by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky

Introduction

What is the Church’s formal glorification of saints? In the Holy, Catholic, Orthodox Church the prayerful memory of each of her members who has departed in faith, hope, and repentance is cherished. This commemoration of the majority of the departed is limited, comparatively, to the narrow circle of the “Church of the home,” or, in general, to persons of close blood relation or acquainted with the departed. It is expressed by prayer for the departed, prayer for the remission of sins, that “his soul be numbered among the righteous,” that “his repose be with the saints.” This is a spiritual, prayerful thread which binds those on earth to the departed; it is an expression of love which is beneficial both for the departed and, likewise, for those who pray for him. If, after death, he is not deprived of the vision of the glory of God because of his personal sins, he responds with his own prayer for those close to him on earth.

Persons who are great in their Christian spirit, glorious in their service to the Church, beacons illumining the world, leave behind themselves a memory which is not confined to a narrow circle of people, but which is known throughout the whole Church, local or universal. Confidence in their having attained the glory of the Lord and the power of their prayers, even after death, is so strong and unquestioned that the thought of their earthly brethren is not channeled into prayer for the forgiveness of their sins (since they are holy before the Lord without such), but towards praise of their struggles, towards accepting their lives as models for ourselves, towards requesting their prayers for us.

In witness to the profound certainty of the Church that a reposed righteous man is with the Lord, in the choir of the saints in the heavenly Church, she composes an act of “numbering among the saints,” or of “glorification.” By this the Church gives her blessing for the change from prayers for the reposed to prayer requesting for us his prayerful assistance before the throne of God. The unanimous voice of the Church, expressed through the lips of her hierarchs, the conciliatory voice, confirms the conviction of her ordinary members concerning the sanctity of the righteous man. Such is the essence of the act of glorification itself. Nothing in the Church should be arbitrary, but “proper and orderly.” The concern of the Church in regard to this is expressed in offering a uniform prayerful supplication to the righteous one.

At times the commemoration of a departed righteous one does not extend beyond the bounds of a particular province. Other saints of God become famous and renowned throughout the Church even during their earthly activity; they are her glory and show themselves to be pillars of the Church. An ecclesiastical resolution on their glorification confirms this commemoration forever in its proper domain, i.e., in the local Church which has made the resolution, or throughout the universal Church.

The assembly of saints in the heavenly Church of all times is great and beyond enumeration. The names of certain saints are known on earth; others remain unknown. The saints are like stars — those closest to us are more clearly seen; yet, countless other points of light exist through space, beyond the eye’s reach. Thus, in the Church’s commemoration, saints are glorified in large groups and whole assemblies, as well as individually. Such are the commemorations of martyrs that were slain by the hundreds and thousands, the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils, and, finally, the general celebrations of “all saints,” both annual (the first Sunday after Pentecost; the second Sunday after Pentecost for all the saints of Russia), and weekly (every Saturday).

How has and does the Church’s glorification of her great and glorious hierarchs, ascetics, and others recognized as saints, occur? On the basis of what principles, by what criteria, by what rite — in general, and in individual cases? Research by Prof. E. Golubinsky, The History of the Canonization of Saints in the Russian Church (2nd ed., Moscow: University Press, 1903), is dedicated to these questions. In the following exposition we will, for the most part, make use of Professor Golubinsky’s treatise.

While using the term canonization of the saints, Prof. Golubinsky admits in the first lines of his book that, although this term is etymologically derived from the Greek word canon, it forms a part of the terminology of the Latin Church and is not employed by the Orthodox Greeks. This is an indication that we need not use it; and indeed, in his own time Prof. Golubinsky was reproached for using it too assiduously, especially since the spirit and character of Orthodox glorification is somewhat different from the canonization of the Roman confession.

Witness of the Early Church

In the first centuries of the Christian Church, three basic types of saints were recognized. These were: a) the Old Testament patriarchs, prophets (among whom St. John the Forerunner is pre-eminent) and the New Testament apostles; b) the martyrs, who gained crowns of glory through the shedding of their blood; and c) outstanding hierarchs who served the Church, as well as people acclaimed for their personal struggle (the righteous and the ascetics). As concerns the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, membership in any one of these categories carried with it recognition as a saint.

It is known from history that prayer meetings were held in honor of the martyrs as early as the first quarter of the second century (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch). In all probability, they were begun in the period immediately following the first persecution of the Christians — that of Nero. It is apparent that no special ecclesiastical decree was required to authorize the prayerful veneration of this or that particular martyr. A martyr’s death itself testified to the reception of a heavenly crown. But the numbering of departed hierarchs and ascetics among the choir of the saints was done individually, and was naturally carried out on the basis of each one’s personal worthiness.

