IV. Время от учреждения св. Синода до наших дней

In the present Synodal period, as well as in all previous times, saints are canonized either for a general or for a local celebration. Which saints are canonized in the present period for general celebration, we, of course, know, for general celebration itself presupposes general knowledge about him. But about the saints canonized for local celebrations, and for the present period, as for the previous time, we do not have detailed information, so here, too, it is possible on our part, if not sinful excesses, consisting in adding to the list of saints revered deceased who are not among the actual saints or not canonized, then omissions, i.e., failure to include in the list of saints due to ignorance of actual saints, canonized for local celebration. For this last celebration, the saints were and are canonized without deliberate announcement to the general public, through the decrees of St. Synod, which until recently, before the appearance of diocesan bulletins and the organ of St. Synod - “Church Gazette” was not published anywhere and therefore it is impossible to know everything in full, without any omission. We address the saints canonized during the current Synodal period for the general celebration 1. The first saint canonized in the current Synodal period for general celebration was the famous Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, who died on October 28, 1709 and was buried in the Rostov Yakovlevsky Monastery, in the cathedral church of the latter. On September 21, 1752, on the occasion of the repair of the damaged floor of the church above the saint’s grave, his relics were found incorrupt 377. Miracles 378 immediately began to work from the relics, which then followed in a continuous series. At the end of 1756, by personal order of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, St. Synod from Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich of Rostov, records of the miracles that took place at the tomb of the saint 379; Following this, the Synod appointed a commission consisting of Metropolitan Sylvester of Suzdal, Archimandrite Gabriel of the Simonov Monastery and Metropolitan of Rostov himself to examine the relics of the saint and to inquire about the healings occurring with them (the relics) 380 . After the commission carried out the assignment assigned to it in January 1757 381, St. The Synod came with a report to the empress about the canonization of Demetrius, which was followed by the empress's permission on April 1, 1757. In the decree about this St. Synod to the Metropolitan of Rostov dated April 15, 1757 it is written: “Our Most Serene, Most Sovereign, Great Sovereign, Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, against the report given to Her Imperial Majesty from the Synod on the newly revealed relics of the Right Reverend Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, report on these holy relics for the perfect saints to announce the relics, to establish the celebration of this newly-minted wonderworker Saint Demetrius on the 21st of September (whose holy relics were found), to openly send all-night vigils and prayer songs to the willing people, and to compose a special service for that newly-minted wonderworker and in printed books, in which it is necessary, this holy relics will be found, with the appendix of his life with I deigned to indicate the others along the line” 382. And in the decree of St. The Synod to the same Metropolitan of Rostov on the 22nd day of the same April of the same year 1757 on the nationwide announcement of the newly found holy relics sets out the motives for which the celebration of St. Demetrius was established, namely - it reads here: “In the days of the now most pious Her Imperial Majesty’s power, that is, in the year 1752 On September 21st, the body of the late Right Reverend Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, buried in the month of October 1709 in the Rostov Yakovlevsky Monastery, forty-three years later was found not exactly with much, but almost completely different from other buried bodies, and from that time even to this day, after half a fifth of a year, frequent miracles occur from that body, then there are the blind who see and the paralyzed and those who are possessed by other serious and incurable illnesses through calling upon God for help and bringing prayers and diligence to that body by the grace of God, are healed, that everything, both by your Eminence, as well as by those specially sent from the Holy Synod by the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Suzdal Sylvester and the Simon Monastery, Archimandrite Gabriel, has been studied and the truth itself is confirmed without any doubt: in the reasoning of the miracles that have happened to this day from that body and the certification of that from the above-mentioned, as likely worthy persons, the testimony and the veneration of their recognition for the holy relics, also according to his holy and God-pleasing life and the holy church, with well-known and useful works, and the Holy Synod judged no differently about this, as This newly found body of the late Right Reverend Dimitri, Metropolitan of Rostov, for the most holy relics, against other holy saints of God’s repose, should be venerated and should have the relics, which was reported to Her Imperial Majesty most submissively from the Holy Synod” 383. Having expressed her consent to the canonization of St. Demetrius, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, as stated in the decree of the Synod to Arseny Matseevich dated April 15, 1757, “precisely ordered the transfer of the holy relics to another place until the decree to wait.” This means that the empress, who decided to arrange a silver shrine for the relics of the saint, herself wanted to be present at the placement of the relics in the shrine she had arranged. We don’t know why, but things slowed down and the empress died on December 25, 1761, without fulfilling her desire to personally transfer the relics of the saint into her new shrine 384. This last was done by Catherine II on May 25, 1763 385. On February 15, 1766, schismatics made an attempt to steal the relics of St. Demetrius in order to put them on fire, see Description of the Rostov stauropegial first-class Spaso-Yakovlevsky-Dimitrievsky Monastery and the Spassky Monastery attached to it, which is on Peski, St. Petersburg, 1849, p. 60 sqq. A decree from the Pereyaslavl Provincial Chancellery to the Rostov Magistrate on the punishment of four criminals, dated May 1769, was published in the Yaroslavl Provincial Gazette of 1890, in the second half of the same May (in a separate print of the decree that we have, the Gazette No. is not displayed. - On the suspicion that the four convicted were not all and not the main attackers, but only the perpetrators of malicious intent, see the preface to the decree). 2. The second saint canonized in the current Synodal period for the general celebration was Innocent, the first Bishop of Irkutsk, who died on November 26, 1731 and was buried in the Ascension Monastery, located 5 versts from Irkutsk, which was his cathedral bishop's monastery. Around 1755, on the occasion of work in the church under which the bishop was buried, his body was found incorrupt, which was then kept under the church “in a lined brick tent.” In 1800, two senators examining the Irkutsk province reported to the emperor. Paul about the incorruptible body of the saint, with the appendix of a brief extract from the then Irkutsk bishop about the miracles occurring from that incorruptible body, and the emperor commanded the saint. The Synod should consider all the circumstances explained in the senators' report. Having done this, the Synod, with the permission of the sovereign, sent one bishop to Irkutsk at the end of 1800, so that he, together with the local bishop, properly examined the incorruptible body of Innocent and made a detailed investigation about the healings that took place from him. The bishops examined the body twice, on January 29 and March 3, 1801 - the first time with several clergy, the second time with the participation of the civil governor of Irkutsk, several officials, the mayor and many of the honorable merchants, and found it (the body) incorrupt. In the interval between examining the body, the bishops carried out a study of the announcements of miracles, “in which study, as they reported to St. The Synod, caution and attentiveness, which the circumstances could and should have required, were always used with extreme diligence, so as not to miss anything that was necessary for their approval"(?), and found the announcements of miracles to be not false. The final "reasoning" or opinion of the bishops in the report of St. The Synod was “to rank this first Irkutsk Bishop Innocent as a saint, revered and glorified by the church; his body is incorruptible, like true relics and worthy of being declared and opened for public veneration.” Report of the Bishops of St. The Synod was dated March 5, 1801. After exactly two years, by decree of March 5, 1803, St. The Synod demanded that the Bishop of Irkutsk “send more information: have there been any new memorable incidents during these recent years that could serve as further confirmation of what was previously presented? What is the current popular opinion about this incorruptible body and has any change been noticed in it? add to this, to the bishop, your opinion about it, according to his archpastoral duty and according to the most essential justice, so that the Synod can judge with a firm basis as to the most important circumstance.” To the decree of the Synod, the bishop responded on October 9, 1803, that “healings and apparitions from St. Innocent continue; (that) no treason can be seen in his incorruptible body; (that) the zeal of the inhabitants of those countries not only does not weaken for him, but also increases even more, and (that) he, a bishop, is convinced by his conscience, that he considers his holy intercession respected by the mercy of God.” To his answer, the bishop attached an extract about 24 new healings and phenomena in addition to the previous 61. After receiving St. The Synod responded to the Bishop of Irkutsk, the Siberian Governor-General sent a letter to the Metropolitan of Novgorod and the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, in which he petitioned for the discovery of the incorruptible body of the saint. “After considering with the most diligent attention the circumstances mentioned, respecting those described. testimonies and miracles, and at the same time the zeal of the local people increasing from time to time for these relics of St. Innocent,” St. The Synod submitted its opinion to the discretion of Emperor Alexander Pavlovich: “1. this body of the first Bishop of Irkutsk, Innocent, should be proclaimed as a perfect holy relic and, with due reverence, placed by the diocesan Irkutsk bishop with the rest of the clergy in the church of the shown Ascension Monastery at the top of the one where it was found or in another decent place, with the establishment of the celebration of November 26th, in memory of the repose of this saint, which will be announced from the Synod in national announcement by decrees; 2. All-night vigils and prayer songs should be openly sent to the people who wish and the service proper to that Saint Innocent, as well as in printed church books, which should, along with the other six, be allowed.” On October 28, 1804, the opinion of the Synod was approved by the Sovereign, who wrote on the first report to him: “I agree with the opinion of the Holy Synod,” and on December 1, 1804, the Synod sent out its decrees “on the due execution according to this Highest of His Imperial Majesty’s permission,” and ordered that “in Church books printed in both synodal printing houses and the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, in which, along with others, the following was included on November 26th: “Memory of the repose of St. Innocent, the first bishop of Irkutsk, wonderworker” 386. 3. The third saint canonized in the current Synodal period for the general celebration was Mitrofan, the first Bishop of Voronezh, who died on November 23, 1703 and was buried in the Annunciation Cathedral. “The memory of the Christian and pastoral virtues of Saint Mitrofan, to speak of the official note on his canonization, which we will convey briefly, has been revered in Voronezh since his death, that is, since 1703: zealous people came to his burial place and asked to perform memorial services for him... In 1830, it was noticed that the number of such admirers of the saint Mitrofan increased to a crowded gathering of them to the place of his burial... The growing reverence for the memory of St. Mitrofan among the people was brought to the attention of the Holy Synod..., and (the Synod) prescribed Anthony, Bishop of Voronezh, a modest and cautious observation of events. (A) since some of those who reverently flocked to the tomb of St. Mitrofan announced that they had received miraculous healings, the Bishop of Voronezh ordered to keep a note about such events.” In the winter of 1831, on the occasion of the repair of the dilapidations of the cathedral in which the saint was buried, his incorruptible relics were found. This discovery was reported “in secret” to Emperor Nicholas at the beginning of 1832, and His Majesty “ordered to submit this matter to the Holy Synod for consideration, also while maintaining secrecy.” “The Holy Synod, starting to consider this matter, requested from the Moscow Synodal Office the original testament of the Right Reverend Mitrofan, stored in the Synodal Library, which reveals some features of his life and represents the outpouring of a pious, humble, zealous spirit for the salvation of his flock. And the above-mentioned note about the healings taking place at the tomb of St. Mitrofan was requested from the Bishop of Voronezh. The preliminary information collected in this way turned out to be quite important in order to verify the incorruption of the body of the Right Reverend Bishop Mitrofan, in the schema-monastery of Macarius, and about the miraculous actions performed at his tomb over the sick, to use those means of testing that are prescribed for this in the spiritual Regulations and which were used before in similar cases, such as during the discovery of the relics of St. Demetrius of Rostov and Innocent Irkutsk. A research commission was formed, which was to open at the research site in Voronezh and act according to the instructions given by the Synod.” The commission, consisting of Archbishop Eugene of Ryazan, Bishop Anthony of Voronezh and Archimandrite Hermogenes of the Savior-Andronievsk, examined (April 8 and 9, 1832) the relics of St. Mitrofan, and “the information about the incorruption of the relics was confirmed,” and carried out a study of miracles, and their truth was confirmed. “When the research carried out sufficiently revealed to the Holy Synod in the incorruption of the body of St. Mitrophan and in the healings occurring from him the true work of God, marvelous in his saints: the Holy Synod did not hesitate any longer to solemnly reveal this gift of God to the church: to resolve by hierarchical blessing what hitherto was an act of private zeal, that is, invoking the intercession of those among the saints of our Father Mitrofan in prayers to God, and His holy, miraculous and healing relics should be placed in the church, like a lamp, not hidden, but on the candlestick, so that it may shine for everyone. The annual church celebration in honor of this saint is supposed to take place on the day of his repose, November 23rd.” To ask Emperor Nicholas for permission to do this, St. The Synod report, which was approved by the Emperor on June 25, 1832, through the provision of a resolution on it: “I agree with the opinion of the Holy Synod.” The day of the opening of the relics of St. Mitrophan was set on August 6, 1832, and a member of St. Synod Gregory, Archbishop of Tver. “A short time after the liturgy of the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, the bell ringer at the Voronezh Cathedral announced the beginning of a new celebration.”... With an appropriate ceremony, the relics were “raised” from the grave, placed in a new cypress shrine and covered with a prepared cover 387. The next day, during the celebration of the liturgy, “when the time had come for the bishops to enter the holy altar: then the venerable relics of St. Mitrofan were brought into it through the royal doors and placed in a high place, facing the holy altar..., (at which) two bishops stood on the sides of it (i.e., the relics of the saint), as servants... At the end of the liturgy, while singing Troparion to Saint Mitrofan, his venerable relics were brought up from the altar and placed in the prepared place, on the right side of the cathedral near the iconostasis itself” 388. 