St Josaphat and East-West Ecumenism - Page 2

Alexander Roman · #16 Apr 12, '12, 7:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

I personally do not believe that his veneration among Eastern (particularly Ukrainian) Catholics should be any more of a stumbling block to unity than the veneration of those Orthodox saints who are venerated primarily (not exclusively) because of their opposition to Rome and/or (re)union with the Roman Patriarchate. If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat? In a similar vein, even Western Catholics venerate certain saints who were supporters of anti-Popes during the time of the Great Western Schism.

The point is that saints ought not to be venerated because of their support or opposition to this or that person or institution. Saints ought to be venerated because of the holiness of their lives. Holiness does not mean that they are incapable of error and wrong judgment.

So, for my own two cents I'd say, insofar as he led a holy life St. Josaphat ought to continue to be venerated. But his actions of proselytism should be understood within their historical context, and then condemned as a misguided effort at achieving Church unity dependent on the historical model of Church unity in his day.

St. Josaphat, pray for us!

Master Beadsman, a blessed Pascha to you and yours!

Amen!

Alex

Phillip Rolfes · #17 Apr 12, '12, 7:03 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Master Beadsman, a blessed Pascha to you and yours!

Amen!

Alex

A blessed Pascha to you too, Alex! Christ is risen!

Peter J · #18 Apr 12, '12, 9:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

I don't know if St Josaphat was into converting anyone other than Orthodox.

Well, we certainly shouldn't assume that his opinions, now that he's in heaven, are the same ones he held while on Earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

I've heard even Ukrainian Catholic priests say critical things about his legacy.

I don't think this should surprise us. We live in a time of much-improved ecumenical relations, particularly (though not limited to) those between ECs and EOs.

Peter J · #19 Apr 12, '12, 9:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?

Having spent a good deal of time around Orthodox, I can imagine what they would say about that comparison.

Phillip Rolfes · #20 Apr 12, '12, 9:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter J

Having spent a good deal of time around Orthodox, I can imagine what they would say about that comparison.

I know that the comparison is not a popular comparison, but it is appropriate. Again, I'm not doubting the sanctity of the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus. The point is that on the popular level he is typically revered primarily (again, not exclusively) because of his opposition to the reunion drafted at the Council of Florence. One could also say something similar about the likes of St. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople.

Peter J · #21 Apr 12, '12, 9:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

I know that the comparison is not a popular comparison, but it is appropriate.

At the risk of being presumptuous (which I usually try not to be), I don't think you understand.

Seamus L · #22 Apr 12, '12, 10:06 am

There's nothing we could ever possibly hope to gain by downplaying or discouraging veneration of St Josaphat (not that it's popular outside the UGCC) that would be worth the effort.

Phillip Rolfes · #23 Apr 12, '12, 10:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter J

At the risk of being presumptuous (which I usually try not to be), I don't think you understand.

Please enlighten me.

Alexander Roman · #24 Apr 12, '12, 4:01 pm

Actually, I'm missing something here as well - I think Phillip understands very well and has written very well on the topic!

Alex

Phillip Rolfes · #25 Apr 12, '12, 4:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Actually, I'm missing something here as well - I think Phillip understands very well and has written very well on the topic!

Alex

Thanks for your vote of confidence, my brother. But I don't want to leave open the possibility that I have misunderstood anything here, hence the request for enlightenment. I don't trust my own rather feeble intellect.

Hesychios · #26 Apr 12, '12, 4:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus L

There's nothing we could ever possibly hope to gain by downplaying or discouraging veneration of St Josaphat (not that it's popular outside the UGCC) that would be worth the effort.

Popular among Poles.

Vico · #27 Apr 12, '12, 7:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by John of Patmos

Just as a question, how does Rome view its relation with Orthodoxy? How about the UGCC?

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." 322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." 323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." 324

322 Lumen Gentium 15 [1964]
323 Unitatis Redintegratio [1964] 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975;
cf. Unitatis Redintegratio [1964] 13-18.

Seamus L · #28 Apr 13, '12, 4:34 am

On 324, the Orthodox would beg to differ.

Peter J · #29 Apr 16, '12, 6:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

Please enlighten me.

As kind, and indeed flattering

, as that suggestion is, I've instead asked some Orthodox for their opinions. (This was a few days ago, but it took a little while to get responses, owing to the fact that it was Holy Week for them.) See the thread Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus.

Phillip Rolfes · #30 Apr 16, '12, 6:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter J

As kind, and indeed flattering

, as that suggestion is, I've instead asked some Orthodox for their opinions. (This was a few days ago, but it took a little while to get responses, owing to the fact that it was Holy Week for them.) See the thread Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus.

So basically they're saying the comparison is dependent on how one views the saint. Some villainize him while others (obviously) canonize him. Some claim that he had Orthodox Christians killed, burned their churches, etc., etc., etc., while others claim that he did not do any of that at all.

If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up. 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.