Here is a photo of the tomb of Saint Josaphat, located in the Chapel of Saint Basil in Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican:

[Linked Image]

The body of Saint Josaphat is incorrupt, and was taken to the Vatican in order to safeguard the remains from desecration.

I had the privilege of seeing his body 2 months ago. What a blessing. Also of course we know there's a tomb of St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom and many other saints, including St. Andrew the Apostle and few other Apostles buried in the Vatican, can't remember which one.

But there are 8 Apostles buried in the City of Rome. How awesome is that!!!???

There are countless of relics in Rome, that you can't even begin to imagine! Including the stuff Jesus Himself used, such as the Holy Cross, the Last Supper table, the crown, nail, staircase to PPilate, etc.

I'd say that Rome is the 2nd holiest city in the world, just after Jerusalem.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

XB!

Plenty of relics, to be sure, but I'm not entirely sure that makes it the 2nd Holiest city after Jerusalem... most of the relics there are the result of Latin thievery and plunder after all.

In Domino,

Edward

The relics don't make Rome the 2nd holiest city, but certainly the BLOOD of martyers do!

Besides that you are so wrong about the "Latin theivery" of relics!!! Many of the stuff was brought to Rome from Emperor Constantine and his mother and many other emperors. Also is in result of Rome protecting holy things during the Crusades, the attack of Islam on Christianity.

And number 3, I've experienced something so extraordinary. I was alone in the very catacomb of St. Peter, yes that's below the crypt of the Church. I've experienced the Holy Spirit taking over me...as I was kneeling on the ground and leaning against the very wall of the catacombs. The Spirit have confirmed that Peter is INDEED the earthly head of the Church, the Prince of Apostles.

I have concluded that I don't give a hoot to what the Orthodox think about the Peterine ministry. Whether they like it or not, Peter and the successors of Peter are the earthly head of the Church, while we all know that Jesus is the Head of the Church. I have full confidence now, since the Holy Spirit Himself told me so.

I have learned that it is through the pope, the Church remains in unity and in one piece while the Orthodox and Protestants are just scattered all about divided.

The pope is the guardian of unity. It does NOT mean he's a dictator or a ruler of the Church.

So, it is because of the fact, Rome is indeed ROME of all ROMES (not Constantinople, Moscow, Antioch, EVER!). Constantinople can't be seen as the "New Rome" unless they're "wanna-bes." Rome is Rome and that's where the heart of the Church is (both Eastern and Western).

When I was in Rome, I was like "Awww wow!!! It's the Orthodox's major LOSS to not be in communion with Rome." One would never imagine how powerful the Orthodox will become if they're in communion with Rome.

It's no wonder Patriarch Alexi of Moscow is sooo overly terrified of Catholics, because he knows the greatness of the Catholic Church.

The fact many great relics in St. Peter's Church as well as all the major basilicas in Rome and in many Cathedrals throughout the city of Rome is a great testimony that all in the Christendom have greately entrusted in Rome and have seen Rome as the main Christian Center of the whole world.

God bless.

SPDundas
Proud to be Deaf BYZANTINE

Someone has been overdoing the alcohol...

And I'm sure everyone thinks Pope Alexancer VI was a wonderful example of what leadership should be like...

I think that was extremely rude and uncharitable on your part. I suggest you withdraw your statement.

On the second part of your post, no one makes any claims for the saintliness of Alexander VI. I am sure that we could run up a nice list of Patriarchs from around the Levant that would make appropriate travelling companions for you and Alexander VI.

Michael

I was taking issue with the previous poster's comments actually. Many of the relics were stolen, particularly after 1204. I don't really miss the Pope and I am sure that everything will be so better when he and his Church rejoins Communion with the Eastern Church.

As for corrupt Eastern Patriarchs, yes there were many but none claimed universal power of authority....

Dear SPDundas,

Yes, indeed, Rome is a very special and holy place. I was there briefly, and pray to make a pilgrimage back there to see all the holy churches and relics. I am Greek Orthodox, and although there will always be a historical and spiritual bond to what was once Constantinople, facts are facts. It is gone and taken over by Islam...thank God that all the holy relics of our common Christian patrimony have been saved in Rome.

Would you be so kind as to supply a list of churches to see these relics in, or is there perhaps a special 'religious' tour person one can contact when one visits for such a tour? EWTN often has a lovely series on the ancient churches of Rome, but I certainly wouldn't remember them off hand.

And Anton, yes, it would be a blessing for the Pope, Patriarch of Rome, to come into full communion with his brethren Eastern Patriarchs...we are both incomplete without each other. Prayer and an open, loving heart may accomplish this. Polemics, fear, cultural misunderstandings, triumphalism, dogmatic pride, etc. which so many of our brethren espouse will not.

Wishing you both many, many blessings,
In the Risen Christ,
Alice

AntonI:

As a student of history (did you pass your exams?), you presumably are well aware that the abuses of episcopal office characteristic of the Borgia years are rife within Orthodoxy. Moreover, "universal power of authority" has been exercised over the last millenium by EP's on a scale that dwarfs anything from Rome. Presumably, however, you discern that the Patriarch of Rome should be held to a higher standard: on this point I agree with you.

I think that your comment on "leadership" - an attrbute difficult to define - is an interesting one. You are probably in a better position to sift through legend, and misinformation to get to the reality of the personal impiety of Pope Alexander VI. But from the perspective of the public life, I like this remark of Orson Welles:

Dear Friends,

I was going to say that this might prove to be a touchy issue and we'd all should be on our best behaviour . . .

The relics of St Josaphat had a quite controversial past. Pope Paul VI had them brought to Rome for safe-keeping and to avoid further tension with the Orthodox.

The Basilian Fathers also had relics of a number of other Basilians who were killed, most notably by Peter the First, and tended to use these as a way of promoting the Unia.

Whenever we are feeling especially "triumphant" with respect to St Josaphat, let us remember that the Orthodox too have their martyr in the person of St Athanasius of Brest.

The Ihumen of the Brest Monastery, he criticized the use of gendarmes to enforce the Unia and, in 1648, following the first defeat of the Polish forces by Hetman Bohdan Khmelnitsky, he was arrested by the Poles and questioned by the Jesuits.

In the end, he was taken to a clearing in the woods and ordered to dig his own grave. He was then shot twice in the head and buried alive - we know this from the position of his fingers when his body was later exhumed.

