The Orthodox Church worships five thousand saints, and almost half have been canonized recently. The ROC is often reproached that the canonization pipeline is moving too fast, that dubious politicians like Tsar Nicholas II receive halo and life. Archpriest Oleg Mitrov, a member of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, told Snob how the church chooses who is a new martyr, who is a reverend, and who is just a good person.
As the archpriest says, holiness is achieved not in one day, but by many labors, prayers, striving to fulfill the commandments. In response to this, God sends his gifts to man. The Apostle Paul lists them: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, goodness, mercy, faith, meekness, temperance. By these qualities, and especially by such supernatural gifts as love for enemies, dispassion, true humility, we can judge the action of God and His grace in man.
Despite the fact that both sinful people and simply unbelievers can love and rejoice, this is all temporary, and the apostle Paul speaks of enduring joy: for example, a person is tortured, and at the same time he feels the joy of connection with God. One can cite as an example the New Martyrs - the saints of the 20th century. Their last letters and diaries have been preserved. People were in terrible conditions, they were sitting in camps waiting to be shot, but at the same time they wrote that they had never been so happy, they had never experienced God so keenly. Is this not evidence that eternal bliss is only in God?
If there is any doubt that it could just be a defensive reaction of the psyche to a nightmare happening around, then in the Orthodox Church there is the concept of "sober thinking". Devotees are very critical of what they feel. They have developed the skill to distinguish lies from the truth. It seems to me that their words can be trusted.
Nicholas II and Vanga
As for the people who violated the commandment and became saints, for example, the thief who was crucified with Christ, he entered paradise through repentance, confession of Christ and the meek patience of dying sufferings. Although all this fit in a few hours, but in spiritual sense turned out to be so great that the Lord granted him eternal bliss in His Kingdom.
Another example is Nicholas II, who did not order the execution of a peaceful demonstration in 1905, this is a Soviet propaganda stamp. The glorification of Nicholas II and his family has nothing to do with his state activities.
“No matter how we treat the royal family, there are no grounds for canonization or an example for other Christians to follow. But the royal family suffered in prison, meekly carried their cross and accepted martyrdom at the hands of the executioners, ”says Oleg Mitrov.
Due to the fact that Nicholas II did not die for Christ when the royal family was canonized, there were disputes within the church, there were many opponents. Therefore, when the commission considered this issue, it proposed to carry out their canonization in the guise of martyrs, and not martyrs. That is, those who have suffered innocent suffering and death.
In the case of the royal family, we know for sure that they had a normal church life with confessions and communions. We know how the royal family behaved on the eve of death: family members kept diaries. They showed Christian qualities like humility and treated what was happening as if it were God's providence, says Mitrov.
The saint is chosen by God. It is He who sends people a sign from another world - a miracle. Holiness is visible during life: the saint works miracles with prayers, heals people, foresees the future. On the basis of miracles, the veneration of the ascetic by the people is born, they begin to turn to him for help, sometimes during his lifetime, sometimes after his death. Time passes, and the bishop, in whose diocese the ascetic labored, instructs him to compile a biography of the ascetic, to collect evidence of his miracles and grace-filled help: what kind of person he is, how he labored, whether his miracles are true, whether there is false reverence for him, as, for example, in Wang's case.
Despite the fact that Vanga worked miracles, they may also be from the devil. In the Russian Church, ascetics were most often glorified on the basis of posthumous miracles, when Divine grace acted either through the relics of the saint, or by prayerful appeal to him. And there were cases when the relics were found, exhibited in the temple, but no miracles happened, and then the decision to glorify was postponed until God spoke affirmatively about this person.
Canonization
Before classifying someone as a saint, the commission works with archives, periodicals, and memoirs. Canonization is research. It is necessary to submit documents testifying to the veneration of the righteous man, about miracles and prayer help through his intercession. In the case of new martyrs, investigation cases in which the martyr was an accused or a witness are especially carefully studied. The collected materials, signed by the ruling bishop, are transferred to the Synodal Commission for the canonization of saints. Based on the results of the discussion, the materials can either be rejected, or sent for revision, or submitted to the hierarchy for a final decision on the glorification of the saint.
Canonization is refused quite often. The reason is either in non-compliance with the canonization criteria, or in the insufficient level of prepared materials. “This process takes time: sometimes several years, sometimes several centuries,” says the archpriest.
Article from the encyclopedia "Tree": site
Canonization(gr. άναχερύσις, lat. canonizatio, from gr. χανών in the meaning of “list, catalogue”), canonization of the deceased ascetic to the saints. As a certain procedure, the canonization of saints took shape in a relatively late time and not in all church traditions.
Canonization in the Ancient Church
There was no canonization as such in the ancient Church. The church community or an individual usually received the blessing of the bishop for the preservation of the relics of the saint and for the annual celebration of his memory. With the development of the veneration of saints, such recognition was expressed in the inclusion of the saint's name in diptychs and martyrologies; the collection of acts of martyrs, so important for the life of the Church in - centuries, apparently, was not directly connected with the question of recognizing or not recognizing their holiness. In principle, for the believers of the first centuries of Christianity and the early Middle Ages, holiness was obvious, “the shining white host of the elect” (Gregory of Tours) was revealed to the church as a given: early period was irrelevant. True, the African Church establishes in c. the difference between recognized and not recognized saints (inter vindicatos et non vindicatos), however, it was not so much about the recognition of holiness, but about the establishment of the Orthodoxy of the deceased ascetic - this was significant due to the fact that heretics had their own martyrs, and it was necessary to distinguish ascetics who died in Orthodoxy, from those who accepted a martyr's death without renouncing heresy.
Canonization in the Eastern Church
When the veneration of saints was made general church, the establishment of a general church celebration could, apparently, be the result of a conciliar decision (especially in controversial cases) or a decision of the primate of the Church (patriarch). We do not have data on such solutions for early times. The first patriarchal decree known to us with the proclamation of an ascetic saint dates back to the time of Patriarch Photius of Constantinople (c. - c.). The decree of Emperor Leo the Wise (-) is also known, commanding that celebrations be held throughout the Greek church in honor of a number of the most revered saints (this decree, however, by no means introduced veneration, but only regulated the already established tradition). In principle, the canonization of locally venerated saints is done in the Greek Church by the ruling bishop and does not need any approval; the highest hierarchical instances act only when local veneration is transformed into a general church one. There is also no special rank of canonization of saints. Lamentation is celebrated with a solemn service in honor of the new saint and the inclusion of his name in the calendar for the annual celebration of his memory.
Canonization in the Western Church
The situation is different in the Western Church. Initially, here too the right of “the premises of St. relics to the altar for veneration” belongs to the episcopate, although the veneration of individual ascetics continues to develop spontaneously outside the strict control of church authorities; Charlemagne finds it necessary to decide in his capitularies that the honoring of the saint should be preceded by his recognition at least by the local bishop. The first known formal act of establishing veneration is the canonization of St. Ulrich of Augsburg in the city. Around the city, Pope Alexander III decrees that no one can be considered a saint without the decision of the Roman Church, i.e. without papal approval. This regulation is included in the Decretal of Pope Gregory IX and becomes part of Western canon law. Over time, canonization turns into a strictly regulated procedure. Not earlier than 50 years after the death of the ascetic, at the request of the local clergy and bishop, the congregation of rites (congregatio ritus) conducts a threefold study of the life of the deceased and the miracles performed by him (during life or after death), after which the congregation votes and, in case of a positive outcome of the vote, announces the departed blessed (beatus); this procedure called a beatification. After this procedure, local worship is allowed; if after this new miracles are performed, the question of canonization is raised (for general church veneration). The decision on this is announced by the pope himself according to a special order with the formula “we decide and determine that the blessed N is a saint” (decernimus et definimus beatum N sanctum esse).
In Roman canon law, the conditions of canonization are also formulated with the greatest formal clarity. These include:
- the established church tradition of honoring the canonized,
- manifestation of miracles at the grave of the canonized,
- petition for canonization
- presence of life.
In the Eastern Church, formal procedures of this kind have not been developed, although in general canonization is based on the same principles. The most significant moment remains miracle-working as the most clear indication of the holiness of the deceased, of the action in him and through him of divine grace. In the Russian Church, great (though not decisive) importance is also attached to the incorruptibility of relics.
Canonization in the Russian Church
In the history of the Russian Church stands out five periods of canonization of saints.
- The first period covers the time from the baptism of Russia to the cathedrals and years;
- the second period consists of the two aforementioned councils under Metropolitan Macarius;
- the third period extends from these councils to the establishment of the Synod (in the city);
- the fourth period coincides with the time of the synodal rule (-);
- the fifth period begins with the restoration of the patriarchate and continues to the present day.
