|
|
Post by OrthodoxBrit on Feb 23, 2013 14:42:25 GMT 2
Hi,
Can anyone tell me why Alexandr Nevsky and many other Royal Russians are considered saints by the EO?
I understand that his actions helped protect an Orthodox community from forced conversion by the Franj but wasn't he just as much compelled to fight because he was a Prince of a nation and had ties and worldly/political interests in protecting the Rus?
As well as this, why are many Russian rulers and princes saints in the EO? Is being a good national ruler part of making someone a saint or is it more political/nationalistic?
|
|
|
|
Post by immerlein on Feb 23, 2013 22:47:23 GMT 2
Interesting question! I've wondered about this myself. I don't know the answer but I look forward to seeing if someone else does  |
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Feb 24, 2013 6:29:08 GMT 2
I've had struggles with this as well. I think the importance of canonization lies not with what these individuals did in their lifetime, but whether or not they are united with Christ in heaven and interceding on our behalf. Obviously we cannot possibly say who is going to heaven and who isn't, but there are some Saints who I respect, but I'm not sure why they are canonized. Obviously, I wont question the Church and her teaching, but I'd like to express doubts.
For example... St. Constantine the Great frequently showed acts of lawless murder, barbarism, and sympathies towards Arianism (was also baptized by an Arian Bishop at the end of his life). Again, I will venerate him if the Church sees fit, but I'm not exactly too keen on his character.
St. Alexander Nevsky and other warrior Saints are another issue. Again, sometimes the heads of state have to do certain things to keep their people alive. What St. Alexander Nevsky did was necessary. Sometimes difficult things must be done in order to be an effective ruler. If we bar St. Alexander Nevsky from canonization on the grounds of his status as a warrior, do we bar every other head of state that had to make difficult decisions from canonization? Perhaps it's a case by case basis.
This is an interesting question that I'd like to put forward to my Priest. Looking forward to some more answers here!
|
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoxBrit on Feb 25, 2013 1:44:13 GMT 2
Constantine is an interesting example, as he is not widely venerated in the OO, though was added to the Synaxarium this century when the discussions over reunion came about.
The debate over his baptism is also another interesting one, as some would say Eusebius of Nicomedia was Orthodox at the time due to signing against Arius, though he later was a key player in the conversion of the Goths to Arianism. It is all odd.
What is also interesting is Eusebius of Caesarea (contemporary of Nicaea and wrote the histories) described Constantine's entry to the council as though he was a saint, he says how the emperor "proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones."
It all seems like boot kissing, especially when he was a Pagan at the time. Other details from Eusebius state how the Bishops Censed him as he walked through. It reminds me of how the Romans treated Emperors pre-Christianity, just re-labeled.
|
|
