They are not considered martyrs but passion-bearers, a unique class of saints in the Russian tradition.I’m not familiar with Trupp, but generally martyrs are considered saints with very little other qualification.
Whether they were martyrs of the faith is arguable, but that is the answer as I understand it.
What is the difference between a martyr and a passion bearer?They are not considered martyrs but passion-bearers, a unique class of saints in the Russian tradition.
If they were not martyrs of the faith, but considered saints, what would they be martyrs of?I’m not familiar with Trupp, but generally martyrs are considered saints with very little other qualification.
Whether they were martyrs of the faith is arguable, but that is the answer as I understand it.
All saints are examples to us. They inspire us. They are our heroes in faith.I read that Czar Nicholas is believed to be a saint by the ROC and the ROCOR, but then you get into the ROCOR’s canonization of Alexei Trupp, one of their royal family’s servants, who was a Roman Catholic. What do the Orthodox here think of that? What do Catholics here think of the canonization of Czar Nicholas II?
Quite interesting, really.
A martyr dies for his faith. A passion-bearer is killed, but did not necessarily die for his faith. Instead, the cause for canonization in the case of a passion-bearer is mainly driven by the Christian way he approached the end of his life (as well as by miracles and a local devotion to the particular saint, as is the case for most saints).What is the difference between a martyr and a passion bearer?
So Kolbe led a very holy life, accompanied by mystical experiences, offered his life in substitution for another man, as a Catholic priest and went to his death leading other men in singing hims and he would not be considered a martyred saint?A martyr dies for his faith. A passion-bearer is killed, but did not necessarily die for his faith. Instead, the cause for canonization in the case of a passion-bearer is mainly driven by the Christian way he approached the end of his life (as well as by miracles and a local devotion to the particular saint, as is the case for most saints).
This seems to be a particular distinction that peculiar to the Russian Orthodox Church. Other traditions might canonize people as martyrs whom the Russians would canonize as passion-bearers. A good and relatable example of this for Catholics might be Maximilian Kolbe, who was canonized a martyr by the Roman Catholic Church. Were he Russian, he probably would have been canonized as a passion-bearer, because he was not killed because of his Christian faith.
Does a passion bearer have to die? I was under the impression they only had to suffer.A martyr dies for his faith. A passion-bearer is killed, but did not necessarily die for his faith. Instead, the cause for canonization in the case of a passion-bearer is mainly driven by the Christian way he approached the end of his life (as well as by miracles and a local devotion to the particular saint, as is the case for most saints).
This seems to be a particular distinction that peculiar to the Russian Orthodox Church. Other traditions might canonize people as martyrs whom the Russians would canonize as passion-bearers. A good and relatable example of this for Catholics might be Maximilian Kolbe, who was canonized a martyr by the Roman Catholic Church. Were he Russian, he probably would have been canonized as a passion-bearer, because he was not killed because of his Christian faith.
Right, there was even a controversy in the Catholic Church over this, if I recall, because some argued that he could not have been titled a martyr because he did not die out of hatred for the Christian faith (the argument was never over whether or not he should be canonized, just what title he should receive). That being said, since there was something particularly exemplary and Christian about his death, the Russian Orthodox Church would have canonized a hypothetical man in Maximilian Kolbe’s position as a passion-bearer. This is not a universal distinction in Orthodoxy, however. As I mentioned earlier, it is peculiar to the Russians.So Kolbe led a very holy life, accompanied by mystical experiences, offered his life in substitution for another man, as a Catholic priest and went to his death leading other men in singing hims and he would not be considered a martyred saint?
One who is tortured but not killed for his faith is typically known as a Confessor.Does a passion bearer have to die? I was under the impression they only had to suffer.
I am quite familiar with the life of Saint Maximillian and followed the process leading up to his canonization. I don’t recall any controversy or question about his martyrdom.They are not considered martyrs but passion-bearers, a unique class of saints in the Russian tradition.
Perhaps I was thinking of somebody else then. To be clear, the point I’m making is not to call into question whether or not Maximilian Kolbe was martyr, I’m just using him as an immediately recognizable example to Roman Catholics of somebody who the Russians would have probably canonized as a passion-bearer. The Russian definition of martyr is just more restricted than other churches’ definitions, that’s all.I am quite familiar with the life of Saint Maximillian and followed the process leading up to his canonization. I don’t recall any controversy or question about his martyrdom.
I do recall a story of his boyhood where the Mother of God appeared to him and offered him two beautiful glowing objects and told him to choose which he would like. One was the gift of purity and the other was the gift of martyrdom. He said he wanted them both. Mary smiled and went away. His fate was sealed. Mary called it martyrdom.
Do you know if the purpose of this distinction the Russians create between martyrs and passion-bearers to define a kind of ranking, one is greater than the other?Perhaps I was thinking of somebody else then. To be clear, the point I’m making is not to call into question whether or not Maximilian Kolbe was martyr, I’m just using him as an immediately recognizable example to Roman Catholics of somebody who the Russians would have probably canonized as a passion-bearer. The Russian definition of martyr is just more restricted than other churches’ definitions, that’s all.
I would assume it was made to deal specifically with those borderline cases.Do you know if the purpose of this distinction the Russians create between martyrs and passion-bearers to define a kind of ranking, one is greater than the other?
I have no idea why the Russians have this distinction. I will say, however, that title is no guarantee of status. I can tell you, for example that Nectarios of Aegina is probably more widely venerated by the Greeks than St. Matthew the evangelist, despite one being an evangelist and martyr, and the other being a wonderworker only.Do you know if the purpose of this distinction the Russians create between martyrs and passion-bearers to define a kind of ranking, one is greater than the other?