St. Francis in the Eastern Churches?

[Phillip_Rolfes]

This should explain…

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx

I find the style of the article a bit harsh(especially the first paragraph), but the points it makes quite valid. Personally, I have no belief one way or the other concerning the sanctity of St. Francis.

I too have looked at this article in the past and find it utterly repulsive in its lack of both genuine knowledge of the life and spirituality of St. Francis, as well as its polemical tirade against the legitimate mysticism of the West (as though Byzantine mysticism is the only legitimate expression of life in Christ). How can one judge the spiritual life of St. Francis while not taking the appropriate steps to understand the historical and religious context that gave rise to his spirituality? We cannot judge Francis’ spiritual life based on Byzantine assumptions of what the spiritual life is/ought to be. Francis was not Byzantine, he was an Italian Roman Catholic. So given the Roman “phronema” in which he was raised (whatever the Roman phronema actually is [and no, it’s not legalistic/rationalistic]), what can we conclude about Francis’ himself and his spirituality? That’s the question that we need to be asking.

Personally I’ve had a great affinity towards Francis since I was about four years old (an affinity that led me to choose him as my Confirmation saint). It was a life-long dream of mine to visit Assisi and walk around the town where Francis spent his entire life; a dream that was fulfilled only a few years ago. I attended/attend a university that is dedicated to following the spirituality that Francis gave us. I was fortunate enough to study under one of the world’s leading experts on St. Francis and his Order while attending that University. So even as an Eastern Catholic, Francis will always remain near and dear to my heart. He is my closest friend in the Communion of Saints.

Francis was remarkable for his ability to remain 100% focused on Christ and not to get caught up in the theological debates and Church disciplinary problems of his time. He maintained that focus even after he was no longer the superior of his Order and when the Order that he founded began to stray away from the original charism and Rule of his own devising. “It’s in God’s hands,” was his mentality. How many of us, Catholic or Orthodox, can say the same? His humility knew no bounds. He was able to recognize when he was wrong and seek pardon when he wronged others. His zeal for Christ and the Gospel message was limitless, even to the point of risking his life in an attempt to spread the Gospel to the Muslims (how many of us would dare to do such a thing now?). He was deeply repentant of his sins, which were certainly many prior to his conversion, and he frequently wept bitterly over them, to the point that he was basically blind by the time he died (St. John Climacus would certainly have no problem with the amount of weeping that Francis did). Yet his sorrow for his sins did not lead him into despair, but gave him a true joy and hope in Christ and his saving plan for us. Francis was not emotional in the worst sense of the term, but he focused his emotions, like everything else, 100% on Christ (a call that the Fathers of the Philokalia as well as Theophan the Recluse are unanimous in giving). So I have to ask, where is there anything in the life and spirituality of St. Francis that an Eastern Christian would have a problem with? If we must classify him as anything, why can’t we just call him a “fool for Christ” and leave it at that?

Personally, as a Melkite Greek Catholic, I continue to honor St. Francis and hope one day to see him and stand together with him, my true brother in Christ, before the awesome throne of God. St. Francis, pray for me and for all of us!

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx

I too have looked at this article in the past and find it utterly repulsive in its lack of both genuine knowledge of the life and spirituality of St. Francis, as well as its polemical tirade against the legitimate mysticism of the West (as though Byzantine mysticism is the only legitimate expression of life in Christ). How can one judge the spiritual life of St. Francis while not taking the appropriate steps to understand the historical and religious context that gave rise to his spirituality? We cannot judge Francis’ spiritual life based on Byzantine assumptions of what the spiritual life is/ought to be. Francis was not Byzantine, he was an Italian Roman Catholic. So given the Roman “phronema” in which he was raised (whatever the Roman phronema actually is [and no, it’s not legalistic/rationalistic]), what can we conclude about Francis’ himself and his spirituality? That’s the question that we need to be asking.

Personally I’ve had a great affinity towards Francis since I was about four years old (an affinity that led me to choose him as my Confirmation saint). It was a life-long dream of mine to visit Assisi and walk around the town where Francis spent his entire life; a dream that was fulfilled only a few years ago. I attended/attend a university that is dedicated to following the spirituality that Francis gave us. I was fortunate enough to study under one of the world’s leading experts on St. Francis and his Order while attending that University. So even as an Eastern Catholic, Francis will always remain near and dear to my heart. He is my closest friend in the Communion of Saints.