4. The fourth saint canonized in the current Synodal period for the general celebration was Tikhon, the 11th Bishop of Voronezh, who died in retirement in the Zadonsk Mother of God Monastery on August 13, 1788. We will present in its original and complete form the decree of St. Synod of June 20, 1861, which announced to all the sons of the Orthodox Church about the canonization of St. Tikhon and in which the progress of this canonization is described in detail. “Memory of the Right Reverend Tikhon, Bishop of Voronezh,” proclaimed St. The Synod, from the day of his repose, which followed in the Zadonsk Mother of God Monastery on August 13, 1783, was reverently honored by the Orthodox Russian people, who flocked in large numbers from distant places to the Zadonsk Monastery to the grave of the hierarch, to offer prayers for the repose of the soul of this saint, with hope in his prayerful intercession before God. Believers were drawn to veneration of the saint by the memories of the lofty Christian virtues with which he shone during his earthly life and the broadcasting of the wisdom of the Gospel left in his God-enlightened writings, and the miraculous healings of various ailments that took place at his grave. On all this was based the pious hope that this hierarch, glorified by God, was canonized. Even at the end of the last century, such hope was expressed in petitions received by the Most High Name and the Holy Synod; but then the hour ordained by the Lord for the glorification of the saint had not yet arrived: signs of God’s will about this came later. “In 1846, on the occasion of the construction of a new church in the Zadonsky Monastery in honor of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, there was a need to dismantle the dilapidated stone church and altar, under which the deceased archpastor was buried in a special crypt, and move his coffin for convenience to another place. In this case, it turned out that the crypt under which the saint rested had collapsed due to the passage of time, the coffin lid was crushed by bricks and the coffin itself was close to destruction; the bishop's vestment, in which the Right Reverend Tikhon was buried, despite his 63-year stay in a damp place, was found intact and even slightly changed in its color; and his body was found incorrupt and remaining in the position and form in which the saints of God rest in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. As a result of this, the body of the saint was placed in a new tomb, placed in the warm monastery church. At the same time, the late Archbishop Anthony of Voronezh (who was elevated from bishop to archbishop on December 6, 1832) twice reported to the Holy Synod, at the same time bringing to its attention the many miraculous healings that took place on different persons during the prayerful invocation of the Right Reverend Tikhon. Along with the second report to the Holy Synod, His Eminence Anthony, six hours before his death on December 20, 1846, signed a letter addressed to the Highest Name in God of the late Emperor Nicholas I, in which the bishop's conscience testified that, by special inspiration, he made it his sacred duty to bring to the Highest information about the miracles performed at the tomb of the Right Reverend Tikhon, as well as about the universal, “sweet and awe-inspiring desire” of numerous pilgrims flocking from distant places to Zadonsk, “that this great lamp of faith and good deeds, now lying hidden, may be revealed before the eyes of all. “In the subsequent time, although no formal reports on this subject were received from the diocesan authorities, it was known from private information that actions bearing the stamp of gracious signs and wonders, which the believers received from the Lord, calling for the help of St. Tikhon in serious and incurable illnesses, in difficult circumstances of life, in spiritual sorrows and everyday needs, continued, and that among the Orthodox people, confidence in the holiness of this hierarch grew more and more and was confirmed. At the beginning of last year, the Right Reverend Joseph of Voronezh, having fully confirmed all the previous reports of the Right Reverend Anthony, at the same time testified that even in very recent times miraculous healings took place at the tomb of St. Tikhon, and that many people have repeatedly expressed to him, the Right Reverend Joseph, a universal desire for the discovery of the relics of this hierarch of God; moreover, His Eminence Joseph delivered the handwritten testimony of the monks who had been in the Zadonsk monastery since 1846, and certified copies of the note and detailed legend about the miracles of Saint Tikhon. All these documents, together with the review of His Eminence of Voronezh, were subjected to the Highest view of the Sovereign Emperor, and, following the permission of His Majesty to the report of the Holy Synod, that now is the time to begin orders to verify the truth of the incorruption of the body of St. Tikhon, and the authenticity of the miracles performed on believers at his grave - the nearest examination the case was entrusted to the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Kyiv (now Novgorod and St. Petersburg) Isidore 389, the local Right Reverend Archbishop Joseph and the Moscow Intercession Monastery Archimandrite Joseph, who, having added to themselves two persons from the Zadonsk clergy, who, due to their impeccable life, enjoyed general trust, and two hieromonks of the Zadonsk monastery, known for its piety, on May 19 of last year they opened the tomb of St. Tikhon, and at the same time, after examining it, they found that the body of St. Tikhon, by the grace of God, was preserved incorrupt, and the bishop’s vestment in which the saint was buried also remained intact, despite the dampness of the grave. Regardless of the aforementioned examination, the Reverends Isidore and Joseph, together with other designated clergy, received the affixed testimony of various persons, who testified under oath that some of them experienced miraculous healings on themselves, and others on their relatives, through the intercession of the saint, through prayerful invocation of his gracious help. They examined 48 such events, covering the course of time from 1820 to January of this year, of which 19 were at one time included in books specially kept at the Zadonsk Monastery. “The Synod, having examined in all detail and with all possible care all the above circumstances, came to full conviction in the truth of the incorruptibility of the body of St. Tikhon and in the authenticity of the miracles performed through it, and, having given praise to the wondrous Lord God in His saints, who has ever blessed the Russian state, strong in forefathers’ Orthodoxy, and now, in the days of the blessed reign of the Most Pious Emperor Alexander Nikolayevich, as of old, who was pleased to show by glorifying the hierarch of the Russian Church a new and great sign of His benefits to her, presented His Imperial Majesty in. On the 25th day of last May, a most humble report in which he expressed the following opinion: “1) In the fragrance of the shrine, the deceased Tikhon, Bishop of Voronezh, is recognized as a saint, glorified by the grace of God, and his incorruptible body as holy relics. 2) Having carried them with due honor from the Church of the Nativity of Christ, where they now rest, to the main Mother of God Cathedral, they were placed in a decent and open place for general worship. 3) Compose a special service for Saint Tikhon, and until the time of compiling it, send him a service common to saints, and celebrate the memory of the saint both on the day of his repose, August 13, and on the day that His Imperial Majesty will be pleased to appoint for the opening of the relics of the saint. 4) Announce this publicly by decrees of the Synod.” During this report, the authentic act of witnessing the relics of St. Tikhon, and a description of cases of miraculous help to those who resorted to his intercession in illness and misfortune were presented at the Royal discretion. At the said report of the Synod, the Sovereign Emperor, on the 25th day of May, deigned to write in his own hand: “I agree with the opinion of St. Synod. Alexander". Moreover, His Majesty was pleased to entrust the discovery of the relics of the saint to Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, together with Archbishop Joseph of Voronezh and Zadonsk, with permission for them to call Bishop Sergius of Kursk 390, closest to Voronezh, for the same purpose, and to set the day for the celebration on August 13th.” On the day appointed by the Sovereign Emperor, the three hierarchs mentioned above, with the addition of the fourth, Bishop Theophan of Tambov, made the discovery of the relics of St. Tikhon. At the liturgy on the day of the opening of the relics, these latter, as well as the relics of Mitrofan, were brought into the altar, with the bishops standing on either side of them; What was superfluous against the ceremony of opening the relics of Mitrofan was that after the liturgy the relics were carried around the monastery with a procession of the cross. Up to 300 clergy were invited to participate in the ceremony of opening the relics; the number of pilgrims who gathered in Zadonsk for the celebration of their opening, according to official information, reached 220,000 people 391. 5. The fifth and last saint canonized in the current Synodal period for the general celebration was Theodosius V the Smooth, Archbishop of Chernigov, who died on February 5, 1696 and was buried in the Boriso-Gleb Cathedral. Here in its original and complete form is the “Decree of the Holy Synod dated June 26-July 5, 1896, No. 1916, on the glorification and discovery of the relics of St. Theodosius of Uglitsky, Archbishop of Chernigov,” printed in J6 of the 30th Church Gazette for the year 1896: “By decree of His Imperial Majesty, the Holy Governing Synod had a judgment on the procedure for publicly announcing the discovery of the relics of St. Theodosius of Uglitsky, Archbishop of Chernigov. Ordered: For a nationwide announcement of what is to come, on September 9th of this year, in the city. Chernigov at the solemn opening of the relics of St. Theodosius of Uglitsky, Archbishop of Chernigov, to print in No. 30 of the Church Gazette the following decree, ordering the Moscow and Georgian-Imereti Synodal offices, Synodal members and other diocesan bishops, the head of the court clergy, to the protopresbyter of the military and naval clergy, commanders of the laurel and stauropegial monasteries, read it in all churches after the liturgy on the first Sunday or holiday after receiving the indicated number of the Church Gazette: “The memory of His Grace Theodosius of Uglitsky, Archbishop of Chernigov, from the day of his repose, which followed on February 5, 1696, was reverently honored among the Russian Orthodox people, who flocked in large numbers from different localities of the Russian Empire to the Chernigov Boris-Gleb Cathedral to the grave of the hierarch, for offering prayers for the repose of his soul, with hope in his prayerful intercession before God. Believers were drawn to veneration of the saint by memories of his high ascetic life and the miraculous healings from various ailments that took place at his grave. A number of miraculous manifestations of God's grace from the relics of St. Theodosius of Uglitsky were revealed by the healing of his successor in the Chernigov see, Archbishop John Maksimovich, later Metropolitan of Tobolsk, from a serious illness. Grateful for his healing, Archbishop John composed a “praise” in honor of St. Theodosius, in which he calls him “an earthly angel and a saint residing in the Seraphim flock.” By order of Archbishop John, a stone cave was built in the foundation of the Boriso-Gleb Cathedral Church, above the tomb of St. Theodosius, into which for about 200 years zealous admirers of St. Theodosius have been flocking for blessings and spiritual gifts. And the Lord God, wondrous and glorious in His saints, endlessly worked and now works miracles and reveals His blessings, through the intercession of Saint Theodosius, flowing with faith to his tomb in serious and incurable illnesses, in difficult circumstances of life, in spiritual sorrows and everyday needs. Confidence in the holiness of this saint through the miraculous healings that took place at his tomb among the Orthodox people grew and became more and more established. Such confidence of the people was testified, by the way, by the Chernigov governor in his most submissive report on the state of the Chernigov province for 1889, to which testimony the late Sovereign Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich was pleased to draw His attention in Bose. In view of this, the Holy Synod instructed His Grace of Chernigov to collect and deliver to the Synod information about the life and exploits of St. Theodosius of Uglitsky. Having received the said information from the Right Reverend, the Holy Synod, taking into account that the news about the miracles of St. Theodosius remains not fully established, and meanwhile the general confidence in the holiness of this saint is becoming more and more established, found it timely to proceed with the necessary orders to verify the incorruption of the body of St. Theodosius and the miraculous actions performed at his tomb on the believers. The Holy Synod entrusted the immediate investigation of this matter to His Grace Ioannikiy, Metropolitan of Kyiv, and the local Bishop Anthony, who, having joined themselves with the vicar of the Chernigov diocese, Bishop Pitirim, the rector of the Chernigov Seminary, a member of the Kyiv Theological Consistory, Archpriest Preobrazhensky and two archpriests from the local cathedral clergy, On July 5, 1895, we arrived at the cave at the Boriso-Gleb Church of the Chernigov Cathedral and, after the funeral service for St. Theodosius was celebrated here, they carried out a detailed examination of the coffin, clothes and the body of St. Theodosius, and it turned out that the body of St. Theodosius, by the grace of God, was preserved incorruptible, despite staying for 200 years in the cave of the Boriso-Gleb Church, which is not particularly dry. Regardless of this, the Right Reverends Ioannikios and Anthony, together with other designated clergy, having invited persons who had experienced miraculous healings on themselves or on their relatives through the intercession of Saint Theodosius, upon prayerful invocation of his gracious help, collected from them, under oath and assault, testimonies about the reality of the miracles performed on them. They examined 49 such events, of which twelve were at one time entered into the books of the Chernigov Cathedral to record legends about the miracles of the saint. “The Synod, having examined in all detail and with all possible care all of the above circumstances, came to full conviction in the truth of the incorruptibility of the body of Saint Theodosius and in the authenticity of the miracles performed through it, and, having given praise to the wondrous Lord God in His saints, who has ever blessed the Russian Power, strong in forefathers’ Orthodoxy, and now, in the days of the blessed reign of the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, as of old, who was pleased to show through the glorification of the hierarch of the Russian Church a new and great sign of His benefits to her, presented His Imperial Majesty with an all-submissive report, in which he expressed the following opinion: 1) in the blessed memory of the late Theodosius, Archbishop of Chernigov, to be canonized, glorified by the grace of God, and recognize his incorruptible body as holy relics; 2) compose a special service for St. Theodosius, and until the time of compiling one, send him a service common to saints; to celebrate the memory of the saint both on the day of his repose, February 5th, and on the day that His Imperial Majesty would be pleased to appoint for the opening of the relics of the saint, and 3) to announce this publicly by decrees of the Synod. During this report, the following were presented at the Royal discretion: the authentic act of examining the relics of St. Theodosius, a brief description of cases of miraculous help for those who resorted to his intercession in illness and misfortune, and brief information about the life and work of St. Theodosius. On the most submissive note of the Chief Prosecutor, in which the above-mentioned most submissive report of the Synod was brought to the attention of the Most High Sovereign Emperor, the Sovereign Emperor, on April 13th of this year, deigned to inscribe with his own hand: “I agree.” I read it with emotion." At the same time, the Synodal Chief Prosecutor most submissively reported that the celebration of the opening of the relics of St. Theodosius would, in the opinion of the Synod, be opportune to take place in the first half of September of this year. “In fulfillment of the expressed Highest will, the Holy Synod, by definition of June 19–24, 1896, decided to entrust His Eminence Ioannikiy, Metropolitan of Kyiv, to perform, together with His Eminence Anthony of Chernigov, the solemn opening of the relics of St. Theodosius of Uglitsky, Archbishop of Chernigov, and to appoint for this celebration 9th day of September of the current year. “The Synod announces this to the pious sons of the Orthodox Church, so that together with it they will give glory and thanksgiving to the Lord, who has so willed, and may they accept this appearance of a new intercessor and wonderworker, as a new heavenly blessing for the reign of our August Monarch, who is lifting up tireless labors for the good of the Orthodox people of Russia and with His Royal love and care embracing everyone Your loyal subjects of every rank and status.” A description of the celebration of the discovery of the relics of St. Theodosius, which took place, according to assumption, on September 9, 1896, is printed in the appendices. Among the saints canonized during the current Synodal period for local celebrations, Theodosius of Totem occupies a prominent position. Just as the five saints canonized for the general celebration, his relics were discovered, which was not the case during the canonization of other local saints (if the relics of others were discovered, then in a long time, so the discovery of relics and canonization are not related to each other), and the local celebration of him, established once, was then confirmed. And besides, among all the saints, both general and local, Theodosius occupies an outstanding position in the sense that the discovery of his relics was accompanied by doubts and represents a special story. Theodosius Totemsky, whose last name was Sumorin, was the founder of the Spassky Sumorin (after his last name) monastery located near the city of Totma (Vologda province) and died on January 28, 1568. About 40 years after his death, miracles began to occur at his tomb. From 1626 they began to depict him on icons 392. And in 1729, therefore, during the reign of Peter II, a local celebration was established for him in his monastery. We find information about the establishment of this local celebration in the decree of St. Synod of 1798, containing an announcement about the discovery of his relics. Namely, the decree reads: “The Venerable Theodosius Sumorin, due to the miracles that take place, has long been revered as a saint by the entire Totem district and other surrounding places and is depicted on icons, which is why the service in memory of his repose on the 28th of January was composed back in 1729, and prayers were sent to him in that Sumorin monastery.” On September 2, 1796, while digging a ditch for the foundation of a new church, they found a coffin with the sufficiently preserved remains of the schema-monk, in which, according to the words embroidered on the schema: recognized the relics of St. Feodosia. The Vologda consistory, having been notified of the found coffin, ordered that it be secretly buried in the ground at night and that the place be leveled, which was done on the night of September 30th. But St. The Synod, having received a report about the same from the Yaroslavl-Vologda Governor-General, to whom the builder of the Sumorin Monastery reported the found body as “very wonderful relics,” ordered the Vologda bishop