He was glorified a saint and a Venerable Martyr and his feast, September 18 (mark your calendars everyone!) became popular not only with Orthodox, but with Catholics as well.

For this purpose, the Jesuits placed the feast of Josaphat on September 16 in an effort to divert energy and attention from St Athanasius' pilgrimage.

Met. Andrew Sheptytsky later restored the feast of St Josaphat to November 12/25.

The Orthodox in Ukraine venerate locally one Danilo Kushnir, an Orthodox Reader, who was forcibly taken out of his church during liturgical services and publicly murdered by Eastern Catholics.

So let's keep everything in balance, shall we?

Alex

Dear spdundas,

Well, the Holy Spirit has indicated to me that the Pope is the first among equals in the Church but that differences in doctrine between East and West have to be worked out in a Council before that primacy can be reactivated throughout the East once more.

Alex

Dear Edward and AntonI:

You can't say that every relic in Rome was the product of a theft from Constantinople.

Many great relics came over after the fall of the city, but the vast majority were in Rome already.

Saint Helena brought back numerous relics from her trip to the Holy Land.

These including pieces of the true cross, the holy nails, and even bushels of dirt excavated from Calvary.

It is also a well know fact that the Byzantine Emperors on a number of occasions sent emissaries to Rome to get relics for their churches.

You can't say that a church which was literally built upon the blood of it's early Saints, didn't have any relics before 1204.

As for Alexander VI, a priest friend of mine actually preached a sermon on his life.

He made the point that the pope considered himself to be a Renaissance prince and as such did not change any doctrine or moral discipline of the church.

The Borgias were certainly not a wholesome lot but one has to wonder if Julius II, who hated them with a passion, had anything to do with their current infamous reputation.

Julius II was the natural Papal successor, he served as a minister to his uncle Pope Sixtus, and only lost election after Rodrigo Borgia bribed the electors.

When Julius became Pope he eradicated anything related to the Borgias and even had new living quarters made in the Vatican so that he would not use the Borgia rooms.

defreitas

Dear Jose,

Yes, indeed!

And Julius II was himself a Pope known for his lewd sexual preferences and terrible habit of cursing people using the foulest of language and out loud . . .

His hatred of the Borgias was more along political, rather than any other, lines.

He wanted to canonize Savonarola as a way to formally solidifying the Church's condemnation of his Borgia victimizers.

In those days, Cardinals were made at whim by people who regularly failed to inform the pope.

One pope met a group of huntsmen coming into Rome who told them they were Cardinals. The pope didn't believe them and said he had never seen or heard of them before in his life!

After he got back to Rome, that pope found out that those men truly WERE cardinals!

On the other hand, Patriarchs of Constantinople regularly seemed to fall into heresy. Moscow itself deemed the Council of Florence as yet another example of the propensity of the Greeks to go the heretical way . . .

But Orthodox Russia itself was also known to take icons and relics from other Orthodox Churches (let's see, ah, the Ukrainian Church for one!).

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, in other words . . .

And the fact is that Byzantine Emperors would often send relics as gifts to the West and also to the newly developing Orthodox Churches above the Black Sea.

Was the taking of the Relics of St Nicholas from Myra in Lycia to Bari by Italian merchants an act of theft?

The Orthodox Church has never historically thought so and there is an Orthodox Feast of the Translation of the Relics of St Nicholas for May 9/22.

This feast is one of three "national" Church Feasts in the Kyivan Church (along with the Feast of the Maccabees and the Holy Protection).

Alex

Sp,

I am glad you are proud of your Church but some of your language is SO trimphalistic and is one of the reasons some Orthodox people recoil from any relation at all with the Catholic Church. This sort of language "the greatness of the Catholic Church" etc is something not even Rome itself uses in relation to the Orthodox world these days. It reminds of something from the time of Pius IX.
You have zeal and God be praised for that but please think over some of that language (granted, some Orthodox go off the deep end too! But please, resist the urge to look at the world through "Rome-coloured" glasses. The world is bigger then that!!!

A topic for discussion...

Should the holy and incorrupt body of Saint Josaphat remain at the Vatican or should it be translated to a Byzantine Catholic church?

Should the relics be enshrined at Saint Sophia's Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral in Rome or should they be enshrined in Ukraine such as St. George's in Lviv or the new UC cathedral that is being built in Kyiv?

Would the translation of the relics to a Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic church lead to a greater veneration of Saint Josaphat among Byzantine Catholics?

St. Josaphat's in Parma, of course !!!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spdundas:

"I've experienced the Holy Spirit taking over me...as I was kneeling on the ground and leaning against the very wall of the catacombs. The Spirit have confirmed that Peter is INDEED the earthly head of the Church, the Prince of Apostles."

"I have full confidence now, since the Holy Spirit Himself told me so."

I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but I have to say that even though you are defending a Catholic doctrine, you are doing it in a very Protestant manner. This way of speaking "The Holy Spirit spoke to me" "When I was reading my Bible this morning, the Lord said to me...", sounds like something a Pentacostal preacher would say.

I think we should be very careful in interpreting our personal, individual religious experiences and emotions as "God has now confirmed once and for all..." Better leave that to the saints.

"I have learned that it is through the pope, the Church remains in unity and in one piece while the Orthodox and Protestants are just scattered all about divided."

I'm not so sure that I buy this claim that the Orthodox are so divided...in terms of the earthly, temporal organization, yes. But that's really not what's most important, not to us Orthodox anyway. I think we have more unity of faith than the Catholics have. There are no "Hans Kungs" in Orthodoxy.

"So, it is because of the fact, Rome is indeed ROME of all ROMES (not Constantinople, Moscow, Antioch, EVER!)"

hm, Antioch was also founded by St.Peter...

"Constantinople can't be seen as the "New Rome" unless they're "wanna-bes.""

As far as I know, there was an Ecumenical Council which gave the title of "New Rome" to Constantinople.

"It's the Orthodox's major LOSS to not be in communion with Rome."

I think Rome have to clean up it's own house before it will be a loss for the Orthodox not to be in communion with it. I even know Catholics who have said that it would be a disaster for the Orthodox to join Rome just at this moment.

"One would never imagine how powerful the Orthodox will become if they're in communion with Rome."

Well, "power" is really not what we are searching for.

