Topic: Orthodox and Catholic views of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich

[ialmisry]

Split from A Question on the Immaculate Conception

Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator

I take Father Lev Gillet's sources seriously.  I take Father Casimir Kucharek's sources seriously.  
These are not MY arguments, so you cannot hush the reality that they exist by hushing ME.

I have heard that the Ruthenian Catholics are, of all the Eastern Catholic Churches, the most docile and submissive to Rome.   While they dedicate their churches in the States to the Immaculate Conception, other Eastern Catholics stand up and say they deny the dogma.

I would think that prize   would go to the Maronites.  The Ruthenians of Austro-Hungarian Galicia certainly displayed little "docility," nor when they immigrated to the US.  Perhaps the dynamics have changed with the return of many Ruthenians to Orthodoxy: all that remained under the Vatican perhaps feel that they have to prove their loyalty to their "Mother Church."

An example might be the "canonization" of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich: the Ruthenian church opposed it. It was pushed by the Latin Poles, and for decades the only churches dedicated to him were Latin Polish ones.  It is telling that the Priestly Society of Ioasaphat, a SSPX type organization among the Ukrainians, fights to keep all the Latinization. I would think the IC would be one of them.

[elijahmaria]

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

I have discovered that Orthodox faithful are wonderful pious people but they can be lousy historians, and they are the first to claim that they are never mean spirited.   Amazing how it all works.

M.

I take Father Lev Gillet's sources seriously.  I take Father Casimir Kucharek's sources seriously.  
These are not MY arguments, so you cannot hush the reality that they exist by hushing ME.

I have heard that the Ruthenian Catholics are, of all the Eastern Catholic Churches, the most docile and submissive to Rome.   While they dedicate their churches in the States to the Immaculate Conception, other Eastern Catholics stand up and say they deny the dogma.

I would think that prize   would go to the Maronites.  The Ruthenians of Austro-Hungarian Galicia certainly displayed little "docility," nor when they immigrated to the US.  Perhaps the dynamics have changed with the return of many Ruthenians to Orthodoxy: all that remained under the Vatican perhaps feel that they have to prove their loyalty to their "Mother Church."

An example might be the "canonization" of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich the Ruthenian church opposed it. It was pushed by the Latin Poles, and for decades the only churches dedicated to him were Latin Polish ones.  It is telling that the Priestly Society of Ioasaphat, a SSPX type organization among the Ukrainians, fights to keep all the Latinization. I would think the IC would be one of them.

[Irish Hermit]

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

[elijahmaria]

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all. 

So my suggestion stands. 

It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

M.

[ialmisry]

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

You mean the stuff that gathered dust in the Vatican, untill the Poles in Galicia got the bright idea of pushing the issue, part of the push to polanize Galicia?

I have discovered that Orthodox faithful are wonderful pious people but they can be lousy historians, and they are the first to claim that they are never mean spirited.

Orthodox like the chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Leo Sapiega?

"By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism. It would have been better not to have given us nationwide strife and hatred, and instead to have preserved us from nationwide condemnation."

March 12, 1622
Letter of Leo Sapiega, Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown addressed to Iosaphat Kuntsevich

On him, btw:

I have never had a negative experience with a member of Opus Dei, whether laity or clergy, nor do I have any real issues with them.  I have been to several of their workshops and seminars at their conference centre north of Toronto, on subjects that most Orthodox members would have little to no qualms about, let alone Roman Catholics members.  They have been doing great work in and around Toronto for over 2 decades now, and I pray they continue to help those who come to them.  I know some get turned off by 'corporal mortification', but I have never seen it as a huge issue.  I've used a cilice (under supervision of my confessor) and probably have it laying around somewhere still, and it isn't nearly as bad as people think .  The only point of conflict I would run into members with was surrounding the use of the Tridentine and Ambrosian masses over the Novus Ordo.

I haven't had any personal experience with them, but know many Orthodox who have.  Their main opinion of them is that Opus Dei memebers are "Catholic who look and act Catholic."  The only problem they had was not with Opus Dei per se, but their promoting of the Divine Mercy and Sr. Faustina, which is a little spooky to a lot of Orthodox.  The only problem I've heard was one Orthodox who teaches in a school controlled by them, when his turn to reading came on the commemoration of "St" Josaphat Kuntsevich.  He told them he would strike a deal: he'd agree that Kuntsevich should have been canonized if they would agree that Kuntsevich should have been killed.

Not quite sure I want to understand the cilice.  Life can be painful enough.

[ialmisry]

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.

The contemporary Orthodox found otherwise.

So my suggestion stands. 

