A note on the word “canonization”

Regarding the articles I published in last year’s Theological Bulletin under the title: “The History of the Canonization of Saints in the Russian Church,” I consider it necessary to make an explanation regarding the word “canonization.” I am not the first to introduce the word “canonization,” borrowed from the West, from the language of the Latin Church, as others may think, but I use it because I consider it already accepted in our church-historical and church-archaeological science. I cannot say who was the first to use the word “canonization” among us; but they use it: Rev. Macarius in the History of the Russian Church (VI, 219, VII, 438, 445, 447, VIII, 46), V. O. Klyuchevsky in the Old Russian Lives of Saints (pp. 223–227), Rev. Sergius in the Complete Monthly Book of the East (vol. I, pp. 309 and 313, and appendix p. 191, vol. II appendix p. 58). After Rev. Sergius uses the word “canonization”; if absolutely all, then almost all writers who, in the content of their works, speak about the action of our church, denoted by the Latins by this word. So, they use it: the late I.D. Mansvetov in his analysis of the “Complete Monthly Book” by Rev. Sergius, compiled for the Academy of Sciences in 1878 (separate brochure, pp. 31, 37, 41, 44), Mr. N. Barsukov in the essay: Sources of Russian hagiography (repeatedly), gr. M.V. Tolstoy in the biographical additions in his published “Book, verb description of the Russian saints” (also), the late Archimandrite Leonid in his book: Holy Rus' or information about all the saints and ascetics of piety in Rus' (also), Rev. Demetrius (Sambikin) in the second edition of his Monthly Book of Saints, the entire Russian Church or locally revered (also). It is also used in some manuals to Russian church history, approved by the Educational Committee of the Holy Synod. The word “canonization” is accepted in our church-historical and church-archaeological science due to the lack of a corresponding deliberate or, as they say, technical word in the Russian or Greek languages. As for the objection to it, that with it incorrect concepts are brought to us from the Latin Church, the objection cannot at all be considered valid. If indeed the Latin canonization of saints represented in its essence something different from our Orthodox veneration of saints and more or less sinful, then along with the word the Latin concept would not necessarily pass to us, in place of which nothing prevented us from combining with it our own, Orthodox concept. But in fact, there is no difference between the Latin canonization of saints and our Orthodox canonization (not everything is necessarily considered heretical by Catholics!). In our Orthodox Church, ascetics of piety, glorified by God with the gift of miracles, are considered saints; but it is absolutely the same in the Roman Catholic Church (the deceased are canonized, considered devotees of piety, who are taken for miracle workers), with the only difference being that the process of inquiring about the reliability of miracles is much more complicated than ours (and then also that the announcement of canonization is performed with a special, very magnificent ceremony, which we do not have). And for the pope to elevate whoever he wanted to sainthood, this is a complete lie. You might be interested in: