The Heresy of Philomena's Sainthood

Dear brothers and sisters, there is a heresy spreading in our Church. Based on the vision of a Catholic nun, and on no other evidence at all, people have started venerating a person named Philomena in our Coptic church. I've written an article against the heresy of her veneration. Please read it and be informed, as people are sadly led only by emotions and not the facts. Unless the Holy Synod finds evidence for her sainthood and canonizes her she should not be venerated in our Church.

https://orthodoxy.life/2019/05/16/philomena-in-the-coptic-church/

Comments

  • @GreekCopt,
    St. Philomena is not canonized by the Coptic Church but she is recognized. This Saint was martyred before canonization was established for the Saint in the church so the church allows for her veneration in the church. Part of her body came to Egypt and some of it is in St. George Convent, in Old Egypt and in convents and monasteries they recognize her as a Saint because of the numerous miracles that God bestowed upon His people through her prayers. We do not venerate this Saint based on the accounts of a nun but based on what happened with Coptic Christians and in Egypt.
  • With all due respect thoktetegom, a church has been built in Texas with her name, her relics are venerated in our Church and people consider her a saint. Orthodoxy does not work simply by miracles or peoples emotions. Also there is no evidence the body found in the tomb was that of a martyr. How do you know she is a martyr? There's no written evidence for this, only the accounts of a Catholic nun who had a vision of Philomena, who told her she was martyred. Since when does Orthodoxy believe visions of a Catholic nun without any other evidence. She isn't even recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church. Read my article and you will see all the facts and evidence for what I'm saying. This is down right wrong and a betrayal of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is based on facts and not feelings.
  • Her veneration might have something to do with the fact that people like her name. Some egyptians are stupid like that. If people buy into protestant songs and sermons, is it any surprise that they'll eat up some sort of story about a vision a catholic nun allegedly saw.
  • @GreekCopt
    Yes what evidence is there that her body that was found in the tomb was that of a martyr, what evidence is there that the body of any other martyr canonized by the Coptic Church is that of a martyr? For example, St. Mina appeared in a vision to the queen that was sleeping at the site of his holy body and told her that they had buried him there which is a similar "vision" that the nun may have had. I am not saying that the nun was right in her testimony I have no proof of what she saw and I can not judge but the saints of the church were known by the congregation through the miracles they perform and through visions. I do not agree with the last part that Orthodoxy is based on facts, yes it is but we walk by faith and not by sight or else we would be "scientologists" if we believe based on facts solely. Christianity is unique in that we believe by our faith in our Lord. 
  • St. Philomena is venerated in the Coptic church because of her accepted intercessions before God and not because Coptics merely like her name because that is not how it works, with all due respect. 
  • edited August 2019
    The process of recognizing someone as a saint is not easy. It took the church 50 years after the departure of Habib Guirgis for them to actually recognize him officially in the synaxarium. The Holy Synod has to agree upon the canonization and if they did not have enough evidence to recognize her as a saint then they would not have. There are still updates that are happening to the synaxarium and that takes a while. Also the Catholics recognize her as a saint and once again there's that process. Although I am not sure of the details, there must be justifiable reasoning, the church is very careful with these things...
  • I really don't intend to side track this conversation, but I'm so impressed by the level of knowledge that exists within this forum. It is incredible that you guys actually know this stuff.
  • edited September 2019
    I'm coming very late into this discussion but I would offer a word of caution against throwing around words like 'heresy' so readily, especially in a matter such as this.

    Heresy is when a teaching contradicts the Apostolic teachings of the Church.  One's faith does not hang on whether or not they believe St Philomena is a saint (per se).  As such, it could be considered a mistake perhaps but it can't really be a heresy because belief in her sainthood doesn't really affect our understanding of the economy of salvation in Christ or our belief in God.

    I also don't think the canonisation process can be treated the way it is here (as the sole indicator of sainthood).  Historically the Church honored local traditions of communities who honor holy people that lived among them.  Canonisation in the Orthodox Church is not to be understood as an exclusive list of figures we can venerate:

    "For the first thousand years of the history of the Church saints were
    recognized without any formal rite of canonization. Local congregations
    of the faithful simply began to remember certain well-known Christians
    in their liturgical gatherings, to ask them for help in prayer, to visit
    their relics, which frequently remained vehicles of the Holy Spirit,
    curing the sick in soul and body, as they had during earthly life.

    In the 10th century, in the west, the then-Orthodox Church of Rome
    began to insist that saints be formally and officially “registered” as
    such with the Roman authorities. The first recorded canonization of this
    type was that of Ulrich of Augsburg, canonized in 993 by John XV. For
    the next 600 years—during which time the Roman Catholic Church split off
    from the Orthodox community—the west developed a very legalistic and
    precise method of determining who were saints.

    The Holy Orthodox Church never developed any comparable methods for
    canonizing her saints. The situation remained very much determined by
    local practices, local cults, and local traditions. Holy men and women
    continued to be recognized as such during their own lifetime; they
    continued to be venerated (honored) after their death; Christian people
    continued to ask for their prayers and to visit their shrines."

    Source : https://www.oca.org/fs/canonization

    Figures like Pope Kyrillos in our parents generation were deemed to be holy people while they were alive and people sought his intercession (quite rightly) from the day he died.  This is always the pattern because the Holy Spirit makes it obvious to us when a figure is a saint while they live among us.  The recognition of this fact by believers (rather than a canonisation process) is very very important.  The reason I stress this is the Holy Spirit witnesses to us the work of Christ and the faith of the Apostles through signs done in the saints (see Heb 2:1-4).  Its this work that is the proof that our faith is living and that we walk in the Spirit.
  • I dont have the time to find the thread again, but a discussion came up some while back about Alleged-Saint Philomena, and if I remember correctly there was some consensus there. If anyone can link to it it’d be appreciated
  • edited September 2019
    Thank you. I must say I'm surprised at the resolution and the supporting article as they don't agree with our traditional standard. Our fathers never used a process of determining sainthood based on historicity. Its a Catholic innovation and it seems the article taking an alien starting point goes down another's rabbit hole.

    We're very new as a community to scholarship and it can be a bit of a two edged sword. Sometimes it takes you forward if you do something in harmony with tradition. Sometimes it takes you backwards when you attack the faith's own first principals. This I fear is one of those occasions. The danger is where spirituality is only accessible to those pure in heart, scholarship is open often excelled in by those with the greatest pride.

    I cannot speak on the will of the author, I am certain they are someone of good nature, but we need to keep it real. Our fathers had a gift of revelation that they used to understand mysteries and articulate things beyond words. They were gifted with insight of the incarnation and trinity and set these things out for us in plain language. The indescribable nature was circumscribed in language. This knowledge on account of its origins is sacred and heavenly, it describes things beyond our educated systems of learning and insight. It did not ultimately come from man. As a result of it being revelatory and guided by principals of a heavenly tradition, we must make a distinction. Those who are the the fountainheads of such knowledge and the less gifted souls who study their works in academia. The former as guards against error, those who outlined the truth. The latter, failing to walk the same spiritual path eat the fruits of their labours but fall short of the life that produced it. We often forget the hours of prayer and scriptural study the fathers invested to yield that spiritual fruit. Short cutting that process puts the same knowledge into the hands of those less mature how did not arrive at it by means of cultivating a spiritual tree to yield the precious fruit. Our knowledge of God's mysteries is a sacred kind of knowledge, it was hidden until the appearance of Christ. The scholars among the Jews were confounded and Christ hand picked for himself 12 who were of lowly disposition.

    Arius was a great scholar. Go and read his writings, it can be admitted without question. What he lacked was that he walked in his own intepretive framework and not that of Apostolic tradition. He had the academic gifts but not the fruit that comes with living tradition.

    If the veracity of Saint Philomena is to be judged it must be done using the Spirit as a guide. Sainthood is the means by which the Church is reminded that Christ is alive and His resurrection bore fruit. Hence miracles and signs have to take precedence over any historical arguments a scholar might make as they come from a higher authority, the Holy Spirit.
  • edited May 2020
    Greetings Coptic Soldier, thank you for your response. I am the author of the article so am happy to respond for myself.

    I must say I agree with almost everything you have written including the below:

    "I cannot speak on the will of the author, I am certain they are someone of good nature, but we need to keep it real. Our fathers had a gift of revelation that they used to understand mysteries and articulate things beyond words. They were gifted with insight of the incarnation and trinity and set these things out for us in plain language. The indescribable nature was circumscribed in language. This knowledge on account of its origins is sacred and heavenly, it describes things beyond our educated systems of learning and insight. It did not ultimately come from man. As a result of it being revelatory and guided by principals of a heavenly tradition, we must make a distinction. Those who are the the fountainheads of such knowledge and the less gifted souls who study their works in academia. The former as guards against error, those who outlined the truth. The latter, failing to walk the same spiritual path eat the fruits of their labours but fall short of the life that produced it. We often forget the hours of prayer and scriptural study the fathers invested to yield that spiritual fruit. Short cutting that process puts the same knowledge into the hands of those less mature how did not arrive at it by means of cultivating a spiritual tree to yield the precious fruit. Our knowledge of God's mysteries is a sacred kind of knowledge, it was hidden until the appearance of Christ. The scholars among the Jews were confounded and Christ hand picked for himself 12 who were of lowly disposition.

    Arius was a great scholar. Go and read his writings, it can be admitted without question. What he lacked was that he walked in his own intepretive framework and not that of Apostolic tradition. He had the academic gifts but not the fruit that comes with living tradition."

    I am a strong advocate for the above in all regards. A scholar simply does not have the insight that an illumined father/mother has, through their ascetic yearning for Christ, which results in the sanctification of their entire being by God's grace, thus resulting in their illumination and union with God, enabling them to understand truths that would never be grasped by a scholar in a hundred years. Totally agree.

    But that's not my argument. My argument is that based on the vision of someone outside our tradition, a Catholic nun, we have imported a story into our Church, and based on the emotive aspect of the story, many people jumped on board and without any research simply accepted this person as a saint.

    As Orthodox Christians we need to be more careful than this. If Philomena is indeed a Saint, then her story would need to be looked at by the Holy Synod, including the character of the Catholic nun that had the vision, to identify whether the vision is true or it is a delusion. We should not be careless and just believe anything that the people believe to be true. This needs to be tested, that's my whole point.

    If the Holy Synod wants to accept the vision of a Catholic Nun and deems this as suitable for entry into our tradition then so be it. They'd have solid evidence to do so. But if not, then we need to have a discussion as to whether we should have play enactments of Philomena's life, based on a vision by a Catholic nun (as we had at my Church) or whether in doing so we distort what we mean by Orthodoxy and what is approved or is not in our Church.

    If she is a Saint I'll happily venerate her, but this cannot just be based on an emotive aspects so prevalent in the Coptic Church.

    Also, the historicity of events is important. If a saint existed or didn't exist is very important. The historicity of our faith is important. If not, St Luke as a Gospel author would not have used historically verifiable events as reference points in his Gospel and in the book of Acts. He has done this over and over again to prove the historicity of certain events. This is not against Orthodoxy, if anything it contributes to it. 

    Also the Apostles went to great lengths to prove the historicity of the Risen Lord. St Paul mentions everyone that saw Jesus after His crucifixion, proving the resurrection, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-9. He is proving a historical event by listing witness to this event, thus verifying it's historicity.

    I think we are looking at this situation from two different standpoints, and hopefully we can agree on the above.

    God bless you brother.


  • Hello brother thoktetegom,

    In response to your point:

    "I do not agree with the last part that Orthodoxy is based on facts, yes it is but we walk by faith and not by sight or else we would be "scientologists" if we believe based on facts solely. Christianity is unique in that we believe by our faith in our Lord."

    I'm happy you agree that Orthodoxy is based on facts, and I do not disagree we also need to walk by faith, of course!

    But I'm sure you'll agree that it is a fact that Jesus rose from the dead, its a fact that the Transfiguration took place. These are not myths, they are facts, backed up by eye witnesses, verifiable historically in this regard.