It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

[elijahmaria]

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.

The contemporary Orthodox found otherwise.

So my suggestion stands.  

It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

There are records from the period after his death where Orthodox faithful came forward to say that the Orthodox were as much guilty of causing trouble and violence as the Eastern Catholics.   They also said formally that the bishop was not the evil man that he was portrayed to be and some even said that he died a martyrs death because he was personally innocent.

Those records exist and you can do what you want with that...but it would not be the first time in history where Orthodox faithful bit off more than they should have in a fight.

Mary



Forbidden "U" word replaced with more acceptable alternative  -PtA

[Orthodoc]

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.

The contemporary Orthodox found otherwise.

So my suggestion stands. 

It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

There are records from the period after his death where Orthodox faithful came forward to say that the Orthodox were as much guilty of causing trouble and violence as the Uniates.   They also said formally that the bishop was not the evil man that he was portrayed to be and some even said that he died a martyrs death because he was personally innocent.

Those records exist and you can do what you want with that...but it would not be the first time in history where Orthodox faithful bit off more than they should have in a fight.

Mary

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same supposed saint whose body is said to now reside in Rome?  One has to wonder how that is so since we Orthodox are accused of hacking it to pieces before throwing it into the river!  Does that mean it miraculous reassembled itself in the river?

Orthodoc

[elijahmaria]

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.

The contemporary Orthodox found otherwise.

So my suggestion stands. 

It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

There are records from the period after his death where Orthodox faithful came forward to say that the Orthodox were as much guilty of causing trouble and violence as the Uniates.   They also said formally that the bishop was not the evil man that he was portrayed to be and some even said that he died a martyrs death because he was personally innocent.

Those records exist and you can do what you want with that...but it would not be the first time in history where Orthodox faithful bit off more than they should have in a fight.

Mary

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same supposed saint whose body is said to now reside in Rome?  One has to wonder how that is so since we Orthodox are accused of hacking it to pieces before throwing it into the river!  Does that mean it miraculous reassembled itself in the river?

Orthodoc

You've never heard of "picking up the pieces"?

[Orest]

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all. 

Really?  Please provide your "solid evidence" to disprove the Chancellor's comments.

[elijahmaria]

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all. 

Really?  Please provide your "solid evidence" to disprove the Chancellor's comments.

Hi Orest:  Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum or look at some of the histories that are available on-line.  Its out there to be found if you want to find it.  All my note is suggesting is that it is better to go find the truth than to keep repeating the same old canards.

M.

[IreneOlinyk]

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all. 

Really?  Please provide your "solid evidence" to disprove the Chancellor's comments.

Hi Orest:  Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum or look at some of the histories that are available on-line.  Its out there to be found if you want to find it.  All my note is suggesting is that it is better to go find the truth than to keep repeating the same old canards.

M.

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

[elijahmaria]

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all. 

Really?  Please provide your "solid evidence" to disprove the Chancellor's comments.

Hi Orest:  Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum or look at some of the histories that are available on-line.  Its out there to be found if you want to find it.  All my note is suggesting is that it is better to go find the truth than to keep repeating the same old canards.

M.

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.

There's one letter that has been fingered as the smoking gun against him but there's nothing about that letter that is an eye-witness report because the letter has been found to be based upon second and third hand complaints against the bishop without further corroboration.

There are 116 interviews that support his canonization.  Among those letter are Orthodox testimonials that indicate that the Orthodox had lied about the bishop's savagery.  I suppose the brutality of his murder was enough to give some folks second thoughts.

Maybe you could point us toward an eye-witness to his personal savagery?

M.

[ialmisry]

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.

The contemporary Orthodox found otherwise.

So my suggestion stands. 

It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

There are records from the period after his death where Orthodox faithful came forward to say that the Orthodox were as much guilty of causing trouble and violence as the Uniates.   They also said formally that the bishop was not the evil man that he was portrayed to be and some even said that he died a martyrs death because he was personally innocent.

Those records exist and you can do what you want with that...but it would not be the first time in history where Orthodox faithful bit off more than they should have in a fight.

Mary

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same supposed saint whose body is said to now reside in Rome?  One has to wonder how that is so since we Orthodox are accused of hacking it to pieces before throwing it into the river!  Does that mean it miraculous reassembled itself in the river?

Orthodoc

You've never heard of "picking up the pieces"?

Is that like connect the dots?

[IreneOlinyk]

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.  


Hi Orest:  Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum or look at some of the histories that are available on-line.  Its out there to be found if you want to find it.  All my note is suggesting is that it is better to go find the truth than to keep repeating the same old canards.