to carry out a witnessing of the body, for which purpose the bishop immediately sent two members of the Consistory to Totma: the Archimandrite of Prilutsk and one archpriest. The testimony was carried out by sent members of the Consistory on November 14 and 15, 1796, after which the coffin with the body was placed in a box, locked and sealed and placed in a niche in the church wall, the doors of which were also locked and sealed 393. For what purpose this was done - whether before a further decision or as a final decision - is not clear; be that as it may, only the citizens of the city of Totma, firmly convinced that the body found was the relics of St. Theodosius, having waited about 8 months for a decision from the spiritual authorities that corresponded to their desires, in the month of August 1797 they turned to St. Synod with a petition “for the confirmation of the found body with the relics of St. Feodosia." As a result of this, St. The Synod ordered that a new testimony of the body be carried out by the Archbishop of Yaroslavl together with Vologda, which the latter did on December 8, 1797. In his report, St. At the Synod, the archbishop and bishop spoke out against recognizing the found body as the relics of St. Feodosia. They wrote the following in the report: “As for the position of the opinion about the supposedly mentioned Rev. Theodosius's body and about the miracles that occurred from it, then we can conclude from our opinion that it is the body of exactly the Venerable. Theodosius and his miracles in dreams, the following circumstances give rise to doubt: 1) the letters appearing on the covers of the small and large veils They have already completely decayed, they have their position in different places, and it is noteworthy that these shields were, among other things, many words, following in their order; 2) that this body was found not in the place where it was recognized as buried when the tomb was placed in the previous church, but outside the church while digging a ditch under the foundation of a new church being built, albeit in the same place, but according to a different plan; 394 3) the coffin, according to experience through planing, is not noted to be of such antiquity, which after 228 years it should be; 4) those who questioned that Spaso-Sumorin Monastery, the builder Israel and the brethren, during whom this body was taken out of the ground and prayers were sent at the request of people coming from different places, testified that during the prayers they corrected so that one of the people who came would receive healing from any illness, they did not see and do not know, and they also did not see any miracles from the tomb; 5) the body, in its form against the certificate, repaired in 1796, November 14th and 15th, has now perceived a change in everything, and the covers and clothes have begun to decay; 6) of the advertisements submitted from various people in cases of healings received from illnesses, so that someone would receive some kind of special miracle does not appear, while of those who submitted advertisements, two peasant wives of Mavra Bragin and Evfimy Pavlov, after giving admonitions to them in oath notices, some of the words sent in those announcements were canceled, and the tradesman Grigory Gurylev’s son Peter, upon recovery (as he himself During the interrogation he showed) about two weeks later he died; 7) during the testimony we performed on this body to those who were brought to the tomb, one overcome by illness, one of relaxation, and the other of blindness from smallpox, no miracle or phenomenon was revealed and no healing followed.” The Holy Synod, agreeing with the presentation of the Eminences, put its opinion on it: “1) as Rev. Theodosius of Totem has long been revered by the local inhabitants as a saint, which is why a service to him was composed in ancient years and prayers are sent to him according to it, then leave all this exactly as it happened before; 2) what belongs to the above-mentioned acquired seemingly incorruptible body, then since it has now begun to change in its form from the previous one, and other above-mentioned reasons to recognize it as exactly the body of the Venerable. Theodosius is in doubt: in order, according to the opinion of the bishops who witnessed the body, to hand it over to the providence of God until cases that lead to the knowledge of the truth are revealed, and now this body, sealed with the bishop’s and consistor’s seals, should be left in the form where it is now located, so that no one can enter there.” And Emperor Paul, at the report to him, St. Synod on this matter wrote: “commit to the providence of God.” But another eight months after this, due to new quests of the Totem citizens before St. The Synod ordered the Bishop of Vologda to further examine the found body and present his opinion to it - the Synod. Having carried out the required inspection together with the Vologda governor on August 21, 1798, the bishop sent to St. The Synod has the following opinion: “The preservation of that body even after being taken out of the ground two years later, and then in the locked and damp air, although with the subsequent changes in color, is incorruption, which without the special providence of God, which preserves the bones of the righteous, is in no way likely to continue for so long; increasing from time to time to that body under the name of the relics of St. Theodosius, both local citizens and surrounding inhabitants, and those living in remote provinces, not just the common people, but also the noble nobility and eminent merchants, who often came to that Sumorin monastery and came to pray, to recognize that body as a true saint of God. Theodosius’s relics and no obstacles are foreseen to their opening for veneration.” In agreement with this new opinion of the Bishop of Vologda, St. By decree of September 30, 1798, the Synod “decided that the incorruptible body of the Monk Theodosius of Totem the Wonderworker, found in 1796 in the Totemsky Spaso-Sumorin Monastery, should be announced for the relics performed by the Monk Theodosius of Totem the Wonderworker,” and regarding the celebration of Theodosius it was confirmed that “it should continue to be established there,” namely, to perform it on the day of the repose of the reverend January 28th. However, this was not yet a complete end to the matter. For reasons that are not entirely clear to us, St. The Synod, recognizing the acquired body as the true relics of St. Theodosius, ordered the opening of a niche in the wall of the church, in which there was a coffin with relics, but did not order to unlock and open the coffin itself, so the relics were left in it under a kind of concealment. Citizens of Totma submitted new petitions to St. The Synod and after these new petitions, the relics were completely or in the true sense and truly opened by the Bishop of Vologda on December 31, 1798 395. We turn to the local saints canonized in the current Synodal period, as far as we know them 1. Prince of Moscow Daniil Alexandrovich, who died on March 4, 1303 and was buried in the Danilov Monastery that was part of it. With the blessing of Patr. Job (1589–1605) stichera and a canon were written for him; under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, on August 30, 1652, his relics were found 396: but the stichera and canon were written to him not as an already recognized one, but only as an expected saint, and the relics were also found only in the hope of glorifying them with miracles, which could be followed by his canonization. That until the end of the 17th century, Daniil Alexandrovich was not canonized, this is evident from the statute of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, which, at the end of this century, speaks of singing funeral services for him 397. When his celebration was established in the 18th - 19th centuries, we cannot say positively, but we think that at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th century, under Metropolitan. Plato. The printed service to Daniil Alexandrovich and the life of the prince attached to it, according to the signs, should be assimilated by Plato 398, who in his History of the Russian Church, printed in 1805, speaks of the prince, making it known that there was already a celebration for him: “the church glorifies his memory with the saints” 399. 2–4. Metropolitans of Moscow and all Russia: Theognostus, who died on March 11, 1353, Cyprian, who died on September 16, 1406, and Photius, who died on July 1 or 2, 1481, all three were buried in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. The establishment of the celebration of all three is erroneously associated with the construction of the current Assumption Cathedral. The current cathedral was built, so to speak, in two stages: during the years 1472–1474, the cathedral was built up to the domes, but when they started laying the latter, it collapsed, then during the years 1475–1479, the second cathedral was built (meaning, the one that remains to this day). The events with the metropolitans noted in the chronicles in relation to these two cathedrals are: firstly, the transfer of their coffins from the original cathedral to the first new cathedral (at which their remains were examined), which took place on May 29 (erroneously in the monthly calendar: May 27), 1472; secondly, the bringing of their coffins into the second new cathedral, which took place on August 27, 1479. On the first occasion, as we said above, a local celebration of Met. Jonah, whose relics were found incorrupt and at whose tomb several miraculous healings took place; but since the tombs of Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius were transferred simultaneously to the new cathedral with the tomb of Jonah, for whom a local celebration was established, the erroneous opinion was formed that, along with Jonah, celebrations were established for the two mentioned metropolitans. Read in the Prologue under May 27, 400, the legend about the transfer of the relics of three metropolitans to the first new cathedral ends with words conveying this long-established, erroneous opinion: “the blessed Prince John and the Most Reverend Metropolitan (Gerontius) and all the Orthodox multitude glorified God about this and commanded to celebrate the memory of the discovery of the honorable relics of their month of Maya in twenty-seventh day." Metropolitan's coffin Theognostus 401 was not transferred from the original cathedral to the first new cathedral - it was not touched, since in the new cathedral it had to remain in the same place where it was in the original cathedral; Therefore, the old hagiographers do not talk about establishing a celebration for him together with Cyprian and Photius, but new hagiographers add him to the last two. From the first new cathedral, when it fell, during the laying of the second new cathedral, the coffins of all three metropolitans were carried out, that is, together with the coffins of Cyprian and Photius and the coffin of Theognostus, which then on August 27, 1479, all three were brought to the second new cathedral: in this transfer of the coffin, Metropolitan. Theognosta, together with the tombs of Cyprian and Photius, old hagiographers began to see the establishment of a celebration for him. Thus, from a long time ago, the old hagiographers formed the opinion, shared by the new hagiographers, that regarding the construction of the new Assumption Cathedral, a celebration was established - one for everyone, or celebrations were established - for each separately, for Metropolitans Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius. But in fact, the celebrations were not established at all. If in 1472, along with the celebration of Metropolitan Jonah, celebrations for Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius were established, then the chronicle 402, speaking about the establishment of the first celebration, due to the inseparability of matter, would have to say about the establishment of celebrations for the last two, and yet it does not speak at all about the establishment of celebrations for the latter 403. We find documentary evidence that during the construction of the current Moscow Assumption Cathedral no celebrations were established for Metropolitans Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius in the word on the bringing of the relics of St. to the second new cathedral. Metropolitan Peter, which was written then, by order of the government, by Pachomius Serbin. Having said that three days after the relics of St. Peter, which were transferred on the 24th of August, the coffins of Metropolitans Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius were also transferred 404, the author of the word says that these coffins of the three metropolitans were interred (placed in the ground) and that “and a common funeral service for everyone and with all the consecrated cathedral and psalmody, as usual (ah) is, (they sang) honestly.” 405. And to what extent there could be little desire to establish celebrations for our three metropolitans, this is shown by the example of one of them. In 1474, at the tomb of Metropolitan. Theognost, a miracle happened - one sick person received a sudden healing: “and the chronicler said to Metropolitan Gerontius and the Grand Duke, they were possessed by unbelief, not ordering the bell to be called and the whole city to glorify him, but after creating a new church of the Holy Mother of God and sealing up his relics, digging them into the ground, and not covering the stone tomb laid it, and now his grave is neglected” 406. The fact is that this was in the midst of hostility against the Patriarch of Constantinople because of the newly established independence of the Russian Metropolis, which the Patriarch did not want to recognize and which he wanted to destroy, trying to impose his metropolitan on the Russians - hostility that reached the point that he led. the prince spoke about the patriarch: “we have him from ourselves, that patriarch, a stranger and a renunciant” 407. To establish celebrations for three metropolitans sent from the Patriarch of Constantinople, such as Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius, would mean on the part of the Russians to do something through which they would, so to speak, sanctify (sanction) the claims of the patriarch and by which they would loudly denounce themselves. So, we say, during the construction of the present Moscow Assumption Cathedral there were no established celebrations for Metropolitans Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius, as is mistakenly accepted. But there were no celebrations established by him until modern times, more or less close to us, although in the 16th-17th centuries they became venerated dead in the cathedral 408. A little higher we made a link to the charter of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. This name was used to refer to the records of divine services in the cathedral, kept by its clerics, and such records or similar statutes for the first and second half of the 17th century have been preserved to this day 409 . If our metropolitans had been celebrated in the 17th century, then among the records there would certainly have been records of their celebrations as local feasts of the cathedral; but there are no records, from which the necessary conclusion is that there were no celebrations in the 17th century. From the inventory of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, compiled in 1701, it follows that in this year of 1701 there were also no celebrations, for the inventory speaks of shrouds for the shrines of the wonderworkers Peter, Jonah and Philip, but does not speak of shrouds for the shrines of our metropolitans 410. Archpriest Alexander Levshin, in his Historical Description of the Assumption Cathedral, which was published in 1783, calling Peter, Jonah and Philip wonderworkers, does not assign to our metropolitans the title of either wonderworker or saint, and then separately speaks about the crayfish with the relics of the wonderworkers Peter, Jonah and Philip and about the coffins with the bodies of our metropolitans 411, from which the same conclusion follows, which is higher. Finally, Met. Plato, in his History of the Russian Church, published in 1805, does not call any of our metropolitans saints 412. The first who calls them saints is the author of the History of the Russian Hierarchy, the first part of which, containing speeches about metropolitans, was printed in the 1st edition in 1807, but he does not speak on the basis of his own direct knowledge, but referring to Prologue 413, which, as we said above, erroneously dates the establishment of celebrations to the time of the construction of the current Assumption Cathedral. From everything we have said, it follows that local celebrations in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral for Metropolitans Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius were established sometime after 1805. When exactly, we cannot make any assumptions regarding this 414. 5. Loggin Koryazhemsky, founder of the Koryazhemsky Nikolaevsky monastery, which is located in the Solvychegodsky district of the Vologda province, 5 versts from Solvychegodsk up the Vychegda, at the confluence of the latter river Koryazhema, died on February 10, 1540. Local celebration for him was established by Bishop Onesiphorus of Vologda, who occupied the see from 1814 to 1827 415. About the relics of St. Loggin Koryazhemsky Rev. Philaret (in Russian Saints, under the 10th of February) says: “16 years after his death, according to a special vision, his holy body was laid in the church itself; now his relics rest hidden in a stone church built in 1665.” 6. Nil Sorsky 416, tonsure of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, who founded his monastery 15 versts from the monastery, in which he died on May 7, 1508, the famous leader of our so-called monastic way of life and denouncer of contemporary monasticism. Until certain years of the 18th century, Rev. There was no celebration for the Nile, for there were no funeral services for him 417. We cannot say when its celebration was established in the 18th or the last 19th century; we only know that sometime before 1855 418. 7. Sevastian Sokhotsky, founder of the abolished Spasskaya Hermitage, which was located 25 versts from the city of Poshekhonya, Yaroslavl province, died around 1500. In 1858–56, with the permission of St. Synod, on the site of the former desert, over the tomb of Sebastian, instead of the chapel that had stood above him until then, a church was erected dedicated to his name, which began the local celebration of him 419. 