In the first period, the canonization of saints is performed primarily by diocesan bishops, in some cases the veneration acquires an all-Russian character, in total during this period more than 60 saints were canonized, including passion-bearers Boris and Gleb, Equal-to-the-Apostles Olga and Vladimir, saints (for example, Leonty of Rostov, and then Moscow saints Peter, Alexy and Jonah), saints (beginning with Anthony and Theodosius of the Caves), noble princes (for example, Alexander Nevsky), martyrs (for example, Prince Mikhail of Chernigov and his boyar Theodore), blessed (i.e. holy fools, for example, Nikolai Kochanov or Maxim, the holy fool from Moscow).
39 saints were simultaneously canonized at the Councils and years. The canonization of a whole host of Russian saints at these councils was associated with the church and state reforms of Metropolitan Macarius and Ivan the Terrible, with the establishment of the Moscow kingdom as a Christian empire, inheriting the place of Byzantium in the church and public relations. One of the aspects of this dispensation was the gathering of the saints of the Russian land, previously locally venerated, the compilation of their lives and services in their honor. Among the saints canonized at these councils were Saint Stephen of Perm, martyrs Anthony, John and Eustathius of Lithuania, Saints Zosima and Savvaty of Solovetsky.
From the time of the Makariev councils to the establishment of the synod, more than 130 saints were canonized, for a number of them the circumstances of their canonization remain unknown, and it can be assumed that their canonization was carried out in the same order, i.e. decision of the ruling bishop. Among the saints canonized during this period are Rev.
Canonization will take place in July of this year Athos elder John Vyshensky. Who can become a saint, what are the criteria for canonization and how to know holiness, answers Archimandrite Tikhon (Sofiychuk), Chairman of the Commission for the Canonization of the Kyiv Diocese.
—Father, how are saints canonized?
– The history of the Orthodox Church is the history of its holiness. Each Local Church fulfills its spiritual calling in full measure only when it not only reveals ascetics of piety in its enclosure, but also collectively glorifies these saints as canonized saints.
The Church gave the Christian world a great host of ascetics of piety, martyrs and confessors.
The Church calls saints those people who, having been cleansed from sin, have acquired the grace of the Holy Spirit and have revealed His power in our world.
Each saint with his own special life shows the way to holiness and acts as a model for those who follow this path. The Church teaches: the saints of God, making up the face of the saints, pray before the Lord for living brothers in faith, to whom the latter give prayerful honor.
The canonization procedure was developed and strictly regulated relatively recently. In the I-IV centuries. the veneration of saints was determined by the community and legalized by the bishop. Later, the veneration of saints and the general church distribution of such veneration was determined by the inclusion of the name of the deceased member of the community in the list of martyrs (martyrology). When veneration assumed a universal, i.e., church-wide character, it was confirmed by the head of the Local Church.
In the Russian Orthodox Church, the canonization of saints was performed locally by diocesan bishops. The first example of a conciliar decision on canonization is the resolutions of church councils of 1547 and 1549.
Councils of 1547 and 1549 Modern icon
What are the conditions for canonization?
- Canonization is the reckoning by the Church of any deceased ascetic of piety to the ranks of her saints. The word "canonization" (lat. canonizatio - to take as a rule), borrowed from the Western theological language, is used in the Russian Church along with the expression "communion to the saints" ("comprising", "introducing" into the saints). Greek hagiology uses a term meaning "proclaiming" (to the saints).
The grounds on which the dead righteous are counted among the saints were formed in the Ancient Church. Over time, one or another basis received a predominant value, but in general they remain unchanged.
The term "canonization" - a Latinized transcription of the Greek verb meaning "to determine, on the basis of the rule to legitimize" - was introduced into circulation by Western theologians rather late. In the Greek Church, this term does not have an exact analogy, therefore, in such cases, she used the phrase "communion to the face of saints" or "containment, incorporation into the face of saints."
The main condition for the glorification of the saints at all times was the manifestation of true sanctification, the holiness of the righteous. Evidence of such holiness could be:
1. The faith of the Church in the holiness of glorified ascetics as human beings. Those who pleased God and served the coming to earth of the Son of God and the preaching of the holy Gospel.
2. Martyrdom for Christ or torture for the faith of Christ.
3. Miracles performed by the saint through his prayers or from his honest relics.
4. High church primatial and hierarchal service.
5. Great services to the Church and the people of God.
6. A virtuous, righteous and holy life, not always witnessed by miracles.
7. In the 17th century, according to the testimony of Patriarch Nectarios of Constantinople, three signs were considered the conditions for the presence of true holiness in people:
a) Orthodoxy is impeccable;
b) the performance of all virtues, followed by opposition for the faith, even to the point of bloodshed;
c) God's manifestation of supernatural signs and wonders.
8. Often, the evidence of the holiness of the righteous was the great veneration of his people, sometimes even during his lifetime.
Along with the faces of the saints, according to the nature of their church service - martyrs, saints, reverends, holy fools for Christ's sake - the saints also differed in the prevalence of their veneration: local temple, local diocesan and general church. Today, only locally venerated saints are singled out, whose veneration does not go beyond the boundaries of any diocese, and general church ones, revered by the entire Church. The criteria for the glorification of church-wide and locally venerated saints are the same. The names of the saints glorified by the entire Church are communicated to the Primates of the fraternal Orthodox Local Churches for inclusion in the holy calendar.
– What is the practice of glorifying saints today?
– The practice of glorification is as follows: first, the Diocesan Commission for the Canonization of Saints considers materials on glorification. With a positive decision, they are transferred to the Synodal Commission, which, if approved, sends them to the Synod. The day of the decision of the Holy Synod is included in the calendar as the day of the glorification of the saint. Only after this, an icon is written to the saint and a service is composed. As for the locally venerated saints, the difference is only in the degree of glorification within the earthly Church. They also write icons and services. In the Orthodox Church, canonization is celebrated with a solemn service in honor of the newly glorified saint.
The petition and documents of the ascetic of the faith are submitted to the ruling bishop to study the issue of the possibility of canonization. Attached are materials testifying to the holiness of a person. A detailed biography of the ascetic is compiled, reflecting the feat of faith in its entirety. Documents are sent on the basis of which the biography is compiled: all archival copies, medical evidence of healings, memoirs of archpastors, pastors and laity about the pious life and the grace-filled help of the ascetic, revealed during his lifetime or after his death. Particularly careful elucidation requires the question of the veneration of the ascetic by the people.
Meeting of the Commission for the canonization of saints at the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Photo: canonization.church.ua
It should be recalled the decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of December 26, 2002 "On streamlining in the dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church the practice associated with the canonization of saints." Then it was decided that when preparing the canonization of saints, the following circumstances should be taken into account:
1. Materials for the canonization of an ascetic must be carefully prepared and considered by the diocesan commission for the canonization of saints in accordance with the decision of the 1992 Council of Bishops.
2. It is unacceptable to publish unverified materials related to the life, deeds and sufferings of clerics and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church. With the blessing of the ruling bishop, all evidence must be verified on the spot. The ruling bishop can give a blessing for the publication of such materials only after personally familiarizing himself with their content.
3. The practice of collecting signatures in dioceses for the canonization of certain persons is unacceptable, since it is sometimes used by various forces for non-ecclesiastical purposes.
4. Haste should not be shown in the canonization of recently deceased revered clerics and laity. It is necessary to carefully and comprehensively study the documentary materials of their life and ministry.
5. The relics of canonized ascetics are acquired with the blessing of His Beatitude Onufry, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine. The ruling bishop must report to His Beatitude Onufry, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine, on the results of the acquisition of the holy relics.
6. The relics of non-canonized ascetics cannot be displayed in temples for veneration.
In our time, when considering cases of canonization of those who suffered for Christ, it is necessary to apply additional criteria, taking into account the circumstances of the era. In each specific case concerning the glorification of one or another confessor of the faith of the twentieth century, the commission carefully studies archival materials, personal testimonies, if it is sometimes possible to find and interview eyewitnesses of events or those who, not being an eyewitness themselves, keep memories of these people or their letters , diaries and other information.
Interrogation materials are the subject of careful study. All persons who suffered during the years of persecution were subsequently rehabilitated by the state. The authorities recognized their innocence, but it still cannot be concluded from this that all of them can be canonized. The fact is that people who were subjected to arrests, interrogations and various repressive measures did not behave in the same way in these circumstances.
The attitude of the organs of repressive power towards the ministers of the Church and believers was unambiguously negative and hostile. The man was accused of heinous crimes, and the purpose of the prosecution was the same - by any means to obtain a confession of guilt in anti-state or counter-revolutionary activities. Most of the clergy and laity denied their involvement in such activities, pleaded neither themselves nor their relatives, acquaintances and strangers to be guilty of anything. Their behavior during the investigation, which was sometimes carried out with the use of torture, was devoid of any slander, false testimony against themselves and their neighbors.
At the same time, the Church does not find grounds for canonization of persons who, during the investigation, slandered themselves or others, causing the arrest, suffering or death of innocent people, despite the fact that they themselves suffered. The cowardice shown in such circumstances cannot serve as an example, for canonization is, first of all, evidence of the holiness and courage of the ascetic, whom the Church of Christ calls upon its children to imitate.
The description of the life of a martyr or confessor must be accompanied by copies of archival investigative files, according to which the ascetics were convicted. Namely: the questionnaire of the arrested person, all protocols of interrogations and confrontations(if any), the indictment, the sentence of the "troika", the act of carrying out the sentence, or another document certifying the time, place and circumstances of the death of the ascetic. If the martyr or confessor was arrested several times, then it is necessary to submit copies of the above materials from all criminal investigation cases.
There are many other aspects in the issue of glorifying a martyr or a confessor, which can only partially be reflected in the materials of investigation cases, but it is impossible to glorify a person without the decision of the relevant authorities. It requires special attention to clarify the attitude of a person to the splits that took place at that time (Renovationist, Gregorian and others), behavior during the investigation: was he a secret informant of the repressive authorities, was he called as a perjurer on other cases? Establishing these facts requires great work many people - members and employees of diocesan commissions for the canonization of saints, whose work is organized and controlled by the ruling bishop.
The archives of the state, whose funds store documents about the history of the Church and the persecution of her, unfortunately, only recently and not in full became available for research. The history of the Church of the twentieth century has only just begun to be studied. In this regard, researchers discover many facts that were previously unknown, as well as their religious, moral side, which many were not aware of. Therefore, the strictness of the Church's position in matters of the glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors is dictated not by bureaucracy and formalism, but by the desire not to make mistakes due to incomplete information and to make the right decision.
– Why in ancient times were martyrs glorified immediately after death, without a meeting of the commission and the Synod?
– In the Ancient Church, the main list of revered saints consisted of the names of martyrs - people who voluntarily offered themselves as a “living sacrifice”, testifying to the glory-holiness of God. Therefore, already in the 2nd century, in church sources, one can find several testimonies of celebrations along with the days of remembrance of the gospel events and the days of remembrance of the martyrs. On the number of saints in the Church in the period before Ecumenical Councils can be judged by the surviving calendars, martyrologies and minologies. The most ancient of them are martyrologists of the 3rd-4th centuries. in its main part there is a translation of Latin judicial protocols, the so-called proconsular acts (Acta Proconsuloria), or some of their processing. These acts, by order of Emperor Constantine, were kept in all major cities of the empire. In addition to the actual acts of the Roman authorities from this time (I-IV centuries), the first attempts on the part of the Church to write the lives of this or that martyr, testifying to his veneration, have also been preserved. Thus, for example, in the acts of the Martyr Ignatius the God-bearer, Bishop of Antioch (+107 or 116), it is said that the compiler of the description of the martyrdom of Ignatius noted the day and year of his death in order to gather on this “day of remembrance of the martyr” for agapes, timed to coincide with the festive days or days in honor of this saint.
The records of the saints in the Ancient Church are quite brief, since in the Roman court, which was usually held in the presence of "notaries" - stenographers, only the questions of the judges and the answers of the accused were recorded. Often Christians bought these records. For example, in the acts of the martyrs Tarakh, Prov and Andronicus (who suffered in 304), it is noted that Christians paid 200 denarii to the Roman authorities for them.
These court records took the form of an interrogation protocol. First, they indicated the name of the proconsul in whose area the trial was carried out, then the year, month and day, and sometimes the time of the day of the trial, and, finally, the interrogation itself, which is a dialogue between the judge, his servants and the accused. At the end of the interrogation, the proconsul urged to read it aloud, then the judge with his assessors made a decision and read the sentence. The execution of the sentence was carried out in the absence of a judge.
It can be seen from this scheme that only the interrogation of the martyr was described in full in the court records and his testimony and death were reported; there should not have been any other details in them. Later, with the increase in the number of holy martyrs in the Church, these proconsular acts were placed in special collections of minologists, in which the sufferings of each martyr on the day of his remembrance were noted for months.
Such historical sources perfectly illustrate the veneration and celebration of the deceased Christian as a saint. All those who suffered for Christ were counted as such, they, without investigation of their lives, were included in the lists of saints already by virtue of their feat - cleansing with martyr's blood. Sometimes the Church, already knowing about the impending interrogation of an arrested Christian, sent him for trial as a saint, an observer who was obliged to record the feat of testimony of the interrogated. At some episcopal sees, even special persons. Thus, Pope Clement assigned seven deacons to this service in a certain area of the city of Rome. These records were called passio (suffering), later they were combined with minologists, and their readings are placed according to the days of the Roman calendar. By their number, one can determine the number of saints in the Ancient Church, as well as what feat of holiness was revered in the Church before others. So, in the oldest Western calendar, which belonged to a certain Dionysius Philokal and known under the name of Bucherian, 24 days of commemoration of the martyrs are marked, in addition to this - the feast of the Nativity of Christ and a list of holy popes. By the end of the 4th century, after the era of persecution, “the calendar was full,” that is, the number of saints in the year increased so much that there was not a single day that did not have the memory of its saint. For the most part, most of them were martyrs. Asterius, Bishop of Amasia, speaks of this: “Behold, the whole universe is filled with the circle of the ascetics of Christ, there is no place, no season without their memory. Therefore, if any lover of the martyrs wanted to celebrate all the days of their suffering, then for him there would not be a single day in the year that was not a holiday.
However, such a complete ancient Christian calendar has not survived to this day. In the oldest, now known calendars of Western origin, which are called martyrologium (martyrdom), - Gotha, Carthage and others, memories are not distributed over all the numbers of the year. In the most ancient eastern calendar, compiled in 411-412. in Syria, there are more "memories" of saints, but also not on all days of the year. However, it should be noted that all these calendars were compiled only for individual dioceses, and martyrs from one number were not included in another because of their remoteness.
- Some want to canonize one today prominent figure, while not wanting to understand his life, others - another, patriots need a holy warrior, the military - a general, etc. In our history there are many wonderful and even prominent personalities but holiness is another matter entirely.
- Every nation has its own heroes, whom it honors and looks up to, wishing to imitate their feat. The Church also has its own Heroes of the Spirit - these are saints. We recently celebrated the feast of All Saints, who shone forth in the Russian land. And there is nothing wrong with the fact that people want to see their compatriots who are close in time as an example to follow. It is important that there are no conceited or any other pragmatic reasons for glorifying this or that ascetic, because this can divide people. There were such cases during the time of the Apostle Paul (I am Kifov, I am Pavlov), there were also divisions in the Church, when some more revered St. Basil the Great, calling themselves Basilians, others - St. John Chrysostom, but these three saints appeared in the 11th century to Metropolitan John of Evchait and put an end to the strife between their admirers, saying that they were equal before God. On this occasion, the feast of the Three Hierarchs was established on January 30.
The saints are one in the Lord and desire that we achieve holiness and be united with God - this is the highest honor for them, since this, according to the Apostle Paul, is the good will of God: “The will of God is your sanctification ...” (1 Thess. 4 :3). When we bury the dead Orthodox Christians, we pray: “With the saints, rest the soul of your deceased servant ...” But this does not mean that all Orthodox Christians who have died, even if they held high church, military or public positions, can serve as an example for imitation and veneration like saints. The Church is not legal organization where everything is decided according to earthly laws. The Church is a living organism that lives by the Holy Spirit. That is why canonization commissions have been created under the Church and dioceses, which, according to the above criteria, determine whether to honor this or that ascetic or not. Holiness reveals itself, and people only state this fact, which is no longer needed by the saints, since they are already glorified by God, but by us for prayerful help and as an example to follow.
Saints are those people who, having been cleansed from sin, acquired the Holy Spirit and revealed His power in our world. As saints, those are venerated whose pleasing to God was revealed to the Church as a reliable fact, whose salvation was revealed even now, before the Last Judgment.
We are all called to holiness. Indeed, we are sanctified in the Church, the Head and the Firstfruits of which is the Lord Jesus Christ: “If the firstfruits is holy, then the whole, and if the root is holy, then the branches” (Rom. 11:16). At the Divine Liturgy before Holy Communion, we hear an exclamation referring to us: “Holy to the saints!” Just as a star differs from a star, so in the firmament of heaven the saints differ in the degree of holiness. Some people internalize this holiness by becoming saints, others do not. Everything depends on the free will of man.
Interviewed by Natalya Goroshkova
May 2
- Day of Remembrance Saint Matrona of Moscow
. Matrona Nikonova reposed May 2, 1952
. This saint until recently lived among people, performing healings and numerous miracles. Just 47 years after his death May 2, 1999
Saint Matrona was canonized as a locally venerated saint of the Moscow diocese (general church canonization took place in October 2004).
Today we want to talk about how the church glorifies a person in the face of saints.
Canonization (gr. "legitimize", "make it a rule") is the recognition by the Church of any of its members as a saint with a corresponding veneration. However, this does not mean that only those people who were canonized are saints, because there were many saints who died in obscurity.
Canonization (canonization) usually occurs after the death of a person, this procedure is very long and painstaking. To do this, a special commission examines the biography of the righteous man and decides whether he is worthy of canonization.
Currently, materials for canonization in the Russian Orthodox Church are being collected by Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints.
The rite of canonization of the blessed old woman Matrona
The commission studies the life, deeds, works of the canonized, the memories of his contemporaries about him, facts confirming miracles, if any, and the relics of the righteous are also studied.
So on what grounds are they considered saints?
At all times, the main condition for glorification was the manifestation of true sanctification, the holiness of the righteous. Metropolitan of Krutitsy and Kolomna Yuvenaly in his report “On the issue of the procedure for the canonization of locally venerated saints in the Russian Orthodox Church at the diocesan level” at the Local Council October 1, 1993 expounded the following signs of the holiness of Orthodox ascetics:
1. The faith of the Church in the holiness of the glorified ascetics as people who pleased God and served the coming to earth of the Son of God and the preaching of the Holy Gospel (forefathers, fathers, prophets and apostles were glorified on the basis of such faith).
2. Martyrdom for Christ, or torture for the faith of Christ (this is how, in particular, martyrs and confessors were glorified in the Church).
3. Miracles performed by the saint through his prayers or from his honest remains - relics (reverends, silencers, pillars, martyrs-passion-bearers, holy fools, etc.).
4. High church primatial and hierarchal service.
5. Great services to the Church and the people of God.
6. Virtuous, righteous and holy life.
7. In the seventeenth century, according to the testimony of Patriarch Nectarios, three things were recognized as the cause of true holiness in people:
a) Orthodoxy is impeccable;
b) the performance of all virtues, followed by opposition for the faith, even to the point of bloodshed;
c) God's manifestation of supernatural signs and wonders.
8. Often, the evidence of the holiness of the righteous was the great veneration of his people, sometimes even during his lifetime.
Of particular importance in the issue of canonization are relics(however, this is not a requirement). According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the relics of the saints are both fully preserved (incorruptible relics) and individual particles from the bodies of the righteous glorified by God. The very name of their relics on Church Slavonic stands for "power", "strength", that is, some miraculous, supernatural manifestations of them, which became evidence of their involvement in Divine grace.
It is also evidence of holiness, which is sometimes miraculously formed on the relics of saints.
When glorifying in the face of saints, it is important for us that from the point of view of the Church, it is not canonization that makes a person a saint, but his feat. Canonization recognizes the merits of the ascetic, as well as confidence in his salvation, because, glorifying the righteous, the Church stops praying for him and begins to pray to him.
We call saints saints not for the complete absence of sins, but for an adequate attitude towards them, for the desire to cleanse ourselves of vices and devote our lives to God. In this sense, the saints are an example for Christians.
At first glance, it seems that it is thanks to the people that this or that person is canonized, because the first step towards canonization is the veneration of the righteous during his lifetime, and then after his death. In fact this is not true. The holiness of a person is determined not by people, but, as it were, by the Lord himself. God sends people visible signals of the holiness of this person (for example, the healing of the sick at the grave of a saint or the clairvoyance of a saint during his lifetime).
The queue to the icon of the Holy Matrona of Moscow in the Intercession Monastery
Most often, after a positive decision Synodal Commission on canonization and blessings His Holiness Patriarch, the saint first becomes locally respected (in monasteries and dioceses), and as the veneration and church-wide saints. Next, the day of the celebration of the new saint is appointed, a service is compiled, an icon is written, as well as a life.
If a saint is canonized in one of the Local Orthodox Churches, his name is communicated to the heads of all the others. In these Churches, a decision may be made to include the newly glorified saint in the church calendar (the names of the glorified locally respected saints are not included in the general church calendar, and the service to them is not printed in the general church liturgical books, but is published in a separate publication locally).
On January 22, 2015, within the framework of the XXIII International Christmas Educational Readings, the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, chaired by Bishop Pankratius of Trinity, held a conference "Glorification and veneration of the saints." Particular attention was paid to the consideration of issues related to the criteria and procedure for the canonization of saints in the Russian Orthodox Church. We are publishing the report of the Secretary of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints of the Russian Orthodox Church, Hegumen Damaskin (Orlovsky).This report reveals the criteria and procedure for canonization in the Russian Church, explains what normative documents the Russian Church used to make decisions on the canonization of saints, and also what criteria the Russian Church was guided by when canonizing martyrs in the period preceding 1917.
Of those whom the Church glorified as saints, let us name three large groups. It - martyrs, i.e. those who suffered and were martyred for Christ, moreover, enough and reliably known about the circumstances of their martyrdom. They were counted among the saints by virtue of the very fact of the confessional feat and martyrdom. Secondly, this confessors, that is, those who died some time after suffering. Their life required additional research, since there were cases when those who suffered suffered later led a reprehensible life, but if it was worthy of a Christian, they were glorified by the Church as confessors. And thirdly, this devotees of piety, the basis for the canonization of which was their righteous life and miracles, as a supernatural evidence of God about them, independent of subjective human judgments.
The canonization of an ascetic of piety in the Russian Orthodox Church was carried out either for general church veneration, or for local veneration within one or several dioceses. However, the criteria for the canonization of ascetics of piety as saints in both cases remained the same.
The canonization of saints in the Russian Orthodox Church is divided into several periods: from the beginning of Christianity in Russia - the first canonizations - to the Makarievsky Councils of 1547 and 1549, the period of the Makarievsky Cathedrals and from the Makarievsky Cathedrals to the establishment of the Holy Synod in 1721, from the time of the establishment Holy Synod until the fall of the absolutist monarchy and the last canonizations made in 1918 at the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church and the period of canonizations that have taken place to this day.
From the first canonizations up to and including the Makarievsky Councils, a period spanning more than 500 years, it was canonized - (according to Golubinsky) - 61, (according to Archbishop Sergius (Spassky)) - 72 ascetics of piety [a]; (according to Vasiliev) the Russian Orthodox Church until a somewhat later period, until the 18th century, 102 ascetics of piety were canonized. In total, from the first canonizations in Russia to 1902, 382 ascetics of piety, revered both church-wide and locally, were canonized. only in certain dioceses.
It is widely believed that the Synodal period was especially unfavorable for canonizations, but this is only partly true. With regard to the fundamental positions, criteria for canonization, researchers do not find essential differences between these canonizations and the canonizations of the previous period. And it can be assumed that behind the criticism of how canonizations took place during the Synodal period, there is only a general dissatisfaction with this period, which has its grounds in a different plane, in particular, the pernicious dependence of the Church on the state. As proof of the shortcomings in the field of canonization of saints, they cite the fact that the period between the death of the ascetic and his glorification was more or less significant: for St. Demetrius of Rostov - 48 years, for St. Seraphim of Sarov - 70 years, for St. Joasaph of Belgorod - 157 years, Pitirim of Tambov - 217 years old. However, this dissatisfaction with the approach to canonizations carried out in the Synodal period, and the argumentation of this dissatisfaction with the long period between the death of the ascetic and his canonization, cannot be considered completely valid. And in ancient times, sometimes quite a long period passed before the act of canonization was performed. For example, the canonization of Equal-to-the-Apostles Grand Duke Vladimir took place 225 years after his death, despite his indisputable services to the Church and people. In essence, in the canonizations of the Synodal period, the criteria for canonization that existed in the Russian Church began to be applied more strictly and clearly, but the criteria themselves remained the same as in previous centuries.
In the 19th century, the Russian Orthodox Church faced a far more serious threat to the integrity and purity of its ecclesiastical tradition than the problems of temporal about there is no gap between the adoption by the Holy Synod of the decision to canonize the ascetic and the time of his death. Where would about A greater evil was the pseudo-canonizations committed by writers who published the lives of non-canonized ascetics of piety as canonized saints. This abuse appeared already in the first half of the nineteenth century; Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) of Moscow energetically spoke out against him, writing to one of the high-ranking officials of the Holy Synod A.N. Muravyov on December 26, 1835, that “Archimandrite Solovetsky canonizes the saints,” meaning “that Archimandrite Dosifey of Solovetsky, in his description of the Solovetsky Monastery, submitted to censorship, arbitrarily called some of the departed Solovetsky monks saints.”
