www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Holy Can-Can

Dear Neil- There is danger in venerating people for their political acts; there are "saints" venerated in the East that are not worthy of the name, and not only in ancient times [Czar Nicholas and his family come to mind]. Yes, MLK did work for justice. So did Che Guevara, so does Al Sharpton, so do any number of people who wouldn't necessarily qualify for canonization [I am NOT equating MLK with Rev Sharpton, just making a point]
I suppose one could paint an "icon" sans halo of someone whom one considers holy, but the halo should wait for the veneration of the Church. All the hoops that one must jump through to achieve this in the Roman Church arose precisely to assure that popular acclaim was balanced by an objective inquiry. It seems to work, and other Churches have their own standards [though as I said, appear fallible].
My real concern is when "iconographers" portray people who manifestly lived unholy or indifferent lives as saints. Would you not agree that an icon of Harvey Milk is an abuse of the highest order?

"Does the Orthodox Church/Christian East have exclusive rights to the Byzantine iconographic style?

Is it truly wrong for those NOT of this tradition to use and adapt it for their own purpose? Examples would be these icons in San Francisco, Lentz's work, the Anabaptist icons that were the subject of a recent thread, and, to an extent, icons of Roman Catholic saints."

I was once given a gift from my sister who lived in Arizona- a signed, authentic Hopi sand painting. My husband would not let us keep it. He said that it had religious significance to the Hopi, and displaying it for other reasons would be to belittle their beliefs.
Also, I find statues of Buddha to be aesthetically pleasing, but won't have one in my home for the same reason I got rid of the sand painting.
I think that to display icons solely for the beauty they possess, is to belittle the beliefs for whom they are sacramental. This, of course, is purely my humble opinion.

Dear Friends,

I would just like to make a formal protest against the idea, stated above, that there are saints venerated in the East that are not worthy of the name.

That is NOT for anyone to decide but the individual Particular Churches involved.

The same case can be, and has been, made for particular Latin Saints.

Tsar Saint Nicholas II and his family have been formally glorified as Saints by Orthodoxy along with hundreds of New Martyrs and Confessors that died for Christ under communism.

I would suggest to anyone to questions the sanctity of Tsar Nicholas to perhaps spend more time reading about his life and times and less time engaging in biased conjectures based on what can only be called lack of information.

We would not question a Latin Saint's holiness here, and we should not question the saints of Orthodoxy. (The Latin fiasco with St Philomena, however, comes to mind here).

As Fr. Serge Keleher has said, and to me in particular, we (meaning Catholics and Orthodox) do not question each other's saints.

The charge levelled against Orthodoxy's saints is clearly an unfortunate case of what can also be called "Latin bias."

I apologise to all our Orthodox colleagues here for this slight.

If our Latin friends seek to show disrespect toward Orthodoxy and the Eastern Catholic Church that also venerates many saints of the Orthodox Church - perhaps they should be invited to leave here and join one of the many traditional or liberal Latin websites, according to their particular taste.

Alex

I am an Eastern Catholic, not a Latin, so that is not an option for me.
I have read several books on the royal family, I find them very sympathetic souls, but I do not see that they died precisely as martyrs for Christ. I understand that one may die for say, charity [as St Maximilian Kolbe] but it appears to me that they died, most unjustly, for the monarchy. They were good people, humanly speaking, but saints? With that whole Rasputin thing shadowing them?
I think when we get into these conversations that it seems I have a higher standard of sanctity than some others, that I think it requires much more than "ordinary virtue" to be declared a saint. I apologize if I have offended anyone; I should have known better than to get specific. It is refreshing to see you defending some Russians...
but "formal protest"? Isn't that a bit dramatic? Or are you going to defend the Ethiopians' "St Pontius Pilate"?

Pro,

St Gregory of Nyassa Episcopal Church traces back some 30 years; it's not any johnny-come-lately to the ranks of Episcopal churches operating outside the mainstream.

As to the Anglican-rite Catholic Church/diocese which was supposed to be formed ... no one ever said that was "supposed to be formed". It was a supposition that folks made in the frenzy of the moment, imagining wide-scale departures of faithful from the Anglican/ Episcopal communion over Bishop Gene Robinson's episcopal ordination. Efforts to point out that this was not a likely prospect went unheeded.

Many years,

Neil

Daniel,

I agree, but whom they choose to venerate is their concern, not mine.

Precisely, and it is not our place to impose our standards on them - therefore, on whom they choose to place a halo is to be determined by their standards.

I would not submit Harvey Milk for sainthood nor commission an icon of him. But, again, it is not required that they seek my opinion or adhere to my standards for whom should be the subject of an icon that is theirs and will adorn their place of worship. Therefore, if there is an abuse involved, it is an abuse only of my sensibilities - which they aren't required, even in the name of charity, to acknowledge.

Many years,

Neil

But they we're not canonized as martyrs, but as passion-bearers, there's a distinction...


