On the New Liturgical Movement blog Gregory DiPippo reports on the celebration of the feast of St. Josaphat at the Vatican on Friday November 12, including some interesting photos.

The comments in the blog were interesting.

I refrained from posting any opinions regarding St Josaphat, but did feel compelled to weigh in on the matter of 'Offertory is a good enough usage for we Westerners who don't want too much knowledge of the East'.

Many years,

Neil

Sadly, for us 'easterners', a great deal of irony abounds in the article and the comments.

At the time of the canonization, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics were decidedly unenthused about the prospect and paid it little attention: the Polish RCs had virtually "taken" Josaphat for themselves. It took a few decades for any particular devotion to take root among the Ukrainians.

In some specific liturgical matters, St. Josaphat's work had a strong influence on the work of St. Peter Mohyla a couple of decades later.

Fr. Serge

As I said, irony abounds on this particular topic.

Well, I for one am very happy to see that a Divine Liturgy is celebrated at his tomb every year on his feast-especially that the celebrant was Archbishop Cyril and the Russicum choir was present to sing.

The Basilians of Holy Trinity monastery in Vilnius want his relics returned to their monastery since St. Josaphat was the abbot at one time. Last year, a Divine Liturgy was celebrated at the monastery. This link provides photos of that liturgy. As you can see, the monastery is in great need of renovation before the relics can be returned.



Neil, I am curious. What is your opinion of St. Josaphat?

It was a nasty time in a nasty neighborhood, and no side is without sin.

gc,

I'm not a particular fan of his.

Many years,

Neil

Really?!

We'll just have to agree to disagree about him.

Have you ever read Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM? It is the most comprehensive book in English on his life (it's currently out of print so the best bet is interlibrary loan from a Catholic seminary or university). Included are quotes from sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses (including Orthodox Christians) to his holiness during the canonization process. Also, excerpts from his letters defending his innocence against accusations of inciting violence against Orthodox Christians.

I regard St. Josaphat as a patron saint of mine and it was a personal joy to have been able to pray before his relics at St. Peter's Basilica three years ago. Thus, it makes me happy to see that Divine Liturgy is celebrated at his tomb every year on his feast day.

God bless,

gc

As I said, it was a nasty time in a nasty neighborhood, and those (on both sides) unwilling to have their preconceptions shattered ought not go there.

Stuart,

Are you saying that you know more about St. Josaphat than those who investigated his life for his canonization? What is your evidence?

God bless,
gc

I'm saying that the canonization process was a product of its times, and that St. Josaphat was a product of his times. Notions such as freedom of conscience were unknown, and the use of coercion to enforce religious adherence was common. We today would never accept or excuse some of the things done or endorsed either by St. Josaphat on the one hand, or by the Orthodox Brotherhoods on the other.

I'm also not a big fan of nationalist saints, such as Joan of Arc or Thomas More, whose canonization was politically inspired.

So, what are those things that St. Josaphat is alleged to have done? What is the evidence? Where is the proof?

Do not the letters that Saint Josaphat wrote defending his innocence count for something?

According to some sources, he violently suppressed the Orthodox Church in areas under Uniate jurisdiction. He certainly opposed extending equal rights to the Orthodox in Polish territory. A few possibly biased accounts make him little better than a night rider whose objective was to terrorize Orthodox priests either into accepting the Union or to departing into Russian territory.

All of this was, of course, standard operating procedure in the early 17th century, not just in Eastern Europe but everywhere (perhaps you have heard of something called the Thirty Years War?), and it was accepted that, because the boundaries between secular and spiritual authority were rather blurry, that within any given land there could only be one Church.

The settlement at the end of the Thirty Years War ratified the principle of cuius regio, eius religio, or "whose rule, his religion"--the faith of the ruling prince was the faith of all his people, no exceptions (though non-Christians like Jews and Muslims were usually exempted and subjected to legal, economic and social disabilities). This was, in fact, the driving force behind the Unia--Orthodox living in Poland and Hungary wanted to be accepted as Catholic in order to circumvent the crushing penalties of being Orthodox in a Catholic land.

St. Josaphat, motivated by sincere belief that the Church of Rome was the one true Church, as well as by the political principles and tactics of his time, did his best to cleanse territories under his jurisdiction of the Orthodox presence.

Of course, the Orthodox Brotherhoods did much the same thing in reverse, and it looks like St. Josaphat met his end being dry-gulched by a Brotherhood led or inspired mob. But consider that one does not become shot or have one's head stove in with a hatched by being all sweetness and light.

Was Josaphat personally pious? Did he sincerely believe in what he was doing? I certainly believe he was and he did--but that doesn't stop me from being appalled by the methods he employed (even while, as a good historian, I totally understand them), any more than I would support the tactics employed by St. Cyril of Alexandria (who made St. Josaphat look like a piker in the might makes right department).