It is impossible to give a general answer as to which criteria the Church employed for recognition of saints belonging to this third classification. As regards the ascetics in particular, without a doubt the fundamental, general basis of their glorification was and still is the working of miracles. This is because supernatural evidence is free from human whim or bias. Prof. Golubinsky considers this indication the sole basis for the glorification of ascetics in the history of ecclesiastical canonization. Despite his opinion, however, one may conclude that the commemoration of the great Christian desert dwellers of old, the leaders and guides of monasticism, was kept by the Church for their didactic gifts and their lofty spiritual attainments, apart from a strict dependence on whether they were glorified with the gift of working miracles. They were numbered among the choirs of the saints strictly for their ascetic life, without any particular reference to such a criterion [miracle working].

The ancient Church’s glorification of holy hierarchs should be viewed somewhat differently. Their lofty service itself was the basis of their glorification, just as the martyrs’ holy ends were for them. In the Carthaginian Calendar, which dates from the seventh century, there is the superscription: “Here are recorded the birthdays (i.e., the dates of martyrdom) of the martyrs and the days of the repose of bishops whose annual commemoration the Church of Carthage celebrates.” Thus, judging from ancient Greek liturgical calendars, one may surmise that in the Greek Church all Orthodox bishops who did not sully themselves in any way were numbered amongst the choir of the local saints of their diocese, on the basis of the belief that as intercessors before God in this life by their vocation, they remain such even in the life beyond the grave. In the ecclesiastical calendars of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, all the patriarchs of Constantinople who occupied that see between AD 315 (St. Metrophanes) and 1025 (St. Eustathius), with the exception of those that were heretics or for one canonical reason or another were deposed, are recorded in the list of the saints. This compilation, however, was scarcely done in the sequence in which the patriarchs occupied their see. In all probability, the most renowned bishops were recognized as saints immediately following their repose; in the other cases, this inclusion was carried out at some other time.

The names of all departed bishops were entered in the local diptychs — the lists of the departed which were read aloud at the divine services, and every year, on the date of the repose of each of them, their commemoration was kept with special solemnity. Sozomen, the church historian, states that in individual churches or dioceses, the celebrations of their local martyrs and the commemoration of their former priests (i.e., their hierarchs) were observed. Herein he uses the term “celebration” in reference to the memory of the martyrs, but “commemoration” in reference to the hierarchs, leaving it to be understood that in the ancient Church the latter events (if one may speak of an overall plan and not of individual cases) were of lesser stature than the former. Prof. Golubinsky conjectures that, as regards hierarchs, after a certain number of years of fervent prayer for them, the annual celebration of their memory was transformed into a day of prayer to them. According to the testimony of Symeon of Thessalonica, from the earliest times in Constantinople the hierarchs were interred within the sanctuary of the largest church, that of the Apostles, like the relics of the saints, because of the Grace of the divine priesthood.

In the Greek Church, until the eleventh century, only a very few of the choir of hierarchs were saints universally venerated throughout the entire Church. The greater portion of the hierarchs remained local saints of the individual Churches (i.e., dioceses), and each individual diocese/Church celebrated only its own local hierarchs, with a very small number of hierarchs venerated universally throughout the Church. With the eleventh century the transformation of the choirs of hierarchs from local to universal came about, as a result of which there are a great number of names. This was probably the reason why, from that century on, the numbering of hierarchs among the choirs of the saints was carried out more strictly, and as a criterion for the numbering of any of the patriarchs of Constantinople among the saints it was declared necessary to have irrefutable evidence of their miracles, as was also required for the glorification of ascetics.

In local Churches (dioceses) the right to recognize individuals as saints belonged to their bishops and their clergy or officials subject to their authority. It is also quite possible that the bishops did not perform such an act without the knowledge and consent of the metropolitan and the synod of bishops of the metropolitan province. At times the laity determined beforehand the future glorification of ascetics, even while the latter were still alive, and in witness of their determination erected churches dedicated to such ascetics, apparently in the certainty that the blessing of the hierarchy would be forthcoming.

When Symeon the Pious, St. Symeon the New Theologian’s elder and guide, reposed in the Lord after forty-five years of ascetic labor, St. Symeon, knowing the intensity of his struggles, his purity of heart, his closeness to God and the Grace of the Holy Spirit which overshadowed him, composed in his honor a eulogy, as well as hymns and canons, and celebrated his memory yearly with great solemnity, having painted an icon of him as a saint. Others, perhaps, both within and outside the monastery, followed his example, for he had many disciples and admirers among monastics and laity alike. St. Sergius II, then Patriarch of Constantinople (reigned 999-1019), heard of this, summoned St. Symeon to appear before him, and questioned him concerning the feast and the Saint who was being so honored. But perceiving that Symeon the Pious had led such an exalted life, he did not prohibit the veneration of his memory, and even sent lamps and incense in Symeon’s memory. Sixteen years passed without incident. But later, a certain influential retired metropolitan who resided in Constantinople objected to any veneration conducted on private initiative. Such a thing seemed to him blasphemous and contrary to church order. A few parish priests and some layfolk agreed with him, and disturbances began over this point, lasting for about two years. To attain their goal, St. Symeon’s opponents did not stop at slander, directed at both the Saint and his elder. St. Symeon was ordered to appear before the patriarch and his synod to give an explanation. His reply was that, following the precepts of the apostles and the holy fathers, he could not refrain from honoring his elder, that he did not compel others to do so, that he was acting according to his own conscience, and that others could do as they deemed best. Satisfied by this apologia, they nevertheless ordered St. Symeon henceforth to celebrate the memory of his elder as modestly as possible, without any solemnity. The controversy continued for about six years, however, and a full-scale vendetta was launched against the icon of Symeon the Pious, in which he was depicted in the company of other saints, with an inscription referring to him as a “saint,” and overshadowed by Christ the Lord in an attitude of blessing. The result of this was that, for peace of mind and the establishment of peace, St. Symeon decided to leave Constantinople and settled in a remote spot near the ancient church of St. Marina, where he later built a monastery. Concerning the question of the veneration itself, the previous decree remained in force, viz. the celebration was permitted so long as it was not conducted with solemnity (cf. “Life of St. Symeon the New Theologian” in his Discourses, ed. Bishop Theophan, 2 vols. [Moscow: Ephimov Press, 1892], Vol. 1, pp. 3-20).

The incident cited above demonstrates, from one point of view, that knowledge of an ascetic’s righteous life in and of itself leads to a firm conviction regarding his sojourn in the company of the saints after his death and to his veneration; on the other hand, it witnesses to the fact that, at that time (the 11th century), the custom and procedures of the Church required definite confirmation by higher church authorities and a special synodal decree sanctioning public veneration.

In the future the Greek Church was to know two classifications of newly glorified saints: martyrs and ascetics.

Martyrs and Ascetics

Under Turkish rule, the Greek Church had no small number of martyrs who were put to death for their exceptional zeal for the Christian faith and for publicly denouncing Islam. The later Greek Church, and the universal Church with her, has regarded and continues to accept her martyrs just as the ancient Church regarded the martyrs of the early Christian era, acknowledging martyrdom as sufficient foundation for glorification, irrespective of the gift of working miracles, although miracles did have a place in many cases. A great many Greek martyrs were not proclaimed as saints in any official manner and were often honored as “zealots,” without any deliberate inquest or proclamation on the part of the Great Church of Constantinople, for such would have been difficult to carry out under the conditions of the Turkish Yoke. St. Nicephorus of Chios, who composed a “General Service to Any New Martyr,” explaining the need for such a service, states: “Inasmuch as the majority of the new martyrs do not have a service to celebrate, and whereas many people are desirous of such a service — one, to honor his fellow countryman; another, to honor someone known to him personally; yet another, to honor someone who has helped him in some need, I have therefore composed a general service for any new martyr. May he that so desires sing such a service to that martyr for whom he has a veneration.” The author of A History of the Canonization of the Saints in the Russian Church believes that generally martyrs honored without official glorification were also intended in the above case. Whether or not his supposition is accurate is difficult to determine.

As before, in the Eastern Church the criterion that had to be met for the glorification of ascetics, be they hierarchs or monastics, was the gift of working miracles. Patriarch Nectarius of Jerusalem (reigned 1661-1669), gives lucid testimony concerning this. He writes: “Three things witness to true sanctity in people: 1) irreproachable Orthodoxy, 2) perfection in all the virtues, which are crowned by standing up for the faith, even unto the shedding of one’s blood, and finally, 3) the manifestation by God of supernatural signs and wonders.” In addition to this, Patriarch Nectarius indicates that at that time, when abuses in reporting miracles and virtues were common occurrences, yet often other signs were required, i.e. the incorruption of bodies or a fragrance emanating from the bones.

In the East, the right to glorify a saint for local veneration belongs to the metropolitans of the metropolitan sees; for general veneration throughout the Church of Constantinople, the patriarch of Constantinople with his synod of bishops gives the blessing. Athos, apparently, constitutes an exception in this regard, glorifying its own ascetics for local veneration on the Holy Mountain through the personal authority of the brotherhoods, or of individual monasteries, or by the synodia of the Protaton for the entire Athonite community. Also, the gift of working miracles can hardly be considered obligatory as a basis for glorification, yet one may deem an ascetic life, confirmed afterwards by the sign of fragrance emanating from the bones, as such a basis.

From the compilation of documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople relating to the glorification of the saints, which is appended to the second edition of A History of the Canonization of the Saints in the Russian Church, one may form for oneself an idea as to how glorification has been carried out.

From the fourteenth century a decree has come down to us from Patriarch John XIV (reigned 1333-47) addressed to Theognostus, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia (reigned 1328-53, resident in Moscow), dated July of 1339, concerning the numbering of his predecessor, St. Peter, Metropolitan of Moscow (reigned 1308-26), among the saints: “…We have received the letter of Thy Holiness, together with the notification and attestation concerning the hierarch of the holy Church who was before thee, that after death he hath been glorified by God and shown to be one of His true favorites, and that great miracles are worked by him and every disease is healed. And we rejoiced concerning this and were exceedingly glad of spirit, and rendered unto God fitting glorification. And in as much as Thy Holiness hath sought guidance from us as to how to act with such holy relics, we reply: Thy Holiness doth thyself know, nor art thou ignorant of the manner of ritual and custom the Church of God holdeth to in such cases. Having received a firm and incontestable attestation concerning this Saint, let Thy Holiness in the present event act in accordance with the Church’s rite. Honor and bless God’s favored one with hymnody and sacred doxologies, and bequeath these to the future ages, to the praise and glory of God, Who glorifieth them that glorify Him…”

In the eulogy of Patriarch Philotheus of Constantinople (reigned 1354-55, 1364-76) for St. Gregory of Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, concerning the numbering of the Archbishop among the choir of the saints, after an account of ten miracles performed at the saint’s tomb, we read: “Hence [i.e., owing to the fact that many miracles had taken place at the Archbishop’s tomb], the most God-loving and pre-eminent of them here present [the citizens of Thessalonica], and especially of them that are priests, having taken counsel together, have set up a sacred icon of Gregory and are celebrating a radiant festival for all the people on the day of his repose, and are hastening to erect a church for him, for he is a glorious disciple of Christ. They are not waiting for the assemblies of great men or any general councils to proclaim him [a saint], for such things sometimes are a hindrance, a burden, an obstacle and a care, and are all too human, but they are content, as is laudable, with a proclamation from on high, with the luminous and irrefutable contemplation of his works, and with faith.” From the discourse of Patriarch Philotheus it is clear that: 1) St. Gregory Palamas was numbered among the saints because of the miracles performed at his tomb, and 2) his glorification was performed by the Metropolitan of Thessalonica.

Decrees of much later origin clearly speak of special inquiries of synods relative to glorification. Thus, in a decree of Patriarch Cyril I (reigned 1621-23, 1624-32, 1632-33, 1633-34, 1637-38) concerning the glorification of St. Gerasimus of Cephalonia, following a dogmatic explanation of the Orthodox teaching concerning the Saint, we find: “And we, on the one hand, ready before God to render unto divine men the honor that befitteth them in recompense, and on the other hand, caring for the common good of the faithful, in accordance with the divine fathers that were before us, and following the universal practice of the Church, we do synodally resolve, appoint and command in the Holy Spirit, with the approval also of the blessed Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem who live in Constantinople, of the most sacred metropolitan, and our beloved brethren, the archbishops and bishops, most honored in the Holy Spirit, of the most worthy and learned clergy, that the above-named St. Gerasimus be venerated yearly with sacred services and psalmody, and be reckoned in the number of the venerable and holy men, henceforth and forevermore, not only on the island of Cephalonia, but throughout the Church of the pious, from one end of the world to the other. But he that doth not accept this synodal decision, or that hath in general dared to gainsay it, after the first and second admonition let him be cut off from the community of the pious, and let him be unto all as a heathen and a publican, in accordance with the word of the Gospel.” There follows the signatures of the three patriarchs and seven other hierarchs. In the copy which bears the seal, the request addressed to the Patriarch by the inhabitants of the island of Cephalonia is placed before the decree. Therein, they request, through the mediation of a certain bishop, that a decree be issued by the Patriarch, authorizing the veneration of Gerasimus, and that he be included in the list of venerable and holy men.

Another decree of the same Patriarch, dated 1633, concerning the numbering of St. John of Crete and his ninety-eight fellow ascetics among the choir of the saints, contains a dogmatic explanation followed by this statement: “In as much that long before our time, in the divinely built city of Crete, the venerable John the desert-dweller and his fellow ascetics, ninety-eight in number shone forth… whose life the Lord hath glorified with miracles… having assembled in the Holy Spirit all the hierarchs to be found in Constantinople, and having called upon the Promised One to be with us all our days, we do ordain that these holy ones be glorified with yearly festivals and sacred hymnody, and be numbered among the rest of the saints, both on the island of Crete, and in all the churches throughout the whole world. Strange and surpassingly foolish it would be if God were wondrously to glorify them as saints and we were not to delight in honoring them, or were even to deprive ourselves of the benefit derived therefrom, especially since we are needful of such intercessors…” This decree ends with the signatures of twenty-one hierarchs.