Archbishop Sergius (Spassky) of Vladimir and Suzdal described this problem most succinctly and clearly. “In the literature about Russian saints, a big flaw has hitherto attracted the attention of knowledgeable people,” he wrote. - Saints honored by prayers and solemn liturgies did not differ<...>writers from those dead who, according to a charitable life<...>are considered to be saints of God, but for whom requiems and funeral liturgies are sung, or even nothing is sung. The greatest influence on writers about Russian saints had<...>Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, with his book: "Russian Saints Honored by the Whole Church or Locally" (publications of 1861-1865). But he included in this book up to 85 such deceased who are not canonized and are honored with memorial services and funeral liturgies or for whom nothing is sung[b].<...>His book, due to trust and the impossibility of verifying it, other writers began to follow. They began to enter the names of the non-canonized even in calendars and monograms<...>. Subsequent writers began to fill their lengthy writings about Russian saints even more with the names of those who were considered saints from various handwritten ancient calendars, from historical literary monuments, and especially from the “Book of the Glaive: Description of the Russian Saints”, in which such are placed, the time of whose death and the place of burial unknown and who have long been completely forgotten by Christians even in those areas in which they lived, and recently writers have begun to place in their works the revered dead even of the nineteenth century [c] and almost contemporary to us.
Another question, just as serious, arose at one time with the exact determination of whether this or that ascetic was canonized for local veneration or not. If diocesan bishops were timely notified about a church-wide venerated saint, whose canonization from the 18th to the early 20th century was given the blessing of the Holy Synod, then the canonization of a locally venerated saint, carried out by a diocesan bishop with the blessing of the Holy Synod, could remain, according to Bishop Athanasius (Sakharov) , and not known, which could lead to the fact that prayers were served to the same saint in one diocese of the Russian Church, and memorial services in another. This situation became more and more fraught with disastrous consequences; only the highest church authority, which was at that time the Holy Synod, could solve this problem.
The initiator of this most important church work was the generally recognized head of Russian hagiologists, Archbishop Sergius (Spassky) of Vladimir and Suzdal [d], who has been engaged in hagiology for more than thirty-five years and left works whose scientific significance remains relevant for the Russian Church to this day.
Essential for understanding the relevance and importance of the issue is to get acquainted with the motivation of Archbishop Sergius, which he outlined in a letter to the Holy Synod on June 27, 1901. saints next.
Two books are known that guide those who write about Russian saints, this is the Historical Dictionary about saints glorified in the Russian Church, the first edition of which in 1836 is attributed to Prince Eristov, its second edition, corrected and supplemented, was made in 1862. Another major work on the saints is the Russian saints, honored by the whole Church or locally, by Filaret of Chernigov. It was published in 1861-1865. Both essays have<...>uncanonized<...>. It can be seen that the authors themselves, using handwritten calendars and other sources,<...>they did not know that memorial services were sung for these saints, and subsequent writers recognize all the saints cited in these two works as canonized, and they are even included in the calendars of Gatsuk, Stupin and others, and therefore prayers can be performed to them by ignorant priests, while on memorial services are sung to them at their resting place, or even nothing is sung.
A decree was sent to the dioceses of the Russian Empire that priests give names to those baptized according to the Monthly Book of All Saints, celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox Church, published recently in 1891 and sent to all the churches of the Empire. I, as one who reviewed this Monthly Book, on behalf of the Holy Synod, and edited the edition itself, followed in the Vladimir diocese: how this decree is being implemented. It turned out that the young priests no longer knew him, and the aforesaid calendars themselves were not available in some churches, and they were lost, while others were not included in the inventory of church property, and they were not written out for newly opened parishes.<...>
Number<...>uncanonized, entered into the calendars from the above-mentioned books, should be quite a few.<...>
Professor Golubinsky, who published a book on the canonization of Russian saints, found it impossible at the present time for a private person to compile a complete and correct list of Russian saints without the official mediation of church authorities.<...>It is impossible not to agree with such a statement of the professor, but meanwhile it is necessary to take measures to distinguish locally honored saints with prayers from those honored with memorial services. Recently, writings about Russian saints have begun to appear without distinguishing them, and many such<...>, for whom a memorial service was not performed and is not performed, and there is no memory of them in the places of their life and burial among the people, but they are included in the writings about the saints from ancient manuscript calendars, especially from the book of the verb: description of Russian saints XVII- XVIII century and from various historical monuments. Three of these works are famous:<...>Sources of Russian Hagiography by Nikolai Barsukov, 1882.<...>Holy Russia by Archimandrite Leonid, 1891.<...>The Composition of His Grace Demetrius, Archbishop of Tver: Months of the Saints by the Whole Russian Church or Locally Honored<...>. And he does not have an exact distinction between saints locally honored with prayers from those honored by memorial services and even those not honored by memorial services.<...>
So, there is a need for an accurate definition of the saints honored by prayer services, and not memorial services, by collecting information about this from diocesan bishops by order of the Holy Synod, that is, to invite diocesan bishops to deliver lists of saints of one or another diocese honored by solemn liturgies and prayer services, and not funeral liturgies and requiems, then those that are included by the writers in the writings along with the saints will be determined.<...>
This would stop the possibility of erecting non-canonized saints into canonized by local abbots of monasteries and churches, on the basis that<...>are written by saints<...>in calendars without distinction from canonized ones.<...>
Publication of the list of saints to whom prayers are sung, and not memorial services, would lead writers about saints on the right path, and would be especially useful for censors.<...>They can also demand from writers complete compositions about saints, so that they write about the saints for whom memorial services are sung, that<...>they are not canonized, which Archimandrite Leonid did in part, but he did not write many of the non-canonized out of ignorance that they were not canonized, and he misled others. We must stop the arbitrary canonization of saints by writers<...>out of ignorance, especially pay attention to the compilation of calendars, which are widely used among the people ... "
By a decree of August 10, 1901, the Holy Synod ordered that all the ruling bishops of the Russian Church provide lists of all locally venerated saints canonized in the dioceses entrusted to them, which were sent, and thus the judgment of the entire episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church was expressed on this issue.
How important Archbishop Sergius considered the establishment of an exact list of the names of Russian saints is evidenced by his letter to the head of the Synodal Office, Sergei Vasilievich Kersky, written a year after the decree of the Holy Synod and designed to expedite the receipt of answers from the dioceses.
“I humbly ask you to pay your attention,” he wrote, “to this important matter. With great difficulty, the canonization of new saints is carried out, for example, Theodosius of Uglitsky and Seraphim of Sarov, and Russian writers about saints, at their own discretion, convert non-canonized saints into dozens of canonized ones in their writings, and the Holy Synod itself does not have complete and accurate information about Russian saints, which are solemnly honored by the dioceses.
I would very much like to live to see the end of this case, but I despair. If you do not pay attention to this matter, then it will either drag on very long or completely die. The science of Russian saints without the fulfillment of this work has been and will be insufficient.
Many scientists who wrote about Russian saints and studied hagiographic monuments, often quite satisfied with their own subjective view on the differences between canonized saints and ascetics of piety, did not reach the need to understand the answer to the main question - who in the Russian Church is actually canonized, and who is considered a saint by this or that writer on the basis of individual views. However, some scientists who were most prepared by research to the perception of the problems of hagiography, already at that time they began to speak more and more insistently about the extraordinary importance of resolving this issue, which could be resolved based on the criteria for the canonization of ascetics of piety that existed in the Russian Church, “with the existence of the complete Monthly Book of All Russian Saints, published by the Holy Synod” .
Archbishop Sergius (Spassky), as a prominent hagiologist, was well aware of what delays or errors in resolving this issue could lead to. After all the information was received from the dioceses and it became necessary to transfer the list to the printing house, Archbishop Sergius wrote about the Monthly Book: “It was compiled with all possible attention. Special care is taken not to omit any of the canonized saints or to introduce any [un]canonized ones.
<...>Now I have no desires on earth, there is only one desire left - to see this important matter finished during my lifetime. I would like to see the last proofreading of it. A lot can lose the publication if it is done without the control of the author. And this work is so important that it should constitute an epoch in Russian Hagiology and will be one of the memorable works of the Holy Synod.
Speeding up the work on the Faithful Monthly Book of All Russian Saints would be a reward and consolation for me, and slowing down would be a collapse of the spirit, the most painful in my infirmities and advanced years. My hand has grown together with Hagiology, which I have been doing for 35 years, and this work is the crown of my work on Hagiology.
Such a perception was characteristic of a true scholar and Christian ascetic, who could put his outstanding scholarship and labors at nothing for the sake of a practical solution to an issue of exceptional importance for the Russian Church. In his eyes, seventy pages of The Faithful Monthly Book meant much more than thousands of pages of scientific research published by him earlier.
On the basis of the information sent from all the dioceses, the "Faithful Monthly Book of all Russian saints honored with prayers and solemn liturgies both church-wide and locally" was compiled.
By the decision of the Holy Synod of March 26-27, 1903, the Moscow Synodal Printing House was instructed to print<...>in the amount of 50 thousand copies of the "Faithful Monthly Book of All Russian Saints" with an index<...>after printing this book, the required number of copies<...>sent to the disposal of the Diocesan Authorities to supply them to all the Orthodox churches of the empire.
The report of Archbishop Sergius (Spassky) approved by the Holy Synod was attached to the Monthly Book, which, in particular, determined:
«<...>2. The published "Faithful Monthly Book of All Russian Saints" imposes a duty on spiritual censorship not to allow the names of non-canonized Russian venerated deceased who are not in the designated Monthly Book to be entered into calendars and folk calendars; formerly ignorance excused them in this matter, but now the boundaries between canonized saints and non-canonized ones are clearly shown.
3. And the publishers of large works about saints, which are compiled for scientific purposes and filled with the names of non-canonized ascetics, are now obliged to distinguish clearly canonized from non-canonized ones, which is also the responsibility of censorship to follow.
At present, we can say with certainty: if this most important task for the Russian Church had not been accomplished in due time, we would never have been able to determine which of the ascetics in the Russian Church is a canonized saint and who is not: the saints for the consciousness of believers would simply be lost among the names of ascetics, captured in various kinds of literary works and works of scientists.
In 1904, the Holy Synod made the last adjustments to the Monthly Book, ordering to serve the three ascetics not prayers, but requiems.
Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917-1918 again returned to the question of the completeness and accuracy of the Monthly Book of the Russian Church. At the 35th meeting of the Department of worship, preaching and the temple[e], held on April 9, 1918, Hieromonk Athanasius (Sakharov), later Bishop of Kovrov, reported all those inconsistencies that continue 15 years after the publication of the "Correct Monthly Book", and noted that the Monthly Book, although it is in every church, lies on the shelves of church libraries, that private publishers and publishers of the Publishing Council under the Holy Synod ignore the decisions of the Synod, omitting the memory of canonized saints and introducing the memory of those who were not glorified by the Russian Church, that “Even in a book intended for liturgical use<...>“Prayers to the Lord God, the Most Holy Theotokos and the holy saints of God, which are washed at prayer services and other rites”, published with the blessing of the Most Holy Governing Synod (Petrograd, 1915), prayers to non-canonized saints are included. Hieromonk Athanasius set the task before the members of the Department - to carefully check and correct the "Faithful Monthly Book", which, as he did not quite accurately put it, "cannot be called true". As evidence, he cited the inaccuracies in it. However, all of them do not concern the absence of the names of saints in the Monthly Book and the absence of the names of non-canonized ascetics in it, which was at one time both for the Holy Synod and for Archbishop Sergius (Spassky) the main task that had to be solved and which was eventually solved, and discrepancies in the days of the celebration of the saints in the calendars and in the dioceses. It should be noted that from then until now, the days of the memory of the saints have changed many times.
Not being able to give a clear answer as to whether it was possible to solve this problem then, the Division could not give an answer - whether the attempt to solve this problem would lead to success. On September 9, 1918, the members of the Department decided “on the need for the speedy publication of an accurate Orthodox Monthly Book, services to all saints and observance calendars”, as well as on the formation of a Special Commission, petitioning for the release of funds for its work and for the publication of the Church calendar for 1919, “ the compilation of which and the publication expressed readiness to be taken over by a member of the Council, Professor S.S. Glagolev". Based on the knowledge of the methodology applied earlier in practice by the Holy Synod, which required considerable time to solve this problem, it is clear that neither Professor S.S. Glagolev, nor all the members of the Special Commission taken together, which was still supposed to be created, could not do this work, and the readiness they expressed suggests rather that they hardly realized the complexity of the subject being studied and the impracticability of the task they gave themselves, and even at that the time it started Civil War, murders of clerics were committed and some of the bishops had already been killed. Naturally, all these orders were not executed.
Among the tasks of the Church Council of 1917-1918. really relevant was the summing up of church life, the designation of the church channel along which one should move further, the consolidation of all the existing results of church activity in the definitions of the Council, as he did, restoring the patriarchate and summing up the activities of the Russian Church in the field of hagiography. Summing up almost a thousand years of church practice, the Council clearly recorded how the Russian Church acted throughout the entire period of its existence, and how it should act further without breaking the thread of continuity with its traditions.
The Cathedral Department on divine services worked out an instruction that, based on what we know about that era and what the cathedrals were direct witnesses, is rather strange - that all the bishops of the Russian Church sent in the same year, 1918, lists of all the saints venerated in their dioceses. The department also asked for an order to be delivered from the Synodal Archive the file on the publication of the “Faithful Monthly Book”, with which the work of the Department should have begun, having studied what the Holy Synod had already decided on, before starting the case almost from scratch, having neither an objective opportunity to carry out the plan, nor the appropriate qualifications for the analysis of information, which, perhaps, only the late Archbishop Sergius (Spassky) had. The Council found out that the case could not be delivered to the "Department due to the difficulty, due to special circumstances, receiving it at the present time from the Petrograd Synodal Archive, in which it is located ", i.e. revolutionary unrest that has already captured big cities countries, and especially the capitals.
In 1918, the last canonizations took place: of St. Sophronius of Irkutsk and Hieromartyr Joseph of Astrakhan. At this, canonizations ceased, which was in direct connection with a radical change in the relationship between the Church and the state. The Church at that time not only did not have the opportunity to glorify the ascetics of piety, but also did not have its own charter. Only after the Great Patriotic War was accepted having at least some legal basis for the existence of the Church in the state document - "Regulations on the management of the Russian Orthodox Church". Characteristically, this document did not provide for canonization.
In 1946, a list of the names of "Russian saints by month" was attached to the printed service for all Russian saints. At one time, this edition was justly noted as an outstanding phenomenon in the Russian Church. By no new name did he go beyond the "Faithful Monthly Book" of 1903, with the exception of the names of those who were canonized after its publication. The disadvantage of this edition was that the locally venerated saints were not mentioned in any way. The compositor's mistake turned all the locally venerated saints of the Russian Church into church-wide ones without the adoption of the binding decision of the Council of Bishops, as follows from the definition of the Council of 1917-1918. In this capacity, their names were later published in the calendars of the Russian Church.
In 1956-1958. Bishop Athanasius (Sakharov), the only surviving member of the Cathedral Department dealing with issues of hagiography, continued this work as chairman of the Calendar and Liturgical Commission under the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, with the aim of preparing a "corrected<...>the calendar of Russian saints,<...>upon consideration of it and approval by the highest officials of the Orthodox Church, it will be accepted as a legalized calendar, on the basis of which the names of the saints will also be entered in the calendar of the Orthodox calendar.
In 1956, he wrote to the Publishing Department of the Moscow Patriarchate: “With regard to the Russian saints, we should be guided by the Faithful Monthly Book of All Russian Saints, published with the blessing of the Holy Synod in 1903.” . Bishop Athanasius proposed to omit the names of two ascetics in the then-published Monthly Book, regarding whom the Holy Synod made such a decision as early as 1904, that is, after the publication of the True Monthly Book. Bishop Athanasius "The Faithful Monthly Master" and, accordingly, the Orthodox calendar supplemented the name of one ascetic, according to the bishop, missed by Archbishop Sergius - this is St. Theodore of Rostov. However, even this cannot be called a mistake made in the Faithful Monthly Book, since long before the compilation of the True Monthly Book the veneration of St. Theodore was discontinued; it was already absent in the 19th century; it was restored, according to Bishop Athanasius, under Archbishop Tikhon (Belavin) of Yaroslavl, that is, five years after the publication of the Faithful Monthly Book and the death of Archbishop Sergius. The only technical error in the "Faithful Monthly Book" is the inclusion of two days of memory of the martyr John with different names, which could give the impression that these are two different saints.
The only "inaccuracies" in the "True Monthly Book" are the dates of the memory of some saints, in other cases coinciding with the monthly books published at a later time, in others not. The shifting of the days of the celebration of saints is a natural historical process, associated, in particular, with the acquisition or transfer of relics, or with any important church historical events for the diocese. Such was the scientific and ecclesiastical level of this publication, hardly achievable for anyone later. After the publication of the Faithful Monthly Book, the Russian Orthodox Church canonized five more saints and restored church veneration to the Blessed Princess Anna of Kashinskaya.
This situation persisted until the end of the 1970s, then the situation changed dramatically when an old, seemingly obsolete problem arose, which was solved in its time by the Holy Synod in 1903 with the publication of the Faithful Monthly Book - the placement in printed collections along with the names of canonized holy names of non-canonized ascetics, based on the individual views of the compilers. So in the 2nd and 3rd volumes of the "Handbook of the clergyman", published in 1978 and 1979. , about 150 names of non-canonized deceased from those published in the 19th century were entered. collections, which was the beginning of the subsequent chaos in the field of hagiography, which, by its very name, involves the study of saints and immediately loses its significance as a science, along with the loss of boundaries between canonized saints, ascetics of piety and just figures who labored in the church field. Subsequently, on the basis of these books, lists of some diocesan councils were compiled, where the names of canonized saints were mixed with the names of non-canonized deceased.
