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).

What are these sources? Are they primary sources? Eyewitness testimonies? The only "evidence" that is often cited by Orthodox Christians against Saint Josaphat are the letters by the Chancellor of Lithuania, Leonas Sapiega. Yet, these are based on what was allegedly told to him by others. It was later revealed during the canonization process that these accusations were false, made up to discredit Saint Josaphat. There is sworn testimony by Orthodox Christians who uphold his innocence. Let us not forget that Saint Josaphat himself wrote back to Sapiega, defending his innocence.

I just do not find the Sapiega letter to carry any credibility.

If you are looking for objectivity in 17th century confessional polemics, forget about it. If you are looking for objectivity in 17th century hagiographic works, forget that, too. You have to parse all the sources carefully, and also try to remember that even saints can do reprehensible things.

Joan of Arc was canonized for killing Englishmen, as though her voices told her they were all incipient Protestants (not that it's good to kill Protestants, though); St. Louis waged unsuccessful crusades against the Muslims in Egypt, which succeeded only in killing lots of his own men, and making life difficult for indigenous Christians. Thomas More may have been a martyr, but he was also a bigot who had no qualms about sending heretics to the stake, as long as Henry VIII did so as a good son of the Roman Church. And Cyril of Alexandria was a towering theologian who was also narrow-minded, intolerant of disagreement, and not above using armed mobs of militant monks to intimidate (and occasionally kill) his opponents.

Theology ain't beanball, and Church history isn't about cow-eyed saints painted in soft focus, looking upward into the distance with rapturous expressions. These were real men and women, with real virtues and weaknesses, and we do them and ourselves no favors by turning them into, well, plaster saints.

Well said and 'historical memory' - or the lack thereof - is one of the real impediments to meaningful dialog between West and East. While historians and theologians usually recognize the biases of history, those whose knowledge is based on oral, national or faith-based tradition are really hard to convince. I have gotten into some 'doozies' of arguments about this and I realize that it is hard to reconcile truth with myth. Myth need not be ancient to have an impact. For example,many of the Greek Catholic Churches impacted by the schisms of the twentieth century over priestly celibacy, property rights and hierarchical authority still are wrestling with the impacts of 'historical memory'seventy years after the fact, so it is easy to see how events from the distant past can blur reason and impact the present. Just ask a Muslim supporter of the restoration of the 'caliphate.' After all, the fall of Cordoba, Constantinople and Columbus were all of the same period, yet to different peoples who were impacted by these events, they may be in the distant past (i.e. most Americans) or resound on a daily basis (many Greeks and many Muslims.)

It's too bad American education has devalued history.

Again, I am getting scared because I find myself agreeing with StuartK too often. I will add one additional saint to his list of 'thugly' saints: Athanasius of Alexandria. Timothy Barnes, the dean of all Neo-Flavian historians myself included, understates the case in his book "Constantine and Eusebius,", when he notes, "Athanasius possessed a power independent of the emperor and perpetuated by violence. That was both the strength and weakness of his position. Like a modern gangster, he evoked widespread distrust, proclaimed total innocence---and usually succeeded in evading conviction on specific charges. His opponents in Egypt could see how he operated, they believed with fervor that their cause was righteous, and they were determined to unseat the powerful bishop." (p. 230-231).

Married saints had their own problems. One should look into what we know about the relationship between John of Kronstadt and his wife. Like all married couples, they had their differences and marital problems which, upon close examination, are not any different than most married couples encounter.

Like StuartK notes (to paraphrase him), it is time to remove the icons and statues and to look at these folks we call saints and see they were human beings warts and all like the rest of us! Stuart, if you think I have read toomuch into your comments, I apologize! When it comes to apologetics and polemic, Nietzsche may have had it right when he noted that there were no such things as facts, only interpretations!

So what did you think of H.A. Drake's Constantine and the Bishops?

Stuart, you ask an interesting question. Constantine himself is so ambiguous in the sources that different scholars have different views. My views, which i have expressed in print, on the Emperor was that he was a political opportunist who used Christianity as a tool to rise to power; he was as you know only baptized on his death bed. This is, in my opinion, the point when we can call him truely a Christian. Tim Barnes followed up "Constantine and Eusebius"(1980) with "The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (1982)" and subsequenttly followed it with "Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire "(1993)." This set of three books are viewed by most historians of late antiquity to be the seminal books of our era on the topic. While the first and third volumes (though they have massive notes) can be viewed as commentary, the second volume deals with the primary sources (epigraphical, prosopographical, and literary evidence) as well as chronological and historical problems of the era and provides a the professional historian a fertile hunting ground for articles. In other words, Barnes provides the framework of the perspective he takes in all three volumes. His interpretation, which, if you put a gun to my head, and which is scattered throughout all three volumes, would seem to accept a religious interpretation of Constantine's reign and take the emperor at his word. Despite this fact, all three volumes are the starting point of any article or book on this fascinating man and his thoroughly dysfunctional and delightful family.


