The Doubtful Saints

[Vasya Davidovich]

[I'm going to post this here, because I am not interested in debate, just in the answer to a serious question, hopefully delivered by serious people.]

As I see it, one can approach the saints through the lens of history and through the lens of hagiography. The critical eye, and the eye of faith. Sometimes, though, the two appear to conflict. Or, at least, it appears that a saint may have been created by accident (and that he or she never existed).

For example: St. Veronica. There is no historical evidence for her, and instead, we have a name that appears to relate to the story told about her: vera icon, or true icon.

Another example: Ss. Sophia, Faith, Hope, and Love. There is no historical evidence for these either, and instead we have something that appears to have been a mediaeval sermon title: "The children of holy wisdom are faith, hope and love."

I could go on.

Here is my question:

What do you do when you encounter a possible saint? Do you believe blindly? Do you doubt everything? Or do you strike some kind of balance (and what is it)?

- Vasya.

 

[Greg the byzantine]

Very interesting Vasya. I am one who generally believes that even those questionable saints, are in fact real. At the same time, I feel that even one who doesn't believe so can look at the hagiographic text and see the importance of these "vitae". Regardless there are so many saints who we know existed, and who continue to work miracles, that there is no reason why it should be a stumbling block for anyone.

 

[Barky]

I think the Orthodox are an incredibly sober minded bunch. If someone tried to invent a saint out of a sermon, I think someone would have called him out and condemned it. The idea is kind of absurd if you think about it.

I most definitly believe in the Church's saints.

 

[JeremiahsBulldog]

I believe that Vasya Davidovich doesn't exist. The reason?

Simple. There is no corroborating evidence besides the posts on this Orthodox forum. And modern scholarship can't possibly accept something that comes from the Orthodox.

 

[nutroll]

I think there are a number of things to consider when it comes to these doubtful saints. The first is that a lack of evidence does not necessarily mean non-existence. Another thing is that it is possible that such stories could have come to be accepted without any malicious intent. I think we all know of times when we heard a story and related it to someone else without really knowing where the story came from, or if all the details were exactly correct. But again, even if the name is wrong, or the specifics of the story are not accurate, it does not mean that they are not somehow tied to a real person, even if the exact resemblance it missing. I don't think we need to clear out doubtful saints, nor do I think we need to insist that everything is exactly as we read it. I think we can acknowledge that God knows, and that when we ask a saint for his or her prayers, God knows our intent and would hear our prayer even if that saint did not exist. It's not something that I even spend time thinking about most of the time. I don't think it makes any real difference to our lives.

 

[JeremiahsBulldog]

nutroll,

Very well put.

 

[E.C.]

I'm reminded of when I read a book about the Saints when "looking" for a saint before my Chrismation.

This book would have the usual name, date commemorated and a brief bit of their life. But every once in a while I'd come across a saint where all it read was something to the effect of "The Church does not know much about this saint other than that their name was found in a list of saints centuries ago".

 

[prodromos]

On Sunday I was blessed to be able to venerate the relics of many saints, including some small bones from the holy innocents slain by Herod. I was also shown some cotton wool which still had a distinct smell of myrrh. Somewhere in Montenegro there was an oral tradition of an ancient monastery which had been destroyed through the intrigues of the Venetians and a young man who resented his mother bequeathing her possessions to the monastery on her death. The story was that the Venetians supplied the young man with poison with which he was to poison the food at the major feast day of the monastery, shortly after which the Venetians bombarded the monastery with artillery. It is only recently that the ruins of this monastery were excavated during which the remains of many bodies were found which had not been given burial, but were simply covered by the falling structure. Forensic tests on the bones found significant quantities of cyanide. Further excavation revealed the original charnal house where the relics of centuries of monks had been laid to rest, a number of which were found to be streaming with myrrh, which was the source of the aroma in the cotton wool I was shown.

The point is that for a long time there was no evidence apart from the oral tradition that this monastery had even existed, let alone that it had been destroyed in a particular fashion. Only recently has the oral tradition been confirmed through the recent excavations.

John

 

[ikonographics]

AS Prodromos says, many saints have remained hidden and unknown for centuries until by God's will they have recently revealed themselves. One such example is St Ephraim of Nea Makri

 

[Protoevangel]

Vasya,

I look at the question from a different perspective. Instead of "if we don't have 'scientific' evidence, should we be skeptical?” I ask, "Is there really any overwhelming reason for me to doubt this?"

I do have a tendency to be skeptical, and it can be tough for me to overcome. I sometimes have to consciously refrain from skepticism in regard to "doubtful Saints", as you refer to them, and to miracles inthe Saints lives. Why should I doubt the miraculous accounts of the Saints? Because 'science' says that metal does not bend when it touches human skin? Because the dead cannot come back to life? No, I see no reason to doubt, Vasya. I see no reason to doubt the Saints existence, nor their actions.