www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall St. Alexis Toth

Slava Jesu Kristu,

I was wondering if anyone thinks it is a good idea to reclaim St. Alexis Toth as our own? Or, have some done this that I am unaware?

Although the circumstances of his life are saddening, I still feel he is an example of exactly what we are trying to accomplish since Vatican II.

Perhaps he can serve as Patron Saint of that Movement? Any ideas...

Dmitri

Dmitri,
Yours is a most worthy post. Thank you.
But Alexis, as a self-proclaimed Orthodox and as an acclaimed Orthodox Saint, is beyond us (Eastern Catholics) to reclaim him as "our own" -- unless we become Orthodox.
Is to "become Orthodox" the essence of the Papal summons for us? One must think not. I do think that the summons is for us to reclaim the Eastern Patrimony that we share with the Orthodox, and in doing so witness to the West what it is to be a Communal (i.e., "local churches in communion") Church.
Then, in that future time, when we Eastern Catholics have summoned the courage to fulfill our mission and the Western Church exhibits the the humility to have learned, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Catholics could join the Orthodox in proclaiming Alexis "Saint."
Let us pray for that day.

Just my quick thoughts.

[ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

According to OCA sources, St. Alexis Toth was found to be incorrupt when he was exhumed. His relics were then placed within the seminary chapel itself at St. Tikhon's Seminary in South Canaan, Pa. In addition, prior to canonization there were also miracles attributed to his intercession. In other words, people had prayed to St. Alexis Toth, and God worked a miracle in their lives. It seems to me that whether you are Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox that his status is pretty indisputable as a result, and the politics of this world pale by comparison.

He's in my icon corner. That's all that concerns me.

Is he actually IN the chapel? When I visited there this summer, his crypt was adjacent to the apse. Is it empty? By the way, it's a very nice chapel, quite Greek Catholic in design and decoration.

If you go there, be sure to visit the grave of Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, who is down near the new building at the foot of the hill.

[Is he actually IN the chapel?]

His reliquary is in the main Church on the right side of the Iconostasis. The crypt where his ody was entombed is empty.

[When I visited there this summer, his crypt was adjacent to the apse. Is it empty? By the way, it's a very nice chapel, quite Greek Catholic]

????? What makes it more Greek Catholic than Orthodox Catholic? It doesn't contain any stations of the Cross or sacred heart Icons, etc.

OrthoMan

The design and decorations are more typical of Western Ukraine and Carpathian churches than it is of Russian churches. This, of course, should not be surprising, considering the origins of many of the Russian Orthodox Mission's people (a quick check of the cemetary will show how many of the priests, deacons and monks were of Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn extraction).

St. Alexis was canonized by the Orthodox Church, his intercession has worked miracles, his body was incorrupt, he is a saint, period.

He will feature strongly in this years Byzantine Spirituality Conference and he will be referenced as St. Alexis in the materials there. (I prepared most of them)

Now I wouldn't expect to find a Byzantine Catholic Church named after him any time soon, but someday. In anycase he is ours in that he is Rusyn and was defending our Greek Catholic Church from disappearing. One must wonder if St. Alexis and Metropolitan Orestes had not left union with Rome would Rome have erected exarchates for us? I tend to think not and we would have diappeared. So as much as Archbishop Ireland is responsible for the existance of the OCA, I think St. Alexis is responsible for the existance of the Ruthenian Metropolia.

In Christ,
Lance

[ 09-07-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

Lance,

This is a very, very good point.

Anthony

Esteemed Stuart:

1. By "claim him as our own," I meant according him a place on our Metropolia's calendar. This ain't gonna happen. He properly belongs on the Orthodox calendar. (Meanwhile, enjoy the freedom to put whomever you wish in your icon corner.)

2. My comments were to the nature of the Pope's summons. You proclaimed of your view of our "destiny." Potatoes and cabbage.
(Yours is that of many Melkites, as I'm sure you well know. Mine, too.)

3. We don't need Rome's permission to proclaim our own saints? I honestly don't know about that, but I would wager that we could not stand up to the Vatican's heavy duty objection if we chose someone not to its liking.

"I tend to think not and we would have diappeared. So as much as Archbishop Ireland is responsible for the existance of the OCA, I think St. Alexis is responsible for the existance of the Ruthenian Metropolia."

Esteemed Lance,
Interesting point, but I can't see OCA putting Ireland on its calendar.

This sounds a little too much like knee-jerk "Rome done us wrong". Here are some facts.

An Apostolic Vicarate was establshed for US Greek Catholics in 1902. This is after the clash between Saint Alexis and Bishop Ireland, and after the defeat of the Toth party in the Wilkes-Barre trial, but long before there was any large trend toward Orthodoxy among US Greek Catholics.

Soter Ortinsky became the first Bishop of the American Greek Catholics in 1906/7. At this point there were several thousand former Greek Catholics in the Orthodox Church in the US. The promulgation of Ea Semper in 1907, led to tremendous battling ultimately culminating in a large movemevent of some 100,000 starting in 1909 - the year that Saint Alexis died. Two Bishops were appointed in 1916 after the Death of Bishop Ortinsky by 1918 the Ukrainian and Ruthenian juridictions had separated - the former under Bishop Poniatyshyn, the latter under Bishop Martyak. In 1924 he was suceeded by Bishop Takach. It was not until 1938 that the ACRGCOD was established with Orested Chornok as the First Bishop and later Matropolitan (1966).

Thus there was an ecclesiastical structure separate from the local Latin ordinaries in the US some thirty years - and a Greek Catholic Bishopric some twenty years before the movement of Bishop Chronok got going. There are no grounds whatsoever to assert that that movement in any way facilitated the establishment of exarchates for us or helped in preventing our disappearance. What an idea!

The situation with St. Alexis is less clear. On the one hand the establishment of a Greek Catholic Exarchate (1977) for the Rusyns who migrated to present day Yugoslavia/Croatia, establishes the precedent that Rome would appoint establish and exarchate and appoint a Bishop when a substantial enough migration occurred. The ultimate extent of the immigration to the US was not clear in 1890, but by 1905 it was. It is intereting to note the the Cathollic encyclopedia article of around that time already anticipates the erection of a US Greek Catholic diocese.

The immediate effects of Saint Alexis are thus hard to judge. The indirect effects, however, are much clearer: he certainly paved the way for the later (1909) large-scale movement to Orthodoxy among our people. Another point is also clear. His effort to preserve our traditions, cannot be judged as an unqualified sucess. Our cherished prostopinije has all but vanished in the OCA, as part of a wholesale Russification that occured among our people there.

Is he a saint? However wise or smooth he may or may not have been, I am certainly convinced that he was entirely motivated by his devoted concern for the spiritual well-being of his people, and am happy to embrace him without qualification for this. And he was what my Dad would call, sub rosa, a "real Rusnak" (a badge of honor where I come from!). And you bet your @$$ that I hope that "real Rusnaks" can be counted among the saints.

djs

[ 09-07-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

DJS,

Not "Rome done us wrong" at all. Just something I think is supported by the historical actions taken. However, I think you should review your facts. In 1902 we were given an Apostolic Visitator, an office with absolutely no power, but one of observation and reporting. Bishop Soter, when first appointed, was only an episcopal vicar to the Latin ordinaries, an auxillary bishop with no jurisdiction or real power. It was not until 1913, when several parishes had left union, that an Apostolic Exarchate was set up.

The Eparchy of Krizevci was erected in 1777, but please remember the Eparchy of Mukachevo was only "erected" in 1771. In both cases an actual eparchy and episcopal lineage existed before official recognition by Rome. In the case of Krizevci, the original founders were Serb refugees (who later became Croatized) fleeing the Turks who settled in the Zhumberak district of Croatia who with the Serbian Orthodox Archimandrite of Marcha, Simeon, accepted union in 1611. Simeon was ordained bishop and was made Byzantine vicar of the Latin Archbishop of Estergom, then the Latin Archbishop of Zagreb before erection as an Eparchy. The Rusyn immigrants to the Bachka region were included in the new Eparchy but it was not erected soley because of or for them. It should also be considered that this area was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire but like Eastern Slovakia and Carpathia was aregion with a significant Orthodox population so it is unlike the situation in America.

Given the above I will stick by my hypothesis that it was the loss of parishes to the Orthodox that finally motivated Rome to give us our own jurisdictions.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance wrote:


It's my belief that most Ruthenians would agree.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

(who has had St Alexis in my icon corner for the past 4 years....could anyone recommend a place where I could obtain an icon of St Josaphat, preferably about 4" x 6"? I figure if these two saints can co-exist in heaven they can also co-exist on my lowly icon corner )