Drake's book has driven me crazy since it came out in 2000. Drake makes the case that Constantine was an ancient Obama (my choice of words, not his)who was "the artful negotiator, patient consensus builder, and ardent judicial reformer." (p. 357) who eventually runs into the of bishops who have their own axes to grind. Drake notes, "the same Constantine who had won control of the message so brilliantly lost control of his agenda" (p. 351) which was taken over by the the bishops. Drake would say the law of unintended consequences applies. In fact he notes,"This growing strength of the bishops was an unintended consequence of Constantine's policies" (p. 467). I think my analogy to a comparison between Constantine and the bishops and Obama and congress is apt for all the obvious reasons. For some odd reason Constantine only comes into the book about half way through the book in chapter 5. Drake argues that Constantine tried to get the various cults to get along with each other. The text and purpose of the so-called Edict of Milan are very different from what the church teaches in Sunday school. BTAIM, I have not explained why the book drives me nuts. Drake calls the book a "sketch" (it is over 600 pages long) and, to use his own words, "Much of the apparatus of classical scholarship...is prominent in these pages by its absence." (p. xvii) Additionally, instead of relying on the work of good, solid historians of late antiquity,he relies on such works as Hedrick Smith's "Power Games: How Washington works" and Graham Allison's "Essence of Decision," a brilliant work on the Cuban missle crisis (p.xviii) Although his argument is fascinating, his methodology is questionable. I would have included the missing apparatus of Classical scholarship and relied on standard works dealing with Constantine rather than imposing the present on the past (of course you can say i did the same thing by comparing Constantine to Obama). The use of the modern model makes the book less than useful to some one like me who likes getting down into the weeds and dealing with the minutia of chronology. Drake is a good scholar and is work is always top drawer despite my carping.

StuartK,

You have yet to reveal what sources you read that allegedly state that Saint Josaphat used violent measures against Orthodox Christians. Were these primary sources? Please provide the titles of these sources. Thanks.

God bless,

gc

gc:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

Try contacting Slavipodvizhnik. That may be difficult, because his last post was May of this year. He filled me in on the Russian view of this saint a couple years ago and it isn't pretty. This was a rather hair-raising account.

But this goes to Stuart's stance that history is written from the viewpoint of the person writing. St. Josaphat is known as "The Butcher" to them.

Bob

An example of one Orthodox opinion of Josaphat Kuncevich:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/josaphat_malevolent.aspx

Thanks, Theophan.

What I am trying to find out from those who have a negative impression of St. Josaphat is what sources have they read that convinces them of this. Was it based on primary sources such as eyewitness testimonies or simply on hearsay and propaganda?

The only "evidence" that keeps being brought up is Leo Saphia's letter condemning Josaphat for alleged violence against Orthodox Christians. Yet, he was never a witness; it was based on what was told to him. How many are aware that after St. Jospahat was martyred Saphia severely punished those who killed him?

How many have actually read Saint Josaphat's own letters repudiating such allegations or the sworn testimonies by Orthodox Christians during the canonization process that they made the whole thing up because of how effective St. Josaphat's preaching was causing Orthodox Christians to reunite with Rome.

My educated guess is that the vast majority of those who hold negative views of St. Josaphat have not done any critical research, such as reading St. Josaphat's letters.

Negative opinions of St Josaphat are irrelevant. He is a Saint of the Catholic Church.

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

Please understand that I have no direct knowledge of this man, his times, or his end. I have no reason to look at this issue from one side or another. I fully understand the border movements in this region and the religious animosity that accompanied thee movements.

To me, this is a very sad commentary on how two anathemas--personal anathemas--could turn whole regions and whole areas of Christianity against each other. I can only wish that cell phones had been available in 1054 and that Cardinal Humbert could have been advised that he had no authority to speak in the name of the Bishop of Rome at the time he laid the bull on the altar of Hagia Sophia.

The other scandal is the way that Christians have warred on each other over how the Divine Liturgy is to be served. One only has to look at the missionaries who ran the disciples of Sts. Cyril and Methodius out of Moravia earlier.

When will we learn? When we're all in labor camps like some of our brethren were during the communist era? Or when the secularists join with the islamists to put us all in such camps?

Sadly, just before the Feast of the Nativity, New Style,

Bob

indeed, ive also read that those who murdered St. Josaphat latter converted to Catholicism

Litvin, I suggest you read back through this thread and read StuartK's comments about 16th and 17th century polemics and apologetics. Also read his comments on Joan of Arc, Cyril of Alexandria, THomas Moore, and mine on Athanasius of Alexandria. Neither side's hands have been clean. Also check into what we know about the life of St. John of Kronstadt and hisrelationship with his wife. If you don't attempt to whitewash Josaphat, I promise I won't whitewash his murderers even though they were Orthodox and part of my church.

johnzonaras,

Have you read any biographial information on the life of Saint Josaphat? If so, what were they? Were these primary sources? Were these biographies written by Orthodox Christians? If so, what are the titles of these works?
Have you read the letters written by St. Josaphat defending his innocence?

