and canonized saints
Sure you do. Maybe you think you have to as a Catholic (though lots of your fellow Catholics would disagree).

As my advisor said to me years ago, “Historians have trouble converting to anything, because we know where the bodies are buried.”

Edwin
 
Here’s the unabridged story of how St. Josaphat died, from the catholic.org website, and below the story of his death from the orthodoxinfo website. Parallel universes, parallel and mutually incompatible histories.
…the very Catholics he looked to for communion opposed him as well. Catholics who should have been his support didn’t like the way he insisted on the use of the Byzantine rite instead of the Roman rite. Out of fear or ignorance, Leo Sapiah, chancellor of Lithuania, chose to believe stories that Josaphat was inciting the people to violence and instead of coming to his aid, condemned him. **Actually his only act of force was when the separatists took over the church at Mogilev and he asked the civil power to help him return it to his authority. **
In October 1623, Josaphat decided to return to Vitebsk to try to calm the troubles himself. He was completely aware of the danger but said, “If I am counted worthy of martyrdom, then I am not afraid to die.”
The separatists saw their chance to get rid of Josaphat and discredit him if they could only stir Josaphat’s party to strike the first blow. Then they would have an excuse to strike back. Their threats were so public that Josaphat preached on the gospel verse John 16:2, “Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God.” He told the people, “You people want to kill me. You wait in ambush for me in the streets, on the bridges, on the highways, in the marketplace, everywhere. Here I am; I came to you as a shepherd. You know I would be happy to give my life for you. I am ready to die for union of the Church under St. Peter and his successor the Pope.”
But aside from words, Josaphat insisted that his party not react in anyway that did not show patience and forbearance. **When the separatists saw that they were not getting the violent response they had hoped for they decided to wear Josaphat and the others down as they plotted more direct action. A priest named Elias went to the house where everyone was staying and shouted insults and threats to everyone he saw, focusing on calumniating Josaphat and the Church of Rome. **
Josaphat knew of the plot against him and spent his day in prayer. In the evening he had a long conversation with a beggar he had invited in off the streets.
When** Elias was back the next morning of November 12**, the servants were at their wits’ ends and begged Josaphat’s permission to do something. Before he went off to say his office he told them they could lock Elias away if he caused trouble again. When he returned to the house he found that the servants had done just that and Josaphat let Elias out of the room.
But it was too late. The mistake had been made.** Elias had not been hurt in anyway but as soon as the mob saw that Elias had been locked up they rejoiced in the excuse they had been waiting for. Bells were rung and mobs descended on the house. By the time they reached the house, Elias had been released but the mob didn’t care; they wanted the blood they had been denied for so long. **
**Josaphat came out in the courtyard to see the mob beating and trampling his friends and servants. He cried out, “My children what are you doing with my servants? If you have anything against me, here I am, but leave them alone!” With shouts of “Kill the papist” Josaphat was hit with a stick, then an axe, and finally shot through the head. His bloody body was dragged to the river and thrown in, along with the body of a dog who had tried to protect him. **
The unsung heroes of this horrible terrorism were the Jewish people of Vitebsk. Some of the Jewish people risked their own lives to rush into the courtyard and rescue Josaphat’s friends and servants from the bloodthirsty mobs. Through their courage, lives were saved. These same Jewish people were the only ones to publicly accuse the killers and mourn the death of Josaphat while the Catholics of the city hid in fear of their lives.
As usual violence had the opposite affect from that intended. Regret and horror at how far the violence had gone and the loss of their archbishop swung public opinion over toward the Catholics and unity. Eventually even Archbishop Meletius Smotritsky, Josaphat’s rival, was reconciled with Rome. And in 1867 Josaphat became the first saint of the Eastern church to be formally canonized by Rome.
Next, let’s see this EO version:
Arriving in Vitebsk on the 12th of November, 1623, with a band of his cohorts, Kuntsevich proceeded to knock down the tents where the Orthodox secretly held divine services. One of Kuntsevich’s deacons attacked an Orthodox priest. The crowd, which had run out of patience, then turned on Kuntsevich, who was personally leading this pogrom, and with sticks and stones beat him to death. His maimed body was placed in a sack and tossed into the Diva River. Such was the inglorious end of the earthly life of this alleged “apostle of unity” as none other than Pope John Paul If shamelessly dares to call him.
Which story is true, then? Was St. Josaphat in the act of attacking the Orthodox at their own tents when he was murdered, or did they come to attack him at the house at which he was staying?
 