Christian

By ROCOR as martyrs, by the MP as passion-bearers, perhaps?

There seems to be a lack of mutual recognition of saints here. Perhaps someone would like to apologize to the MP for ROCOR and vice versa.

I agree, I am not suggesting that you, Neil, or I, Daniel are to be the judges of what is or is not holiness; I am saying that this is the role of the Church and that the iconographer is to respect this. The Church's objectivity protects us from venerating people merely because of our nationalism or because of the attractiveness of the people in question or because they represent a cause that we support. I mean if this was a Catholic nation and sainthood was conferred merely by popular assent, Elvis and Princess Di would be saints. [Indeed, Fr McNichols has done an iconic portrait of Princess Di!]
There is value in the Universal Church having jurisdiction over canonization so the local Church will not be blinded by its own impulses.
Yes, I had forgotten the Russian veneration for all who suffer unjustly as participating in the suffering of Christ [I actually wrote a paper on this in seminary]. While I agree in principle with this I still think that canonization is something more. Every suffering innocent may be mysteriously united with the Passion of Christ; that does not mean he or she is necessarily a saint, personally.

It isn't your place to ask anyone to leave.

Dear Antony,

Eastern Christians have had enough of Latins' historic disrespct for their traditions and their saints.

This is an Eastern Christian website and all that I've suggested is that if Latins here cannot maintain a certain level of respect for the Christian East - then, rather than continue to go on offending us here, they should consider participating in one of the many RC sites where such anti-Eastern bias may be better appreciated.

Roman Catholic anti-Eastern attitudes for "higher standards" of sanctity et alia are simply nauseating to Eastern Christians and anyone who is fair-minded.

Sorry you took offense. I do not have the authority to tell anyone to leave and I did not.

I only suggested this IF we cannot maintain that level of respect for the East on this, an Eastern Christian website.

Alex

Dear Iconophile,

Thank you for your kind apology.

I apologise for calling you a Latin - but your position is one that has been historically a Latin one.

Yes, the Ethiopian Orthodox do venerate Saint Pontius Pilate and do so in accordance to their own books concerning his conversion to Christ and death in Rome.

That is their right and there is such a thing as a local Saint.

The Roman Catholic Church has "Blessed Charlemagne" in its calendar under January 28th. It also has "Saint Lucifer of Cagliari" as well, a quite controversial saint.

The Bollandists uncovered all sorts of issues with the RC calendar, including the mistaken inclusion of the arch-heretic Arius under June 6 as "St Artotis" and the inclusion of the Buddha as "St Joasaph" under November 27!

I've seen atheists and agnostics come into the Church after reading about the lives of the Romanov Royal Passion-Bearers. Their veneration in Russia today seems to go hand in hand with a renewal of Orthodox Christian faith. Nothing but positive things and the Tsar was actually quite open to the Eastern Catholic Church in a way that other Tsars were not.

If you find my defense of Russian Saints refreshing, please note that I have venerated the Saints of Russian Orthodoxy ALL my life, especially St Seraphim of Sarov and others.

The fact that I criticise the Moscow Patriarchate and that other Ukrainian Catholics do does not mean that we are anti-Russian - any more than you criticising the canonization of the Russian Royal Family implying that you yourself are virulently anti-Russian which you are not.

In fact, Rome itself is quite desirous of being on very intimate terms with Moscow, at any price, it would seem . . .

There are many problems with the contemporary Roman Catholic canonization process itself, including the scandal of the price-tag for "proving" miracles, the issue of why about 90 percent of RC saints have traditionally come from the three main Latin countries and some others.

I would invite you to read the lives of the Russian saints in particular to see what truly deeply holy lives they led, lives of prayer, fasting and other ascetical works.

God bless,

Alex

Alex- I have and I love the Russian saints, am a bit of a Russophile to tell the truth. I never meant to imply that the West is immune from the canonization of questionable saints; however this was recognized as a problem around the time of Trent and as far as I know Rome has not canonized any stinkers since then.
I am aware that the process is not perfect; it does tend to favor religious orders. The present Pope seems eager to break the stranglehold of the vowed however...

Dear Daniel,

Then we are in agreement, Danny Boy! (It is close to St Patrick's Day, you know, and we had a great, big parade here yesterday).

I've nothing against Russians or Russophiles. But we Ukies (and others) have the right to defend our Church and our nationality in this respect, which I know you respect.

I"ll tell you why this whole thing about Eastern saints is a touchy subject.

Historically, the bad blood between Orthodox and Greek-Catholics tended to spill over in EC attacks against Orthodox saints.

Bl. Basil Velichkovsky, C.Ss.R. in Ukraine worked among the Orthodox of the Volyn Region and he discussed this in his "Rules" for his co-workers.

He criticizes historic "mean-mouthing" of Orthodox saints by EC's (EC's felt that since the Pope didn't canonize them, they were questionable saints!).