M.

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.
[/quote]

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.

There's one letter that has been fingered as the smoking gun against him but there's nothing about that letter that is an eye-witness report because the letter has been found to be based upon second and third hand complaints against the bishop without further corroboration.

There are 116 interviews that support his canonization.  Among those letter are Orthodox testimonials that indicate that the Orthodox had lied about the bishop's savagery.  I suppose the brutality of his murder was enough to give some folks second thoughts.

Maybe you could point us toward an eye-witness to his personal savagery?

M.
[/quote]



116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.

[elijahmaria]

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.  


Hi Orest:  Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum or look at some of the histories that are available on-line.  Its out there to be found if you want to find it.  All my note is suggesting is that it is better to go find the truth than to keep repeating the same old canards.

M.

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.

There's one letter that has been fingered as the smoking gun against him but there's nothing about that letter that is an eye-witness report because the letter has been found to be based upon second and third hand complaints against the bishop without further corroboration.

There are 116 interviews that support his canonization.  Among those letter are Orthodox testimonials that indicate that the Orthodox had lied about the bishop's savagery.  I suppose the brutality of his murder was enough to give some folks second thoughts.

Maybe you could point us toward an eye-witness to his personal savagery?

M.
[/quote]



116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.
[/quote]

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.  I am not trying to rub salt actually.  I simply do not believe the man was a savage, and I think there is evidence to support that view.  I do also believe he was murdered unjustly.

M.

[Irish Hermit]

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.

So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

[ialmisry]

116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.

On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka

http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false

[ialmisry]

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.

So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

[PeterTheAleut]

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.

Usually, a request for primary sources means that you quote the sources for us AND provide links to those sources if they're online, bibliographical references if they're not.  Merely saying, "Try checking out the Vatican Archives," or "Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum.com," don't count since you're merely passing off your responsibility to the person who asked you to provide the sources.

That said, someone asked you to cite primary sources that back up your claim that "the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all."  You still need to do so.

[elijahmaria]

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.

Usually, a request for primary sources means that you quote the sources for us AND provide links to those sources if they're online, bibliographical references if they're not.  Merely saying, "Try checking out the Vatican Archives," or "Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum.com," don't count since you're merely passing off your responsibility to the person who asked you to provide the sources.

That said, someone asked you to cite primary sources that back up your claim that "the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all."  You still need to do so.

And I will continue to need to do so.  My sources are second hand.  I happen to trust them.

M.

[elijahmaria]

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.

So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

[ialmisry]

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.

So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

[elijahmaria]

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.

So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry.  That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all.  I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop. 

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary

[ialmisry]

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.

So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry.  That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all.  I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

Yes, slant it towards the Vatican.  That's objective.

And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop.  

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary

No, Ultramontanims is.

[PeterTheAleut]

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.

Usually, a request for primary sources means that you quote the sources for us AND provide links to those sources if they're online, bibliographical references if they're not.  Merely saying, "Try checking out the Vatican Archives," or "Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum.com," don't count since you're merely passing off your responsibility to the person who asked you to provide the sources.

That said, someone asked you to cite primary sources that back up your claim that "the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all."  You still need to do so.

And I will continue to need to do so.  My sources are second hand.  I happen to trust them.

Doesn't do us any good.

[Irish Hermit]

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.

Usually, a request for primary sources means that you quote the sources for us AND provide links to those sources if they're online, bibliographical references if they're not.  Merely saying, "Try checking out the Vatican Archives," or "Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum.com," don't count since you're merely passing off your responsibility to the person who asked you to provide the sources.

That said, someone asked you to cite primary sources that back up your claim that "the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all."  You still need to do so.

And I will continue to need to do so.  My sources are second hand.  I happen to trust them.

Doesn't do us any good.

No one really needs the quotations, but without them it is clear that a person is free to discount Mary's position as unproven.

[Orthodoc]

116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.

On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka

http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false

Thank you for this my friend! 

Orthodoc

[Irish Hermit]

116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.

On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka

http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false

Thank you for this my friend! 

Could someone place the relevant extract on the forum, please.

[elijahmaria]

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.

So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry.  That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all.  I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

Yes, slant it towards the Vatican.  That's objective.

And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop.  

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary

No, Ultramontanims is.

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be. 

Then there's folks like you.  Loud and not particularly something others are always proud of.  I've been around long enough to know that.  You may get kudos from like-minded people but you don't wear well outside of your own hive.

I don't discount you at all but I am not concerned that your "approach" will prevail.

M.

[Irish Hermit]

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be.  