By whom? By the Catholic government, right?
So are you suggesting that the Catholic government would cover up a criminal’s crimes, just because the criminal was pro-union? Also, have you listened yet to the podcast I linked to? How this Catholic government had every reason to keep peace in the kingdom, and was indebted to the EO Cossacks?
Exactly. Yet this is precisely what you did when you first mentioned him.
But I linked to his story, from three Catholic websites. I admit, though, I wasn’t aware of just how outrageously the saint was smeared - such as “he was leading the pogrom on the EO worship tents” instead of “priest Elias and later the mob came to attack him at his house”, see my previous post.
Sure you do. Maybe you think you have to as a Catholic (though lots of your fellow Catholics would disagree).
As my advisor said to me years ago, “Historians have trouble converting to anything, because we know where the bodies are buried.”
Well, the child abuse scandal was covered up by certain bishops. I can understand suspicion. But based on my study of Church history so far, the Catholic Church is not a criminal organization, and strives to be fair. Beatification and canonization processes are there for discerning the truth, not to push for a pre-conceived outcome
 
And I still have to ask: who kept this Catholic convert’s body incorrupt, after he was murdered, maimed, and thrown into the river?

Was it God? Was it the devil? 😉
 
Anyway, I learned my lesson! 😛 It is not possible to mention the name of St. Josaphat and get away with it, so easily!

Prompted by your post, I did some more research on St. Josaphat, and will share in my next post what I found. Things regarding the historical record, whether there’s any substantiated evidence that he was truly a violent butcher, that he shed other people’s blood, or whether that’s all unsubstantiated calumny/slander.
The last time I got into a discussion about him was 5 years ago with Orthodoc & Fr Ambrose. Josaphat was Orthodox who wanted union with the pope. And he was murdered for it. His martyrdom was the seedbed of many conversions.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=392003&postcount=275
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=393938&postcount=312
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=401335&postcount=374
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=402793&postcount=381
 
Josaphat was Orthodox who wanted union with the pope. And he was murdered for it. His martyrdom was the seedbed of many conversions.
Thank you for the links, Steve! I’m going to read them right now. I just wanted to comment, the podcast I linked to from a historian (catholicunderthehood website) also makes this point. Josaphat was Orthodox. The Bishops who decided to have union with the Pope were Orthodox. They only run into trouble when their own flock turned against them, and refused to follow them.
 
…Josaphat was Orthodox. The Bishops who decided to have union with the Pope were Orthodox. They only run into trouble when their own flock turned against them, and refused to follow them.
Oddly enough, that’s pretty much the way it is today. Orthodox clergy are open to discussions with the Catholic Church, but are afraid of the laity, many of whom are completely intolerant of anything Catholic. As we see in the guy who started this discussion and has not reappeared to answer the allegations against him.
 
And I still have to ask: who kept this Catholic convert’s body incorrupt, after he was murdered, maimed, and thrown into the river?

Was it God? Was it the devil? 😉
Apparently it is not actually incorrupt (although it may have appeared so at first), hence the mask.

It would be interesting to see what the state of the body is about now, unwrapped.

There was an interesting thread not so long ago about incorrupt saints, but basically this is supposed by some to be a sign of the resurrection, hence the Christian interest in such things. If a body starts to evidently decompose at some point it is not really incorrupt.

There could be a lot of reasons why some bodies do not decompose right away, I would not automatically suppose either God or the devil has anything to do with it. It could be a miracle or it could be a natural thing. The phenomena have been reported in non Christian settings, but I think in most cases the body has to have some special care and enclosure once it has been revealed, or it begins to come apart.

In China there was a very old tomb opened (I believe over 1000 years, if I recall), and the woman’s flesh was still supple. It seems the tomb itself was constructed in such a way as to encourage that, although I don’t think the builders of the tomb expected such a result.
 
Apparently it is not actually incorrupt (although it may have appeared so at first), hence the mask.

It would be interesting to see what the state of the body is about now, unwrapped.

There was an interesting thread not so long ago about incorrupt saints, but basically this is supposed by some to be a sign of the resurrection, hence the Christian interest in such things. If a body starts to evidently decompose at some point it is not really incorrupt.

