quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusnak:
I went to the online Catholic Encyclopedia for more information on St. Josaphat and I'm curious as to how much the following helps to engender the hostility of Orthodox against him

As better as pre-Vatican II was, not everything from that period is golden, as this article abundantly shows. It is definitely in the ‘pouring gasoline on a fire’ category.

---

Too true. I was looking for any backround info. from someone I had never heard of and still do not know about very well. I presumed that the material there would be biased given how controversial he is seen. My comment you quote here relates to whether his actions in apparently successfully prosyletizing the Moscow patriarch and a descendant of the last Byzantine emperor was part of why he is so despised by EOs.

quote:

---

I’ve seen far worse, though, but not from an official Catholic source: the Lefebvrist Redemptorist order (which includes their version of Eastern Catholics, a teeny-tiny group) in England: Transalpine Redemptorists.

---

Oh what a joyous bunch these folks are!

quote:

---

Originally posted by anastasios:

The answer I think is to let some saints stay local saints. Hence Sts. Dioscoros Severus can remain on the Coptic Calendar after the reunion but they will not be forced to accept St. Leo on theirs, for instance. It would be a non issue.

---

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the idea in reunion with the EOs to fold the EC Churches back into them? How can devotion to such controversial saints be maintained if that happens? Wouldn't this be a cause for division?

quote:

---

The Assyrian Church of the East dropped all references to "the wicked Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria" from their liturgy in 1997.

---

Perhaps now I know just where the heritage of my Irish ancestors originally derives from. Talk about holding a grudge!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kurt:
Why not? Other than private opinion that is. (BTW, I respect private opinion, but I do think the claim "it should not be this way" rather than "it cannot be this way" requires some more support than a simple assertion).

---

As private opinion, sure why not? It is the assertion that he can automatically veto any selection, or perhaps choose his own on a normal basis I disagree with (as you seem to as well here).

quote:

---

Since the Catholic Church is not (or should not be) a "business", the business relationship between the Unviersal Pastor and the Particular Churches is not a valid starting point. Communion is the starting point. We Eastern Catholics have never asserted that what we are seeking is the bare minimum degree of communion with the Unviersal Pastor. That, more than various liturgical usages, is a Latinism, though a graeophile Latinism.

---

All good points and forgive me if it seemed like I was making it sound like a "business". I am speaking of communion between the Churches, in its proper form.

quote:

---

The current practice for Major Archepiscopal churches is that they elected their own Head. As they are part of the Catholic Church, they Head-elect sends a statement of communion to the Universal Pastor, the Head-elect becomes Head upon the acceptance of the request for communion by the Universal Pastor. While it is christian and charitable for any bishop anywhere in the world (including the Bishop of Rome) to provide fraternal and pious advice to brother bishops as to the election of new bishops, the Universal pastor does not decline communion to a Major Archbishop because he might judge that a different individual would make a better Head. He would only do so if the person selected is outside the bounds of Catholic communion. I think "ratification" is not the proper or accurate term for this practice.

---

If such is the current way Rome behaves towards it sister Eastern Catholic Churches then that's great and proper.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John M. Betts:
Oh indeed, John. I wasn't saying that saints do not have their personal gaffes and foibles (I can list a few too), but that astrology was believed to be a science in St. Thomas' day. This wasn't just a simple matter of him personally erring, but of how the subject was viewed in his day. Astrology was the astronomy of the 12th century in Western Europe at least.

Pax Christi,
John

---

John,

The assertion was made, sort of on an "everyone knows this" basis, that St. Thomas believed in astrology. Regardless of the blurring between astronomy and astrology, Thomas' own writings bear out that he knew the difference quite well, and understood that large bodies have affects on smaller bodies (now known as gravity), and that the will and actions of superior creatures (angels and man) are not subject to inferior creatures (stars and planets). [Summa Q115 A3, 4, & 5, and Q111 A2]

St. Thomas's reputation is defended from slander by his own writings.

Certainly there is a difference between error, of which saints are not immune, and anathamtized belief which is culpable, such as astrology. Again, a canonized saint must have been proven to have lived a virtuous life, and the Catholic Church stands in guarantee of that. To cast aspersions against either (Be it Josaphat or Thomas), is to imply the Church erred in declaring them citizens of the Church Triumphant, an impossibility.

Thus the response, intended to be in charity, is intended to point out what we owe in charity in these situations.

Origen's opinion, which was condemned, was condemned because it implied even the possible salvation of satan. Origen vigorously denied this possibility, but it was implicit in his idea.

Augustine stated emphatically that an infant could not attain salvation except through baptism. This is still the teaching of the church; theories of 'limbo' have come and gone, and unless there is something I haven't seen, there is "no way to come to the Father except through the Son." --I read that in a book.

May God bless you, now and ever and forever,
Mark

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkGross:
John,

Augustine stated emphatically that an infant could not attain salvation except through baptism. This is still the teaching of the church; theories of 'limbo' have come and gone, and unless there is something I haven't seen, there is "no way to come to the Father except through the Son." --I read that in a book.

---

Mark:

1) I assume you are a Roman Catholic. As such I'd suggest you read what your Catechism says about infants attaining salvation. It is quite clear that there is a hope.

2) Do aborted fetuses go to heaven? I hope you'll say yes.

3) St. Augustine's theory is NOT the teaching of the Church. It is a theological opinion, and it is wrong. He misunderstood original sin's affect on the infant. If you disagree, please show me the documentation that you believes disproves my point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anastasios:

Mark:

1) I assume you are a Roman Catholic. As such I'd suggest you read what your Catechism says about infants attaining salvation. It is quite clear that there is a hope.

2) Do aborted fetuses go to heaven? I hope you'll say yes.

3) St. Augustine's theory is NOT the teaching of the Church. It is a theological opinion, and it is wrong. He misunderstood original sin's affect on the infant. If you disagree, please show me the documentation that you believes disproves my point.

anastasios

---

Dearest brother in Christ,

I'm sorry if the point wasn't clear. What means of attaining salvation does an infant have? St. Augustine was preaching to parents, impressing on them their duty to baptize their children. The necessity of which is declared explicitly by our Lord:

John 3:5. Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

and:

Mt 28:19. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

The salvation of those who do not receive Christian baptism? Oh, yes there is a hope!!! St. Augustine spoke of it too; but differently than the pelagians of then and the lazy of today, but not different from our hope today. Can some how the grace of baptism (necessary) be extended, even to aborted infants? Baptism of desire and blood are understood, the other is not. yet.

So we hope, but we must also act, and not rest in a lethargic "all dogs go to heaven" mode, as so many even catholic parents do!
He has placed the burden on us.

... can you show me a teaching from a council that defines a way for infants to go to heaven, other than baptism? It is limbo which is a theological opinion...

the point being, that the older writing, sometimes misunderstood because it is read to narrowly (without the knowledge of the writers full position), appears to contradict newer understandings, sometimes missunderstood because read to broadly; whereas each are consonant with the other, both in intend and content.

and OK, I'm a convert, RC, attending the local monthly St. Athanasius BC mission. May we all be one, as our Lord prayed!

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you that people today hear the word "hope" and that translates into "we don't have to do anything." We need to ensure that infants that are able to will receive baptism. And hey, you brought up a good point about baptism of blood--the aborted babies sound like a the biggest case of martyrs ever (over 1 billion).

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The subject of St. Josaphat was always controversial in Eastern Europe.

Even the name "Josaphat" is anathema to Orthodox who prefer "Joasaph" which is another version of it (e.g. St Joasaph Horlenko of Bilhorod).

There appears no doubt that St Josaphat used some royal authority to ensure that new converts to Catholicism made their annual Communion and the like. But that was how things were done in those days.

Josaphat also confronted Orthodox Monks at the Kyivan Caves Lavra and engaged them in what was most certainly a friendly dialogue about the Petrine Primacy. These same Monks, who began their conversation with "Let's drown the Soul-Snatcher in the River!" ended by walking with him to the city gates to protect him from attack by anyone.

We also know that St Josaphat was very devoted to the Eastern traditions. He refused, for example, to set up a Carmelite Order of the Byzantine Rite. He was actually quite scrupulous about observing the Byzantine Rite.

Calumnies against him that were all out of proportion were actually part of the way people wrote polemics in his day. For example, one was justified in calling Anglicans "atheists" because they did not accept papal authority. Jesuits were given similar, if not much worse, treatment by Anglicans.

Josaphat actually made union with Rome quite easy. He believed that the only thing an Orthodox needed to do was unite himself or herself with the Uniate Kyivan Metropolitan - and that was all.

He called himself an "Orthodox in union with Rome."

The only people who were killed were not killed by Josaphat, but by the Polish authorities after the trial of those who killed the Archbishop.

Many people of different faiths, including Jews, came forward to say that, although they disagreed with Josaphat (a brave thing to say in a Polish Catholic court!), they knew him to be kind to the poor, to be zealous about his faith and to be totally free of the crimes ascribed to him.

Let us also remember that polemics do get out of hand. Meletius Smotrytsky was the Orthodox Archbishop of Polotsk who wrote quite graphically about Josaphat.

So graphically, in fact, that he believed himself to have instigated Josaphat's murder by a mob.

It broke Meletius, he became a Uniate (although he wasn't firm in this until his death), and he recanted what he wrote about Josaphat. Meletius himself died in the odour of sanctity and there was a move to beatify him. An Icon of him was written, but nothing came of this.

The interesting thing about Meletius is that he is honoured by both Orthodox and Catholics. The Orthodox don't seem to blame him for becoming a Uniate!

Josaphat was a trained orator and highly educated. The conversions he effected came about by argument not by force. One person who lived in his time wrote that he and his colleagues used to come to Josaphat regularly to argue with him.

There was no move by Josaphat to arrest them, which he certainly could have. He respected their freedom, the person wrote. And then they became Byzantine Catholics. As they walked toward his residence, Josaphat ran out to meet them. He embraced them with tears, the man wrote, and said, "Lord, I thank you for finding what was lost."

If he was the "murderous bishop" his detractors say he was, why did the Orthodox flock in droves to the Unia after he was murdered?

Also, there are accounts of Russians coming to see the body of Josaphat lying in state. They saw that it seemed to exude a good odour and many actually kissed his hand as he lay in his coffin!

It is popular for western Catholics to attack Josaphat. But there is no need to do that, if by this they are trying to somehow promote an "ecumenical agenda."

The Orthodox too have their martyr, St Athanasius of Brest.

He went to the Polish parliament to attack the forced conversions to the Union of Brest by the Polish gendarmes - which did, of course, happen.

He was taken out into a field after three days of torture, forced to dig his own grave, was shot twice in the head and then was buried alive.

He became a national saint, for Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.

The Jesuits, unfortunately, tried to quench the people's devotion to St Athanasius by placing the Feast of St Josaphat on September 16 or two days before the Feast of St Athanasius of Brest. The same thing happened with Jan Hus in Bohemia.

It was Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky who returned the feast to its proper place in November.

The Polish government, too, ill-used St Josaphat to ram the Union and Polonization down the throats of the Orthodox.

Eastern Catholic Kyivan Metropolitans often downplayed a too public devotion to St Josaphat, because of the controversy surrounding him, much of it not of his own making.

Here in North America, those who honour him alongside Orthodox Martyrs, including St Athanasius do well, I believe.

But, for now, let's not make this into a larger issue than it needs to be. There are other saints on both sides who can serve as exemplary patrons of ecumenical thought and devotion. St Peter Mohyla is one such example.

Even if our Orthodox brothers spew hatred for Josaphat, let us understand why they do (given the different times and mentality of the people) and then let's move on. I believe St Josaphat would have wanted us to!

In Christ, and SS. Josaphat and Athanasius,

Alex