I would like to know what sources you have you read that formed your opinion of him. Thanks.

God bless,

GC

gc:

Christ is Born!! Glorify Him!!

I think you miss the point. You continue to ask for "critical research" and that sounds like 20th and 21st century criteria applied to an earlier age.

Much of the history surrounding this series of events and, indeed, this man's life is probably of the type that is told and retold by the people with direct experience; people who, in that age, were probably not literate. That there was enough going on that a group of people murdered him and went so far as to mutilate his body doesn't lend itself to a lot of "critical reserach" as we may know it, but suggests that from the people "on the ground"--so to speak--desparate times called for desparate measures.

I suspect that part of the lens through which these events were viewed on both sides stems from the religious animus brought about by the schism--a schism that began with two "bull heads" (and a growing apart)--and ended with whole nations hating each other just because they were on opposite sides.

As for Orthodox Christians changing their story for the canonization, we know that when people are brought in for such testimony by people with the power of life and death over them--and with the memory of others being severely punished for their part in the man's murder--many are more eager to save their hides than speak their conscience: such is the nature of man with few exceptions of bravery that end in martyrdom.

I really think we need to get beyond throwing the ugly in each other's faces and get on to learning the positive from each other. I want to know more about the Mystery of God coming among us from the Eastern Churches' perspectives. I want to know how my brethren have lived out their understanding. I want to share my gifts, but I've come along my own pilgriamge far enough that I no longer have time for the polemics of the past. It is easier to be negative and condemn than to find common ground on which we can walk together and edify each other, building up each other for the time when we will spend eternity together.

I'll leave St. Jospahat to Our Lord. I don't have primary sources and I doubt anyone really has any more than the stories collected from those who, on both sides, ran across his path. And, as it with all of us, there will be those who love us and those who dispise the ground we walk on (hoping the earth will open up and swallow us like it did Dathan in the Old Testament). Remember that whoever writes the history contols the spin. And whoever writes the history selects the stories from the people on the ground with whom he identifies.

Couple of copper coins tonight.

Bob

We do, however, have St. Josaphat's incorrupt relics. We have both, Catholic and Orthodox killed each others holy men. Catholics have to accept that we killed St. Peter the Aleut and St. Maxim Sandovich. Orthodox have to accept they killed St. Josaphat and St. Andrew Bobola. Then we have to forgive each other and move on.

Father Deacon Lance:

Christ is Born!! Glorify Him!!

Amen. Man's inhumanity to man--what a testament we have as we imitate Cain.

Bob

griego catolico, I suggest you take my advice to Litvin! Here i am trying to play down Orthodox and catholic triumphalism and you want to engage in it! Please read the comments of Theophane and Deacon Lance! If I want to engage in triumphalism, I could say which evidence is best on the issue: catholic vs orthodox. As a a proud convert from the RCC to the EOC, you can guess which side of the issue I would come down on even IF THE EVIDENCE ON MY SIDE WAS TRUMPED UP! St Luke wrote, "Every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted." (18:14) Please rethink your position. Bob's comments on Cain are on the mark!

johnzonaras,

You're reading more into my comments that what is intented!!! This is not about so called "Catholic triumphalism".

It's simple, really. Don't make it complicated.

Since the discussion centers on the reputation of a bishop and saint of the Catholic Church, how did you, for example, being an Orthodox Christian, come to see St. Josaphat in the way you do.

What did you read? Encyclopedias? Church history book? Was it when you converted to Orthodoxy? Did somebody tell you that is what you should believe about him?
Obviously, there must have been some source whether written or oral that helped you form your opinion about this man's reputation.

Again, don't make it complicated.


God bless,

GC

Someone please explain to me what "incorrupt relics" are. I saw St. Josaphat's relics on many, many occasions - before the OSBMs made the silver mask which now covers his skeletonised face - and they looked mighty corrupt to me. And I actually have a personal devotion to him.
I went to Assisi in 1974 & there I was shown what were identified as the incorrupt relics of St. Clare. It (they) looked like something out of a horror picture, mummified and shriveled, bad enough to give you a nightmare. They finally wised up & got her a mask, too.

And the photos of St. John Maximovitsch's incorrupt relics I have seen look absolutely ghastly. (I also have devotion to him, altho I'm a Gk. Catholic - not that that makes me wonderful or anything) No wonder I'm confused about what incorruption means...

hey! wait a minute: I think I may have gotten off-topic. A thousand pardons.