There could be a lot of reasons why some bodies do not decompose right away, I would not automatically suppose either God or the devil has anything to do with it. It could be a miracle or it could be a natural thing. The phenomena have been reported in non Christian settings, but I think in most cases the body has to have some special care and enclosure once it has been revealed, or it begins to come apart.

In China there was a very old tomb opened (I believe over 1000 years, if I recall), and the woman’s flesh was still supple. It seems the tomb itself was constructed in such a way as to encourage that, although I don’t think the builders of the tomb expected such a result.
Wow, that’s quite interesting. That her flesh was still supple. I know it happens to saints, but I didn’t know it ever happened outside of that area.

But let me recall a fond memory, this time from the area of Russian Orthodoxy. In 2004, I attended a ROCOR conference, and two gentlemen who knew St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco in person, talked about their memories of him. I’m sure you know that St. John’s body is incorrupt. One of the lecturers was a child when he knew a younger Vladyka John (around WWII), and according to his memories, he was always a saint, visibly and without a doubt to anyone, even back then when he was younger. You just couldn’t mistake him for an ordinary person. The other gentleman knew St. John in the 1960s, during the last 5 years of the saint’s life. He (the lecturer) was a young man in his early 20s during that time. And he had a few miracles to recollect. Such us, St. John was receiving bunches of letters with prayer requests and requests for help, and miracles were happening and people were being helped as a result of the saint’s prayers, but after he died, some 2 or 3 big sacks were found with letters never opened. St. John was receiving more letters than he could possibly open and read, but he helped those who wrote to him, anyway. Hey, saints have some tricks up their sleeves and shortcuts that fall into the realm of supernatural, when they need them! 😃 Another thing this second gentleman recollected was that the San Francisco cathedral was under construction, and he (the lecturer) was digging some chamber that was planned to be attached to the cathedral. St. John was passing by, and told him, “do it well, because it’s going to be my burial chamber!”. And sure enough, that’s exactly where his incorrupt body is buried in the Russian Orthodox cathedral of San Francisco, today.

St. John also lived a life of ascetism and prayer. He was in his 40s when his companions noticed that he was not using his bed. He would sleep about 2-3 hours after midnight in his chair, and that was it. He had been doing that for years, probably since his youth, and continued doing it for the rest of his life. His fasts were very strict, too. He would eat only once a day and have one cup of tea, after sunset. When he was visiting families and sick people, he would eat a little better, because he would eat whatever was served to him. But at home, he fasted very strictly.

The way St. John Maximovitch died, was also uplifting. He went to venerate a holy icon of Theotokos somewhere in Oregon or Washington state, and he died on that trip. There are indications that he knew he was going to die there, while venerating that holy icon. Some 6-7 years after his death, when his body was exhumed, his vestments were decomposed and black with mold. An iron crucifix buried with him was also reduced to rust. But St. John Maximovitch’s body remained incorrupt, in the grave.
 
Oddly enough, that’s pretty much the way it is today. Orthodox clergy are open to discussions with the Catholic Church, but are afraid of the laity, many of whom are completely intolerant of anything Catholic. As we see in the guy who started this discussion and has not reappeared to answer the allegations against him.
Ferde, do I remember it correctly that you have Eastern Orthodox relatives in Lebanon? Is the EO laity anti-Catholic, there?

When I first met EO people in the USA, I was surprised by this anti-Catholic sentiment on their part. I don’t understand it. It’s as if we Catholics did something wrong to them, that’s how they behave.

I grew up in Romania, and interestingly, the few memories I have with simple people, religious Romanian people who were Eastern Orthodox, are not bad. These folks I met were generally friendly, easy to get along with. Just simple, good, friendly people. But my sister who currently lives in Romania tells me that recently several of her Romanian colleagues left the EO Church and became Eastern Catholics or Roman Catholics, because the contemporary EO Church in Romania, at least in my native city, is so hostile towards the non-Orthodox religions (Catholic, Protestant). Thus, these acquaintances of my sister felt repulsed by the agenda of the EO Church and became Catholics instead. Also, 20 years after the downfall of Communism, the EO Church still refuses to return the EC church building to the EC Church in my native city (the Communists confiscated this church building from the ECC and gave it to the EOC, around 1948, and they totally outlawed the ECC and forced it underground). But Communism fell in 1989, the Romanian ECC is legally operating again, and wants its properties back. However, the Romanian EOC won’t return the properties, and this could also play some part in certain Romanian people forming negative opinions about the Romanian EOC, and refusing to attend that Church. It seems to me that such things often motivate people’s decisions, rather than deep theological considerations on the Papacy, the filioque, or other theological issues.
 