Francis was remarkable for his ability to remain 100% focused on Christ and not to get caught up in the theological debates and Church disciplinary problems of his time. He maintained that focus even after he was no longer the superior of his Order and when the Order that he founded began to stray away from the original charism and Rule of his own devising. “It’s in God’s hands,” was his mentality. How many of us, Catholic or Orthodox, can say the same? His humility knew no bounds. He was able to recognize when he was wrong and seek pardon when he wronged others. His zeal for Christ and the Gospel message was limitless, even to the point of risking his life in an attempt to spread the Gospel to the Muslims (how many of us would dare to do such a thing now?). He was deeply repentant of his sins, which were certainly many prior to his conversion, and he frequently wept bitterly over them, to the point that he was basically blind by the time he died (St. John Climacus would certainly have no problem with the amount of weeping that Francis did). Yet his sorrow for his sins did not lead him into despair, but gave him a true joy and hope in Christ and his saving plan for us. Francis was not emotional in the worst sense of the term, but he focused his emotions, like everything else, 100% on Christ (a call that the Fathers of the Philokalia as well as Theophan the Recluse are unanimous in giving). So I have to ask, where is there anything in the life and spirituality of St. Francis that an Eastern Christian would have a problem with? If we must classify him as anything, why can’t we just call him a “fool for Christ” and leave it at that?

Personally, as a Melkite Greek Catholic, I continue to honor St. Francis and hope one day to see him and stand together with him, my true brother in Christ, before the awesome throne of God. St. Francis, pray for me and for all of us!

 

[ByzKat]

The iconostasis photo: flickr.com/photos/vladimir-911/2051754480/

What I found weird is that there is an icon of Saint Nicholas and Saint Francis instead of an icon depicting the Dormition of the Theotokos in the iconostasis.

That looks like the normal place for the icon of the patron of the temple - to the right of Our Lord, when viewed from the nave.

There would only be an icon of the Dormition there, in a church dedicated to the Dormition of the Theotokos. (Of course, if there is a rank of icons for the Great Feasts, it should be there in any case.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

 

[dcointin]

I can’t speak for all, but I’m in the Antiochian Church here in the US and I’ve never met anyone with even a private devotion to St. Francis (or any other Catholic Saint for that matter). They just aren’t even on the radar. I think it goes without saying they aren’t celebrated in our Churches.

In my experience this is correct. Orthodox focus their private devotions on saints recognized by the Orthodox Church, such as St. Seraphim of Sarov. It isn’t that we have a negative opinion of St. Francis, it’s just that he was outside of our experience, and therefore we can’t affirm or deny his sanctity. I personally am open minded toward western saints after the schism as many do appear to have been very holy, and have argued that it’s an indication that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have the sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit. It is true that the monastic traditions of both churches have diverged somewhat (though this shouldn’t be taken to an extreme, there is still significant commonality), but a variety of approaches is perfectly healthy in the Church so long as both are authentically Christian. I read an article on St. Francis of Assissi once and was impressed with him.

 

[barb_finnegan]

There was a quote in a biography of St. Therese of Lisieux which I have-‘The Story of a Life’ by Bishop Guy Gaucher, OCD-from an Orthodox pilgrim who said, ‘Saint Therese and St. Francis of Assisi are the only Western Saints venerated in the East since the Schism’.

I’ve seen icons of St. Francis, though not in Orthodox churches myself.

 

[trophybearer]

There was a quote in a biography of St. Therese of Lisieux which I have-‘The Story of a Life’ by Bishop Guy Gaucher, OCD-from an Orthodox pilgrim who said, ‘Saint Therese and St. Francis of Assisi are the only Western Saints venerated in the East since the Schism’.

I’ve seen icons of St. Francis, though not in Orthodox churches myself.

Because this person was an oddity. I’ve never heard of any Orthodox Christian having a devotion to either of then except maybe some convert from Catholicism who does so privately for their own personal reasons.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I apologize for posting the same comments 3 times. My computer was acting up on me. I thought it hadn’t posted at all and so kept trying, but kept getting the same negative results. Two days later it appears that the forums decided to accept it. Again, my sincere apologies.

 

[dcointin]

I just read “A Comparison: Francis of Assissi and St. Seraphim of Sarov”. The central argument of the essay is that St. Francis (notice that “saint” is lacking in the title) was prideful and deceived by the devil. It asserts this without any convincing proof, and tries to explain away evidence of his humility. For example, it states:

"Nothing can be so revealing in this matter, however, as his own statements to the brethren. At one time he was to say to his disciples, “I do not recognize any transgression in myself for which I could not atone by confession and penance. For the Lord in His mercy has bestowed on me the gift of learning clearly in prayer in what I have pleased or displeased Him.” [28] These words, of course, are far from genuine humility. They suggest, rather, the speech of that virtuous man who was satisfied with himself (the Pharisee) who, in the parable, stood in the temple, while the Publican prostrated himself in a corner, begging God in words of true humility: “God be merciful to me a sinner.”