Subsequently, the list of Russian saints to the Menaia for the month of May, published in 1987, included more than 400 names of non-canonized deceased, known only from the synodics, according to which panikhidas were served, some of them were never venerated in the Russian Church and could not be venerated, so as in the information about their lives there are no facts that meet the criteria for canonization in the Russian Church. In addition, it is absolutely known that during this period of time, from 1918 to 1987, there were neither Bishops' Councils, nor meetings of the Holy Synod, at which decisions would be made on the canonization of ancient Russian ascetics. At that time, the Patriarch did not make decisions on the canonization of any ascetics of piety. At the same time, all the names of Russian saints were known at that time. It should be noted that no matter what books and calendars church enthusiasts enter the names of such ascetics, they will not become saints because of this. We do not know the posthumous fate of the ascetics, and of man in general. But with sufficient accuracy we can determine whether the ascetic is glorified in the Russian Church or not. The Lord glorifies the ascetic with posthumous miracles, which is reflected in the criteria for the canonization of the Russian Church. When we turn to a saint with a prayer, we hope to be heard, we hope for an answer, seeing, as it were, a door that is ready to open before us. But in this case When a person asks an ascetic whose name appears in one line in a historical book or chronicle, or an old collection compiled by an amateur scribe, he can fall into the position of a person who stands in front of a blank wall, in which not only there is no door, but it even not scheduled. The canonization of saints in the Russian Church is a deeply spiritual phenomenon. First of all, because a person here is faced with another world that goes beyond earthly limits, with saints who have the God-given opportunity to respond to a person from a world where there is neither death nor sighing. The visible fixation - by known methods and in a known legal order - of this process is actually canonization. But at the end of the 19th century, due to the general spiritual impoverishment and decline, this deeply spiritual phenomenon began to turn into a book game, into an unspiritual phenomenon - the transfer of names from various books to the church calendar, as supposedly saints. At the end of the 20th century, due to the previous period of destruction of the bearers of church tradition, this process began to catastrophically accelerate, and the disease took on an almost chronic form.
In order to determine at the present time which of the ascetics of piety is actually canonized, and who is included from the synodiks and books where the names of saints are mixed with the names of non-canonized ascetics, you need to know exactly which documents in the Russian Church have a mandatory canonical character to resolve this question.
The church document at the beginning of the 20th century, which included all the Russian saints canonized by that time, was the Faithful Monthly Book of All Russian Saints Honored by Molebens and Solemn Liturgies Churchwide and Locally, published by order of the Holy Synod in 1903. In 1904, the Holy Synod introduced the last corrections concerning the names of the three ascetics.
For the subsequent period of the 20th and early 21st centuries, church documents confirming canonization are: resolutions of the Holy Synod, Local and Bishops' Councils, the Holy Synod and the Holy Patriarch.
General Church canonizations from 1903, when all Russian saints were known by name, were performed by the Holy Synod (until 1917), the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church (1917-1918), then by the Local or Bishops' Councils, whose duties include » lamentation<...>to the face of church-wide saints"(in the wording of the Local Council of 1918), "canonization of saints" (in the wording of the Council of Bishops in 2013).
To local veneration , in accordance with the definition of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918, “glorification is performed with the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch with the Holy Synod”, and after the decision of the Holy Synod of October 1-2, 1993 - with the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch: “After considering the Synodal Commission [for the canonization of saints] materials sent by the diocesan Bishop, if there are sufficient grounds for canonization, His Holiness the Patriarch blesses the canonization of the locally venerated ascetic and veneration of him within the limits of this diocese, which is reported to the interested diocesan authorities. From 1918 to 1992, not a single meeting of the Holy Synod was held regarding the canonization of locally venerated saints, therefore, there was nowhere for new names to appear.
Thus, the documents confirming canonization in accordance with the procedure adopted in the Russian Orthodox Church are:
the definitions of the Holy Synod concerning specific canonizations (1903-1916);
definitions of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-1918 relating to specific canonizations;
the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch from October 1, 1993, according to which the following documents must be available: a report filed in the name of His Holiness the Patriarch, in which a blessing was requested for the local canonization of a particular ascetic, as well as a document confirming the blessing given by His Holiness the Patriarch.
The blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch on the establishment of a diocesan council with a list of names attached to it, where, along with the names of saints, the names of non-canonized ascetics are given, is not a canonization of a particular ascetic, if he was not canonized in the prescribed manner.
Equally important in studying the history of the canonization of the saints of the Russian Church and, in particular, the difference between a canonized saint and a revered ascetic, along with the existing (or absent) decision on the canonization of church authorities, is the definition of canonization criteria that exist in the Russian Church. It would be useful to note that the criteria on the basis of which canonizations were made in the Russian Church were uniform throughout its history.
For the canonization of the ascetic, the following conditions were necessary: evidence of a pious life, popular veneration and miracles.
Information alone about the pious life of an ascetic was never sufficient for church glorification, since all of them, being human testimonies, were subjective in nature and could never cover the whole life of an ascetic. In addition, there are saints glorified by the Church, such as the passion-bearing princes Boris and Gleb or the holy righteous Artemy of Verkolsky, about whose pious life we know almost nothing. Likewise, popular veneration in itself has never been sufficient for church glorification, since there have been many cases of veneration by the people of false ascetics.
In cases where there was information about a pious life and popular veneration, this was not sufficient for church glorification of the ascetic, if there was no evidence of miracles. Moreover, miracles were mainly understood not as those that took place during the life of the ascetic, but those that took place after his death. In essence, the main and main criterion, in accordance with which the church glorification of the ascetic was performed in the Russian Church, were miracles. The miracles necessary for the church glorification of the ascetic were considered both from the point of view of their persuasiveness, and in relation to their plurality. From the point of view of the convincingness of miracles, the seriousness of the disease and the attested impossibility of healing by doctors or any earthly means were considered. With regard to the number of such indisputable miracles, it was meant that they should not have been isolated.
The very first saints glorified by the Russian Church - the Passion-Bearing Princes Boris and Gleb - show with perfect clarity the nature and reason for their glorification. After the death of the Holy Prince Vladimir, power was seized by Svyatopolk, one of his sons, who was at that time in Kyiv. After some time, Svyatopolk killed the pretenders to the princely throne - the brothers Boris, Gleb, and Svyatoslav. However, only two princes, Boris and Gleb, were glorified by the Russian Church, for the reason that regarding the third prince, Svyatoslav, there was no information that miracles were associated with his name.
Some researchers, reflecting on the circumstances of the death of the princes, tried to draw political conclusions or derive moral edification from the example of their death. Political - the duty of obedience to the elder brother, moral, when the holiness of the feat is revealed in non-resistance to evil, concluding that "the feat of non-resistance is a national Russian feat, a genuine religious discovery of the newly baptized Russian people." But neither of these, of course, is true.
Researchers note the absence of confession in the suffering and death of the princes, death for the faith of Christ, the absence of hagiographic samples in the circumstances of their death. The Greek metropolitans, who performed this first canonization in Russia, were well aware that the image of the death of princes did not correspond to the canonical patterns established in the Ecumenical Church. The violent death of princes cannot be regarded as a form of Christian achievement, which in this case is just a form of accepting death. On the example of the first saints glorified by the Russian Church, we definitely see that in their case the provision on a pious life is not effective, since such facts are unknown, there is no confession of faith, and their death can in no way be called death for the faith of Christ, and there is no popular veneration. In this first canonization there is an obvious indication that the subsequent glorification of saints in the Russian Church is not a human invention, persecution through the glorification of political or even educational goals, for some it may be isolated cases, but some kind of objective reality, manifested through a miracle; thus, any possibility for human arbitrariness is swept aside. Thus, the first and essentially the main basis for the canonization of saints in the Russian Church was a miracle, i.e. direct divine intervention in the process of canonization of the saint.
The paramount importance of the miracle for the church glorification of the saint was of an objective nature. Although the pious life of an ascetic is important in his glorification, however, in the assessment of the life of an ascetic there is always an element of subjectivity, just as in the assessment of his spiritual qualities and virtues, therefore, independent, objective facts were required, which were miracles, certified by witnesses and confirmed by the church. investigation. The inner spiritual life of an ascetic, by definition, cannot be known by any of the people except the person himself and God, and even more so, no one can trace it throughout the life of the ascetic and until the last minute.