8. Roman Olegovich, Prince of Ryazan, about whom we spoke in the pre-Mongol saints between Nos. 15 and 16. Local celebration of him in Ryazan began in 1854, when Archbishop Gabriel of Ryazan “commanded the prayer singing of St. Roman, as the defender of the land of Ryazan, together with St. Vasily, 1st bishop of present-day Ryazan" (the first church in honor of St. Roman was consecrated in Ryazan in 1861) 420. 9 and 10. Nikifor and Gennady Vozheozersky, founders of the abolished Zadne-Nikiforova Vvedenskaya Hermitage, which was located in the Olonetsky district of the Olonets province, near Lake Bozhe, 12 versts from the Alexander Svirsky Monastery, died - the first on February 9, 1550, the second - around 1520. Rev. Philaret in Russian Saints, under the 9th of February, which is in part of the work printed for the first time in 1861, says: “Recently, in the Rear Nicephorus desert, a stone church was built in the name of St. Nikephoros and Gennady, founders of the desert." 11. Stefan Ozersky or Komelsky, founder of the abolished Nikolaevsky Ozersky monastery, which was located in the Gryazovedsky district of the Vologda province, at the source of the Komela River from Lake Komelsky, 35 versts south of Vologda and 10 versts west of Gryazovets, died on June 12, 1542. In Volume V of the History of the Hierarchy, which talks about the monastery, page 364, and which was printed in 1813, it does not say that one of the altars in the church of the former monastery was dedicated to the name of the saint, but in the 2nd edition of the Historical Dictionary of Saints, which was printed in 1862, it is said that the relics of the saint rest (under cover) in the lower church of his former monastery, in his name arranged 421. 12. John, the holy fool of Moscow, nicknamed the Big Cap, “died on July 3, 1589 and was buried in the Intercession Cathedral, which is usually called the Church of St. Basil the Blessed. In 1876, the Nativity of the Theotokos chapel of the cathedral, in which the holy fool was laid (and in which “his relics, found in 1672,” rest under cover) was renamed in honor of him (and Metropolitan Philip, whose memory is also on July 3rd) 422. 13. Galaktion of Vologda, a mysterious ascetic and recluse of the city of Vologda, who died on September 24, 1612, on the site of whose exploits the Galaktion Hermitage was built, later named the Spiritual Monastery after the church built in it 423. That until the very end of the 17th century there was no celebration established for Galaktion is known in a positive way 424. And since it says nothing about celebration and Fr. Veryuzhsky in his book, published in 1880, then we conclude that it was not established until this 1880 year. If this is true, then the celebration was established between 1880 and 1885, for the Description of the Spiritual Monastery, compiled by P. I. Savvaitov, corrected and supplemented by N. I. Suvorov, which was published in 1885, speaks of the existence of a throne in the monastery in honor of St. Galaktiona. 14. Macarius Zhabynsky, restorer of the Zhabynsky hermitage founded in the second half of the 16th century and devastated by the Poles and Lithuanians, which is located 5 versts from the city of Belev, Tula province, died on January 22, 1622 or 1623. At the end of 1887, “at the request of the Belevsky citizens, the Holy Synod allowed to honor St. Macarius and instead of funeral services, serve him prayers” (the church in the name of St. Macarius was founded in the Zhabynskaya desert on October 17, 1889) 425. We have not talked about one more saint who was canonized in the current Synodal period, namely Job of Pochaev. But since he is a saint of Kiev, we will talk about him along with all the other Kiev saints, which we will talk about now below. During the present Synodal period, we know of, as we indicated above, three cases of cessation of celebrations by order of diocesan bishops, namely, cessation of celebrations: Prince Vladimir and Princess Agrippina of Rzhevsky, Simon Yurievetsky and Procopius of Usyansky or Ustyansky. We will now talk about these cases. The celebration of Prince Vladimir and Princess Agrippina, which began sometime before the end of the 17th century, continued until 1745. In this last year, September 9th, an archimandrite and two abbots were sent to Rzhev by the Archbishop of Tver Mitrofan Slotvensky, who, with the governor of the city, with the headquarters and chief officers with nobles, with the burgomaster of the city with comrades and others, both spiritual and temporal, rank witnesses “about the relics of Prince Vladimir and about Princess Agrippina they had the penalty and testified.” Having dismantled the tomb with the canopy, which was located on the floor of the church above the graves of the prince and princess, and another tomb, which was located under the floor of the church at the very graves, after a long digging of the latter, they found the coffins of the prince and princess, about which the following is read in the act of witnessing: “dug to a depth of two fathoms..., and after digging, a stone foundation was found, above this foundation a log house a wooden oak tree, cut down by a six-piece, and in this frame two tski appeared - one stone, and the other wooden oak, three arshins long; a quarter arshin of earth was dug out from under them, (and) two oak coffins, hollowed out and lined with birch rock all around, appeared in the first coffin, and in the first coffin the head and rotten human bones appeared, decayed and corpsed (shredded), and in the other, full of water, as well as the head and human bones and everything in the water, rotten, black, frenzied; and these coffins were two arshins and thirteen vershoks long, and nothing more appeared in them” 426. After this, the tombs that were on the graves and over the graves of the prince and princess were not restored, their icon, which lay on the tomb, which was in the church, was taken to Tver (now it is in the Tver Museum), and their celebration was stopped 427. On December 7th of the previous year 1744, it was issued from St. The Synod decree ordered the diocesan bishops to deliver to the Synod information about the relics, “which were previously hidden in the All-Russian Empire, not attested, and then hidden without proper evidence” 428: judging by the time, one can think that the cessation of the celebration of Prince Vladimir and Princess Agrippina is in connection with the decree, although this connection is not entirely clear. And the real incentive to stop the celebration, as in other cases, of course, should be considered that the bishop did not recognize sufficient grounds for it. Simon Yurievetsky was celebrated from 1635 to 1722. In this last year, Bishop Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod came to Yuryevets, to whose diocese the city had recently been added: he ordered the dismantling of the tomb located in the church over Simon’s grave, and sealed the former gathering from the church to his grave with his seal and, forbidding services to be performed for him, ordered only requiem services to be sung for him, and to consider the case about him, he took with him his life. Pitirim left the matter of Simon unresolved until his death, which followed on May 8, 1738. After the death of Pitirim in 1741, St. The Synod, we don’t know what caused it, perhaps by the petition of the citizens of Yuryevets, ordered by its decree to carry out an inquiry about the icons, the tomb and the veneration of Simon, which inquiry was actually carried out in 1742. How it ended and what it turned out to be remains unknown to us, but in any case the end of the matter was that the local celebration of Simon was not resumed 429 . The celebration of Procopius of Usyansky or Ustyansky, established sometime before 1739, was stopped, as we said, at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th century. It was terminated by Bishop Arseny Todorsky of Vologda, who occupied the see from August 15, 1796 to June 15, 1802, and precisely until the end of 1801, when his order was already confirmed by St. Synod, about which now below. What prompted the bishop to stop the celebration is not clearly visible, 430 but, in all likelihood, it is the same thing that St. The Synod in its confirmation of his order, which, having been caused by a petition to him to restore the celebration, was made by him on December 16, 1801. And St. The Synod, in its confirmation of the bishop’s order, writes: “As according to the testimony of these relics (i.e. Procopius) 1696 and 1739 there were not many parts on the body of this revered as a saint and, moreover, since when it was discovered and by whom, who he is and where he came from, no correct information has been found, the description of the miracles that supposedly happened from him to the complete recognition of him as a saint and the announcement of the relics is very insufficient: then to leave them in the position in which they are now, without making a widespread announcement about them.” In 1818, another attempt was made to restore the celebration of Procopius, and the then Vologda bishop, Onisiphorus Borovik, was in favor of restoration, but St. The Synod again refused the petition, citing its resolution of 1801 431. We will return to speeches about the cessation of celebrations of saints by order of the diocesan bishops and ourselves below, in the next and at the same time the last section of our book, devoted to a general overview of the rules and procedures observed in our country during the canonization of saints. In 1458, during the reign of Bishop. Metropolitan Jonah, Kievan Rus was divided in ecclesiastical terms from Moscow Rus to form a special metropolis, in which division it then remained for 227 years, until 1685, when it was subordinated as the same metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate. Being separated from Muscovite Rus' and representing a separate private church from it, Kievan Rus also had its own special saints who were not revered in Muscovite Rus', which revered only the ancient, very few, Kievan saints, namely: Boris and Gleb, Saints Atony and Theodosius of the Pechersk, Vel. Prince Vladimir and led. Princess Olga. After the reunification of Kievan Rus with Muscovy, its saints were to become saints of the latter, just as, on the contrary, of course, the saints of the latter were to become its saints. That's how it really happened. However, official recognition of the Kyiv saints by the church authorities did not follow very quickly: only in 1762 was St. The Synod issued a decree that allowed the Kyiv saints to be included in the general (Moscow) monthly books and their services to be printed in the monthly menaions. The decree was confirmed twice later, in 1775 and 1784 432. The Kyiv saints are: firstly, the Kiev-Pechersk saints or the saints of the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra; secondly, the saints of the city of Kyiv and all of Kievan Rus in general, taking this last word in the broad meaning of all southwestern Rus'. At the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, as we said above (p. 53, note), there are two caves, which in ancient and old times served as cemeteries for the monks of the monastery, similar to how the Italian catacombs served as cemeteries for pioneer Christians, and in which the relics of the saints of the monastery now rest (when the caves ceased to be cemeteries for monks and remained only tombs for the relics of saints, We cannot say this. If there were biographical information about all the saints whose relics rest in the caves, then by the time of life of the later ones it would be possible to approximately determine the time when this happened. But the fact is that there is no biographical information at all about the Pechersk saints who lived after the writing of the Patericon or - which is the same - after the invasion of the Mongols). We will give alphabetical lists of saints whose relics rest in two caves of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, and then we will make general comments about the saints 433. Alphabetical list of saints whose relics rest in the Near or Anthony caves The relics of all the saints, with the exception of one, about whom there is biographical information in the handwritten and printed Patericon and in the chronicles and who lived before the Mongol invasion, rest in the Near Cave, and we mark these saints with an asterisk. Most of the saints whose relics rest in the Near Cave are assigned special days of celebration, and we display these days in brackets. 1. Avramy the recluse, Avramy the hardworking (August 21), * Agapit, a free doctor (June 1). Alexy the recluse, 5. *Alipius the icon painter (August 17), Anastasius the deacon (January 22), Anatoly the Venerable (October 31), Anthony the Venerable, founder of the monastery (July 10), Rev. Arefa (February 27), 10. *Athanasius the recluse (December 2), *Varlaam, abbot of Pechersk (November 19), *Reverend Basil and Theodore, their same shrine (August 11), Gregory the icon painter (August 8), 15. * Gregory the Wonderworker (January 8), * Damian the Healer (October 5), * Eustratius, Faster and Martyr (March 28), Helladius the Recluse, * Venerable Erasmus (February 24), 20. *Efrem, Bishop of Pereyaslavl (January 28). Elijah Muromets (December 19), *Isaac the recluse (February 14), Isaiah the wonderworker (May 15), *Jeremiah the seer, the recluse (October 5), 25. John the Child (July 12), John the Long-Suffering (July 18), John the Faster (December 7), * Saint John and Theophilus, resting in the same shrine, 30. Juliana the maiden, Princess Olshanskaya July 16), * Kuksha the holy martyr (August 27), * Lawrence the recluse (January 29), Luke the economist (November 6), Macarius the Venerable (January 19), 35. *Mark the grave-digger (December 29), *Matthew the seer (October 5), Mercury, Bishop of Smolensk (November 24), *Moses Ugrin (July 24), Venerable Nektarios (November 29), 40. * Nestor the chronicler (October 27), * Nikodim the prosphora (October 31), * Nikola Svyatosha, Prince of Chernigov (October 14), Nikon, Abbot of Pechersk (March 23), * Nikon Sukhii (December 11), 45. *Niphon, Bishop of Novgorod (April 18), Onesimus the recluse, Onuphrius the silent (July 21), *Pimin the much-sick (August 7), *Pimin the faster (August 27), 50. *Polycarp, Archimandrite of Pechersk (July 24), *Prokhor the Wonderworker (February 10). Saint Savva (April 24), Sergius the obedient (October 7), Sylvester the Venerable (January 2), 55. *Simon, Bishop of Vladimir (May 10), Sisoy the recluse, *Spiridon prosphora (October 31), *Titus the hieromonk (February 27), Theophan the faster (October 11), 61–73. *Twelve brothers, the first stone makers and the first icon painters of the great Pechersk Church, unknown by name. In addition to these relics, another 30 myrrh-streaming heads of unknown saints rest in the Near Cave. Alphabetical list of saints whose relics rest in the Far or Theodosius Cave Of the saints resting in the cave, only one belongs to those who lived in the pre-Mongol period and about whom there is information in the Patericon: we mark this one with an asterisk. All the saints resting in the cave have a common service on one day, and not one of them is given a separate day of celebration. 1. Agathon the Wonderworker, Aquila the Deacon, Ammon the Recluse, Anatoly the Recluse, 5. Arseny the hardworking, Athanasius the recluse, Veniamin the Venerable, Gerontius the canarchist of Pechersk, Gregory the Wonderworker, 10. Venerable Dionysius, Euphrosyne, Abbess of Polotsk, Evfimin the schema-monk, Zechariah the faster, Zinon the faster, 15. Ignatius, Archimandrite of Pechersk, Hilarion the schema-monk, Hypatius the healer, Joseph the multi-sick, Cassian the recluse, 20. Lavrenty the recluse, Leonty, the canarchist of Pechersk, Loggin, the goalkeeper of Pechersk, Lucian the holy martyr, Macarius the deacon, 25. Mardari the recluse, Martyri the recluse, Martyrius the deacon, Mercury the faster, Moses the wonderworker, 30. Nestor the unlearned, Paul the obedient, Paisius the Venerable, Pamva the recluse, Pankratius the recluse, 35. Paphnutius the hermit, *Pimin the faster, Pior the hermit, Rufus the hermit, Silouan the schema-monk, 40. Sisoy the schema-monk, Sophronius the recluse, Titus the warrior, Theodore, Prince of Ostrog, Theophilus the silent, 45. Theophilus, Archbishop of Novgorod. In addition to these relics, in the Far Cave there are another 31 myrrh-streaming heads and one shin of unknown saints and part of the relics of Palestine, namely, one of the babies killed by Herod for Christ in Bethlehem. Among the saints resting in the caves of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, there are no such whose relics would be hidden, with the exception of the monks Anthony and Theodosius themselves, of whom the relics of the first were not discovered, and the relics of the second were hidden during the Mongol invasion. This indispensable presence of the relics of saints who rest in caves (although some of them are now “closed in crayfish”) indicates that here the recognition of the deceased as saints took place somewhat differently than in other places or anywhere else. In other places it happened that with the coffin in the ground or with the relics of the deceased carried out of the ground, miracles were performed and that he, as a miracle worker, was recognized as a saint. Here, as one must think, miracles were performed precisely with the relics raised from the ground. We said above that on Athos the remains of deceased monks are dug up three or four years after burial, among other things, for the purpose that the remains of those among them who pleased the Lord God with their lives and were numbered by Him among the host of His saints, He would show with His miraculous signs over them. It should be thought that this custom of digging up the bodies of deceased monks for the purpose now indicated existed in ancient times in the Pechersky Monastery, and it is necessary to imagine the matter in such a way that at one time or another after the burial the grave was inspected (chamber, locus or loculus, - see above p. 53) of each monk - that if we found only ashes in the grave, then it was buried again, and if we found bones or a whole body, then they were taken from the grave and placed in some special place designated for this - that for a more or less long time they waited for the manifestation of the miraculous power of God through the bones or body and that those of the deceased, in relation to whose bones or bodies the expectations were justified, were recognized as saints, and the bones or bodies