    Of course to benefit from these facts, we must believe and then strive to live an Orthodox life in holiness and righteousness, with deep yearning and love for God. Faith is absolutely essential.

    My whole point, which I sadly don't seem to have communicated well enough, is that based on no evidence whatsoever, we have imported someone into our tradition and now, based on the emotive aspect of her story, everyone loves her.

    At my Church we had a church wide, ticketed event, that had the youth enact the life of Philomena in a theatric fashion. All based on what? The vision of a Catholic Nun.

    Thus, my whole Parish now loves her, as her story was publicised, without research first as to who this person actually was and whether they were from our tradition.

    Again, if she is a saint, then I'll wholeheartedly venerate her. But I wont accept her sainthood based on a vision by a Catholic nun, whom our tradition knows nothing about, and whose story has been looked at by historians who have said it has elements that don't match with history. In other words they deemed the story dubious.

    I'm not against faith, I'm all for faith, but not blind uniformed faith, that's dangerous and leads to delusion. We believe in a God who intervened in history and in saints that can be verified to a certain degree historically. We don't believe in myths. Truth is very important, we shouldn't allow things in our tradition unless there is some sort of evidence for them.

    God bless you brother, and apologies if my article was unclear.


  • Of course we, as a Coptic Orthodox church, do not venerate Catholic saints. But if what is spreading is not a dangerous theological mistake, it is not a heresy per se. 
  • I agree @EstephanosPhilipos I believe this amounts to a heresy in the Orthodox faith and unfortunately it had already found its way to the Synexarium as in the case of Augustine (which happens to be a funny story in itself, ie to mention him on the 28th of August like the Catholics as if there is no difference between the two calendars - opens up a massive can of worms)..
    Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ
  • I think we can both agree that this is bad, and should stop. Catholic saints are not to be venerated in our church.

    St. Augustine, despite his errors, is a saint in our church. I'm not sure what you're talking about in terms of the Synaxarium thing. 

    Pray for me!
  • Dear @EstephanosPhilipos,
    Augustine is a heretic insofar as the dogma of filioque is concerned as it is a heresy in the Orthodox faith. The second point is that I was talking about his inclusion in the Synexarium (I believe in the year 2014), and the discrepancy between the two calendars, an area that I am particularly interested in..
    Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ
  • hmmm.  I see what you are saying.....I actually never knew he taught the filioque. I knew he taught his Original sin idea, and determinism, though. Your analysis of him being a heretic is just your analysis though, like it's no based on any specific church decision. We have Coptic parishes named after him, and icons of him. If our hierarchy decided to put him in the synaxarium....who are we to object. Did he actually teach filioque?
  • Dear @EstephanosPhilipos
    Well then let's agree to disagree. If the hierarchy agrees to something wrong then we must correct it. No one is infallible. It is not my personal view that he is a heretic by the way, we just happen to have some people these days who do not give heed to the forefathers, Orthodox teachings and watch too much TV..
    Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ
  • Saint Philomena is a Saint and a very big and honoured One too.
    The time will come when God opens your eyes to such.
    We Love You Saint Philomena, be with us always, Our Intercesssor!
  • edited November 2020
    @Jojo_Hanna We venerate her during the doxologies at the Monastery, although I am not completely sure if she is a canonized Saint in our church. Any information I've been able to find is either vague or conflicting.

    She does have a history of veneration in Byzantine Orthodoxy, although I do believe she is only venerated in Catholic and Oriental Orthodox churches. I found a few academic articles, although they are all from Catholic sources. It's an interesting topic. I was initially told she wasn't a saint, yet when I hear her venerated in the doxologies, I saw this thread open back up and I had to add my two cents. My wife wants to name our daughter (if we have one) Philomena. So, a lot of people love her story and venerate her in our church. I'm just not sure there are any definitive details on how she became a saint in the our church if there is such a sketchy past with her story. I remember her growing up, but she isn't as venerated in Catholicism as Saint Monica or Saint Lucy. Interesting stuff.
  • @italianCoptic, I love Her very much and I know She loves us all and someone else too!
    I’d love to see the doxology you use for Her though, if that’s okay please!
  • @ItalianCoptic the Coptic Church has a.. complicated.. history with Philomena. Even Wikipedia has it wrong- the source cited for Oriental Orthodoxy recognizing her is actually an article against the recognition of her sainthood. Jojo has linked to it in other threads if you want to read it.
    That article gives a pretty decent summary of what happened: the Catholic Church's Pope Gregory 16 hastily misused the power of canonization (which works differently than from our process) on a girl whose tomb was found with a glass vial of blood. The tomb named the person laid there as "Filumena", aka Philomena At the time, a glass vial of blood was thought to mean that the person in that tomb was martyred. However, a secular archaeologist proved that 1- the vial was not filled with blood and 2- the vial of blood tradition is not a sign of martyrdom. A nun from Naples gave a history of this woman (supposedly she was a Greek princess who was martyred by Diocletian) that the Catholic Encyclopedia calls "fanciful". However, it's the 1800s and Snopes isn't around to fact-check, so word gets to their Pope and he 'canonizes' her. Canonizes is in quotes because he didn't go through the proper rites and ceremonies- this, along with history raising all these question marks, leads the Catholic Church to.. do something. It's not uncanonizing because she was never canonized, but they told everyone to stop recognizing her as a saint and stop celebrating her feast. I guess the word is un-sainted?
    The article then argues that if the Roman Church who originally discovered her body can't support her, how can we Copts?

    There is a valid counter-point: Philomena would almost certainly pass the Oriental Orthodox bar for sainthood to the best of my knowledge: apparition, miracles, and over 50 years from the time of her death (unless you're Papa Abba Kyrillos VI). So if she passes the bar for being a saint, she's a saint, right? Well, the Synod needs to confirm it. So technically she's not a saint and should not be venerated- no doxologies/gospel responses/hymns/tamgeed, no intercessions, etc. 

    However, even that isn't a good enough reason not to, since raises questions about another similar-ish case: Pope Shenouda III.
    Being Patriarch is not automatic grounds for sainthood (just read up on Yousab II), so Papa Shenouda III would need to pass the same test as any other saint. We haven't hit the 50-year mark, but I've heard of miracles and apparitions. So, in theory, we should wait til 8 Paremhat 1778 (2062) to begin honoring his departure. 
    But I think it's common sentiment that honoring his departure is the right thing to do nowadays, even if he isn't officially recognized as a saint like Papa Abba Kyrillos is.

    So I think a good-faith argument could be made that Philomena is as much a saint as Pope Shenouda- that it comes down to the Synod making it official, and that the person is in heaven.

    Twbh `e`hryi `ejwi
  • Her name is not "Philomena", it is Saint Philomena*.
    Again, the time will come when God opens all eyes to see the greatness of Her Intercession and the power of Her Prayers. 

    Pray for us O Bride of Christ, Saint Philomena the Princess.
  • At this point, @Ophadece is probably the only source I trust at this point
  • Thanks a lot dear @CopticBoy101, please don't be fooled by false or even fake appearances, but please do pray for me and my family...
    @Daniel_Kyrillos I guess you raised very important points. Pope Shenouda should not be venerated as a saint now and I would discourage any member of the synod to even advocate for this. There is a very important reason why 50 years have to pass so that a saint's life, deeds (not necessarily miracles) are seen and felt by more than their concurrent generations. Pope Kyrollos VI was close to 50 years and the criteria are clear in his case (not that I am defending exceptions anyway).
    In short, it is a slippery slope to follow sentiments and emotions in the church. It happened before and it keeps happening and it is wrong. The church canons are there for a reason. The forefathers' teachings are there for a reason. We, or the synod should not tweak things because they sound nice or because the majority of people would like it. No. We are not subjective, but objective. Jesus Christ is not subjective. He is the truth, the absoluteness (is that a word) and the just judge. We follow the straight path handed down to us, and not tweak it since we live in a different generation to Pope Athanasius or anyone else.. Very wrong to think like that..
    Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ
Sign In or Register to comment.