In accordance with the criteria that have existed in the Russian Orthodox Church for a thousand years, the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on September 3, 1918 adopted an appropriate definition, fixing this provision and putting a limit on the possibility of resolving this issue in a different way. “In order to count a saint of God to the rank of locally revered saints,” the Supreme Church Authority determined, “it is necessary that pious life of the righteous was attested the gift of miracles after his death and the popular veneration of him » . Thus, the charitable life of the ascetic is evidenced not only and even not so much by the contemporaries of the ascetic, but by posthumous miracles, which are evidence of the righteousness of his life. In itself, a spiritual feat and lifetime miracles performed through the prayers of an ascetic are not sufficient for his canonization.
These conclusions of the Russian Church are in full agreement with the judgment of the Holy Fathers when they say that a lofty spiritual life and lifetime miracles cannot be the final evidence of an ascetic's holiness.
“I saw people who had all the gifts and became partakers of the Spirit, and not reaching perfect love, they fell,” says Macarius of Egypt. - Someone, a noble man, having renounced the world, sold his property, gave freedom to slaves; and as a prudent and sensible man, he already became famous for his honest life, and meanwhile, indulging in self-conceit and arrogance, he finally fell into debauchery and into a thousand evils.<...>Another, during the persecution, betrayed his body and, being a confessor, later, after the onset of peace, was released and was in respect: his eyelids were damaged from the fact that he was languishing in strong smoke. And he is glorified<...>came to such a state as if he had never heard the word of God. Another gave up his body for torment during the persecution, was hanged and planed, then thrown into prison. By faith, a nun served him, and, having become close to her while he was in prison, he fell into fornication.<...>Another prudent ascetic, living with me in the same house and praying with me, was so rich in grace that, praying beside me, he came to tenderness, because grace seethed in him. He was given the gift of healing; and not only cast out demons, but those who were bound hand and foot, who had severe illnesses, he healed by the laying on of hands. Then, having become neglectful, glorified by the world, and enjoying himself, he became proud and fell into the very depths of sin. Look, he who has the gift of healing has fallen.”
How much the facts of miracles were fundamental for canonization in the Russian Church, compared even with evidence of the righteousness of the life of the ascetic and the incorruptibility of the remains, is evidenced by many examples. On August 27, 1479, during the transfer of the remains to the newly built Assumption Cathedral, the body of Metropolitan Philip was discovered, almost not subjected to decay. It was exposed openly and, in anticipation of miracles, was not buried for 12 days. However, miracles did not follow, and, despite incorruption, it was buried, and the question of the canonization of the metropolitan was closed, since "miracles were necessary condition to glorify the saint."
In connection with the importance of miracles, without which glorification was impossible, a prerequisite for the proposed canonization was the study of cases of healings to verify their authenticity, and also that they should not be isolated.
The Monk Joseph Volotsky, who died in 1515, whose fame and role in the Russian Church cannot be spoken of, was glorified as a locally venerated saint in 1578 on the fact of miracles. Secondly, this local glorification was confirmed in 1589, when it was supposed to rank him among the general church saints. However, miracles were considered insufficient in number to canonize him for general church veneration, since this was put forward as the main condition for such glorification. As a general church saint, he was glorified in 1591.
The procedure for glorifying the saints was reflected in the documents during the canonization of St. Herman of Solovetsky. As a prerequisite for canonization, a church investigation was carried out to verify miracles on the spot. Responding with consent to the request of the brethren to celebrate the memory of St. Herman in the monastery, Archbishop Athanasius of Kholmogory writes to the brethren that “this cannot be done without the will of the great sovereigns with the patriarch and without witness, “not as if humiliating his (German) reverence, but preserving the integrity of the saints of the Church of dogmas from ancient times in the holy Orthodox faith our custom about saints God's saints before offering reliable evidence of their life and miracles, according to the testimony of the goodwill of the common Orthodox monarchs and the archpastoral, services and canons are compiled by him and celebrated in this way, without the testimony and without the blessing of the sovereign and most holy patriarch, none of this will take place and cannot be firmly.
After news of miracles that had begun to take place in the church where St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, who died in 1709, was buried under a bushel, almost 50 years later, in 1757, the Holy Synod sent a commission to Rostov, which conducted a thorough investigation into the events that had taken place on tomb of miracles. The healed themselves were interviewed, who was healed from what disease, how long they had been ill, and how severe the disease was. And only after such testimonies were collected in sufficient quantities and it was attested that the blind see, those who suffered from serious and incurable diseases were healed, the canonization of the saint took place.
During the canonization of Innokenty, Bishop of Irkutsk, who died in 1731 and was canonized in 1804, 85 cases of miraculous healings were recorded.
During canonizations, testimonies about miracles were collected in the most thorough way and it was investigated how reliable they were, for which special commissions were created. For example, during the research that preceded the canonization of St. Pitirim of Tambov (1913), a commission was created in accordance with the decree of the Holy Synod, which was to carry out "a thorough study of the cases of miracles that took place through the prayerful intercession of St. Pitirim before God"; she was faced with the task of interrogating and collecting written testimonies of both persons who received healings and those who were eyewitnesses of these healings. A total of 56 cases of healings were studied, of which, however, only 34 turned out to be “supported by quite convincing evidence during the investigation.”
At the beginning of the 20th century, doctors took part in the preparation for canonization and research on cases of healing. The certification of miracles performed through prayers to Patriarch Hermogenes (1913) took place according to the testimony of witnesses and the statements of doctors.
When Saint Sophronius of Irkutsk was canonized at the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church in 1918, doctors also took part in such an examination and examination. Moreover, special attention was paid to cases of incurable diseases, when "both their diagnosis and severity were certified by doctors, and recovery - contrary to the assumptions received - followed immediately after a prayer appeal to the saint" .
Of particular importance for the study of the criteria for canonization in the Russian Church is the study of the essence of a particular question - what were the grounds for canonization in the Russian Church for the martyrs. It should be noted that in the history of the Russian Church there was no period of persecution of the Church and tough opposition of the state to the Church, as we see in the Ancient Church in the Roman Empire and as it was later in the Soviet period, when the phenomenon of martyrdom appeared due to persecution from the state. and for many people it became necessary to defend their religious beliefs, their faith, their right to live in accordance with their convictions - up to and including imprisonment and martyrdom. For the entire previous historical period, up to 1917, 25 saints were glorified in the Russian Church who suffered a martyr's death. 9 of them suffered in the pre-Mongolian period; the condition for their canonization was miracles performed through their prayers. Three holy martyrs who suffered at the hands of the Kazan and Perekop Tatars were also canonized for miracles.
Thus, considering that the canonization of martyrs in the Ancient Russian Church was performed not on the basis of their martyrdom and confession of faith, but on the basis of existing miracles, the experience of canonization of martyrs in the Russian Church can give little in the canonization of new martyrs of the 20th century. The experience of canonization in the Ancient Church in the Roman Empire can give much more. However, there is a significant difference here as well. In the Ancient Church, the very fact of confessing the Christian faith was regarded as a state crime and could lead the confessor to martyrdom, while in the 20th century the question of confession of faith, if asked, was most often verbal, and was not recorded in a written protocol. An analysis of the feat of the ancient martyrs can only give the main features concerning the criteria for martyrdom and church approaches that existed at that time regarding the glorification of martyrs. The Soviet Union had no resemblance to the Roman Empire, as well as the circumstances of the life of Christians in them, in one case - coming to Christ from paganism, in the other case - who were Christians by birth. Therefore, the main burden in studying the feat of the new martyrs falls in this case on a detailed study of the social, political, ideological components, in the aggregate and being the circumstances in which the new martyrs performed their feat, which required new methodological approaches.
Notes:
[a] The reason for this difference was that Archbishop Sergius had by that time information from the diocesan bishops about who had actually been canonized, which Golubinsky did not have at that time.
[b] The researcher of the history of the canonization of Russian saints, V. Vasiliev, in a work published by him in 1893, noted that at one time Archbishop Philaret of Chernigov promised to check the “Description of the Russian Saints”, which served him as the main guide to determine whether the ascetic was canonized or not, and provide acts of canonization, but did not fulfill his promise, tk. did not find any acts Vasiliev V. History of the canonization of Russian saints. M., 1893. S. 12). Even earlier, in 1856, Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow wrote to the Holy Synod regarding the proposed draft of these lives. “A lot of prudence is needed to compile a correct list of saints and to separate pure sources of biographies from mixed ones; because besides the saints, universally recognized according to ancient tradition and according to the definition of the Church, there are locally revered, according to the legends indefinite and who have not received the correct church approval”, i.e. non-canonized ascetics for whom memorial services were performed or nothing was performed (Collection of opinions and reviews of Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on educational and church-state issues. M., 1886. Vol. 4. P. 139). The archbishop did not heed this warning and, not really orienting himself to the essence of the matter, confused the saints with non-canonized ascetics, passing them off as saints and misleading his readers. An example of how sometimes a good intention leads to spiritually ruinous consequences.