Ferde, do I remember it correctly that you have Eastern Orthodox relatives in Lebanon? Is the EO laity anti-Catholic, there?
You have a good memory, Joseph. My mother’s parents emigrated to the US from Lebanon. If I have relatives there, I don’t know them.

From what we know of the politics of Lebanon, EO and Roman Catholics get along pretty well. They have no choice, I think, living in company with Muslims.
When I first met EO people in the USA, I was surprised by this anti-Catholic sentiment on their part. I don’t understand it. It’s as if we Catholics did something wrong to them, that’s how they behave.
What we ‘did’ to them, and still do, is present ourselves as the repository of the Christian Faith in this world. They’d like to think it’s them, but the evidence isn’t on their side. They know it and they resent it.

It is tragic that enmity over property and personalty should separate the people of God. Orthodox hubris, pride and outright hostility are products of Satan, IMO and only the Holy Spirit can changes their hearts. I pray for that and I’m sure you do, too.
 
Fine. That’s your experience. Mine is different.

And I’m not talking about your family members, who you are likely to find are kind to you. I’m talking about Orthodox who are arrogant, prideful and hostile to Catholics and Catholicism generally. There are thousands of them out there. If you’ve never encountered any of them, good for you.
 
Thread really isn’t about Josaphat, or who’s ruder/more prideful, Orthodox or Catholics. I’m interested in the theology of the churches, particularly in the ways that they make significant departures, particularly in the case of the papacy.

More than anything, I’d love links to direct, complete sources, rather than quotes/segments, or links to quotes. My head has been spinning with seemingly decisive, completely out of context quotes from ECF’s/Popes/Patriarchs coming from both sides.
 
Thread really isn’t about Josaphat, or who’s ruder/more prideful, Orthodox or Catholics. I’m interested in the theology of the churches, particularly in the ways that they make significant departures, particularly in the case of the papacy.
You’re right and I apologize for drifting off into unrelated topics. It’s not hard to do in these circumstances. Inevitable, almost.
More than anything, I’d love links to direct, complete sources, rather than quotes/segments, or links to quotes. My head has been spinning with seemingly decisive, completely out of context quotes from ECF’s/Popes/Patriarchs coming from both sides.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘direct, complete sources’ but I’d consider the Gospels such a source. I wrote a reply to you relevant to the subject. Have you had a chance to think about it?
 
More than anything, I’d love links to direct, complete sources, rather than quotes/segments, or links to quotes. My head has been spinning with seemingly decisive, completely out of context quotes from ECF’s/Popes/Patriarchs coming from both sides.
The internet isn’t great for this. The library is the place to go.
 
My head has been spinning with seemingly decisive, completely out of context quotes from ECF’s/Popes/Patriarchs coming from both sides.
Jim, try to look at things this way: When Pope Clement of Rome, around 80 A.D., intervened to settle some dispute in Corinth, why didn’t the other bishops protest against him meddling outside of his diocese of Rome? Why did they ask Clement to intervene, why not the Apostle John, who was still alive? It’s not only what the ECFs say that’s relevant, but also what they DON’T SAY. Their silence in this case means that they had no problem with Pope Clement’s actions. They accepted his authority to act outside his diocese.

Look, let’s suppose that you are an automotive engineer. If you say or do something that’s wrong or unsafe, professionally, your colleagues will call you out on that, and will correct you. You can’t possibly get away with telling at a professional meeting to use the wrong part, or the wrong procedure. And the same principle applies to the ECFs and early popes. When ECFs such as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Smyrna, or Augustine tell that everybody should agree with the bishop of Rome, you should ask: why are these people regarded as Church Fathers, why weren’t they promptly called out on their mistakes, and rejected as heretics? When Popes acted outside of their diocese of Rome, deposed Patriarchs, and vetoed the resolutions of Ecumenical Councils, during the first 500-600 years of Christianity, why weren’t these Popes called out on their actions, and widely condemned as heretics? Because it was widely accepted that they had the authority to act outside of their diocese, the authority to depose other bishops and Patriarchs who fell into heresy, and the authority to veto the resolutions of Ecumenical Councils.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top