of others were again consigned to the heat (the latter must be assumed by the fact that at present there are no other bones and bodies in the caves except the bones and bodies of saints). Without assuming this general unearthing of the remains of deceased monks and this glorification of a certain number of them through precisely open relics, we will not explain to ourselves how a significant part of the Pechersk saints could become famous for working miracles (so that by these miracles they would be recognized as saints). In order for any deceased person, who received from God, because of his holiness, the gift of miracles, to actually perform miraculous healings of the sick, it was necessary for the sick to prayerfully turn to his help. But a very significant part of the Pechersk saints, while their relics remained in their graves, being secret saints of God, were ordinary buried monks of the Pechersk Monastery, to whose help no one could see any motivation. Of the 118 saints whose relics rest in caves, 69 saints are post-Mongol saints, regarding whom, as we said above, there is absolutely no biographical information, that is, there are not only their lengthy lives, but also even brief, at least some, records. Let us assume that the glory of one or another number of them as ascetics was preserved orally, but for the glory of all of them to be preserved orally is completely incredible. And thus, to explain the fact that they became miracle workers and, therefore, that they turned more to their help, it turns out to be necessary to assume the presence of their relics, which in turn presupposes the aforementioned systematic and general digging up of the remains of deceased monks. The existence of the custom of digging up the remains of deceased monks in the Pechersky Monastery in ancient times is also indicated by the following circumstance. About the post-Mongol saints, as we said, there is absolutely no biographical information, however, in the inscriptions on crayfish and in the catalogs of these saints, their rank, feat, and occupation are noted: deacon, schema-monk, recluse, icon painter. Where could these become known? Without assuming the aforementioned digging, we will not be able to give an answer. If we assume digging, then the answer will be that on Athos, during the custom of this digging, a stone or tile slab is placed in the coffin of each deceased, on which the name and title of the deceased and the time of his death are written. These 60 myrrh-streaming heads of unknown saints, located in caves, also suggest the custom of digging up the remains of dead monks. If these chapters had been dug up during the deliberate excavation of the remains of known dead (which would have eliminated the assumption of digging up all the dead in general), then it would have been known which saints they belonged to. But this uncertainty about which saints they belong to clearly indicates that they were randomly found during the continuous excavation of all the graves and belong to such saints who, due to oblivion, were buried without the mentioned tiles with records, or whose tiles were so worn out, so broken that it was impossible to read the records. Finally, and most of all, what speaks for the existence of a general custom of digging up the remains of dead monks is the too large number of relics resting openly in caves. In other places, single relics of saints were found mostly by chance, while digging foundations for new churches; It is true that the caves also had their own accident, namely, their collapses: but it is impossible to explain by this accident alone the discovery of the entire multitude of relics openly resting in the caves. If it is necessary to assume intentionality, then the only plausible assumption is that there was a general custom of digging up the remains of all dead monks, so that with this custom the relics of all Pechersk saints would be open 434 . Contrary to everything we have just said, they can point out to us that the relics of St. Theodosius were found not three or four years after his death, but 17 years later, and that in the history of the discovery of his relics there is no hint of the existence of a general custom of digging up the remains of dead monks. But since it seems necessary to us to assume the existence of a custom, in view of what has now been indicated, we consider it necessary to accept that the custom appeared in the monastery after the death and after the discovery of the relics of St. Feodosia? It should also be said that the relics of some ancient saints were discovered at a later time - in the 17th century, and that the relics of some saints who were in the 17th century no longer exist today 435. The first should be understood in such a way that the relics dug up at one time were not glorified by miracles and therefore were again buried - that in the 17th century, having been accidentally discovered again during cave collapses, they were glorified by miracles with this new discovery. In explanation of the second we cannot say anything satisfactory 436 . As for the canonization of the Pechersk saints or the establishment of celebrations for them, then regarding the pre-Mongol saints, about whom there are legends in the Patericon and in the chronicles, it is likely to think that for one part of them local celebrations were established in the Pechersk monastery even before the Mongol invasion, and for the other part shortly after the Mongol invasion. All these saints are presented in the Patericon and in the chronicles as great ascetics and miracle workers, and it is difficult to imagine that the Pechersk Monastery would not want to give them due veneration by establishing celebrations for them. The chronicler makes it known, although not entirely clear, about the existence of celebrations when he ends his story about several ascetics of the Pechersk Monastery with the words: “Tatsi ti basha of the monasteries of the Feodosiev Monastery, who shine even after death, like a luminary, and pray to God for the present brothers and for the worldly brothers and for those who bring them to the monastery” (end of 1074). However, the ancient services or the ancient general service to the pre-Mongol Pechersk saints are currently unknown 437. Regarding the post-Mongol Pechersk saints, it is likely to think that they were privately recognized as saints as they were glorified by miracles, but that formally they were all canonized at once, or that a celebration was established for all of them at once in 1643 by Metropolitan Peter Mogila. In 1635, the Polish Patericon of Sylvester Kossov, written on the instructions of Peter Mogila, was published, in which the author tried, albeit briefly, to indicate both the exploits and miracles of each Pechersk saint of God 438, and in 1638, written on the instructions of him - Mogila and also in the Polish language, the work of the monk of the Pechersk Monastery Athanasius was published Kalnofoysky: Τερατούργημα or miracles that occurred both in the Pechersky Monastery itself and in both of its caves 439, which describes up to 64 miracles over the last 44 years (1594–1638), with a detailed indication of the circumstances of each miracle 440. These two books contained evidence that the deceased resting in the caves of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery were miracle workers and that as such they should be canonized or canonized. In 1643, Peter Mogila did just that, instructing him to write a common service 441. When celebrations were established for the few saints whose relics were discovered after Peter the Great, there is no information available. Currently, the celebration of the Pechersk saints is carried out: those resting in the Near or Anthony Cave: 27 in special services composed by Lavra scholars after Meletius Sirig, and 34 in two general services - Meletius and an unknown author 442, most on special designated days, as noted in our list, and all together - on Saturday after the celebration of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross; to those resting in the Far or Theodosius Cave: all together on August 28th; since 1848, to the entire cathedral of all the saints who rest in both caves - in the second week of Lent Regarding the fact that the Pechersk saints are divided into two halves - the pre-Mongol ones, the legends of which are read in the handwritten and printed Patericon and in the chronicles, and the post-Mongol ones, about which there are no legends at all and which are known only by their names (with the addition of certain epithets to the latter), we have already said. Among the saints whose relics rest in the caves of the Pechersky Monastery, in addition to the monks of the monastery itself, there are, and partly only so called, several outsiders. We will specifically mention these latter ones. John the Child, son of the Varangian Theodore, killed along with his father by the pagans of Kiev in 983. The chronicle does not name either the father or the son, the second is presented not as a baby, but as a young man, and about the burial place of both it says: “and no one knows where I laid it.” It must be thought that the names of the father and son became known from oral tradition and that the place of their burial was learned from some revelations. Ephraim, Bishop of Pereyaslavl, also called metropolitan 443, installed from the monks of the Pechersk, died around the year 1100 (in Kalnofoysky he has the epithet rezanets, rzezaniec: Polish rezanets means eunuch, which the bishop really was). Nifont, Archbishop of Novgorod, who was also one of the Pechersk monks, died in Kyiv on April 21, 1156. In Moscow, as we said above, he was canonized by the council of 1549, and therefore, he began to be honored there, as his own saint, long before other Kiev saints. Euphrosyne, Princess of Polotsk, who founded two monasteries near Polotsk - the female Spassky monastery, which still exists, and the male Bogoroditsky, abolished, died in Jerusalem on a pilgrimage on May 24, 1173 and was buried here in the monastery of St. Theodosius (which, according to abbot Daniel, was located halfway from Jerusalem to the monastery of St. Sava, at an equal distance of 6 miles from both). When her relics were brought from Palestine to Kyiv, to the Pechersky Monastery, remains unknown. Ilya Muromets 444, who died, as Kalnofoysky believes, around 1190 and was called in his - Kalnofoysky time by the common people Chobotok (chobot - boot). If he lived about 175 years after Vladimir, then it is obvious that he has nothing in common with Vladimir’s hero of the same name 445. Simon, Bishop of Vladimir, died on May 22, 1226 and was buried in the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral. While in the Pechersky Monastery some of the relics located in its caves were and are being given out as the relics of Bishop Simon, transferred from Vladimir 446, in Vladimir itself it was and is asserted that the relics of Simon still remain where they were buried, i.e. in his - Vladimir Assumption Cathedral 447. And as if this kind of dispute should be resolved in favor of the city and not in favor of the monastery. Bishop Simon, a monk of the Pechersk Monastery, is the famous author of the first part of the Pechersk Patericon, in which he deliberately and intensely speaks of his most ardent love for the glorious place of his tonsure, and therefore the monks of the Pechersk Monastery could easily have formed a legend that he wished to lie in the monastery and that, according to his desire, he was transferred to the latter (as this is exactly what the printed Paterik says); and then it could happen that one of the relics located in the caves of the monastery were mistaken for his relics. But it is very difficult to allow the great princes of Vladimir, and then of Moscow, to allow the relics of Simon to be taken away from Vladimir. The chronicle records his death in the following words: “In the summer of 6734, the month of May on the 22nd day, the blessed and merciful, teaching Bishop Simon of Suzdal and Volodymersky reposed, took monastic vows, and his honorable body was laid in the church of the Holy Mother of God in Volodymeri,” i.e. it is made known that his memory (Simona) was very revered in Vladimir, and this further enhances the improbability of the assumption that the great princes would allow his relics to be taken to Kyiv 448. Mercury, Bishop of Smolensk, In the description of the Lavra, Met. Eugene says about him: “killed by the Tatar Khan Batu in 1247, (a typo or typo instead of the also not entirely correct: 1237), his memory is on November 24,” that is, the bishop is confused with that Mercury warrior, the martyr of Smolensk, about whom we spoke above - p. 141, post-Makariev saints No. 64, and whose relics rest in Smolensk. We have a reliable list of bishops of Smolensk 449 and Mercury is not on this list. Thus, either we must allow the confusion we have indicated, in which the reasons for it will be incomprehensible to us, or we must assume that Bishop Mercury was not of Smolensk, but of some other, unknown see. The relics of Bishop Mercury were discovered only in the 17th century, between 1640 and 1674 450, and with such a late time of their discovery, there was a very possible error in indicating the see that the bishop occupied. Theophilus, Archbishop of Novgorod. There are also doubts and disagreements regarding this latter. According to the legends of the Pechersk Monastery, he died in 1484, on the road to Kyiv, where he was going for a votive pilgrimage and where he was brought already dead to be buried in the monastery. But according to a fragment of one Novgorod chronicle, he was buried in the Moscow Miracle Monastery, which served as the place of his imprisonment from January 19, 1480 and in which he spent half a year, and according to another Novgorod chronicle, he was needed in Novgorod itself, having died on October 26, 1482 451. Juliania the maiden, Princess Olshanskaya, who lived in the first half of the 16th century. Her body, buried in the Lavra, near the great church, was found incorrupt on the occasion of digging a grave for another girl, under Archimandrite Elisha of Pletenetsky, who was the archimandrite of the Lavra from 1599 to 1624. Placed in the great church of the Lavra, it burned down along with the church in 1718, after which its remains, placed in a shrine, were placed in the Near Cave 452. Theodore, Prince of Ostrog, who lived during the first three quarters of the 16th century, is not one of the laymen buried in the Pechersky Monastery, but was one of its monks, and his monastic name was Theodosius. (Before becoming a monk, which he accepted in his old age, he distinguished himself by his diligent efforts to maintain Orthodoxy in Polish Russia and by his ardent struggle for it against Latinism) 453. On October 15, 1385, Archbishop Dionysius of Suzdal, detained in Kyiv on his way back from Constantinople to Moscow, died in Kyiv and was buried in the Pechersk Monastery, in one of the caves. The Nikon and Resurrection chronicles say that his body, laid in the cave of the great Anthony and Theodosius, “is still intact and incorruptible to this day” 454. But neither the printed Patericon nor Athanasius of Kalnofoi 455 say anything about him. In addition to the relics of many saints resting in the caves of the Pechersk Monastery, there are other relics resting in its great church. These are the relics of the first (as is accepted) Metropolitan of Kyiv Michael. Until 1730, the relics were located, it is unknown when, having been transferred (as is accepted) from the Church of the Tithes, in the Anthony Cave, and in this year, by decree of the emperor. Annie Ioannovna was transferred to the great church on the site of the relics of Juliania of Olshanskaya, which, as we said above, being the last church, burned down along with it in 1718, after which their remains, placed in a shrine, were placed in the Anthony Cave. The relics of the Pechersk saints are spoken of 456 - some as bones, others as whole bodies, and all together - at the same time, both as bones and as whole bodies 457. We turn to the saints of Kyiv and Kievan Rus. The only saint of Kyiv itself, besides the Pechersk Monastery, is Macarius, Metropolitan of Kiev, who was killed on May 1, 1497 by the Crimean Tatars raiding Ukraine, who captured him on the road while traveling from Vilna to Kyiv. His relics, resting in the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, were found and a local celebration of him (on the day of his death), due to miracles from the relics, was established sometime before 1021-1622, for Zechariah of Kopystensky in his Palinodia, written in the continuation of these years, speaks of the relics as openly resting and calls Macarius a saint 458. Very few saints of Kievan Rus are: 1–3. Bishops of Pereyaslavl: Peter, mentioned under the year 1072. Euthymius, installed in 1141 and mentioned under 1149, and Simeon, killed by the Tatars during the capture of Pereyaslavl in 1239. All three are called saints by the author of the History of the Hierarchy - I, 209 and 210. If he is not mistaken, then he must think that bishops are local saints in the closest sense of the saints of the Pereyaslavl Cathedral. 4. Elisha Lavrishevsky, a noble Lithuanian by birth, who founded the abolished Lavrishevsky Monastery around 1225, which was located in the Novogrudok district of the Minsk province, died around 1250 at the hands of a murderer. The celebration for him was established by Metropolitan. Joseph Soltan at the council of 1514 459. 5. Afanasy Beresteysky or Brestsky, by the name of Felippovich, abbot of the abolished Brest Simeon Monastery, which was located in the city of Brest-Litovsk, Grodno province, suffered martyrdom from Catholics on September 5, 1648. We cannot say when the celebration of Athanasius was established, but it seems that it was not particularly long ago 460. 