How can the patriarch of Moscow become a “catholic”, or Once again on one “miracle” of Josaphat Kuntsevych
The article examines the history of the legend about the conversion of the Patriarch of Moscow Nikon to Catholicism thanks to the “miracle” of the Uniate martyr Josaphat Kuntsevych. This legend appeared and was quite popular among Catholics and Uniates of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 18...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svi͡a︡to-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. II, Istorii͡a︡, istorii͡a︡ Russkoĭ pravoslavnoĭ t͡s︡erkvi Jg. 125; H. 125; S. 78 - 89 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch Russisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
St. Tikhon's Orthodox University
01.12.2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| ISSN: | 1991-6434, 2409-4811 |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Zusammenfassung: | The article examines the history of the legend about the conversion of the Patriarch of Moscow Nikon to Catholicism thanks to the “miracle” of the Uniate martyr Josaphat Kuntsevych. This legend appeared and was quite popular among Catholics and Uniates of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 18th century. The original source of the myth was established - an extensive polemical work published in 1704 by the Jesuit Jan Aloizy Kulesza. The author found out that Kulesza “constructed” this legend by combining together the information about the “miraculous” punishment and healing of Nikon by Josaphat from a 1673 book about the posthumous miracles of the Uniate martyr and the apocryphal statement of the Patriarch regarding his possible condemnation by the Church Council that only the Pope had power over him from a 1691 biography of Wincenty Gosiewski by Samuel Wenslawski. Further, based on the analysis of the texts of the historical works by Ignacy Kulczynski and Ignacy Stebelsky, the sermon by Porfiriusz Wazynski the history of the subsequent circulation and dissemination of this legend was shown. To answer the question why Kulesza and later Catholic authors, based on Nikon’s apocryphal statement about the power of the Pope, concluded that he was faithful to the Roman Church, the author turned to what it meant to be a “Catholic” in the era of confessionalisation and religious wars in Europe of 16th–17th centuries. It is noted that at this time those people were recognized by both the adherents of the Roman Church and its opponents as “Catholics” who, first of all, spoke about the supreme authority of the Pope in the Christian world. This was especially true in the context of the confrontation between the Uniates and the Orthodox in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, when the visual and ritual difference between two churches was often insignificant. Thus, within the framework of religious polemics, for Catholic and Uniate authors the recognition of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff by the Patriarch of Moscow, taken from an authoritative source for them, was enough to consider him as a “Catholic”. It is noted that it was a very common technique in the context of disputes with the Orthodox, when, based on information about any contacts with Rome and positive statements in favor of the Pope, Catholics of both rites declared that certain historical figures or even saints were “Catholics”. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1991-6434 2409-4811 |
| DOI: | 10.15382/sturII2025125.78-89 |