He then goes on to praise those Orthodox saints, especially the local ones that his co-workers were going to come into contact with during their parish visits.

He said these sanctified themselves by prayer and good works in life - and they are truly saints etc. He also recommended that his co-workers include them in their own local calendars in the areas where they were.

Blessed Basil's sincerity toward the Orthodox actually resulted in the bringing into the "Unia" of three Orthodox monks of Pochaiv and two Orthodox theologians in that region!

All five died as martyrs for union with Rome and Bl. Basil himself presented their cause in Rome when he was released from Siberia.

As you know, he was injected with a slow-acting poison by the Russians and died in Winnipeg, Canada during his visit here - and that is where his relics and shrine are today.

Certainly, Pope John Paul II has done very much to correct certain tendencies in the RC canonization process that Catholics themselves had criticized.

His most important contribution, as I see it, is the way in which he has brought the canonization and beatification process back to the Local Church on his more than 100 pastoral visits during what is now, as we know, the third longest pontificate in history.

He himself is widely read in the works of Orthodox saints and their writings, especially St Theophane the Recluse and St Ignatius Brianchaninov who were both canonized by the Orthodox Church in 1988.

There are three Tsars who have had a cult in Russia, and, besides St Nicholas Romanov and his family, these are St Alexander I (locally glorified in Siberia as the Elder Theodore Kuzmich) and Blessed Tsar Paul I (to whom newlyweds have an especial private devotion).

Tsar Paul I was very conciliatory toward the EC's and the Basilian Order in particular - Fr. Irenaeus Nazarko, OSBM, has nothing but high praise for this "just Tsar" in his book on the history of the Kyivan Metropolitans.

Tsar St Nicholas II, contrary to the communist-inspired propaganda that has conditioned Western scholastic and political perspectives on him, was very open to social change, even though his advisers who controlled the state were not.

In 1905, the Tsar reversed the historic Russian-imperialist trend toward Ukrainian culture by authorising the Moscow Academy of Sciences to declare that Ukrainian language and culture were not "part and parcel of Russian language and culture" but were independent entities with their own historic development.

And anyone who said differently was merely exhibiting "viciousness."

The Tsar actually had little stomach for the problems Russia was undergoing and for the conflicts.

Personally very holy, along with his family, he was in anguish over the sickness of his son, Alexis.

Always suspicious of Rasputin, the fact is that Tsaritsa Alexandra was consoled by Rasputin's ability to stop Alexis' bleeding etc.

Rasputin was a country bumpkin and charlatan who was very adept at getting his own way.

Robert Massie has done a great job of interpreting Rasputin in his "Nicholas and Alexandra" and I think his view about Rasputin's desire to simply be left along in his way of life is what truly led to his influence in having weak administrators appointed throughout Russia who were not against him.

Robert Massie himself, a writer on Russian historical topics, converted to Russian Orthodoxy along with his wife after doing his research on the lives of the Romanov Martyrs/Passion-bearers.

He felt their presence, he said, and continues to have an icon of the Royal Saints on his desk etc.

This experience is also that of many Russians who venerate them highly.

It is also my experience.

The distinction between "Martyr" and "Passion-Bearer" is really a minute one and hardly one that deserves the attention given it in a post above.

Services for "Passion-Bearers" in Slavonic also use the term "Martyrs" interchangeably.

As for St Pontius Pilate, I first came into contact with that cult when I met an Ethiopian priest at a blessing ceremony for an icon of the Romanov Saints . . .

The New Testament deuterocanonical books, recognized as scripture in Ethiopia, include the correspondence between Herod and Pilate.

In one letter, traditionally acknowledged by the Ethiopians as historic, Pilate describes how his wife, St Claudia-Procla, takes him to see the Risen Christ in a field where there were "about five hundred persons gathered, listening to Him."

"As I approached, the ground under me seemed to move and I fell on my face. All around was the smell of roses. And He came to me and put His Hands on me - I could see the marks of the nails on them. And He said to me, "Blessed for all generations are you, Pontius Pilate, for in the time of your governance was fulfilled all that was written concerning Me."

Pilate was later arrested by order of Tiberius and sent to Rome to give an account of the disturbances at Jerusalem etc.

And this we know from the account of Origen himself.

The Ethiopian texts continue to say that Pilate was sentenced to death by Tiberius since he put to death a miracle-worker who could have been used for Roman imperial purposes . . .

As he knelt for the axe, Pilate is recorded as saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my soul."

As his head was cut off, his wife, Claudia-Procla (venerated as a saint in the Byzantine Churches) saw an angel catch it before it hit the ground.

And, at this point, Claudia died from joy that her husband had come to the Lord and died in Him.

The feast day of Sts Pontius Pilate and Claudia in Ethiopia is June 25th.

Alex

The "Dancing Saints" of St. Gregory's parish forms the subject of a major scholarly article which *LOGOS: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies* is publishing in the next little while. Watch for it at serious libraries everywhere! And if you don't get it, why not?