There is some documented research on the historicity of Peter the Aleut. Please see:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2007/2007-3.html

I have visited and prayed in front of his relics and it was amazing. His relics are far from ghastly in person, IMHO. If you have a chance I would go and visit St. John's relics.

As Vespasian told his son Titus, "It doth not stink".

Incorrupt relics refer to an unaided, unnatural mummification of the corpse (at least that is how I describe it) as opposed to the normal putrification that usually occurs. A lot of people seem to think incorrupt means they look like they just laid down to take a nap. The Latin tradition of using wax death masks and hands has contributed to this.

No wonder so many saints come from hot, dry climates.

Christ is Born!! Glorify Him!!

First of all, mummification happens when air passes over a dead human remains and it dries out. Nothing unnatural about that. As for being unaided, air aids the process and is necessary for it. I've seen mummified bodies in the coruse of my work--nothing unnatural or unaided about that. I think your description is an oxymoron.

To me, incorrupt remains are those which, by Divine intervention, look years later as if they had just died. That is, the skin is still soft and pliable; nothing has been done outwardly or inwardly to preserve any of the tissue. I haven't yet seen a really incorrupt remains--but I will admit that I don't travel extensively to shrines or other places where saintly remains are kept.

As for mummified remains, we have that phenomenon occuring in ever mausoleum constructed. The idea is that an embalmed body will have air pass over it and it will dry, with the odors of decomp passing out through the vents placed in the building.

Bob

Bob, there is a wonderful episode on Secrets of the dead about many of these so called uncorrupted bodies in Italy. You might be able to find a link over at the PBS, site.

GC, I know I am going to regret this because I should not raise this issue with some one who buys white wash by the barrel. You are taking a complicated issue and simplifying it to the extreme by leaving your blinders on! I will ask two simple questions: you noted, among other things, that those folks who killed Josaphat eventually joined the RCC. I would believe that like I would believe the old wive's tale that martin Luther returned to the fold on his deathbed. Please back up your contention with sources that are reliable. You have made much of debunking the Lithuanian official's letter; sources please that reputable historians would accept on why this letter is unacceptible, not some old peasant's point of view. Catholic apologetics on the matter are unacceptable. E.g., something from an Orthodox source that would back your point of view. I know i am going to regret this!

StuartK, you know Vespasian's line on his death bed just before he expired? I think I am becoming a god! I suspect the quotation comes from Suetonius.

there is one letter, this letter itself being the sole shred of evidence would not stand in a court, i would think that if so much genocide was going on more would of known of it - jews and the muslim tatars would of written of it and the Lithuanian government know directly of it too since I imagine such extremes would of been economically affected the nobility. unfortunately I could only find biased (catholic and orthodox sites) sources when searching for Leo Sapiah.

i am proud i come from a peasant family btw

Yes, from Twelve Caesars. The crusty old Italian asks to be stood up, so as to die on his feet, and feeling his life slipping away, remarks, "I believe I am becoming a god", showing how seriously he took the inevitable divinization to which his son and heir Titus would subject him.

In a similar vein, Suetonius passes along the story that Claudius was murdered with poisoned mushrooms, and has his heir Nero remarking shortly thereafter that "Surely mushrooms must be the food of the gods, for by eating them Claudius became a god".

No offense taken. Couldn't it be said though that you have bought the anti-Jospahat propaganda lock, stock, and barrel?



Now, who really has their blinders on? It was Litvin who noted that, not me. Apology accepted.



You have yet to answer my questions previously posted about what sources you read that prove that St. Josaphat persecuted Orthodox Christians. As you put it: Please back up your contention with sources that are reliable.

You stated previously:



I don't see how you could want to know what sources I have with a comment like that. It doesn't sound like you are willing to have a dialogue.

I never said I was willing tohave dialog; you were the one trying to make a silk purse out of a sow' ear! All i am attempting to do is to get you to reveal your hand and ask what your best evidence is. Again please clarify your stance the Lithuanian letter. My views are in line with Stuart's; I do not see why you chose me as a target of your comments and not Stuart. His views are, shal;l i say, much more clear cut than mine. I am the first to admit that some saints on either side of the street or both sides of the street had dark sides. I am also the first to admit that I have an Orthodox bias. You seem to believe that this concept of a dark side is not the case at least as far as RCC saints go. i will admit I am basing this on your own comments if I am wrong , I apologize. I have revealed my own views elsewhere:

#357579 - 27/12/10 04:00 PM Re: Just a couple thoughts [Re: theophan]

Some of us remain! Jim, the comments (their dark side and their questionable actions] about saints (recent or long departed) on both sides of the street are useful, in my view, because they might humble the mighty and make us all realize that none of us have clean hands; if so, we might be more charitable with our neighbor!. I know I need to be reminded on occasion!

The following Biblical quotation is at the head of this forum:

"Every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:14)


I can think of EOC and RCC saints who have followed this quotation to a letter!