Posted on 03/10/2007 11:29:43 AM PST by Cavalcabo
Tomorrow in Loretto's Basilica of St. Michael the Archangel, Frank and Betty Seymour will present Bishop Joseph Adamec with the petition for sainthood for Father Demetrius Gallitzin, an 18th century Russian prince who converted to Catholicism and became a pioneering missionary in Western Pennsylvania.
"He literally gave up everything to pursue a life of extraordinary hardship, in order to plant the Catholic church here on this frontier," said Betty Seymour, a retired teacher from Loretto, Cambria County.
Her research, with that of her husband, has made them "co-postulators," or head researchers, of Father Gallitzin's cause for canonization. The ceremony at 3 p.m. tomorrow, in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, opens the official inquiry.
Teams of theologians and historians must examine his life for "heroic virtue.'' Eventually, medical experts must examine two alleged miracles -- claims that someone was inexplicably healed beyond medical remedy, after someone asked the saint to pray for their healing. So far no miracle has reported for Father Gallitzin...
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
...He gave up fortune and fame "to become a Catholic priest serving in the Allegheny Mountains in the early 1800s, in a log cabin. ... He was the first priest to come to Western Pennsylvania, and he founded the first church in this diocese," he said.
It's impossible to live in Loretto -- which Father Gallitzin christened for a Marian shrine in Italy -- without sensing his legacy. Mr. Seymour, a retired welfare administrator, recalls as a child slipping his hand into a broken corner of Father Gallitzin's glass-domed coffin in what is now the basilica. Many locals did so until his body was securely entombed in the 1950s.
"You could feel his dust, which felt like silk," he said.
He began to study Father Gallitzin in 1970. In 1988 he founded the Prince Gallitzin Historical Association of Loretto. That same year, Mrs. Seymour spent a sabbatical researching him for the 1999 bicentennial of his arrival in Loretto.
He was born Dec. 22, 1770, in The Hague, Netherlands, where his father was Russia's ambassador to Holland. The Gallitzins were fabulously wealthy Russian aristocrats who carried royal titles, so he was, officially, a prince. He was baptized Orthodox, but both parents were committed rationalists who disdained faith.
When he was a teen, his mother began to study the Bible. She became a devout Catholic, and her son soon followed. His father sent him to America, hoping to get the religion out of his system.
Instead the young prince was overwhelmed by the spiritual need he saw here. He entered a new Catholic seminary in Baltimore and in 1795 became the first priest to have received all of his holy orders in the new nation. In 1796, while serving an area that included the Maryland panhandle and southern Pennsylvania, he answered an urgent message from a dying Protestant woman in McGuire's Station -- now Loretto -- who wanted to convert to Catholicism. He made the 150-mile journey and discovered a tiny community founded by a Catholic officer in the Revolutionary War, who had willed 400 acres to Bishop Carroll in hope that a priest could be sent. Father Gallitzin undertook the mission.
In the summer of 1799 the 29-year-old priest began building a log church that is now St. Michael's Basilica.
His idea was to bring oppressed, persecuted immigrants from the city and help them become land-owning farmers and tradesmen. He spent his entire personal fortune of $150,000 -- $4 million today -- toward that goal. Then he borrowed more on the expectation of an inheritance.
He bought additional acreage, and built sawmills, tanneries and grist mills. He made low-interest loans, many not repaid, for Catholics to buy land. He took in orphans. In 1816 he plotted a town of 144 lots.
"He felt Catholics needed to join together to strengthen their faith. And it worked very well here. This is an extremely Catholic area. ... When he came here there were 12 Catholic families. When he died, there were thousands," Mrs. Seymour said.
For 20 years, he was the lone priest in a region encompassing today's dioceses of Pittsburgh, Altoona-Johnstown, Greensburg and Erie.
When his inheritance was in jeopardy, he also refused to go back to Europe to fight for it. As a result he never inherited and lived in debt.
Father Gallitzin, a highly educated man, wrote works defending the Catholic faith against claims it was unbiblical superstition. One was translated into three languages and circulated in Europe.
He died on May 6, 1840, and is buried in Loretto. From that time many Catholics believed he was a saint. Pilgrims from across the United States and Europe have long visited his grave. "The Vatican does not create a saint, they only recognize them," Mr. Seymour said.
Msgr. Servinsky believes it will take about a year to compile the testimony for his "heroic virtue." If the Vatican agrees, he will be declared "venerable." After that, evidence of a miracle is needed for beatification, and a second is needed for sainthood. Anyone who believes they have such a miracle -- or documents pertaining to Father Gallitzin -- is urged to contact the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown.
"Probably the question people ask us most about his sainthood is 'Why now? Why did everybody wait so long?' " Mrs. Seymour said.
"Maybe the reason we didn't do it until now is that now is when he is needed. Maybe the things he wrote will appeal to a lot of people today."
More information is at www.demetriusgallitzin.org.
Sainthood for this man? That's a trick...converting from Christian Othodoxy to Christian Catholicism...and then geting sainthood.
Sounds more political than spiritual.
Official Site: Cannonization of Prince Demetrius Gallitzin
Address:http://www.demetriusgallitzin.org/index.htm Changed:11:41 AM on Monday, September 11, 2006
You wrote: "Sainthood for this man? That's a trick...converting from Christian Othodoxy to Christian Catholicism...and then geting sainthood."
Please learn to read. His parents were originally rationalists. He was baptized a Russian Orthodox but was given little instruction in the ROC. His mother reconciled with the Church FIRST. Then he reconciled later. No "trick" was involved. It's called GRACE.
And don't you mean Orthodox Christianity rather than Christian Orthodoxy? All Orthodox (in a Christian context) are automatically Christian. Likewise all Catholics are automatically Christian. Always keep in mind the words of Bishop Pacianus (died c. 380): "Christ is my first name, and Catholic is my last name."
"Sounds more political than spiritual."
No, actually it doesn't sound that way. If it were political then it would be about power. Gallitizin gave up his chance at power to become a humble priest.
Did you not read the article?
Politically motivated decision. You cannot disprove it. And there is no need to. It's happened many times but sainthood for a political decision seems a bit over the top.
You wrote:
"No need to be so caustic Vlad."
I also saw no need to be caustic so I wasn't.
"I read enough to know that he was baptized an Orthodox Christian and circuitously became a Catholic."
Circuitously? He was baptized Orthodox, raised as nothing in particular, saw his mother's conversion and reconciled. Circuitous? Sounds pretty straight forward.
"fine and dandy. Far better than decaying in the life atheism or rationalism."
True.
"But in saying the following - his ignorance of Orthodox Christianity clearly makes it appearance:“Although I was born a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, and although all my male relatives were either Greeks or Protestants, yet did I resolve that religion only which, upon impartial inquiry, should appear to be the pure religion of Jesus Christ. My choice fell upon the Catholic Church.”"
Recognizing the truth of the Catholic faith does not logically imply an ignorance of the Orthodox faith or any other. That would be an illogical inference to say the least.
"Politically motivated decision. You cannot disprove it."
By logic I don't see why I can't disprove it within the bounds of common reasoning:
1) Political decisions are about achieving power and success within the political realm or perhaps the greater structural society. Gallitzin's reconciliation brought him no political office, no political clout, lost him his money with which he might have gotten political power, denied him political standing as a prince (since he had to renounce such things), etc.
2) You have provided exactly zero reasons for why this would be a "political" conversion.
3) You have provided exactly zero scraps of evidence that this was a "political" conversion.
ALL THE EVIDENCE IS ON MY SIDE and none is on your side. None at all.
"And there is no need to. It's happened many times but sainthood for a political decision seems a bit over the top."
Again, did you read the article? No one is canonized for converting. NO ONE in history has ever been canonized for converting or reconciling to the Catholic faith. Men are canonized because of their recognized holiness. Gallitzin was recognized as holy even in his day. Ever read a biography of Gallitzin? http://www.demetriusgallitzin.org/Apostle%20of%20the%20Alleghenies.htm If you did you would discover that Fr. Gallitzin was famous and beloved for his ceaseless work on behalf of his flock spread over a huge part of Pennsylvania. He spent his entire fortune on his flock. Tirelessly spreading the gospel by travel, preaching and spending your entire fortune is not exactly a good way to get political power as a humble traveling priest!
There's a reason why he's called "the Apostle of the Alleghenies." It's not because of his conversion. It's because of his holiness in spreading and living out the gospel.
I fail to see how converting to Catholicism, a decision that cost him his title and his inheritance, and then choosing to become a priest in the frontier wilderness, is a political decision.
The stories of the early priests there, like Father Baden, who, if I remember, became a priest at the same general time, and before him the German Jesuits, are not told well, but are worthy of honoring.
Father Farmer, who died in 1787, I believe, not only took care of large numbers of people in Pennsylvania, but ran a circuit through New Jersey where it was a capital offense to offer Mass, and up into the colony of New York.
We should thank God that he brings such hard working men into the priesthood, willing to give up safety, ease and more, to spread the word and minister to his people.
You wrote:
"Take your "humility" and stuff it Vlad."
I did not express a belief that I was humble, nor did I say that I was not humble. You ascribe a word to me that I did not use in reference to myself. You are clearly seeing what you want to see and paying little attention to what is actually written to you. Also, the simple fact that ALL EVIDENCE IS ON MY SIDE is not an expression of humility or lack of humility. It is simply the truth. You have yet to produce any evidence to the contrary.
"My point stands: he made a political decision regarding his faith."
Your point never stood nor does it now. There is no evidence whatsoever that he made any political decision in regard to his faith. You keep making this baseless assertion without even the smallest piece of evidence to support you. YOU HAVE NOTHING. Even simple common sense should tell you that leaving his noble title behind to become a mere, itinerant priest who spent all of his fortune on his flock shows his reconciliation with the Church could not possibly have been for political reasons. Can you refute that in the least? His decision in fact destroyed his previous way of life and ruined his future as it originally had been laid out for him by his family. You will prove this true by default, if nothing else, by failing once again to come up with a single scrap of evidence that shows it to be untrue.
"Politically inclined men of the cloth should not be rewarded with sainthood."
1) Prove he was politically inclinded.
2) Prove that canonization is a reward.
You will utterly fail on both counts.
"Think about this: one does not convert from Christian to Christian."
Technically, one "reconciles". Please note that I have used that term more than once already:
Example #1: "He was baptized Orthodox, raised as nothing in particular, saw his mother's conversion and reconciled."
Example #2: "NO ONE in history has ever been canonized for converting or reconciling to the Catholic faith."
Example #3: "His mother reconciled with the Church FIRST. Then he reconciled later."
We often use the term "converted" because that is easily understood whereas "reconciled" is a more technical term and not so easily understood by non-Catholics. I have used both, and I have used them correctly as they are commonly understood.
"Unless of course we have political motivations guiding our actions."
Your reasoning is completely nonsensical. You have no clue as to what you're talking about. Did you ever even hear of Gallitzin before this article? Ever read anything about him other than what you saw on the internet in the last few hours?
You are slandering the name and intentions, even the very life, of a man universally recognized as holy, devout, and totally committed to the gospel. Shame on you. Go ahead and repeat your baseless assertion (with no supporting evidence) yet again. Prove me right. I don't mind your help in proving me right again and again. Thanks.
You wrote:
"He was baptized an Orthodox Christian. Conversion implies rejecting one's faith and accepting another."
He was reconciled to the Church. He didn't reject what was true in Orthodoxy. He accepted the Catholic Church and the faith it teaches as a fuller teaching of the truth.
"IS that what he did? If so, his decision implies that his own faith - the one he was baptized into - was somehow unacceptable."
Unacceptable? Are you kidding? You are completely making things up. He saw the fullness of truth. He wanted that. That doesn't mean Orthodoxy was unacceptable.
"Strange I think. That is why I say he made a political decision."
Nonsense. He, according to everything that is known about him and said by him, chose what is true because he wanted truth and the full truth.
"Church people do that all the time."
Church people? You mean Christians? Are we not Church people? Did Paul not say that we are the Body of Christ, the Church?
"Look---I'm sure he was a nice man. But that does not indicate becoming a "saint"."
No it doesn't. A life of heroic virtue, however, does. He lived a life of heroic virtue. He gave up his title, his fortune, a life of glamour and ease, even the most basic and simple comforts, just so he could be a humble Catholic priest serving his flock. He was holy. If he is canonized it will be for those reasons.
What part of any of that do you not understand?
"He accepted the Catholic Church and the faith it teaches as a fuller teaching of the truth."
You said this: "He accepted the Catholic Church and the faith it teaches as a fuller teaching of the truth."
You wrote:
"Hint: This is the kind of arrogance that Christians should pull back from."
"He accepted...as" means it was his understanding of things.
Hint back: Learn to read. Don't confuse a statement about someone else's understanding as being representative about yet another's arrogance. Are you a product of the public schools?
Are you a product of the public schools?
You wrote:
"This is the point where your stubborn defense falters."
My defense has been neither stubborn nor did it falter. You have mounted no defense because none is possible. That is why you yet again attack without any evidence whatsoever to prove your point about Gallitzin making a political conversion.
"The Orthodox faith he was baptized is the Christian faith."
According to you. That does not change the reality of things nor does it change his story nor does it mean his reconciliation was political.
"His decision to switch denominations midstream indicates other motivations."
Utter nonsense. There was no "midstream". He was baptized Orthodox. He was raised as nothing. Only when he was 17 did he reconcile with the Church. In between birth and 17 he essentially lived no religious life. Also, the Catholic Church is not a denomination. I wouldn't even refer to the Orthodox churches as denominations in this context either. They are Churches. Protestants have denominations. Catholics and Orthodox do not.
"Yes, political ones."
Wrong again. You have yet to provide even the smallest scrap of evidence of such an assertion.
"Certainly not faith based ones."
Except that his own words and his entire life from then on show you to be hopelessly wrong. That's exactly why you offer no evidence of what you assert.
"You no doubt are aware of the millenia old tensions between the Eastern and Western Christian beliefs."
More so than you. That's why I don't make the mistake of calling the Catholic Church or the Orthodox churches mere denominations.
"Well goody; so did lots of wonderful priests."
Yes, and they do are sometimes canonized. Apparently you did know that. St. Alphonsus comes to mind immediately.
"But the RC hierarchy should look to someone else to canonize."
Nope. The Catholic Church should look at those who were holy for canonization. Gallitzin, BY ALL ACCOUNTS, was a holy man. And you should look toward learning about what you post.
You wrote:
"There you go again."
I was apparently even more right than I knew. Is that the case?
"Arrogance rears its ugly head."
The arrogance here is not in the barbs I post but in the assertions you posted. You are essentially slandering a holy man. He accomplished more in his life than you would accomplish in ten with your attitude.
"You keep missing the point...deliberately."
You keep not making a point and just post an assertion, repeatedly, without any evidence whatsoever. That is very deliberate. I knew what reconciliation meant. You apparently did not. I know that the CC and the ROC are not properly called denominations. You apparently did not. You either DELIBERATELY or accidently (because of something lacking in you) actually claimed I said one thing when I said another. I wrote, "He accepted...as" and yet you claimed it meant something other than what I wrote. Who's really the arrogant one here? I make no false claims about you or what you wrote. I try to get the facts of the case correct. I have actually read about Gallitzin and read one of his own books while you have read nothing other than this article and perhaps something you found online with the last handful of hours. The arrogance is not mine.
"Have a good one."
I will. I hope you do too.
The Catholic Church should look at those who were holy for canonization
You wrote:
"Oh yeah...holy. Here's another political saint: Stepinac -- the apologist for the butchery in the Balkans in WWII."
Stepinac lived a holy life, denounced racism, nazism, argued with the NDH regime, denounced communism, etc. He was also known for living a personal life of holiness. He risked his life to save Jews - as the Jews themselves attested. He never once was an apologist for any butchery on anyone's part.
"How's his sainthood process coming along?"
Well, I hope.
"Is he on that road to political "sainthood"?"
There is no such thing as a road to political sainthood.
"Oh I forgot: he's already a saint."
He is not yet a canonized saint. Again, we see that you have no idea of what you're talking about. You are merely babbling nonsensically.
"Politics...."
Ignorance....on your part. Those who cherish politics stand against Stepinac. Those who love God and human freedom do not make the mistakes you have made. Randolf Churchill, son of Winston Churchill, wrote on January 23rd, 1946: "Yugoslav propaganda against the Archbishop of Zagreb has no other purpose than to prepare the ground for a trial against him." So you believe the politicians, communist politicians no less.
After Stepinac's show trial, the great French writer Francois Mauriac wrote on December 2nd, 1946. "We have read the declarations and assembled the attestations and are convinced that the Archbishop of Zagreb has been sentenced to sixteen years of imprisonment despite his innocence. If after this Christians are silent then the stones themselves will speak out." And Christians did speak out - in favor of Stepinac. You condemn him. Just as you slander Gallitzin. We see what side you are on. You are on the side of the enemies of Christ and not on the side of Christianity.
A month later 'Winston Churchill himself spoke in the British Parliament: "This is a political trial with the intention of causing the Catholic Church in Croatia to split with the Vatican. Tito, after all, has openly declared it. One should not forget that the resistance to atheism is stronger when there is outside support. Here I refer to the Pope. The trial itself has no connection with justice and is indeed a violation of it. Tito's regime cares nothing for justice. The martyrdom of Archbishop Stepinac would be complete should the sentence be applied and executed. God grant that the archbishop endure in spirit and in body all that he will have to endure in order that Christianity may prevail thanks to his courage."'
See how Churchill knew the persecution of Stepinac to be a "political trial". But you side with the politicians, the communists here, don't you? You reject Churchill's side, the side of justice, of goodness, and sit with the communist politicians.
Even the already left leaning New York Times on October 13th, 1946, wrote: "The trial of Archbishop Stepinac was a purely political one with the outcome determined in advance. The trial and sentence of this Croatian prelate are in contradiction with the Yugoslavia's pledge that it will respect human rights and the fundamental liberties of all without reference to race, sex, language and creed. Archbishop Stepinac was sentenced and will be incarcerated as part of the campaign against his church, guilty only of being the enemy of Communism."
See that? The NYT admitted the trial was a purely political one, but you side with the politicians, the communists, against the Christians, and you apparently do so happily.
http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/stepinac.htm
Your assertions that Gallitzin reconciled with the Catholic Church for political reasons are still completely and demonstratively nonsensical. You have utterly failed, time after time, to show that he either reconciled for political reasons or that the Church is considering him for sainthood simply because he reconciled rather than for his heroic life of virtue and holiness. Bringing up Stepinac in no way helps your case. He too led a life of heroic virtue being persecuted and ultimately imprisoned after a sham trial by atheistic communists (with whom you are apparently in complete agreement). All you're doing is showing the complete and utter bankrupt nature of your case.... as well as your knowledge and good will.
Thanks once again for essentially proving me right by coming up completely empty in your attack on Gallitzin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.