The interpretation the author put on his words are outrageous. His obvious meaning is that all sins can be forgiven through confession and penance, and that he was aware of his own sins, yet the author takes this as an example of pride! This is a case of “my saint can beat up your saint” pomelics that I’ve unfortunately read too many times on the internet, and I would ignore this essay as very baised garbage. Yes, the mystical experiences of both churches are different in some respects, but that does not mean they are incompatible and should be regarded with suspicion and hostility. In my experience “Orthodox Info” is a highly traditionalist and polemical website, and should not be taken as the opinion of most Orthodox theologians.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I just read “A Comparison: Francis of Assissi and St. Seraphim of Sarov”. The central argument of the essay is that St. Francis (notice that “saint” is lacking in the title) was prideful and deceived by the devil. It asserts this without any convincing proof, and tries to explain away evidence of his humility. For example, it states:

"Nothing can be so revealing in this matter, however, as his own statements to the brethren. At one time he was to say to his disciples, “I do not recognize any transgression in myself for which I could not atone by confession and penance. For the Lord in His mercy has bestowed on me the gift of learning clearly in prayer in what I have pleased or displeased Him.” [28] These words, of course, are far from genuine humility. They suggest, rather, the speech of that virtuous man who was satisfied with himself (the Pharisee) who, in the parable, stood in the temple, while the Publican prostrated himself in a corner, begging God in words of true humility: “God be merciful to me a sinner.”

The interpretation the author put on his words are outrageous. His obvious meaning is that all sins can be forgiven through confession and penance, and that he was aware of his own sins, yet the author takes this as an example of pride! This is a case of “my saint can beat up your saint” pomelics that I’ve unfortunately read too many times on the internet, and I would ignore this essay as very baised garbage. Yes, the mystical experiences of both churches are different in some respects, but that does not mean they are incompatible and should be regarded with suspicion and hostility. In my experience “Orthodox Info” is a highly traditionalist and polemical website, and should not be taken as the opinion of most Orthodox theologians.

Don,
Thanks for this post. I’m with you 110%!

 

[Erasingego]

Don,
Thanks for this post. I’m with you 110%!

Co-sign as well.

 

[dcointin]

I completely agree I value the conversations I’ve had here, and I hope that I’ve never seemed polemical when I discuss differences between our churches. I plan to marry a Catholic, and I want to understand her faith as best as I can.

This article particularly disturbed me because I’ve always thought that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, despite their theological divergences, have retained a unity in matters of spiritual practice. I’ve read a book called “Unseen Warfare”, which Amazon summarizes this way:

"This spiritual classic was written by Lorenzo Scupoli, a sixteenth-century Venetian priest. Immensely popular in its own day, it was ranked by Francis de Sales with the Imitation of Christ. In the general rapport between Western and Eastern Christendom, it reached Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, who first recognized its immense spiritual worth, and later, in the nineteenth century, Theophan the Recluse, both of whom edited and translated the work.

Rich in its references to the teachings of the saints and Fathers, Unseen Warfare combines the insights of West and East on that spiritual combat which is the road to perfection and the stripping away of all that militates against it. Staretz Theophan wrote in his foreword, “the arena, the field of battle, the site where the fight actually takes place is our own heart and all our inner man. The time of battle is our whole life.”

This work is a testimony to our common faith, and wouldn’t have been possible if our spiritual practice was really so different.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agee, and I have to think that learned behavior is so difficult to overcome, that I honestly don’t believe anyone is coming from a bad place intentionally.

We have a unique opportunity I believe. If theres something wrong, lets find it together and change it. And put this together the right way once and for all.

I don’t know but what I just read on the Saint above. So I can’t speak on him and wouldn’t feel comfortable.

But as far as all the Saints? Certainly is a LOT of them. Man, they were feeding Christians to Lions like kids play Video games today. That was the national pastime for a period back then. What I find jaw dropping, is through all that suffering the words I believe in God remained. I got to give it to them there.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Stigmata is on the Orthodox Red Flags list.

Dear Friend,

However, St Gregory Palamas was a noted Stigmatist and this is noted in his Orthodox Life. He truly bore “on his body the marks of the Lord Jesus.”

Alex

 

[dcointin]

Dear Friend,

However, St Gregory Palamas was a noted Stigmatist and this is noted in his Orthodox Life. He truly bore “on his body the marks of the Lord Jesus.”

Alex

I’ve never heard that about St. Gregory, could you post any links referencing that? Thanks!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes, it is noted in the second last paragraph of his Life which can be read at:

www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/synaxarion/6-gregorypalamas.html

Cheers!

Alex

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Maybe, maybe not. I just read a thread on an orthodox board discussing that particular line. And it seems a little vague. I Don’t see it mentioned in other discussions of the saint either…

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes, I’ve come across Orthodox who deny St Gregory ever bore the stigmata as well. They see it as a Western thing.

It certainly isn’t something that is popular in the Eastern Churches and it is never depicted in iconography (even Christ is never depicted with the marks of the nails, as far as I know).

As for the vagueness - it is more definite than references to the stigmata of Catholic saints that I’ve read.

Whether or not this relates to stigmata, I don’t know. But there is an Eastern tradition that relates to the wearing around the neck of the Lord’s Cross.

If someone should ask one about it, we are to say, “I bear on my body the Marks of the Lord Jesus” quoting St Paul.

Also, Orthodox and EC monastics of the Great Schema wear representations of the Crucifixion on their monastic robes with the same verse sewn in at the edges.

It probably relates to the “marks” of the Cross.

I’ve no doubt personally that St Gregory bore the stigmata.

As for not finding other references online - the internet is great, but is hardly the penultimate reference, as you know.

Once, on an Eastern Christian forum, I asserted that the Rosary was popular in the East and was practiced by Orthodox saints (St Seraphim of Sarov himself said that our Lady told him in a vision that the Rosary/Rule of the Theotokos of 150 Hail Mary’s was the most important devotion a Christian could practice in her honour to secure her protection in life and death).

But because there were no English language references available online for this, and because the only other articles on this were ones written by myself, my conclusion was dismissed as inadmissable and even “tendentious” on my part, as if I had an interest in imposing western devotions on Eastern Christians (believe me, nothing is further from the truth).

And in addition to books and articles on subjects, it is also good to speak directly with theologians, bishops and priests who are acquainted with the subjects we are seeking information about. It is often the case that they are living repositories of knowledge that they have brought with them from far-away libraries and traditions which only they may impart truthfully and exactly to us.

Also, when I once asserted that Pope Innocent III himself wrote a treatise urging all Christians to cross themselves with three fingers (as the Orthodox and EC’s do to this day), I was accused of all sorts of nasty things (“Where are your sources? Who told you such a thing?”). But I only had a non-English source for this that wasn’t online. Happily, a fellow came on with an English online translation of that source. No response from the gentlemen who attacked me though . . .

The stigmata, once again, are not prized by the East, nor is there any special cult to persons who bear them ie. that emphasizes them. In the Ukrainian Catholic Church, there have been some stigmatists such as Steven Navrotsky and others.

The Blessed HieroMartyr under the soviets, Bishop Paul Gojdich, OSBM, became a stigmatist while in prison and he is sometimes portrayed with bandaged hands etc.

Also, Rome is very careful about declaring stigmatists nowadays. The great Padre St Pio of Pietrelcina, although he bore the stigmata for half a century, has never been declared a stigmatist officially by the Church. (BTW, I had the great privilege of venerating a glove ensanguined by the blood of the Holy Padre Pio last year).

Alex

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

From the minority of western rite orthodox, they firmly assert the orthodoxy of the rosary and it’s practice amongst orthodox monks including seraphim and his spiritual children.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Yes, I’ve come across Orthodox who deny St Gregory ever bore the stigmata as well.

Brother, I am not one who is going to intentionally try to argue about this just for the sake of it, nor act as if there is no worthwhile piety in your communion, but I will say that any attempts to claim St. Gregory as one with stigmata based upon one vague sentence is one of the most desperate attempts to pin us down on the issue. Stigmata is not a part of Orthodoxy, nor your Orthodoxy before the schism.

 

[ciero]

Because this person was an oddity. I’ve never heard of any Orthodox Christian having a devotion to either of then except maybe some convert from Catholicism who does so privately for their own personal reasons.

I lived in Greece for 2 years a number of years ago and attended the Divine Liturgy and other services in the Orthodox church while there.

I found it odd that often you would find icons of St Francis in the Orthodox churches, sometimes icons of St Francis alone but more ofter icons of other saints with St Francis painted in the corner. When I asked a priest about this I was told that although St Francis was not officially on the Orthodox calender he was often venerated privately. I attended a icon procession for the Sunday of Orthodoxy and saw MANY icons of St Francis being carried by the faithful.