"The fact many great relics in St. Peter's Church as well as all the major basilicas in Rome and in many Cathedrals throughout the city of Rome is a great testimony that all in the Christendom have greately entrusted in Rome and have seen Rome as the main Christian Center of the whole world."

It could also be said to be a testimony of some not-so-holy "Vicars of Christ" who sent crusaders to burn and steal form their Christian "brothers".

Christian
Proud to be Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome! (or actually, rather thankful, than proud)

Dear Griego,

Well, some of the commentary I've read about the bringing of St Josaphat's Relics to Rome suggested that this was done to avoid further issues with the Orthodox.

The Basilians and also the Polish Kingdom had used these Relics for purposes of, how shall I say, "stuffing the Unia down the throats of the Orthodox."

St Josaphat is a MOST controversial figure among the Eastern Slavs and continues to be that.

Even Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky was most sensitive to this fact.

The revamped service to St Josaphat seems (to me at least) to have pulled out the more triumphalistic phraseology.

(The Orthodox are no longer referred to as our "schism-loving brothers" Isn't that a scream?! )

And the Ukrainian Catholic clergy and faithful are divided on him as well.

When I once asked a Ukrainian Catholic priest why the Orthodox reacted as they did against Josaphat, he simply told me, "Because he got under their skin to the point where they couldn't take it any longer."

At a Litia service when St Josaphat's name was mentioned, a babushka next to me said audibly, "Are we still commemorating that . . . (I won't complete her sentence).

The official history in four volumes of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by Prof. Vadim Scherbakiwsky notes the historical episode with St Josaphat and states that "this was an inappropriate response on the part of the Orthodox that damaged ecumenical relations."

Orthodox never will give their children the name "Josaphat" and especially in East Slavic cultures.

Eugene Ivankiw, writing for the "Visnyk" of Sts. Volodymyr and Olha parish in Chicago once stated that St Josaphat is truly a controversial figure and we (meaning Ukie Catholics) should not go parading him about to the further damaging of Catholic-Orthodox relations (meaning "Ukrainian" in this context).

I once squealed on my piano teacher, who was Orthodox, who told me some things about Josaphat. My mother promptly fired her, something I've always been sorry about.

I once had an open and heated argument with my Ukrainian literature teacher in Saturday school about St Josaphat and upset her to the point that she started to cry and left the class.

St Josaphat is so controversial a figure that today I would say it is best to keep him and his cult in Rome and away from the Eastern Slavs, especially the Ukies.

If there was a way to accept both Josaphat and Athanasius of Brest, and there isn't, that would be a way out.

But we have our own New Martyrs and saints today, Catholic and Orthodox, and we share a common historical heritage, we Ukie Catholics and Orthodox.

It will be some time before the time in which Josaphat lived and other figures such as Meletius Smotrytsky, whose writing led to Josaphat's death, and who is today honoured by BOTH Catholics and Orthodox (believe it or not) can be reassessed.

The name of Josaphat is too closely associated with all the dark sides of the Unia of Brest-Litovsk and especially with the Catholic demand that the Orthodox "convert" as if they weren't already Christian etc.

He is truly misunderstood, I believe. But no one can help that today.

Alex

You could say it but it would be a false statement.

Dear djs,

True, but some popes, like Innocent III, didn't exactly apologise for the excesses of the Crusaders of his day either - instead he accepted and worked under the status quo.

And the Teutonic Knights attacked Rus' mercilessly in the time of St Alexander Nevsky and so did not contribute to an improvement of East-West relations . . .

The papal armies tried to conquer the Czechs five times and failed, thanks to the old general Zizka!

(The Hussites later taught their successful anti-Crusader military tactics to the armies of St Theodore Ostrozhsky in his struggle with Poland).

This prompted Erasmus of Rotterdam to comment satirically on such church-sponsored wars.

I believe he said, "Our bishops, in fact, stay as far away from religion as possible - to them, praying is seen as a waste of time. They would rather boast of their swords and side-arms . . ."

Alex

But of course, dear Alex, these sidearms could not be seen as applying to the palitzas (thigh-shields) of the bishops of the Byzantine Rite, be they Catholic or Orthodox! :-)

OrthodoxEast

Dear OrthodoxEast,

Yes, indeed, the sidearms referred to by Erasmus were of much more durable material . . . .

I think I mentioned to you that a priest was blessed with the Palitza at the OCA ordination I attended?

What is the difference between the Palitza and the Epigonation? Are they the same? If not, what would a priest do if he received both?

Alex

Yes, Alex, we've discussed the fourth crusade in exhaustive detail before
https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000661;p=1.
I am not positive that that is precisely what OSWE had in mind. But, if so, I wanted to clarify, that the idea that the Crusaders were sent to Constantiople by the Pope really turns history completely upside-down.

Dear djs,

I'm not suggesting otherwise!

And if I go into details that we've covered before, and I know I have, then this is for some here that may have come on recently and might wonder what the heck we're talking about.

I don't mean to offend by repeating what is well-known to us and I apologise if I have.

Certainly, Popes have sent armies to fight wars.

The Crusaders, largely a rabble of bandits that the West was happy to get off its hands, fought and pillaged in the name of the Roman Catholic Church.

My point is that it is very difficult for those who suffered their piracies to separate them from the RC Church and the Pope.

And by pillaging Orthodox Churches and Shrines, the Crusaders expressed the view of the Western Church toward the East that, since it was "in schism," it no longer had grace etc. and, from the Crusaders' point of view, could be the object of pillaging and looting.

Alex

Dear Ruthenian Colleagues,

Is devotion to St Josaphat strong among the Ruthenians?

How would you characterize it?

Alex

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear in Christ, Alex, the palitza and the epignation are one and the same, i.e., they are the diamond-shaped thigh-shield which always hangs on the right side.

The nabedrennik, however, is the rectangular-shaped thigh shield, and is normally associated with the Russian recension. Among the Russians, the nabedrennik is usually the first "award" given to a priest. It is worn on the right side UNTIL he is awarded the palitza (epignation), usually when he is already an Archpriest, at which time the nebedrennik is switched to the left side since the palitza is *always* worn on the right. Confused yet?

OrthodoxEast

Dear OrthodoxEast,

Ah, so ultimately the priest could have a rectangular shaped "knee-protector" on both sides!

Sometimes I regret not becoming a priest - and just so I could wear such things . . .