6. Athanasius Patelar or Patellarius, Patriarch of Constantinople, died on the way back from Moscow home in the Lubny Mgarsky, Poltava province, monastery (located not in the city of Lubny itself, but 5 fingers away from it, on the Sula River, near the village of Mgari) on April 5, 1654. A celebration was established for him following the discovery of his relics, which took place in 1662, by Metropolitan Joseph Nelyubovich Tukalsky of Polish Ukraine, who occupied the see from 1664 to 1676 461. Patr. Athanasius is very famous for the fact that his relics, representing our only and extraordinary example, “rest not in a tomb, but in armchairs” (East. Jer. V, 25), i.e., that his relics are not placed (nor lie in a coffin or in a shrine, but are planted (sitting) in chairs, which is why the shrine in which the relics are placed, sitting in chairs, looks not like a coffin, but icon case (cabinet or case) and why the people adopted the name “Athanasius Seated” 462. The relics of Athanasius rest not in a coffin, but in chairs because in this particular form he was buried, i.e. in what form he was buried and in what form his relics were found, in this form the latter were and remain to this day. If Athanasius was buried not lying in a coffin, but sitting in an armchair, then, as the author of the History of the Hierarchy explained, he was buried “according to the custom of the Eastern churches” (Ist. Jer. V, 25). In 1672, the abbot of the Mgar monastery conveyed to the envoy of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich about the burial of Athanasius: “(after the patriarch reposed) the companions of his patriarch, according to their custom, as bishops should be buried, dressed the body of the holy patriarch in sacred vestments, and put a staff in his hand, and seated him in chairs, and with sitting chairs, they put him in a stone tomb and buried him in the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in front of the royal doors" 463 (implied by the floor of the church): just as, according to the abbot, Athanasius was buried, so in the East in general bishops are buried 464. Information about the Greek method of burying bishops, somewhat different from those we conveyed above, is found in the description of the burial of the Jerusalem Patriarch Gerasim, who died on February 9, 1897. “As soon as the patriarch died, they dressed him according to rank, dressed him in a sakkos and omophorion, put a panagia on his chest, a miter on his head, without a cross on top, handed the gospel into his left hand, folded his right hand as a blessing, fastening it crosswise with a tied ribbon so that his hands would not fall down. The vested hierarch was seated on large chairs. In this form, the newly deceased remained in his patriarchal chambers until he was taken to church... The funeral service for the patriarch took place the next day after his death... After the funeral service, the body of the deceased was carried through the narrow streets of Jerusalem to Zion. They were carried in chairs... A small bench was carved into the grave of Patriarch Gerasim. When his body was brought to the grave, he was removed from the patriarchal chair and, in full priestly vestments, lowered into the grave, seated on a prepared bench. The miter has been removed from the head. The body is covered with slabs of local limestone and covered with fine limestone level with the cemetery plane.”... See Church Gazette published under St. Synod, 13th No. for 1897, pp. 507 fin.– 509. -In Part I of the Christian Reading for 1888, an article was published: “Rituals for the burial of priests (by which the word: priests, used in the general sense, also means bishops) in Greece and explanations about them,” taken from one Athens church magazine, in which it reads: “In many places of the Orthodox Eastern Church, from time immemorial there was a custom of placing the corpses of deceased priests on a seat, carrying them (around churches?) on these seats and then burying them together in a deep grave, placing a lit lamp in front of the seat. The Holy Synod of the Greek Church officially abolished this custom with a special circular... Now priests are buried supine (sic?), but in the past they and especially hieromonks were buried in a sitting position on the throne (ἐν θρόν ῳ-in chairs) and as a result of this the graves were deeper. In the grave of the priests, instead of the usual head, there is a clay vessel turned upside down, and in the middle of the grave, in a small niche, a lit lamp is placed, which is covered with a pot,” pp. 674 and 676. Bearing in mind what Greek history, and partly our Russian history, says about Athanasius, it must be recognized that he is a saint, who did not become such by human judgment... It happens that the Lord does not act according to the judgment and contrary to the judgment of man; but it also happens that the Lord allows people to do wrong. And we are strongly inclined to think that the canonization of Patriarch Athanasius Patelarius (and the very testimony regarding which is contradictory and suspicious) 465 represents not the first, but the second case, and we would consider it an act of true benevolence on the part of the church authorities if, upon inquiry into the matter, they allowed the people’s zeal for the “seated” (which is the main reason for the zeal) patriarch to be expressed by singing at his relics not prayers to him, but memorial services about him... (To what extreme extent the Greek reviews of Patriarch Athanasius are harsh, the reader can see in the work of Zechariah Mafa or, as some now accept, the famous Constantine Ikonomos: “Historical list of bishops, and then patriarchs of Constantinople,” which in Russian translation was published in the Christian Reading of 1862). 7. Macarius of Ovruch-Kanevsky, by the name of Tokarevsky, who was the archimandrite first of the Ovruch monastery (in the city of Ovruch, Volyn province), and then of the Kanevsky monastery (the city of Kanev, Kyiv province), who suffered martyrdom from the Turks when the latter captured Kanev on September 7, 1678. The relics of Macarius, found incorrupt in 1688, for safety from the Latins, were transferred to Pereyaslavl (meaning Poltava), in the Ascension Monastery of which (after several transfers) they are currently located. When the local celebration of Macarius was established, we cannot say 466. 8. Job Pochaevsky, nicknamed Iron, abbot of the Assumption Pochaev Monastery, the present Pochaev Lavra, which is located in the Kremenets district of the Volyn province, 23 versts southwest of Kremenets, died on October 28, 1651. After his relics were found incorrupt on August 28, 1659, and after the Uniates owned the monastery from 1720 to 1831, in 1838 the Bishop of Volyn was given permission by the highest government to establish the celebration of Job in his monastery, as a result of which permission the bishop in the same year 1833 established the celebration of the discovery of his relics 28th August 467. 9–11. In the Pochaev Lavra, since very recently, since 1866, there has been a general celebration of the Volyn saints: Prince of Vladimir-Volyn Yaropolk Ivyaslavich, who died at the hands of an assassin on November 22, 1086, and the bishops of Vladimir-Volyn: Stefan, who died on April 27 1094 and Amphilochius, who died in 1122 (together with the above-mentioned Prince Theodore of Ostrog and Princess Juliania of Olshanskaya) 468. This difference between Kievan Russia and Moscow Russia is striking in relation to the number of saints: while in Moscow Rus' there is a whole numerous host of saints, in Kievan Rus' there are not even a dozen, for among the indicated 11 two are not Russians. It is possible that about a dozen local saints remain unknown to us: but even this tenth, if admitted, will not change matters at all. How and how can we explain such a striking difference? To this difficult question of a special nature, which arises by itself, but which we might not pose as it does not directly concern us, we will answer briefly, without at all insisting on the infallibility of our answer. Looking at the list of saints of Moscow Rus', we see that most of them were the founders of monasteries. Let us assume that one is in a causal relationship with the other and turn to the monasteries of both Russias: what will we find? We will find that in Kievan Rus, during the time we mean, namely from the invasion of the Mongols to the establishment of St. Synod, an incomparably smaller number of monasteries were founded than in Moscow Rus', and that between the monasteries of one and the other Rus', if not completely, then almost the same proportional relationship as between the saints of one and the other. We assumed a causal connection in the fact that most of the saints of Moscow Rus' were the founders of monasteries: and this connection really should be assumed. People cannot make a person holy; but in order for a person to be externally glorified as a saint, for him to be formally canonized, or for a celebration to be established for him, this requires deliberate care on the part of people. The church authorities can canonize an ascetic or establish a celebration for him only after it has been brought to its attention that he has been glorified by God with the gift of miracles and after this has been proven to her: and some people should take care of this. The monks of the Great Russian monasteries founded by ascetics cared and tried to ensure that these founders-ascetics, after they were glorified by God with the gift of miracles, were formally canonized or canonized. But in the monasteries of Kievan Rus, in the absence of such ascetics-founders, the ascetics were ordinary, so to speak, monks of monasteries (implying that they already existed): and it could very well happen that the concern for the external glorification of these ascetics, who were not distinguished by their external position, through the formal canonization of them did not become commonplace or did not become a custom. This raises a question: why were not as many monasteries founded in Kievan Rus as in Moscow Rus? The probable answer is that partly due to the physical conditions of this Rus', partly due to its political circumstances: here, firstly, there were not those endless forests that were in Muscovite Rus' and in which the latter’s monasteries were founded mainly in the form of desert, and, secondly, here, under foreign and heterodox rule, new monasteries not only could not count on benefits and benefits from the government, as was the case in Moscow Rus', but and immediately met with opposition from his side. We said: it could very easily happen that concern for the external glorification of ascetics from ordinary monks would not become commonplace. But under a foreign and heterodox government, directly hostile to the Orthodox Church, it could happen that concern for the external glorification of any ascetics, not only ordinary monks, but also abbots of monasteries and hierarchs, would not become commonplace. We know that Catholics greatly attacked the saints of the Pechersk Monastery. But the Pechersky Monastery, being an exception, was a force that was able to withstand attacks; others, not realizing their strength, might not dare to cause attacks. Not having such a numerous host of saints as Muscovite Rus', Kievan Rus' can console itself with the fact that it has a monastery with such a numerous host of saints, which does not exist at all in Moscow Rus'. We mean this Pechersk Monastery of hers or this great Lavra of Saints Anthony and Theodosius... For details of the discovery of the relics, see the report on this event by Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich of Rostov, St. Synod, which we print below in the appendices. The relics were opened on September 21, 1752, and Metropolitan of Rostov Arseny Matseevich in his report to St. The Synod had already informed the Synod about the discovery of the relics on October 10 of the same year, 1752, about several healings that took place at the tomb of the saint, see Bychkov Description of the collections of the Public Library, I, 6 beginning. (Bychkov’s October 1st instead of the 10th – due to an error in the manuscript or a typo). Arseny Mitseyevich’s response to the empress’s confessor, Archpriest Dubyansky, to his demand on behalf of the empress to deliver information about the miracles occurring at the relics of the Right Reverend Demetrius, sent on September 27, 1756, and Arseny’s report to St. To the Synod on the latter's demand on behalf of the Empress for the same information, sent in early December of the same year, 1756, see in the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette of 1872, No. 9, p. 66 sqq. and Dubyansky’s notification to the archbishop about receiving from him two copies of the note about the miracles at the relics of Demetrius, dated October 10 of the same year, 1756. - in the same Gazette of 1894, No. 24. col. 374. From Arseny’s answers to Archpriest Dubyansky and St. It is clear to the Synod that he treated the glory of St. Demetrius with an incomprehensible and unpardonable disregard. His failure to report St. He himself explained to the Synod about the miracles of Demetrius after the discovery of the relics of the saint in 1752 by the fact that at first, due to the vanities and oblivion, he was not curious about them (!), and that then, due to the same vanities and illnesses, he was in no hurry to report. Whether the empress herself remembered and thought about Saint Demetrius or who reminded her of him remains unknown. Decree of St. Synod on the commission to Arseny Matseevich dated December 17, 1756 - in the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette of 1872, No. 9, p. 68. The commission's report is printed in the attachments. Decree in the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette of 1872, No. 1, p. 3. Decree in Yaroslavl Diocesan. Vedomost. 1872, No. 19, countries. 22. From one note from Catherine to Olsufiev, printed in the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette of 1872, No. 7, p. 56, it is clear that the shrine was sent from St. Petersburg to Rostov only in February 1763. On this basis, in the first edition of the book, we suggested that the slowdown could have occurred due to the inability to prepare raki quickly. But the assumption turns out to be erroneous: the shrine was made by work in the month of August 1758 and was stored until August 1759 in the St. Petersburg Fortress, and then in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, see in the article by I. Ya. Moroshkin: “Arseny Matseevich and his business,” published in the December book of the Wanderer of 1885, p. 667 sqq, also in article A. A. Titova: “St. Dimitri, Metropolitan of Rostov,” published in No. 8 of the Bartenev Archive for 1895, p. 9. The inscription carved on the shrine says that Demetrius, “having written the lives of the saints, was honored to be inscribed among the saints in the summer of 1754, April 9th,” see Ist. Jer. II, 516, and Dictionary of writers of the ecclesiastical order, I, 156: but this is an error, just as there is an error in the inscription that St. Demetrius lived only 38 years, whereas he lived 58 years (the decree of the Holy Synod to Arseny Matseevich dated April 22, 1757 directly states that the saint was canonized half a year after the discovery of his relics, which took place on September 21, 1752). “There was also some trouble with the service to St. Demetrius. Having received from the Synod, in its decree of April 15, 1757, an order to compose a service in a short time, Arseny Matseyevich, being ill himself or only making excuses for illness, entrusted the execution of the order to Archimandrite Bonifatius of the Tolga Monastery (by the name of Boretsky, a Little Russian from the present-day Austrian Galicia, transferred to the service of the Metropolitan Rostovsky from the preachers of the Moscow Academy, see the biography of Boniface in the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette of 1893, Nos. 8 and 9). Boniface wrote two services. But Arseny found both of them unsatisfactory. Then the Bishop of Pereyaslavl, the subsequent Archbishop of Krutitsky and Moscow, Ambrose Zertis-Kamensky, who came to Rostov (to venerate Saint Demetrius), volunteered to write the third service, whose work Arseny presented to the Synod at the report of December 10, 1757. But the Synod found that the service compiled by Ambrose, “although it is quite extensive, is too lofty and almost all allegorically composed and so for the common people, for the worthless and naive needs it consists of, cannot be intelligible and intelligible” and therefore suggested that the bishop take the trouble to compose a new service “in a calm manner intelligible to the common people.” However, Ambrose was very offended by the Synod's response to his first service and, in a bold and caustic report sent on March 24, 1758, refused to write the second service. By decree of April 10, 1758, the Synod demanded that Arseny send services composed by Archimandrite Bonifatius; The Metropolitan sent services with a report dated May 7, 1758. - and that was the end of it, see. Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette of 1872, No. 1, pp. 3–7, and 1894, No. 25, coll. 392–395. We don’t know whether by order of St. Synod or through the efforts of the authorities of the Yakovlevsky Monastery, one of the services to St. Demetrius belonging to Boniface was printed in Moscow at the end of 1758 (and the following year 1759 it was reprinted in Moscow and Kyiv), see Christian. Read 1895, issue 5, Description of early printed and Church Slavonic books, p. 123 beginning, and Essay on the Slavic-Russian bibliography of Undolsky, No. 2275, 2290 and 2300; but that the service has not been tested for use can be concluded from the fact that in the Rules, in the Sequence of Church Psalmody according to the month, under the 21st of September, it is prescribed regarding the service to Saint Demetrius: “The service to the saint should be performed according to the general menaion.” – To transfer the relics of St. Demetrius into a silver shrine, Catherine arrived in Rostov on May 23, 1763. Having stayed in the Kremlin, in the bishop's house, the next day, at 8 o'clock in the morning, she went on foot to the Yakovlevsky Monastery and listened to the liturgy there. In the evening of the same day, at 9 o’clock, she again arrived at the monastery and after the coffin with the relics of the saint was taken out of the stone shrine in which it was located, and covered with the rich brocade granted from her (the empress), it was placed in the middle of the church in front of the royal doors, all-night vigil and matins (sic) were performed in her presence, which were sent to those who arrived in Rostov for the celebration Metropolitan of Novgorod Dimitri Sechenov, Archbishop of St. Petersburg Gabriel of Kremenetsky. Archbishop of Krutitsky Ambrose Zertis-Kamensky and Trinity Archimandrite Lavrenty Khotsyatovsky with other archimandrites (and Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich of Rostov not long before, on April 14, 1763, was defrocked and exiled). On May 25th, which was Sunday, in the morning the Empress walked from the bishop's house to the cathedral church, and from the cathedral church in the procession of the cross, being accompanied by the aforementioned bishops and with the participation of other clergy? to the Yakovlevsky Monastery. Upon the arrival of the empress at the monastery, the relics of St. Demetrius were raised by the bishops and archimandrites to surround them around the church, and when they were taken out of the church, the empress, having worshiped them on earth, joined the bishops with her generals and carried them with the latter in her person around the entire church. Upon bringing the relics into the church, a newly built silver shrine was placed (which was placed in place of the previous brick one), after which a liturgy was performed, ending with a prayer service to St. Demetrius with cannon fire, see the entry about the Empress’s arrival in Rostov for the transposition of the relics, printed in the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette of 1876, no. 47, p. 371, and the above article by Titov, as well as Description of the Rostov stauropegial first-class Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitrievsky Monastery and the Spassky Monastery attached to it, which is on Peski, St. Petersburg, 1849, p. 58. The decree of the Synod of December 1, 1804, which contains everything we have conveyed, is in the Collection of Laws, vol. XXVIII, No. 21.540, p. 724. The repair of the dilapidations of the Annunciation Cathedral, in which the saint was buried, which began in the previous year 1831 and was not completed by the time of the discovery of the relics, made it necessary to temporarily transfer the relics to another cathedral - the Archangel Cathedral. This transfer of relics from one cathedral to another, immediately following their ascension from the grave, was accomplished with the participation of all the city clergy, who came to the cathedral in religious processions with church banners, St. cross and St. with icons, in the presence of about 50 thousand people gathered from different provinces, it was a most solemn spectacle. See the Legend of the discovery and discovery of the venerable relics of our holy father Mitrofan, the first bishop of Voronezh, and of the grace-filled signs and miraculous healings, extracted from the acts and reports available in the Holy Synod, printed according to the determination of the Holy Synod in St. Petersburg, in the printing house of the Holy Synod. 1833, as well as the Life of His Grace Anthony, Archbishop of Voronezh and Zadonsk (under whom the canonization of St. Mitrofan took place), N. Savostyanov, St. Petersburg. 1852, page 50 sqq. – In 1836, at the Annunciation Cathedral, in which the relics of St. Mitrofan rest, a monastery was established, with its name Mitrofanov of the Annunciation, and so that its rector would be the diocesan bishop, see now the indicated book by Savostyanov, page 80. Transferred from Kiev to St. Petersburg on July 1, 1860 (died on September 7, 1892). He died in the rank of Metropolitan of Moscow on February 11, 1898. Decree of St. Synod was published in the July Book of the Orthodox Review for 1861, and a description of the celebration of the opening of the relics in the September Book of the Orthodox Review for the same year. See Description of the Totem Siaso-Sumorin Monastery of St. Theodosius, published by Archimandrite. Nathanael. M. 1850, p. 36, approx. 6, and pp. 515 and 518. We print the report of the members of the Consistory on the testimony they carried out below, in the appendices. In 1697, at the tomb over the body of St. Theodosius was occupied by hieromonks, from which it follows that the place of his burial was very well known, see in the XIV volume of the Russian Historical Library, published by the Archaeographic Commission, acts of the Ustyug diocese, No. LXXVIII, col. 1279 (This is also stated and confirmed by existing evidence in the Description of the Monastery of St. Theodosius, which was published by Archimandrite Nathanael and printed in Moscow in 1850. At the same time, apparently, the archbishop and the bishop remained unknown that the church of 1796 was not the first built over the tomb of St. Theodosius, but already the second, and that the first church, during the digging of ditches for the foundation of which the relics would have to be found, was built in 1757, see the now indicated Description of the monastery, p. 34). See Veryuzhsky, page 521 sqq (details with original documents). See RKP. Undolsky No. 300. Vivliof. X, 112–114 (and in the act of the council of 1678 it is said about Anna Kashinskaya that funeral services are sung for her. - Read. General History and Ancient. 1871, book IV, p. 15). The service with the life was published in 1791, - Bibliography Undolsk. No. 2956 (we have on hand the 1828 edition). T. I, p. 153 beginning Currently, in the Danilov Monastery there is a chapel in honor of Prince Daniel, built unknown when between 1812 and 1845 (the chapel is not mentioned in the IV volume of the History of the Hierarchy, in which about the Danilov Monastery - page 6, and which was published in 1812; it is said by Ratshin, whose book, printed in 1802, was prepared for seal, as can be seen from the censor's signature, in 1845). The statutory record of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, compiled under Patr. Philaret in 1621, to speak on May 27th about the celebration of Metropolitan. Cyprian and Photius not as something established, but as something not forbidden and left to the will of those who wish: “if the abbot wills.” That the metropolitans were not celebrated in the Assumption Cathedral itself, the local saints of which only they could be, is clear from other records of the cathedral, which are on page 420 in the following columns (So the celebration is the only example known to us of a celebration that is not established, but also not forbidden, and the non-forbiddenness should most likely be attributed to the personal arbitrariness of the compiler of the record). What Metr. Theognost was not celebrated in the Assumption Cathedral in 1856, this can be seen from the letter of A.N. Muravyov to Metropolitan. Philaret, which was written in October or before October of this year and which says: “in the Assumption Cathedral the memory of St. Theognostus is not celebrated, although he rests there in secret, and even the clergy do not know the day of his memory,” see Letters of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A. n. M.... 1832–1867. Kyiv, 1869, p. 495, to No. 324 (from the letter of Metropolitan Philaret to Muravyov dated October 30, 1856, - p. 493, No. 324, it is curiously clear that the Metropolitan himself did not know whether Theognostus was celebrated or not celebrated in cathedral). On the Greek-Slavic apostle, printed by Savvaitov in memory of Varvara Georgievna Norova, a note about the publication of the book is read that it “was embossed in the year of the Nativity of Christ 1866, March 14, on the same day as the holy day of our father Theognostus, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia,” - page 598 fin. If one could rely on the second evidence, then it would be necessary to assume the establishment of the celebration of Met. Theognostu between 1856 and 1866. Sofia 2nd, in Sobr. years. VI, 196. In addition to the Sophia Chronicle, see also the Degree Book, - I I, 88 sqq. The power book, speaking about the transfer of the relics of metropolitans on the occasion of the construction of the new Assumption Cathedral, calls Peter and Jonah miracle workers, and Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius simply metropolitans - II, 90 fin. What Metr. Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius were not celebrated until later times, which is also evident from the fact that there are no lives of them and no services for them. Academic. foundation. RKP. No. 96, Augustovskaya Chet-Minea, l. 785. Collection years. VI, 198 subfin. See Rev. Makaria in East. R. Ts. IX, 36 sqq, as well as in the 1st floor. etc. of our East. R. Ts. p. 535. As can be seen from the fact that there were their images in the cathedral, see the descriptions of the cathedral printed in Volume III of the Russian Historical Library, published by the Archaeographical Commission, coll. 328, 369 and 849. But that the images do not give an indispensable right to conclude that Metropolitan. Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius were canonized saints, this can be seen from the example of other images: in the cathedral there were also images of Metropolitan. Gerontius and Macarius, – ibid. col. 314, regarding whom we positively know that they were never canonized or canonized. For the first half of the 17th century, two statutes are known: one - in the VI part of Vivliofika Novikov, the other - in the III volume of the Russian Historical Library, published by Archaeographer. By the Commission. The charter for the second half of the Χ V ΙΙ century - in the X part of Vivliofika Novikov. The inventory is printed in the now indicated volume Russian. Historical Libraries, see col. 762–763. Volumes I pp. 177, 255–256. See book. 3rd department 2nd, about holy men who became famous in the Russian Church, p. 296. Doesn’t name Metropolitan. Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius were also considered saints by A.N. Muravyov in his History of the Russian Church, the 2nd edition of which, which is in our hands, was published in 1840. Perhaps this is a mistake: but since the book passed through the hands of Met. Philaret (see Philaret’s letter to the rector of the Academy, Philaret Gumilevsky, dated April 20, 1839, in the 32nd part of the Addendum to the works of the holy fathers, p. 685), then it would hardly be Metropolitan. Filaret, if he actually read the book, made a similar mistake. He does not call Theognostus and Photius and A.V. Gorsky saints in his articles about metropolitans, which are published in the Addendums to the works of the holy fathers. – the first – in the article about St. Alexie, published in 1848, in the VI part of the Addendums, - the second - in an article about himself, published in 1852, in the XI part of the Additions, and about the attitude to the articles of Metropolitan. Philaret should also understand what we said about the attitude towards Muravyov’s book (without calling Theognostus and Photius saints, he calls Cyprian a saint - in an article about him, published in 1848, in the XI part of the Additions). What is currently Metropolitan. Theognostus, Cyprian and Photius are already canonized or actual saints, for this we rely, firstly, on the “Guide to the Shrines and Sacred Monuments of Moscow and its Surroundings”, owned by Archimandrite. Joseph, who was a member of the Assumption Cathedral for a long time; secondly, on the “Index of shrines and attractions of the Moscow Greater Assumption Cathedral,” belonging to the priest of the cathedral, Grieg. Istomin. Beruzhsky, p. 475 sqq (about the establishment of celebration - p. 486, note). In 1860, the service of Rev. Nil Sorsky, - to the Outline of Undolsky's bibliography Addition by Bychkov, No. 848. See essay A. WITH . Arkhangelsk: Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev. Part I, St. Petersburg, 1882, pp. 46–47. A. N. Muravyov in his Russian Thebaid in the North, published for the first time in 1855, says that he sang a prayer service to St. Nile in this monastery, see section in the book: Nil's Hermitage, new 1894 edition, page 295 beginning. (A.N. does not express himself quite clearly: “I would like to hear a prayer service over his, Nile’s, shrine,” but we think that we understand him correctly, i.e., that the prayer service is specifically for Nile himself. See the book: Orthodox women's Sebastian community on the site of the former Sebastian Hermitage, in Poshekhonsky district, Yaroslavl, 1886, pp. 8–9. See in the Ryazan Diocesan Gazette of 1895, No. 17, article: Holy Blessed Prince of Ryazan, Great Martyr Roman Olgovich. Veryuzhsky also speaks about the church, without indicating the time when it was dedicated to the name of St. Stephen, - page 455. Since the celebration of the monk could exist without a church dedicated to his name, it is very possible that it was established sometime long before this dedication, especially since just a year after his death, according to some vision, two icons were painted, one of which was placed on his tomb in the chapel built over the latter, and the other was placed in the church, and that then a service to him was written. - East. Jer. If we connect one thing with the other, that is, canonization with the dedication of the church and on this basis we attribute the establishment of the celebration to the Synodal period and to the indicated later time, it is because the speeches about Stephen in the History of the hierarchy seem to us more speeches about the venerated deceased than about a real canonized saint. See Moscow Church Gazette of 1876, No. 20. According to his life, Galaktion was the son of the boyar Ivan Ivanovich Belsky, executed by Grozny - RKP. Undolsky No. 296. But Ivan Ivanovich Belsky, executed by Grozny, did not exist at all. Scientists suggest that he was the son of the boyar Fyodor Ivanovich Belsky, who was killed on the orders of the Shuiskys in 1542, during Grozny’s early childhood. But according to the Genealogical books, Fyodor Ivanovich was childless. And thus, the origin of Galaktion remains mysterious. See Veryuzhsky, pp. 622–23. See Church Gazette published under St. Synod, 1888 No. 5 and 1889 No. 49. The act of witnessing the relics of the prince and princess was published in the Bulletin of the Society of Ancient Russian Art at Moscow. Public Museum for 1874, book. I, mixture, page 9. See the above article by Tyumenev. One source of our information speaks about the end of the matter - the brochure of Archpriest John Pospelov: “Blessed Simon Yurovetsky, Fool for Christ’s sake,” printed in Kostroma, in 1877, pp. 16–18. But another source of our information is a book by an unknown author: “Holy saints of God and ascetics of Kostroma, their lives, exploits, death and miracles,” published in Kostroma in 1879, makes us assume that the celebration of Silon has been restored, for it says: “the residents of Yuryevets honor him (Silon) as their prayer book to this day: the memory of blessed Silon in Yuryevets is performed twice a year: on November 4th on the day of repose and on May 10th on the day of the holy Apostle Simon the Zealot, the angel of blessed Simon,” page 110. We give preference to a known and authoritative witness over an unknown witness. And the motivation assumed by Fr. Veryuzhsky, - page 553, which, as a native of the village of Veryuzhsky, in this case against the bishop, cannot be accepted at all, for the bishop seems to be unaware of the fact that a very large number of local saints are not in the calendar. In the Velsk district, and it seems throughout the Vologda province, Procopius Ustyansky enjoys great fame because his relics are considered to be a completely intact body. But this is not entirely true. The relics were witnessed three times: in 1696, 1739 and 1818 (the first two times by the bishops of Arkhangelsk, to whom the area then belonged). According to the latest certificate of 1818, produced by the Bishop of Vologda and presented by him to St. The Synod, it turned out: “1) the height of Procopius of Usyansky is 2 arshins and 2 inches, 2) there is no hair on the head and on the right church of the body by an inch in length and width; half of the right ear is present, but the left ear is almost completely intact, the surface of the nose, that is, there is no cartilage; in the right eye to the nose there is a hole and the lower half of the lip is missing: 3) in the right hand from the shoulder to the elbow behind there is no body, but the rest and fingers are intact, also on the left hand from the elbow to the hand, three inches long and one wide, there was no body right up to the bone, otherwise everything is intact; 4) from the shoulder along the entire back of the body there are no ribs and stunna bones visible, and in front the chest and entire abdomen are intact, except for the navel, instead of which there is a small hole; 5) on the right leg there is a foot and from it to the very heel in the back, and in front three inches to the foot, there is no body and first joints of the toes, and on the left leg, on the left side of the knee, an inch around and half of the sole to the toes, there was no body and first joints on it, like the right one,” - in Veryuzhsk. p. 558, and everything in general about Procopius, pp. 546–568. The author talks about singing prayers at the relics of Procopius at the present time. – page 567 fin.: if to Procopius himself, then this is an abuse, for a prayer service can only be sung to a perfect saint, from which Procopius clearly excludes St. The Synod, in its definition given above, dated December 16, 1801. See Description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Metropolitan. Evgeniya, ch. XII, § 4, and ch. XVI, approx. 55. There is no biographical information at all about the Kiev-Pechersk saints who lived after the Mongol invasion. To the question: how, recognizing them as saints, could they do without this information, when they are considered necessary, we cannot give an answer (We have not encountered anyone asking this question). And the relics of St. Anthony and were not open at all. Probably, this should be understood in such a way that, being confident of his holiness without any external evidence, they did not want to disturb his peace in the chamber of the cave. Another reason besides the one we have indicated for the custom of removing the remains of the dead from the chambers in caves can be considered the desire, by freeing the chambers from the old dead, to obtain places for burying new dead people, because in the caves there would not be enough space to dig up more and more chambers. And if so, then for Rev. Anthony could and should have been made an exception. The Athonite monks asked the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas Grammar, who occupied the see from 1084 to 1111, about their custom of tearing out the bones of the dead from their graves and transferring them to the kimitiria (special buildings, see our History of the Russian Church, vol. I half. 2, p. 391): whether they should do this or not, and received an answer from the patriarch that they were not subject to condemnation for its custom: the question-answers are published in Κανονικαὶ Διατάξεις of Manuel Gideon, vol. I, pp. 9–16, ours is the question-answer pp. 14–15, see also the Rev. Porfiry Uspensky in the History of Athos, part III, department. 1, pp. 219 and 353. From the question of the monks and the answer of the patriarch it follows that at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century and on Mount Athos the custom was just being introduced and that it did not yet exist in other places in Greece (regarding other places in Greece cfr in Ralli and Π . I, 209 fin.). See Metropolitan. Eugene in the Description of the Lavra, the end of chapter XIV' and in Philaret in the Russian saints of fashion on September 21 (note 201 and 205). And the explanation of Met. Eugene, that “probably enemy invasions, which often occurred from 1638 to 1686, destroyed or forced the relics to be hidden in an unknown place,” obviously cannot be considered valid, because the question arises: why were only some, a few, relics destroyed or hidden. Although, on the other hand, it can be assumed that the service or services existed, but did not reach us. One pre-Mongol monk of the Pechersk Monastery. named Gregory, is called the creator of the canons. But if he really was the creator of the canons, and not the canon, then in addition to the canon, St. Theodosius of Pechersk currently has no more canons that could be learned by him. See Rev. Makaria East. XI, 568. Τερατούργημα lubo cuda ktore były tak w samym swietorudotwornym monastyry Pieczarskim Kiiowskim iako y w obu dwu swietych pieczarach... Sometimes Kalnofoisky's work is quoted with the wrong emphasis Τερατούργημα instead of Τερατούργημα: this incorrectness of emphasis belongs to the quotators themselves, and not to Kalnofoysky, in whom the word Τερατούργημα, as in the title of the book, is printed in capital letters and, as printed in capital letters, has no accent. At Rev. Makar. ibidd. (You can also read about the Patericon and Teraturgime in the volume of the work of S. T. Golubev: Kiev Metropolitan Peter Mohyla and his associates, Kiev, 1898, pp. 268 sqq and 293 sqq). The service, on behalf of Peter Mogila, was written by the famous Constantinople hieromonk Meletius Sirig, who came to Kyiv in the summer of 1643, see Stroev in Bibliologist. Dictionary pp. 210–211; in the Synodal RKP library No. 456, i. 481 “Creation of Meletia Sirigush, exarch of Constantinople, Greek, who was in the Russian land in 1643”). There is no service for 12 brothers, stone makers and painters unknown by name. For the second general service to the saints of the Near Cave, see Philaret under September 21st, approx. 205. About which see our History of the Russian Church, vol. 1. sexes. 1, pp. 285 fin. sqq and 565 first ed., pp. 328 sqq and 685 second ed. According to popular opinion (“according to folk legends”), Ilya Muromets, who rests in the Kyiv caves, is precisely the famous hero Ilya Muromets, see the work of O. F. Miller Ilya Muromets and the heroism of Kiev, St. Petersburg, 1869, pp. 797 - 98, also Buslaev’s article On the heroic epic, printed. in September, book. Russian Bulletin of 1862, p. 71, and the speeches of one of the representatives of the people, namely the Moscow priest Ioann Lukyanov, dating back to 1701 and read in his “Journey to the Holy Land” - in the Russian Bartenev Archive of 1862. – Erich Lassota, sent in 1594 by the Roman Emperor Rudolf II to the Cossacks, says in his Diary that the tomb of the glorious hero Ilia Muromets is located in the narthex of the St. Sophia Cathedral, and he speaks specifically about the giant or hero Chobotok from Elijah when describing the caves, and regarding the nickname Chobotok he reports: “They say that he was once attacked by many enemies in the time when he put on his boot, and since in a hurry he could not grab any other weapon, he began to defend himself with another boot, which he had not yet put on, and with it he defeated everyone, which is why he received such a nickname” (Lassota’s diary in German, original: Tagebuch des Erich Lassofa von Sieblau, herausgegeben von Reinhold Schottin, Halle, 1866; in Russian translation F. Bruna: Travel notes of Erich Lassota, sent by the Roman Emperor Rudolf II to the Cossacks in 1594. St. Petersburg, 1873). Kalkofoisky speaks about Ilya of Muromets in the catalog of saints of the Antinium Cave: S. zakonnik Iliia, tego darmo lud pospolity Czobotkiein zowe, i.e. the holy monk Elijah, whom the common people call in vain Boot, - catalog on pp. 13 - 18. Catalog No. 12. That Kalnofoysky believes Elijah lived 450 years before his time, we ourselves did not read in the Teraturgim and take it from Metropolitan. Eugene from his Description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, - Ch. XIV, Catalog No. of the Saints of Anthony's Cave 51, 3rd ed. page 110 fin. The hero of folk epics, Ilya Muromets, according to local Murom legends, is buried under a chapel, which stands on the road from the city of Murom to the village of Karacharovo, which constitutes his homeland and is located 2 versts from the latter up in the Oka. See in the Patriotic Notes of 1857, in the May Book, the article by Y. Solovyov: “Monuments and legends of Vladimir province", page 522. In Kalnofoyskiy's catalog number 4 of the saints of the Cave of Anthony: Swiety Symeon (sic) Metropolit Suztlalski. Regarding the half of the 17th century, see the description of the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral, which we talk about in the note to the pre-Mongol 11th No. - l. 3; regarding the present time - Dobrokhotov, Ancient Monuments in Vladimir Klyazemsky, p. 57, in Hieromonk. Joasaph Church-historical “scripture of Vladimir monuments”, p. 96. See also in 2nd ed. 1st floor I volume of our History of the Russian Church, p. 943 (to p. 698). In the missal of the half of the 16th century, which belonged to the Smolensk department, see Description. Synod. RKPP. Gorsk and Nevostr. No. 377, l. 226 vol., p. 224. See Philaret in Russian Saints under September 21st, approx. 201. In Kalnofoisky’s catalog of saints of the Theodosian Cave (pp. 5–8) under No. 51 Mercury is written: Swiety staruszek Merkuri. i.e. the holy elder Mercury. Collection years. III, 183 and 243, cfr rev. Macarius Archaeological Description of Church Antiquities in Novgorod, I. 76. According to the sources of information, Theophilus was also buried in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral. In Kalnofoisky's catalog of saints of the Theodosius Cave, under No. 32, Theophilus is written: Swiety Episkop Theophil,mial ten swoię Diaccezia w Moskwie, dla tego y Moskiewskim zowiemy, i.e. Holy Bishop Theophilus, he had his own diocese in Moscow (in Moscow, in Muscovite Russia), which is why we call him Moscow. The legend about the discovery of the relics of Juliana, printed in 1705 on four quarter pages, together with the troparion and kontakion for her, is in the Moscow Synodal Library, having been woven into manuscript No. 684, pp. 35–38. Metropolitan Samuel in his Brief Description of the Lavra, and Metropolitan. Eugene, in his (lengthy) Description of the Lavra, says that there is no service for Juliana. But she is sung in the canon of Meletius Sirte and her service is scheduled for July 6th, see Philaret under this date. The most detailed information about Juliana is in the book of Archpriest. A. Khoynatsky: Orthodoxy in the west of Russia in its closest representatives or Patericon of Volyn-Pochaevsky, M. 1888. p. 119 sqq. See about him in Filaret under August 28th and in Chojnacki in the book now indicated, page 94 sqq. The first is IV, 148 beginning, the second is in the Collection. years. VIII, 49 fin. In the catalog of Russian saints, compiled in the middle of the 7th century. and located in the RKP. Moscow Theological Academy No. 201. Regarding the relics, it is reported that a few years after the death of Dionysius they were transferred to Nizhny Novgorod - l. 322 beginning In one legend about the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersk Monastery it also reads: “the netsy say that they will be there with Saint Dionysius, like him, and reward that monastery,” - Bychkova A.F. Description of the collections Publ. Libraries I, 11 fin. The Danish envoy to Peter the Great, Just Yul, who was in Kyiv in 1711, speaks about the relics of the Pechersk saints in his Notes (looking at the matter from his Protestant point of view): “The saints (really) were preserved intact; They showed me their arms and legs; they turned black, shriveled and, due to the dryness (of the air in the caves), withered...", see in Reading. General East. and Ancient 1899 book. III, pp. Notes 344. In the handwritten Simon-Polikarpov Patericon, the relics of Moses Ugrev are spoken of as bones (in the story of the long-suffering recluse John), and the relics of Gregory the Wonderworker are spoken of as a whole body. In the printed Patericon, in the story of the miracle that happened on Easter Day 1463 and consisted in the fact that in response to the greeting of the hieromonk who came to burn incense in the Autonium cave: Christ is risen, the saints resting in the cave answered: He is truly risen, first it is said that the hieromonk came to cense the bodies and that there was a voice from all the bodies, and then that “you are the miracle worker The humble bones, preserved by the Lord, have made known their shrine to reality” and that “(the shrine) possessed by these venerable fathers of ours, the holy bones will be resurrected into the belly of the righteous.” Kalnofoysky in his catalogs of saints makes notes against some of them, in what position their relics were, namely, about the two saints of the Actinian Cave, Ephraim and the monk Theodore (who is now gone?), says that they lay in whole bodies (w ciele calym); about the two saints of the Theodosian Cave - the deacon Macarius and the monk Agathon, that their bodies lay (cialo Macarius, cialo Agathon): about the three saints of the Theodosian Cave Cassian, Piora and Longinus, indefinitely, what was preserved from their relics (reliquie, reliquiyrefiquiae, remains); about the two saints of the same cave, Dichin and Joseph, that their relics were bones (kosci swietego zakonnika Pimina... kosci swietego zakonnika Iosepha (Eminence Philaret under August 28, in note 206, as if he wants to say that Kalnofoysky says about each saint, “whether the whole body lies or just bones"; if so, then it remains not entirely clear to us how some, and very few saints, could turn into all of them), Paul. Aleppo, in his description of the journey of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, speaks about the relics of the Kiev-Pechersk saints, that in the Near Caves they still remain incorruptible, not disintegrated, in their natural form, and that in the Far Caves they are very decayed - Russian translation of the description in Reading. General East. and Ancient, 1897 book. IV, pp. 55 and 57. That between the relics of saints there are precisely whole bodies, bodies “in amazing integrity,” Zechariah Kopystensky speaks about this in Palinodia, see in the Russian Historical Library, published by Archaeographer. Commission, vol. IV. co1. 848, and the preface to the printed Patericon. That whole bodies are dried up bodies is made known and stated in the notes of Peter Mogila, printed in part 1 of the VII Archive of Southwestern Russia, pp. 73. 109–111. In Russian Historical Library ibid. col. 847 (cfr Philaret of Russian Saints, May 1st). See Rev. Maskar. East. IX, 176. Relics of St. Elisha, who previously rested openly, are now hidden for a year, having been hidden in the ground, according to the legend of the Lavrishevsky old-timers, during some kind of war, - Archimandrite. Nicholas Historical and statistical description of the Minsk diocese. St. Petersburg, 1864, p. 131. Judging by the fact that the author of the History of the Hierarchy, speaking in the third volume of the latter, published in 1811, about the Simeonovsky Monastery and in it about the relics of Athanasius, says nothing about the celebration - page 457, one must think that in 1811 there was no celebration yet. The recent establishment of the celebration should also be concluded from the fact that the first church in honor of Athanasius was built in the Grodno region only in 1893, See Church Gazette of 1893, No. 41, p. 1488. Currently, the celebration is celebrated twice a year: on September 5th on the day of his death and on July 20th on the day of the discovery of the relics - the same Gazette of the same year, p. 1012. - The relics of Athanasius, we don’t know - when they were found, they burned in 1816, so in the former Simeonovsky Monastery, and the current city cathedral of Brest-Litovsk, only their remains are preserved - the same Gazette of 1894 No. 37, p. 1293. See archim. Arseny Chronicle of Church Events, end of 1662, 2nd ed. page 665 beginning (referring to books that we do not have at hand). From the testimony of the abbot of the Mgar monastery to the envoy of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich on January 6, 1672, it seems to follow that Athanasius had not yet been canonized, see article N. F. Kapterev “The Arrival of the Former Patriarch of Constantinople Athanasius (Patelar) to Moscow in 1653”, published in the Readings of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment in 1889, Oktyabrsk. book p. 366. If so, he was canonized between 1672 and 1676. M. P. Pogodin, in describing his visit to the Mgarsky monastery in 1842, says: “the patriarch rests in an armchair and the sight of him sitting with his head bowed is very striking,” see Barsukov in the Life and Works of Pogodin, VII, 7. When the Greeks adopted the custom of burying bishops in a sitting position, we cannot say anything; but the example of Athanasius shows that - sometime before the half of the 17th century (from the story of Nicodemus in the Synaxarist on November 4 about the emperor John Vatatzes, it follows that this emperor was buried in a sitting position; if we accept that he was buried, as all emperors were buried, and that the custom of burying bishops in a sitting position appeared no later than the custom of burying emperors in this way, then he – Vatatsa died in 1255). Together with the staff, the gospel is placed in the left hand in the right hand, which for some reason was not done during the burial of Athanasius. The grave pit, which has not so much the oblong-narrow shape of ordinary graves as the square shape of a well, is lined with boards or lined with bricks and the body of the deceased bishop is lowered into it in chairs, without a coffin; then, the body itself is not covered with earth in the pit, as we do with coffins (except that the serving priests throw in a handful of earth, and at the same time a lit lamp is placed near the deceased), but after covering the top of the pit with boards or a vault, only these boards or the vault are covered with earth, so that the pit with the body in it remains empty or not covered. In addition to Athanasius Patelar, Metropolitan Ignatius of Gothia (from Crimea) was buried here in 1784 in Mariupol, about which see Russian Antiquity 1880, November, p. 737 (Kirill’s book in chapter 30, about the heresy of the army, fol. 267 fin., as if mocking Greek custom bury bishops in a sitting position, for he adopts the custom of the Armenians and derives it from the Mohammedans). – About the discovery of the relics of the patriarchs. Athanasius in 1662 by Paisius Ligarid and about the situation in which the relics were found, the above-mentioned Mgarsky abbot informed the envoy of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: “When he was 9 years old, Metropolitan Paisius was traveling from Palestine to Moscow in the Gali lands and was in that Igarsky monastery (in January - February 1662 year, for after the Igarsky monastery he came to the border Moscow city of Putivl, located one and a half hundred miles away from the monastery in the direct direction, on February 12 of this year), on the advice of that monastery with the abbot (one of the predecessors who reported the information) and with the brethren, the holy patriarch was taken out of the ground; and how they opened the tomb, and from that tomb the church was filled with incense, and they found the holy patriarch’s body intact, only the right hand, as it held the staff, was missing two or three fingers; and that the holy patriarch was wearing sacred clothes, and that everything had fallen off his body and had decayed, and what he was sitting on - the chairs had rotted, only the saint's club and staff had been intact; and Metropolitan de Paisius and the abbot and the brethren put new holy vestments on the relics of the most holy patriarch and placed them in the tomb (of course, they planted them or was they planted again after?) in that Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord outside,” - from Kapterev ibid. According to one testimony, it was established to celebrate Athanasius on February 1, l662, with the blessing of the Kyiv Metropolitan Sylvester Kossov. But Sylvester Kossov died on April 13, 1657. According to another indication, it was established to celebrate Athanasius on February 1, 1662, with the conciliar permission of Metropolitan Joseph Nelyubovich-Tukalsky of Kyiv. But Joseph was elected metropolitan only in 1663 or 1664; Since in the History of the Hierarchy, -V, 24 fin., Athanasius is not called a saint and since there is no mention of the establishment of a celebration for him or of his canonization in his short life, written in 1819 or 1822 (RKP. bibliography. Moscow Spiritual Academician): was he not made a saint after 1822 by the monks of the Lubensky monastery themselves? And that the celebration was established and exists, we accept this on the basis that the author of the History of the Hierarchy calls Macarius a holy martyr - III, 595. and that in the 2nd edition of the Historical Dictionary of Saints it is said that a local memorial was celebrated for him. See the above book npomo and e r. Khoynatsky: Orthodoxy in Western Russia in its closest representatives or Patericon of Volyn-Pochaev, pp. 199 and 312. – In 1858, a church was built in the Pochaev Lavra in the name of St. Job, -ibid. page 203. See now the indicated book by Chojnacki and his other book: Essays on the history of the Orthodox Church and ancient piety in Volhynia Zhitomir, 1878. In the book published earlier, which is the latter, the author talks about the celebration of Prince Yaropolk and Bishop Stefan, and in the book printed later, which is the first, he also talks about the celebration of Bishop Amphilochius. The day of celebration was originally chosen to be May 25th, in memory of the miraculous rescue of Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich from the danger that threatened him in Paris on the 25th Man of 1866, and after the death of Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich it was moved to October 10th, as the day of the return of the Pochaev Lavra to Orthodoxy in 1831. You might be interested in: