St Josaphat and East-West Ecumenism

[Hesychios]

Of course, if St. Josaphat actually is responsible for the deaths of x number of Orthodox Christians and the burning of their churches, then I think we have a case to call into question his sanctity

I disagree, sort of.

I never question the sanctity of someone declared a saint. It is not my place to judge, although I have to admit it can befuddle me.

Maybe God has a way of looking at things we wouldn’t understand.

But, as I’ve said before, I’ve yet to find any real evidence that he actually committed those atrocities. In fact, the only evidence I’ve found has pointed to the contrary, indeed to the likelihood that he would’ve adamantly opposed them.

There will not be any evidence of anything because it was so long ago. However, I will point out that it seems the bishop had a reputation like no other even in his own day.

All we have now is people wanting to believe one way or another, and convincing themselves. It is not a good topic for discussion because there are no proofs, he is the stuff of legends.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I disagree, sort of.

I never question the sanctity of someone declared a saint. It is not my place to judge, although I have to admit it can befuddle me.

Maybe God has a way of looking at things we wouldn’t understand.

There will not be any evidence of anything because it was so long ago. However, I will point out that it seems the bishop had a reputation like no other even in his own day.

All we have now is people wanting to believe one way or another, and convincing themselves. It is not a good topic for discussion because there are no proofs, he is the stuff of legends.

Thank you, Hesychios. Those are some excellent points.

 

[Peter_J]

PeterJ, I think I see where your confusion is. I haven’t changed my opinion at all, but I can see where the following statement I made would make you think so.

If it is true that St. Josaphat indeed martyred Orthodox Christians and burned their Churches, then we can continue to assert that the primary reason he is venerated as a saint is because of his support of the Unia.

The emphasis here is on the fact that the primary reason many venerate St. Josaphat as a saint is because of his support of the Unia. In this sense it wouldn’t really matter to those who venerate him whether or not he actually committed those atrocities. They’re primary focus would be on the fact that he supported union.

But that goes against your original position: “Since he is revered as a saint by the local Ukrainian Catholic Church, I am going to presume that he did not commit and was not complicit in the atrocities of which they were accusing him” – not that there’s anything wrong with changing your mind.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

But that goes against your original position: “Since he is revered as a saint by the local Ukrainian Catholic Church, I am going to presume that he did not commit and was not complicit in the atrocities of which they were accusing him” – not that there’s anything wrong with changing your mind.

There’s no contradiction or change of opinion here. In my first statement I simply said that since he is venerated as a saint among the Ukrainian Catholics, I am going to presume that he did not commit any of the atrocities that are sometimes leveled against him, especially since the only evidence anyone is able to produce is hear-say, nothing concrete.

There is no contradiction or change of opinion between me saying that, on the one hand I do not believe he is guilty of such horrors, and on the other hand even if he is (notice the big “if”) that only reinforces the notion that he is venerated primarily because of his support of the Unia. One way or another, I still do not believe that he is guilty of the charges leveled against him. The only way I am going to change that opinion is if concrete evidence is produce. Otherwise I’m going to presume the best.

 

[Peter_J]

There is no contradiction or change of opinion between me saying that, on the one hand I do not believe he is guilty of such horrors, and on the other hand even if he is (notice the big “if”) that only reinforces the notion that he is venerated primarily because of his support of the Unia.

I never thought there was. What I said is that there’s a contradiction between, on the one hand, the veneration being a reason you believe him to be innocent and, on the other hand, saying that even if he is guilty that’s no reason not to venerate him.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I never thought there was. What I said is that there’s a contradiction between, on the one hand, the veneration being a reason you believe him to be innocent and, on the other hand, saying that even if he is guilty that’s no reason not to venerate him.

Again, I never said that even if he is guilty that is no reason not to venerate him. I said that if he is guilty, then that simply illustrates the thesis that the primary reason for his veneration is because of his support of the Unia.

But I’m with Hesychios on this. We ought not to be speculating on whether or not he is guilty of the charges leveled against him. That is a job for greater minds. The fact of the matter is that he is revered as a saint among Ukrainian Catholics. The rest of us just have to deal with it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

If the Armenians can revere Pontius Pilate as a saint…

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

If the Armenians can revere Pontius Pilate as a saint…

I believe the Ethiopians do too.