But the problem with me would be that I would be forever fidgeting with them, like toys or something .

When I first heard the word "palitza" used I was confused as that word means "staff" as well.

In other words, I have a heck of a lot to learn about our beautiful traditions!

So what else is new?

Alex

Alex, once when I was in Our Lady of the Cedars Melkite Catholic Church in Manchester, NH, a group of Latin Rite Catholic youngsters was attending the Liturgy being served by Fr. Edward Kakaty, who was then the pastor. After the Liturgy, Fr. Ed held a question-and-answer session for them. They were most curious to know why Fr. Ed (who was privileged to wear an epignation) wore a pillow on his hip! :-)

OrthodoxEast

Dear OrthodoxEast,

Actually, the Old Believers of Bilaya Krinitsa have their square-shaped pillows for prostrations all over the Church - there are even pillows standing up against the iconostasis and they DO look like epigonations!

I ordered one from them and these pillows come with a loop at one corner so people can carry them at their sides . . .

Do you think those Latin youngsters had any Old Believer relatives?

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your reply.

I find it so sad regarding the reputation St. Josaphat has among the Orthodox and certain Catholics. He is vilified by the Orthodox, considered controversial by Byzantine Catholics, and not that well known among Roman Catholics. One could say he is the "Rodney Dangerfield" of the saints- "He can't get no respect"!

Never has there been a saint that has caused so much reaction when brought up in discussion. Every time a post has been started about Saint Josaphat, it has always lead to arguments. Even Alexis Toth doesn't come near to being considered that controversial.

Saint Josaphat is one of my favorite saints and I do hope that the truth about the extraordinary holiness of this saint will be recognized by both Orthodox and Catholics.

Saint Josaphat, Apostle of Union, pray for us and for the union of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches!!!

Dear Griego,

One issue with St Josaphat has less to do with him personally than with the way in which he was used by certain individuals to promote or impose union of the Orthodox with Rome.

Yes, this is sad.

What is even sadder is the painful memories of the "convert" programs of the RC authorities in Eastern Europe and also by EC religious Orders.

In addition, Josaphat is closely linked, of course, to the very essence of the Unia of Brest-Litovsk - something that even Rome today denies could ever be a model for "union" again.

The "logic" of that Unia from the RC side was that the Orthodox were "schismatics" in need of being "brought under" the jurisdiction of Rome.

This was also an attitude copped by many EC's later on toward their own Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Josaphat did indeed promote the Unia and, in accordance with the traditions of the time, he was not above using the civil power and authority to secure it.

For example, to maintain control over all the Greek Catholics under him, Josaphat enforced a law via the civil powers that ensured that all GC's went to confession during Lent to a GC priest.

One needed to get a certificate that proved that one went to Lenten confession from the GC priest and if one didn't, then an actual civil fine was levied! This is written up in the Basilian history of St Josaphat . . .

At a time when the Unia of Brest-Litovsk was being imposed on Orthodox parishes via the gendarmerie (who wanted to make sure that the "Filioque" was recited when the Creed was sung in Uniate parishes, for example), the use of the civil authorities by Josaphat was most alarming to both Orthodox and EC people.

On the day of his death at the hands of an unruly mob, Josaphat seemed to be inviting anger by having an individual arrested etc.

Of his desire for martyrdom in his cause - of this there can be no doubt.

When the mob descended on his home, Josaphat actually had an opportunity to make peace with them with respect to his "promotional activities."

He was brutally murdered afterwards and the mob even dressed him up in his episcopal robes, raising his lifeless body up, again and again, saying, "Come on, Vladyko, wake up - it's time to go preach the Unia!"

The Orthodox leaders and population condemned this act of murder. Many Orthodox actually became Catholic in the wake of this act than during Josaphat's lifetime.

Orthodox writers, who had no reason to like Josaphat or what he stood for, were known to defend his own personal morality and some even said that "he was genuine in believing in the rightness of his cause."

Orthodox even lined up to see Josaphat lying in state. Observers of different faiths noted that the Orthodox who walked by the coffin of Josaphat tried to "sniff" to see if there was an "odour of sanctity" about him!

And a number actually did bend over and kiss his exposed right hand - something Orthodox writers have never denied.

In fact, the Orthodox dislike for Josaphat developed not at the time of his death - he was done to death by a mob that did not represent the Orthodox population by any means - it developed later due to the political manipulation of Josaphat's memory by the Poles and Basilians especially.

For example, Josaphat was often painted as a Western hierarch, promoting all sorts of Latin devotions - this is the image the Poles and Basilians wanted to paint.

In fact, Josaphat was a scrupulous keeper of the Eastern traditions. He even forbade the introduction of the Carmelite Order on the grounds that it was primarily a Latin Order. (And on that score, I and others would disagree with him - but that is an aside, his heart was in the right place).

Josaphat didn't even insist that someone make an act of submission to the Pope to become "in communion with Rome" (something required of heretics becoming RC).

He would only have those wishing to become Eastern Catholic come into communion with the Eastern Catholic Metropolitan of Kyiv.

The Metropolitan was, in fact, the only EC hierarch or clergyman who actually commemorated the Pope of Rome in the Divine Liturgy - and that only once!

Josaphat visited the Kyivan Caves Lavra, and despite all the shaking of fists at him, he calmly had a conversation with the monks about liturgical rubrics and usage.

These same monks calmed down and then later accompanied Josaphat to the gates of Kyiv to prevent anyone attacking the infamous "soul-snatcher" ("Dushekhvat")

Again, the poor opinion of Josaphat among the Orthodox came not from Josaphat directly, but from the way he was used and interpreted by the fanatical Catholic promoters of the Unia later.

Let us also remember that the Churches in general were aligned with the secular powers, including the Russian Orthodox Church.

And the fact that Josaphat would often debate the Orthodox about the issue of union with Rome - well, he also debated Christianity with the Jews of his time.

And these same Jews found nothing wrong with that - they even defended him in writing.

Alex

It would be truly wonderful if the Holy Hieromartyr Josaphat worked some spectacular miracle just as the Holy Hieromonk Charbel did a few years ago in Lebanon. Maybe a delicious perfume emanating from his relics/tomb in St. Peter's. Holy Hieromartyr Josaphat and Holy Hieromonk Charbel pray for us unto Christ our God.
Silouan, old monk

Bless me a sinner, Father Silouan,

Actually, the relics of St Josaphat are not only incorrupt, they DO exude an aromatic odour!