Thanks to the shenanigans of the unionists at Belgrade 2006 and Ravenna 2007 (principally Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan John Zizioulas) the Church's bishops have pricked up their ears, intervened in Cyprus 2009 and stopped the issuing of the position paper being called "the Cretan Unia."  The bishops have halted the unionist direction in which the merry band of ecumenical professionals were steering the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.  I think the unionists are in for rough times ahead.  The bishops have taken over their playground.  We may now expect a much more theologically sound dialogue.

[elijahmaria]

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be.  

Thanks to the shenanigans of the unionists at Belgrade 2006 and Ravenna 2007 (principally Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan John Zizioulas) the Church's bishops have pricked up their ears, intervened in Cyprus 2009 and stopped the issuing of the position paper being called "the Cretan Unia."  The bishops have halted the unionist direction in which the merry band of ecumenical professionals were steering the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.  I think the unionists are in for rough times ahead.  The bishops have taken over their playground.  We may now expect a much more theologically sound dialogue.

LOL...you mean like what we see on the Internet...LOL

[Irish Hermit]

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be.  

Thanks to the shenanigans of the unionists at Belgrade 2006 and Ravenna 2007 (principally Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan John Zizioulas) the Church's bishops have pricked up their ears, intervened in Cyprus 2009 and stopped the issuing of the position paper being called "the Cretan Unia."  The bishops have halted the unionist direction in which the merry band of ecumenical professionals were steering the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.  I think the unionists are in for rough times ahead.  The bishops have taken over their playground.  We may now expect a much more theologically sound dialogue.

LOL...you mean like what we see on the Internet...LOL

Puzzled at my end.  Are there bishops writing on the Internet?  I like to read the blog of Bishop Seraphim (Sigrist) but he prefers to talk about literature and not theology.

[elijahmaria]

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be.  

Thanks to the shenanigans of the unionists at Belgrade 2006 and Ravenna 2007 (principally Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan John Zizioulas) the Church's bishops have pricked up their ears, intervened in Cyprus 2009 and stopped the issuing of the position paper being called "the Cretan Unia."  The bishops have halted the unionist direction in which the merry band of ecumenical professionals were steering the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.  I think the unionists are in for rough times ahead.  The bishops have taken over their playground.  We may now expect a much more theologically sound dialogue.

LOL...you mean like what we see on the Internet...LOL

Puzzled at my end.  Are there bishops writing on the Internet?  I like to read the blog of Bishop Seraphim (Sigrist) but he prefers to talk about literature and not theology.

Puzzled?  Why?  Are you not the one who taught me that if Orthodox Bishops teach heresy they are deposed?  Has not Archbishop Hilarion been called a heretic already? 

I figure it is just going to be another Big Fat Greek Internet War....don't you?

I mean why would any Bishop speak out against the loud-crowd and risk being called a heretic.

Maybe Bishop Seraphim talks about literature because he knows Father Alexander took an axe in the back of his head...hard to tell, but history does tend to repeat itself.

M.                                         

[Irish Hermit]

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be. 

Thanks to the shenanigans of the unionists at Belgrade 2006 and Ravenna 2007 (principally Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan John Zizioulas) the Church's bishops have pricked up their ears, intervened in Cyprus 2009 and stopped the issuing of the position paper being called "the Cretan Unia."  The bishops have halted the unionist direction in which the merry band of ecumenical professionals were steering the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.  I think the unionists are in for rough times ahead.  The bishops have taken over their playground.  We may now expect a much more theologically sound dialogue.

LOL...you mean like what we see on the Internet...LOL

Puzzled at my end.  Are there bishops writing on the Internet?  I like to read the blog of Bishop Seraphim (Sigrist) but he prefers to talk about literature and not theology.

Puzzled?  Why?  Are you not the one who taught me that if Orthodox Bishops teach heresy they are deposed?  Has not Archbishop Hilarion been called a heretic already? 
                                         

Getting a bit silly here, Mary.    I think it was five people who came to one of Met Hilarion's services in Moscow and were shouting heretic.   There was no news of the hundreds of people in the church supporting them.  Nor that the millions of Russian Church members supported them. 

Yes, bishops who teach heresy are deposed.  But it is not done by five laymen.  There is a canonical process which ensures the accused bishop is accorded a just trial by 12 of his peers.

[Deacon Lance]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same supposed saint whose body is said to now reside in Rome?  One has to wonder how that is so since we Orthodox are accused of hacking it to pieces before throwing it into the river!  Does that mean it miraculous reassembled itself in the river?

Orthodoc

He was hit with an axe and shot then thrown into a river.  I've never read that he was hacked into pieces.  His incorrupt body is now in St. Peter's Basilica.

[Deacon Lance]

An example might be the "canonization" of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich: the Ruthenian church opposed it. It was pushed by the Latin Poles, and for decades the only churches dedicated to him were Latin Polish ones.

Substantiate please, I've never heard that before.

[Deacon Lance]

Orthodox like the chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Leo Sapiega?

"By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism. It would have been better not to have given us nationwide strife and hatred, and instead to have preserved us from nationwide condemnation."

March 12, 1622
Letter of Leo Sapiega, Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown addressed to Iosaphat Kuntsevich

Interresting that you mention the Poles quest to Latinize the Ukrainians then quote the letter of the Polish Latin Catholic Chancellor.  St Josaphat was equally hated by the Orthodox, for being united to Rome, and the Polish Latins, for refusing to Latinize or Polonize, so why would it be surprising that a Polish Latin official would do a hatchet job on him to make him look bad?  If we discount Orthodox and Catholic propaganda the only neutral group, the Jews spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.

[Deacon Lance]

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

St. Josaphat was beatified 20 years after his death, which means about 90% of the work was done immediately after his death.

[ialmisry]

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.

So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry.  That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all.  I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

Yes, slant it towards the Vatican.  That's objective.

And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop.  

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary

No, Ultramontanims is.

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be. 

Then there's folks like you.  Loud and not particularly something others are always proud of.  I've been around long enough to know that.  You may get kudos from like-minded people but you don't wear well outside of your own hive.

I don't discount you at all but I am not concerned that your "approach" will prevail.

M.

[ialmisry]

An example might be the "canonization" of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich: the Ruthenian church opposed it. It was pushed by the Latin Poles, and for decades the only churches dedicated to him were Latin Polish ones.

Substantiate please, I've never heard that before.

I already have:

116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.

On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka

http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false

Somewhere here I posted links to all the "St. Joasaphat" Churches I could find.  All were Polish Latin ones.  The first Ukrainian one was a parish in Western Canada which grew out of a French parish St. Joachim.  For now, wikipedia will have to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._josaphat#Legacy

[ialmisry]

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

St. Josaphat was beatified 20 years after his death, which means about 90% of the work was done immediately after his death.

So, were his feet hanging out of heaven?

[ialmisry]

Orthodox like the chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Leo Sapiega?

"By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism. It would have been better not to have given us nationwide strife and hatred, and instead to have preserved us from nationwide condemnation."

March 12, 1622
Letter of Leo Sapiega, Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown addressed to Iosaphat Kuntsevich

Interresting that you mention the Poles quest to Latinize the Ukrainians then quote the letter of the Polish Latin Catholic Chancellor.  St Josaphat was equally hated by the Orthodox, for being united to Rome, and the Polish Latins, for refusing to Latinize or Polonize, so why would it be surprising that a Polish Latin official would do a hatchet job on him to make him look bad? 

To himself?  The letter was addressed to Joe himself.

If we discount Orthodox and Catholic propaganda the only neutral group, the Jews spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.

Not heard of "a pox on both their houses, divide and conquer"? IIRC, the Vatican didn't accept Jews testifying in court at the time.

[Deacon Lance]

I already have:
On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka
http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false

His proof is one pro-Russian paper protested?

Somewhere here I posted links to all the "St. Joasaphat" Churches I could find.  All were Polish Latin ones.  The first Ukrainian one was a parish in Western Canada which grew out of a French parish St. Joachim.  For now, wikipedia will have to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._josaphat#Legacy

The US Ukrainian Catholics have a Cathedral in Parma, OH and parishes in New Britain, CT; Rochester, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Bethlehem, PA; Munster,IN; and Warren MI.

He is also commemorated in every proskomedia and litija litany in the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholic Churches.

[Deacon Lance]

Orthodox like the chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Leo Sapiega?

"By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism. It would have been better not to have given us nationwide strife and hatred, and instead to have preserved us from nationwide condemnation."

March 12, 1622
Letter of Leo Sapiega, Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown addressed to Iosaphat Kuntsevich

Interresting that you mention the Poles quest to Latinize the Ukrainians then quote the letter of the Polish Latin Catholic Chancellor.  St Josaphat was equally hated by the Orthodox, for being united to Rome, and the Polish Latins, for refusing to Latinize or Polonize, so why would it be surprising that a Polish Latin official would do a hatchet job on him to make him look bad? 

To himself?  The letter was addressed to Joe himself.

He sent copies to no one?  That is if the letter wasn't forged by the pro-Russian paper that published it.