This was first noticed by the Orthodox themselves when they walked by his coffin in Vitebsk, ostensibly to get a last look at their "enemy."

Father, your avatar is the miraculous image of Our Lady of Loreto, is it not?

Alex

Well, it's been over two years since I asked these questions, but I recently found this article on the "Catholic Church in Lithuania" website which provides some answers.

Vilnius, June 21: Basilians Intend to Transfer Relics of St. Josaphat to Vilnius

The provincial of the Holy Savior province of Ukrainian Order of Saint Basil Fr. Hrigory Hrinkiv announced the plan to transfer some relics of St. Josaphat from Rome to Vilnius. On Tuesday press conference he informed about the impressive plans of Basilians to restore the Holy Trinity monastery and The Holy Trinity Church.

�Lithuanian capital City Vilnius is the homeland of Basilians. Archbishop of Polotsk Josaphat Kuncevyc (Jozofat Kuncewicz) lived here in the Holy Trinity monastery, before he was killed by the enemies of Church unity in 1623,and afterwards canonized saint�, said Fr. Hrinkiv. He said that reconstruction should be finished before the 400 anniversary of Basilian Order to be celebrated in 2017.

According to the act of restitution, in 1992�1992 the buildings of the Holy Trinity monastery were gradually returned to the ownership of the Church. Until now Vilnius Archdiocesan Curia owns three-fourth part of the Holy Trinity monastery and one fourth belongs to the Basilian Order. Basilian superiors have expressed their wish to get back the ownership over the whole monastery.

There are 5 Eastern Catholic (Uniate) communities in Lithuania. Greek Catholics are among 9 religious communities being officially recognized by Lithuanian law.


Catholic Internet Service

There has been a marvelous ecumenical advance, thanks to the OCA. All devotees of Saint Josaphat, should rush out and purchase copes of The Priest's Service Book, published by the Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of the South, 4222 Wycliff Ave, PO Box 191109, Dallas, Texas 75219.

When the book arrives, turn to page 21, and see for yourselves who appears in the list of Saints. No doubt the next edition will include Saint Andrew Bobola, Saint Therese of Lisieux, and Saint Pius X.

Incognitus the Inquisitive Inquisitor

Dear Incognitus,

You mean St Josaphat himself is listed there?

If so, are you sure it isn't "St Josaphat Prince of India" who is commemorated in the same month?

I once heard an Orthodox priest tell me he had nothing against "local veneration" of St Josaphat.

And we know that the Orthodox flocked to see the saint's body lying in state and often even kissed his hand etc.

But for the OCA to include him in their calendar?

And to reject the rosary as purely RC?

Now that is interesting, Incognitus the Inquisitive Inquisitor.

Did you know that, with you, the I's have it?

Alex

The one in India is Joasaph, not Josaphat, and is not a hierarch.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

I'm just trying to find out, without buying the book you mention, if St Josaphat is indeed listed there.

Is he?

Or is that a secret too?

By the way, did you receive the copy of the akathist to Bl. Karl von Habsburg I sent to the Administrator to pass along to you?

What did you think of it?

Alex

St. Josephat in the Priest's Service Book? How did THAT one slip by the editors?

I have to look into this one, too!

Dave

posted 09-06-2005 02:31 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been a marvelous ecumenical advance, thanks to the OCA. All devotees of Saint Josaphat, should rush out and purchase copes of The Priest's Service Book, published by the Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of the South, 4222 Wycliff Ave, PO Box 191109, Dallas, Texas 75219.

When the book arrives, turn to page 21, and see for yourselves who appears in the list of Saints. No doubt the next edition will include Saint Andrew Bobola, Saint Therese of Lisieux, and Saint Pius X.

Incognitus the Inquisitive Inquisitor

+++++++++

In signing back on just to answer the above post I am going against a promise I made to myself. However, after reading Incognitus's post as it was sent to me, my reaction was such that I had to break that promise to respond.

Since I have the book mentioned I checked and there is indeed a St Josaphat mentioned on page twenty one. What gauls me is that some people here are so quick to condemn or insult Orthodoxy that they post insulting replies before checking the facts. Why does the poster immediately assume there is only one saint that goes by the identity of St Josaphat? Example - it most probably refers to St Josaphat Metropolitan of Moscow (which my friend the Orthodox priest contends).

I forwarded the post tyo an Orthodox priest friend of mine which is familiar with Archbishop Dimitri. This is his reply -

---------------
Dear Bob:

The poster, who is not only obviously being a bit antagonistic, merely
betrays his own lack of understanding.

1. "Josaphat" and "Joesaph" and "Iasaf" and "Ioasaph" are all one and the
same name.

2. The listing on page 21 does not refer to Josaphat Kuntzevich, which is a
ridiculous claim, at best, especially since Josaphat is listed among the
"wonderworkers of All Russia." Josaphat Kuntzevich was a wonderwork of all
Russia??? in fact, he wasn't even from Russia, but from the Polish/Lithuanian empire of his day,
Belarus today.

3. The listing on page 21 refers to Saint Joasaph [Josaphat] the
Metropolitan of Moscow, Wonderworker of All Russia.

4. There are several other Saint Joasaphs [Josaphats] on the Orthodox
calendar, including Saint Joasaph of Belgorod, a 16th century martyr named
Joasaph, as well as a Joasaph mentioned in the writings of Saint John of
Damascus, and others.

The comment made by the person -- claiming that Archbishop Dmitri's
inclusion [using the classic English version of "Joasaph," which is
"Josephat"] of Josephat Kuntzevich is rude at best, completely ignorant at
worst. If the writer knew those who thom the title "Wonderworker of All
Russia" is accorded, including Saint Joasaph Metropolitan of Moscow, he
would not have made such a comment. Then again....

Hope this helps.

-----------------

Anyhow, its nice to know that in spite of the insults and adverse comments about we Orthodox Catholics, you still utilize and depend on our theologians, books, icons, and spiritual tracks, etc. while you thumb your noses at the church you came from and who gave birth to you and nurtured you for so long.

Now, back to sign off before I say more.

OrthoMan

(Who loves his Orthodox faith & will defend it until death)

Aha! Can I believe my eyes? A stipulation that Belarus is not included in "all Russia"! Who known maybe they will lay off any claims to Ukraine, next.

Dear Bob Orthoman!

How WONDERFUL to see you here again, if only to tell Incognitus off!

(I agree with you, by the way!)

"Joasaph" and "Josaphat" are indeed one and the same name - I'm rather shocked at Incognitus!

And, yes, we all do depend on Orthodox theologians, traditions etc. as we truly do come from our Mother Orthodox Churches.

As I've always told you, I pray that we are reunited with our Mother Orthodox Churches in God's way, not ours.

FYI, the ROCOR priest that I told this to embraced me in real (bear) hug with a big smile on his face!

That we are ungrateful - the jury is out on that one too!

But it is great to see that our Orthoman is his old self and hasn't changed a bit!

May our Lord and St Panteleimon the all-merciful healer protect you and yours, Bob, now and always!

And you will now forgive me yet again:

Who da man?

YOU da man!

You da ORTHOman!!!

Thank you for making my week!

Your servant,

Alex

Dear djs,

Actually, Orthoman is right.

Josaphat Kuntzevich was actually born in Vladimir-Volynske in western Ukraine in the former commonwealth.

He would have considered himself to have been a member of the "Orthodox Church of Rus'"

And I believe his family was Belarusyan - his cult is strong in the Belarusyan Greek-Catholic Church.

The fact of the matter is that his cult was and is extremely controversial with respect to the Orthodox and there were EC Metropolitans of Kyiv/Kiev in history, as Fr. Ireney Nazarko OSBM writes, who actually discouraged public processions in Kiev in honour of St Josaphat (as did, at times, Met. Andrew Sheptytsky himself, I am brought to believe!).

The Greco-Uniate Metropolitans believed this public cult was an "unnecessary provocation of the Orthodox people."

In our "High Eastern" EC parishes, one can find his icon, but usually not in a prominent place and there isn't a lot done about his liturgical cult either.

In an article years ago by Eugene Ivankiw from Chicago, the author wrote that it is best to leave the cult of St Josaphat alone as it can lead to unnecessary misunderstanding etc.

In fact, EC's in the 17th and 18th centuries venerated the Orthodox St Athanasius of Brest, the Ihumen who was tortured by the Latins for condemning the Unia, taken into a forest and forced to dig his own grave before being shot twice and then buried ALIVE.

Eastern Catholics saw in him a hero not of "Orthodoxy" alone, but also of the "Eastern Church" and of the Rus' nationality.

This is why the Polish Jesuits enacted a feast for St Josaphat that came TWO DAYS before that of St Athanasius on September 18th - to discourage actual EC pilgrimages to the shrine of St Athanasius!

It was Met. Andrew Sheptytsky who restored the proper feast of St Josaphat on November 25 (Nov. 12 on your calendar).

I know you will join with me in applauding Bob Orthoman's presence among us today!

And I think the Administrator should call Incognitus to task for his comment suggesting that St Josaphat of Polotsk is honoured in the Orthodox calendar as an "unnecessary provocation of the Orthodox people."

Alex

I agree with Bob that sometimes there are insults and adverse comments about Orthodoxy on this Forum. I try to stop it as soon as I see it. There is plenty of room for legitimate theological debate but such debate should be accomplished with Christian love and in Christian brotherhood.

I do hope our Orthodox posters will understand that our Greek Catholic brothers and sisters in Europe suffered greatly under the communists, and that some of this suffering was at the hands of people within the Moscow Patriarchate working together with the communists. Forgiveness is necessary but, for many, it is difficult. We all have need to confess our sins and to repent of them.

I also love the Orthodox Faith and will defend it until death.

I thank Bob for providing clarification on this issue.

Dear Administrator,

I knew a Roman Catholic who kept an icon of the Pillars of Orthodoxy on his wall at home.

When I saw it, I asked him what that was all about . . .

He smiled and said that he kept it to remind himself that there are those who are not RC but who are just as dedicated to their Faith as he is to his own!

I think Bob Orthoman fulfills a similar purpose for us all here, don't you think?

All hail Bob Orthoman!!

(You forgot to say something to Incognitus about his "unnecessary provocation" . . . but I'm sure you have done so via PM . . .)

Alex

Having a familial connection to that particular cathedral, my view is "No thanks!". I have no problem with those relics remaining in Rome, specifically in St. Peter's.

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

Dear Kobzar,

What is your view on St Josaphat?

Alex

Alex,

Actually, when I think of Bob Orthoman and compare him to a Pillar of Orthodoxy my thoughts at hearing the word �pillar� race immediately to the wonderful pillar-like �barbeque bell tower� at his parish. I can envision the bell ringers turning the kielbasi on the spit as they ring the bells.

Although I did not see it until this morning, I had not thought Incognitus� post as �unnecessary provocation�. I saw it as very �tongue-in-cheek� dry humor (and not insulting) since it would quite obvious that there are many St. Josaphats on the liturgical calendar (not to mention that Incognitus did not identify which St. Josaphat he was speaking about).

Admin

The only thing I was trying to provoke was smiles. The book I referred to does not tell us which Saint Josaphat is intended - but I've always taken it for granted that "Josaphat" in this case is a mis-spelling of Ioasaph of Bilhorod.

I'm still waiting for these books to list Saint Andrew Bobola and Saint Pius X.

Incognitus

Dear Alex,

Personally I am neither 'pro' nor 'con' re: St. Josaphat. He, along with St. Athanasius, was a product of his times. My biggest problem is how he is 'used' by parties on both sides. I feel it is safest if his relics remain at St. Peter's.

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

Centuries ago, the Catholic Church made its own ecumenical gesture when it approved the veneration of Saint Sergius of Radonezh.

He is officially listed in the Roman Martyrology.
What that means is that on Sept. 25, a Roman-rite Mass can be celebrated for a Russian Orthodox saint!!!

Unfortunately, Sept. 25 falls this year on a Sunday, and in the Roman-rite, a Mass for Saint Sergius cannot be used.

However, if Eucharistic Prayer III is used in Sunday Mass, then the priest is at liberty to mention Saint Sergius in the section commemorating the saint of the day.

So if you know any Roman Catholic priests, encourage them to mention Saint Sergius if they use Eucharistic Prayer III for Sunday Mass on Sept. 25.

griego

Dear Administrator,

Yes, but we all LOVE Bob Orthoman, don't we?

(Actually, I can see him as a model for an icon-painter doing an image of St Mark of Ephesus with that scroll saying, "I surmise the witnesses of the Western teachers to be corrupted!").

As for St Josaphat, that IS a sore point with many Orthodox, given the history of trying to use that historical figure for forced conversions to Catholicism - as you and our friend Incognitus both know.

In fact, the negative feelings in that regard are what have led the Orthodox to prefer the name "Joasaph" rather than "Josaphat" - even though the two are interchangeable.

If you don't believe me, the next time you are cantoring in an Orthodox parish or else visiting, see what reaction you'll get when you start distributing prayer leaflets with the image of a certain "St Josaphat" on it . . .

If there are shouts of "There's a freakin' Uniate here tryin' to convert us," you can immediately say "Well, I thought it was St Josaphat, the Metropolitan of Moscow . . . so sorry . . ."

Well, if you don't think Incognitus did anything wrong, perhaps you should consider rewarding him in some way for at least getting Bob Orthoman to make his presence felt here . . . I know you share with me the exhilaration (along with djs) at having him enrich us with his good humour!

Alex

Dear Griego,

Actually, the cult of St Sergius was approved by Rome in 1904 in response to a petition by Met. Andrew Sheptytsky to include all the Russian Saints for veneration in the Russian Catholic calendar.

Rome answered in the positive, but only asked that those saints whose "anti-Roman" reputation was of a markedly pronounced nature be expunged from the calendar.

Rome also ordered that St Pontius Pilate be expunged from the Ethiopian calendar for the Ethiopian and Eritrean Catholic churches.

I hate it when that happens!

Alex

Alex writes "As for St Josaphat, that IS a sore point with many Orthodox, given the history of trying to use that historical figure for forced conversions to Catholicism - as you and our friend Incognitus both know."

I'm not really aware of attempts to use Saint Josaphat for forced conversions to Catholicism - might I request some specific examples of such attempts?

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

Fr. Ireney Nazarko OSBM mentions a few of these in his book on Kyivan Metropolitans and so does the Orthodox Met. Ilarion Ohienko in his books on the history of the Ukrainian Church.

As Andrij-Kobzar said, St Josaphat was used in diverse ways to promote the spread of Catholicism in western Ukraine and Belarus under the Polish kings - it gave them more amunition.

People were forced into the Unia in diverse ways in hopes of them eventually taking the "final step" and become "true" Latin Catholics.

Even the "filioque" in the Greek-Catholic Churches was forcibly imposed by gendarmes - which is why the term "Istynno" in place of "I Syna" developed at one point.

The Basilian Order was particularly adept at spearheading "Unia" campaigns with the Relics of St Josaphat - something that really got the Orthodox upset.

This was, as I understand, a large part of the reason why Pope Paul VI simply had his Relics brought to Rome - for safekeeping and out of the reach of the zealous Basilian missionaries for the Unia (referred to by St Alexis Toth in his diaries as "jerks").

Some quarters also tended to portray St Josaphat very much as the same Latinized cleric as the Basilians et al.

In fact, St Josaphat was personally very much AGAINST Latinizations of any kind and even opposed the introduction of the Carmelite Order in the Kyivan Metropolia in union with Rome.

It was certainly not his fault that his memory and cult were reinterpreted and used in this manner in various campaigns serving to incline people to join the Unia and others to promote ECism.

This is why St Josaphat conjures up all sorts of nasty images for the Orthodox - it is not that they necessarily "hate" Greek Catholics, but that they don't regard Josaphat as someone worthy of the honours of a saint - and again this is based on legends of his life and some very real manipulations of his cult by Jesuits and Basilians afterwards.

So this is why your joking about the matter can most definitely rub our Orthodox friends, and Bob Orthoman, the wrong way!

You are obviously someone who didn't grow up in Eastern Europe

Alex

Just a note of absolute inconsequence:

This is one of the best discussions of priestly sainted Josaphat that I have seen in the ten or twelve years that I have been subjecting my poor old worn out soul to such things!!...

Many thanks to you all...mary

NB:Do not equate BEST with BALANCED...they are not equivalents.

The Good as revealed to us by the Father is hardly ever what most of us neurotic sinners would view as being "balanced" or just.

So think of me speaking here of fair faces and fine words all directed to the Good!

Dear Mary,

Yes, the figure of St Josaphat is quite emotional with us Ukies.

I had an Orthodox music teacher who taught me to play on the piano.

After five years, I had had enough though . . .

During one of our lessons, in my parents' home, she eyed an icon of St Josaphat nearby and had a comment about it. I'll let you guess whether it was positive or negative!

Well, I wasn't going to stand for such . . . blasphemy!! And in the presence of one so young and impressionable!

I reported her at once to my parents and kicked up such a zealous fuss that . . . lo and behold my piano lessons with her came to an abrupt halt!

How dare she . . .

It has also been the topic of, shall we say, lively discussions at events, including Ukrainian Catholic priests who themselves have issued the opinion that the whole matter is best dropped.

When I asked one EC priest at my mother's home what about the fact that an Orthodox mob attacked Josaphat etc. - he said, "Well, that happened because he so got under their skin . . ."

And during a Litia service in my old parish, St Josaphat was mentioned along with the other Saints and, at that point, the elderly woman next to me murmured out loud, "What, do we still commemorate that scoundrel?!"

Ah, yes . . .

Alex

I've heard this mentioned a few times on the forum, but is there a reference for this?

I'm thinking it slightly odd, as this indicates the 'Istynno' addition happened after the Unia, yet the Old Believers insist on that word in the Creed - and their model of liturgical usage surely dates back to a period before the Unia, and they never lived in areas where this sort of forcible 'i syna'-isation was enforced.

Dear Alex,
In the immortal words of W. C. Fields, the problem is not ignorance, the problem is that so many folks know so many things that ain't so! I asked for examples of "forced conversions to Catholicism" and you tell me that gendarmes were used to force the Uniates to recite the Filioque, whereupon they Orthodox added "istinno" instead. Do try again; as Edward has just correctly remarked, the pre-Niconian text reads і в Духа Святаго Господа истиннаго . . . (Cf. Old Orthodox Prayer Book page. 110). There were no gendarmes in Muscovy at the time trying to force the Filioque on anybody.

I seldom speak in defense of the Basilians but I'ld love to know how they could abuse the relics of Saint Josaphat in the manner you suggest (and, for that matter, just how the relics of a dead man could force anyone to do anything), since the relics were concealed inside a wall to keep them from confiscation - they were later kept at Saint Barbara's in Vienna before being transferred to Rome.
If you've got some real examples of the use of force coupled with the relics of Saint Josaphat to compel people to join the Unia, you have my attention.

Incognitus

Dear Edward,

That is a great point - the Old Believer's version of the "Hail Mary" is also the same as the UGCC has it, but that doesn't mean much . . .

The "istynno" in the early Unia days was meant as a way of satisfying the gendarmerie, as I understand it.

Eugene Ivankiw from Chicago once wrote an article on this matter in their "Visnyk" - but that was years ago.

I've also seen this in an article in Orthodox Word, but wouldn't know where to look for it.

Also, the Ukrainian Orthodox Met. Ilarion Ohienko mentioned this in one of his works - but which one? That is the $64,000 question.

But I also don't know if you'll get $64,000 if you answer it either . . .

Alex

Dear Incognitus,

Yes, the book by Met. Ilarion Ohienko on the history of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is one and it contains a bibliography on the subject.

The Old Believers' "istynno" is different from the one that was used in western Ukraine under Poland - no Muscovite gendarmes, Reverend Sir, you again seem intent on confusing things when they contradict your view of the world - or add a dimension to it that you might not have been aware of . . . forgive my impertinence, but you do tempt me so!

Eugene Ivankiw wrote an article on the history of the Filioque in the UGCC for Visnyk where he discusses the use of "istynno" in place of "I Syna" and I used to have a copy and may still do.

If you are willing to pay me a visit to do some spade work in my disorganized files to locate that article, you are welcome. And I promise not to even think of asking you to remove your paper bag from your head!

We know from the life of St Josaphat that he was not against the use of civil fines in the spreading of the Unia - this is presented in subtle form in the book on St Josaphat published by the Basilians. People under the EC Metropolitan of Kyiv had to make their confession to an EC priest and had to obtain a certificate that they did so (in effect, ensuring they were EC's and not Orthodox). Without that certificate or paper, they were liable to civil fines. That was standard practice in those days.

In addition, he did go directly to the Orthodox to openly debate with them in efforts aimed at getting them to come under Rome. He did this when he went to the Kyivan Caves Lavra and tried to convince the Orthodox monks there to become Catholic on the basis of their own liturgical books where references to St Peter and his position among the Apostles are found. There was lots of agressive proselytising, as you know.

The relics of St Josaphat were moved around in the early years following his Beatification - as were those of other Basilian martyrs, especially those murdered at the order of Tsar Peter I.

This was discussed in the History of the Church in Ukraine.

If you feel I did not read this anywhere but am making it up, that is your prerogative.

Episodes from the life of St Athanasius of Brest show why he reacted the way he did to the Unia - that was when he saw gendarmes try to impose the Unia in the villages etc.

This provoked him to go directly to the Polish Sejm and distribute copies of the miraculous Icon of the Kupyatytska Theotokos to the parliamentarians there assembled and warn them of God's punishment for the use of secular power over church affairs.

There is a life of St Athanasius in Ukrainian and the above are quoted directly from historic sources.

But that's fine, whatever.

If you feel that there was no force of any kind used in the imposition of the Unia, that is your prerogative.

I believe Orthodox historiographers go overboard in commenting on this period of history, but that doesn't mean they are completely wrong either.

St Athanasius himself was tortured for a couple of days to get him to accept the Unia. He refused, was taken to the woods by the gendarmes, forced to dig his own grave and was buried alive after being shot twice. We know that he was buried alive from his fingers when he was later exhumed.

The use of relics of those Basilians killed by Orthodox to promote the Unia in direct "conversion campaigns" is something that I thought was well known. Certainly, Orthodox priests I've spoken to know about them.

As for "it ain't so," history is a matter of interpretation. "Facts" as such don't exist outside frameworks of interpretation, as you know.

If you don't accept this, please believe me when I tell you that I PRAY that none of the above is true. I would rather not believe that even in the 20th century in E. Europe, people like my wife's grandfather had their baptismal certificates changed from "GC" to "RC" so they could get better jobs.

I'd rather not believe that such things could happen. . .

Alex

I am only too well aware of atrocities committed against both Orthodox and Greek-Catholics by Roman Catholics in 20th-century Poland. There's an excellent book on the subject. But that has nothing at all to do with Saint Josaphat.

I am also aware of the martyrdom of Saint Athanasius of Brest. This event also has nothing to do with Saint Josaphat.

Demanding that people produce proof of having gone to Confession for purposes of the civil government is a stench in the nostrils of God - but Saint Josaphat did not invent the practice.

The Tsarist government conducted a terrible persecution of the Old Ritualists - and that too had no connection with Saint Josaphat (although it is fascinating to follow the history of Tsarist persecution of the Old Ritualists and Tsarist persecution of the Greek-Catholics; there are lots of parallels, too many to be mere coincidence, and I sometimes wonder if either of the persecuted communities understood the connection between them).

By way of reductio ad absurdum, China persecutes Buddhists in Tibet. This has no connection with Saint Josaphat. Blaming the poor man for all the evils of the world is pointless.

Far from being enthusiastic about him, the Greek-Catholics at the time of the canonization were uninterested and paid almost no attention to the event (cf. John-Paul Himka). He was viewed as a Polish saint; the Poles were responsible for promoting the canonization. Such is life - but again, one can hardly blame it on Saint Josaphat, of all people.

I would gladly accept your kind invitation, but neither my bank account nor my work obligations allow me to at the moment. Should the opportunity arise, I'll leave the paper bag at home!

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

Yes, I agree with all of the above - in fact, one could make the case that EC's as well as Orthodox preferred St Athanasius of Brest over St Josaphat!

I accept that he was innocent of any and all charges laid against him by you-know-who.

That doesn't mean that his person is not controversial among the Orthodox and even among EC's to this day for a number of reasons, how his memory was used etc.

The issue of separating fact from fiction is what has no bearing on the issue of the controversy of his memory.

If you are saying that the controversy is based on fiction - I would say you are right, but many Orthodox would dispute that.

If you are saying that controversy needs to be based on fact - then you've obviously never been at the centre of one!

And that is a good thing!

Alex