The Order of Glorifying Saints in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (1920-2007)

I am not aware of any guidelines for glorifying saints, and so I have tried to respond to the question of glorifying saints in ROCOR by utilizing the resources available to me. [1]I thank M. P. Perekrestov and A. A. Lyubimov (of the Holy Trinity Theological Seminary Library in Jordanville, N. Y.) for their help in conducting research enabling me to write this work. I am … Continue reading This report was prepared for the joint committee for saints’ glorification of the Russian Church and the Russian Church Abroad. 

Holy Righteous John of Kronstadt (+1908)

St. John was venerated as “a priest for all Russia” even during his lifetime, and this veneration continued among many Orthodox who found themselves in the emigration. The first and second volume of I. K. Surskii’s Otets Ioann Kronshtadskii: Zhizn’ i chudesa were published correspondingly in 1938 and 1941 in Belgrade. The first volume contains, besides testimonies to the veneration of St. John in the emigration, an article by Archbishop Theophan of Poltava on the question of canonizing Father John of Kronstadt (in chapter 68). The second volume contains an akathist to the Honorable and Glorious Priest of God John of Kronstadt in chapter 76.

However, popular veneration frequently precedes glorification, and the hierarchy’s task is “to give ear” to the Church. [2]“In fact, what are we hierarchs doing? We are giving ear spiritually to the Church, discovering what she lives by, what gives her breath, and we return it in a concrete and precise manner.” … Continue reading This can apparently explain the following address by St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco during the time he was the ruling hierarch of the Diocese of Western Europe:

In view of the forthcoming consideration in September of this year (1953) of the petition to glorify Father John of Kronstadt I am asking the clergy to inform me, according to their clerical conscience:

1. Is he personally convinced of the holiness of Father John, Archpriest of Kronstadt?
2.  According to his observations, is this the belief of his flock or his spiritual children?
3. If the response to the above questions is positive, does he acknowledge that Fr. John’s urgent glorification is necessary and desirable? [3] “K proslavleniiu o. Ioanna Kronshtadskogo”, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, 1953:12, p.14. .

Appeals from devotees came in anticipation of the immediate glorification of the Holy Righteous John of Kronstadt in 1953. Thus, for example, parishioners of St. Nicholas Church in Utica, New York, made the following appeal to all Russians: “We call upon everyone to write to their ruling hierarchs, asking them to inform the Council of Bishops that the time has come to glorify Father John.” [4] “K proslavleniiu o. Ioanna Kronshtadskogo”, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, 1953:18, p. 14. Panikhidas were being served for Fr. John and meetings were being held to speak about the podvig of his serving. [5] “Den’ pamiati o. Ioanna Kronshtadskogo”, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, 1953:24, p. 15.

Nonetheless, the Hierarchical Council of 1953, while not objecting in principle to a possible glorification, ruled to postpone the glorification of Holy Righteous John of Kronstadt, taking note of the position on the issue of the ROCOR Primate, Metropolitan Anastassy (Gribanovsky), who “did not find it possible to bring about this glorification immediately only because Father John’s canonization requires the participation of our Mother, the Russian Orthodox Church, liberated from captivity.” [6] N. Tal’berg, “Torzhestvennoe sobranie v N’iu Iorke, posviashchennoe Arkhiereiskomu Soboru”, Pravoslanaia Rus’, 1953:20, p. 4. Thus, the question of glorification also depended upon the status of ROCOR. The Church outside Russia, existing temporarily, had no right to perform an action surpassing the minimal tasks of survival. [7]On the discussions of and references to the minutes of the Council of Bishops see Ieromonakh Evfimii, “Ob otnoshenii mitropolita Anastasiia (Gribanovskogo) k proslavleniiu vo sviatykh Russkoi … Continue reading

On May 27, 1964, the Council of Bishops elected as the new primate Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) to replace the aged Metropolitan Anastassy, and by June 3 the same Council unanimously adopted the decision to glorify Fr. John of Kronstadt. The following justification was given to amend the decision of the 1953 Council:

A judgment was made regarding the necessity of a popular glorification of Father John of Kronstadt back at the 1953 Council of Bishops. Since then more than ten years have transpired and not only have conditions not changed in the Russian land but persecutions of Christ’s Church have intensified there. Therefore the uttermost moment has come when we ought to appeal to heavenly assistance and to the prayerful intercession of this God pleaser, who truly was a good shepherd for the Russian people, laying down his soul for his people. [8] Metropolitan Philaret, “Poslanie Sobora Episkopov Russkoi Zarubezhnoi Tserkvi o proslavlenii prisnopamiatnogo protoiereiia Ioanna Kronshtadskogo”, Pravoslavnaiia Rus’, 1964:13, p. 1-2.

Moreover, by making such precedent theoretical possibility of the glorification of saints by the Russian Church Abroad was resolved positively. The glorification took place on November 1, 1964, in the Synodal Cathedral of the Mother of God of the Sign in New York, and in the Church of St. John of Ryla (which since that moment has been the Memorial Church of St. John of Kronstadt).

Venerable Herman of Alaska (+1837)

 Local veneration of this ascetic had been conducted from the time of his repose. In 1867 Bishop Paul of Novoarkhangelsk put together a record of the feats and miracles of Venerable Herman. [9] “Father Herman of Alaska”, The Russian Orthodox Journal, (September 1970), p. 2. In 1894 the Valaam Monastery published a book about Venerable Herman. In the 1930’s Archimandrite Gerasim Shmaltz settled on Spruce Island. Due to the 1935 reconciliation within the Russian Church diaspora, the hierarchs of the North American Metropolia became part of the ROCOR Council of Bishops. When he was in Belgrade at the 1937 Council Bishop Alexis of Alaska announced that his flock “has been dreaming about Elder Herman’s glorification for a long time. [10] “Aliaskinskaia eparkhiia”, Tserkovnaiia Zhizn’, 1939:8, p. 124. The 1939 ROCOR Council of Bishops assigned Bishop Alexis to prepare the canonization. [11]“Poslanie vysokopreosviashchenneishego Filareta mitropolita Vostochno-Amerikanskogo i Niu-Iorkskogo, Pervoierarkha Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei o proslavlenii prepodobnogo i bogonosnogo … Continue reading When the hierarchs of the North American Metropolia withdrew from the ROCOR Bishop Council in 1946 Archimandrite Gerasim (Shmaltz) did not leave the North American Metropolia, at the same time remaining close to ROCOR. Following his advice, Gleb Podmoshensky and Eugene Rose created the St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood within ROCOR. On March 8/21, 1969 Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco raised the question of the veneration of Father Herman of Alaska. The “Zapiska o pochitanii Blazhennogo Germana Aliaskinskogo v sviazi s ego proslavleniem”, written by Gleb Podmoshensky was read. A decision was made to conduct a survey of all of the ROCOR hierarchs regarding their attitude toward a glorification. [12] “Opredeleniia Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei za 1969 g.”, Tserkovnaia zhizn’, 1968:1-12, 1969:1-12. That same year Fr. Gerasim conducted the uncovering of Elder Herman’s remains. [13] “Father Herman of Alaska”, loc. cit. Simultaneous preparations for Father Herman’s glorification were taking place in the North American Metropolia as well. On April 10, 1970, the North American Metropolia was granted autocephaly, and on August 9 of that year, the glorification of Father Herman took place in Kodiak’s Holy Resurrection Cathedral by the OCA. On the same day, Father Herman was canonized in the Holy Virgin Joy of All Who Sorrow Cathedral in San Francisco. In this way, the history of Russian church divisions in North America was reflected in the question of the glorification of St. Herman.

Holy Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg

 The Foundation of the Memory of Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg, headed by Bishop Laurus, was collecting testimonies of the reception of help from prayers to Holy Blessed Xenia. Many testimonies from various corners of the earth were published in Pravoslavnaia Rus’. The ROCOR Council of Bishops directed the foundation to collect material for a glorification. [14] “Obrashchenie fonda pamiati Blazhennoi Ksenii Peterburgskoi k chitateliam tserkovno-obshchestvennogo organa “Pravoslavnaia Rus’”, Pravoslavnaia Rus, 1975:5, p. 12. Devotees of Blessed Xenia were called upon to serve panikhidas in their parishes and to arrange meetings with slide shows about Blessed Xenia. [15] “Chlen pravleniia, v fonde pamiati blazhennoi Ksenii”, Pravoslavnaia Rus, 1977:6, p. 14. The question of glorifying Blessed Xenia was brought up at the 1974 All-Diaspora Council and the 1976 Council of Bishops. The criterion for glorification was expressed well in the following statement by Bishop Paul of Stuttgart at the 1976 Council of Bishops: “Blessed Xenia was active more than 200 years ago, but her memory remains alive. Many miracles occur through her prayers.” [16] Archive of the Synod of Bishops, New York, Minutes no. 6, September 25/October 5, 1976. Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles wrote in 1979 that the question “of the glorification of Blessed Xenia was resolved easily and quickly at the two past Councils of Bishops.” [17] “O proslavlenii novomuchenikov i ispovednikov rossiiskikh: doklad Arkhiereiskomu Soboru”, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, 1979:6, p. 14.

During the year of the glorification, the Synod of Bishops directed the diocesan bishops and rectors of the churches under the Synod to conduct memorial litiyas for Blessed Xenia in all churches from August 24/September 6 to September 10/23, 1978. This directive stated, “On Sunday, September 11/24, following the Divine Liturgy, inform parishioners from the ambo of the glorification of Blessed Xenia being performed today by the Hierarchical Council and conduct a solemn moleben to Blessed Xenia,” [18] “Ukaz iz Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei”, Pravoslavnaia Rus, 1974, p. 1. which did take place on the designated day.

The Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia and the Royal Martyrs

Units of various White formations that were liberating towns from the Bolsheviks had to deal with the consequences of Bolshevist terror. In this way, the veneration of the new martyrs was taken over by ROCOR.

Among the sources of information on the new martyrs in ROCOR is the book by Valentinov, Shturm Nebes, published in 1925 in Paris, and the two-volume set by Fr. Michael Polsky. [19]“Opredelenie Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei,” October 30/November 12, 1975, Tserkovnaia zhizn’, 1975:7-12, p. 39; The Polsky book is Novye mucheniki rossiiskie, … Continue reading The veneration of the new martyrs continued in the diaspora. The 1971 Council of Bishops notes that it “bows down with reverence before the holy feat of the Russian New Martyrs and is in favor of their glorification. [20] Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles, “O proslavlenii novomuchenkov i ispovednikov rossiiskikh: doklad Arkhiereiskomu Soboru [1978], Pravoslavnaia Rus’, 1979:6, p. 4. The Council of Bishops of September 18/October 1, 1974 assigned Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles to form a committee “primarily of members of the clergy for a complete and detailed working out of a glorification.” [21]Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles, op. cit., p. 5. Besides the chairman, the commission included Archbishop Seraphim of Caracas and Venezuela, Bishop Laurus, and Bishop Constantine. “Rezoliutsiia … Continue reading

The ruling took on October 30/November 12, 1975 in response to a letter from Priest Gleb Yakunin, Victor Kapitanchuk, and Lev Regelson states the following:

The glorification of the new martyrs is undoubtedly a question of great significance and should be regarded as desirable and necessary to the utmost degree… Unfortunately, very little information on the martyrs’ personal feats was available after the thirties. As it has previously, the Council of Bishops currently regards the collection of such material to be very important.

Relying in a practical sense upon any cooperation in this matter on the part of the current leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate does not appear to be possible. Also, cooperation by diaspora church structures that have separated from the Russian Church will be of little help. Material regarding martyrs and confessors can be found only in Russia. It is there that people with the same attitude as Priest Gleb Yakunin and his friends should collect such information locally and find the means to send it outside the country, where the Synod of Bishops will add it to the already existing data.

On its part, the Synod of Bishops is appealing to those who will manage to leave the Soviet Union and, In general, to everyone who has such data available with a request to communicate to it any data they might have regarding acts of confession or martyrdom borne by hierarchs, clergy, monastics, and laity. [22] “Opredeleniia Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei”, Tserkovnaia zhizn’, 1975:7-12, p. 39.

In the report by Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles to the 1978 Council of Bishops Vladyka discusses the question of whether or not miracles are needed for canonizing saints and comes to the conclusion that miracles occur when saints are addressed with faith. “If those who doubt the power of prayerful intercession by holy martyrs demand miracles, there will not be miracles for them,” [23] Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles, O proslavlenii novomuchenikov i ispovednikov rossiiskikh: doklad Arkhiereiskomu Sinodu (1978) p. 6.

The following conclusions in favor of glorifying the new martyrs can be drawn from the resolution adopted by the Council on September 3/16, 1978.

• Direct indications by God regarding the glorification of the martyrs, such as the ineffable peace and valor bestowed upon Metropolitans Vladimir and Benjamin, and upon the Royal Family (cf. Mt. 10:19-20).
• “The opportunity to provide active support to our brothers in Russia, who are being oppressed, tortured, and killed within a world of hatred, persecutions, deprivation, the loss of means for survival as retribution for belief, and interment in death camps and insane asylums.” [24] “Rezoliutsiia komissii po proslavleniiu novomuchenikov:, Pravoslavnaiia Rus’, 1979:6, p. 8.
• “Streams of the blood of martyrs can extinguish the fire of godlessness.” [25] cit.
• Postponement of the glorification due to “the dying off (of the episcopate, clergy, and the flock) becomes tantamount to a refusal to glorify.” [26] cit.
• The murdered Emperor Nicholas II can be canonized the same way as were the 14,000 Bethlehem infants who were killed for Christ or as was the Holy Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky.

Another resolution of the same council of September 3/16, 1978 directed the glorification to take place at the All-Diaspora Council, or, if that proves impossible, at the Council of Bishops, and a reminder to be made of the necessity to fulfill the ruling of the 1918 Moscow Council regarding the serving of panikhidas for the new martyrs on Sundays closest to January 25/February 7. [27] “Rezoliutsiia Arkhiereiskogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei o proslavlenii novomuchenikov i ispovednikov”, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, 1979:6, p. 8.

In his address to ROCOR in the year of the glorification the First Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret explains that the Church in Russia cannot conduct a glorification, since one part of it has gone off into the catacombs, while the other “has submitted to the atheistic government and acts at its behest.” [28] “Poslanie vsem vernym chadam Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi po sluchaiu priblizheniia proslavleniia novomuchenikov rossiiskikh”, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, 1981:11, p. 2.

Work on the preparation of the names of the new martyrs for their glorification was carried out at the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville by Monk Benjamin (Gomarteli) under the supervision of Bishop Laurus. They were basically taken from Fr. Michael Polsky’s two-volume set, the diaspora press, lists brought from Russia, and individual reports by relatives. These names, accompanied by brief references, were presented at the Council of Bishops of October 9/22, 1981. The Council ruled that “a special commission [29]Metropolitan Philaret, Chairman, Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, Bishop Laurus, and Bishop Gregory, “Opredeleniia Arkhiereiskogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei”, Pravoslavnaia … Continue reading should check and edit this list and present it for approval by the Council at one of its following sessions.” [30] loc. cit. The following directive was given to the commission at the same session of the Council: “We assume that the final edited list will include all new martyrs and confessors who have suffered prior to Metropolitan Sergius’ declaration of July 16/29, 1927, which engendered a schism among believers that has lasted to this day. We bow down before the podvig and sufferings of all who have suffered later as well (after the abovementioned declaration), but here particular caution should be taken while the list is being made more certain.” [31] loc. cit. The glorification of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia took place on October 31/November 12, 1981 at the Synodal Cathedral of the Mother of God of the Sign in New York. At the instructions of His Eminence Archbishop Laurus, K. V. Glazkov and A. V. Psarev edited the list of new martyrs. Not being part of Metropolitan Sergius’ church organization was a criterion used in this work. [32]The use of this criterion is evident at the 1993 Council, in the question of adding to the list of new martyrs Mitred Archpriest Nicholas Semenov, parish priest of the Elevation of the Cross Church … Continue reading Published in 1998 as an appendix to the Holy Trinity Orthodox Russian Calendar, this list is ROCOR’S official diptych. [33] The list of new martyrs and confessors of Russia was approved by the ROCOR Council of Bishops in 1981.

Venerable Paisius Velichkovsky (+1794)

 On October 15/28, 1981, at the ROCOR Council of Bishops, Archbishop Seraphim raised the question of glorifying Fr. Paisius (Velichkovsky), and a discussion followed. Metropolitan Philaret noted that since the ascetic’s activity was in the Romanian Church the glorification should take place there as well. Bishop Laurus responded that the brothers of the St. Elias Skete on Mount Athos is asking for this glorification to be allowed in connection to the contemplated glorification by the founder of this skete and by the Romanian Church. The question was raised of whether the Romanian Church will allow his veneration. The life of the saint was read and a decision was adopted to allow a local veneration of Venerable Paisius at the St. Elias Skete on Mount Athos. [34] Minutes no. 8, Archive of the Council of Bishops in New York. The glorification of Venerable Paisius was conducted at the St. Elias Skete by Archbishop Laurus of the Syracuse and Holy Trinity Diocese, Bishop Mark of Stuttgart with a host of the clergy. [35] Priest Nicholas Artemov, “Proslavlenie prep. Paisiia Velichkovskogo na Sviatoi gore Afonskoi”, Russkoe Vozrozhdenie, 1983:21, p. 95.

At the 1988 Council of Bishops is was resolved to send a survey to all the bishops regarding their agreement “to expand the local veneration of Elder Paisius Velichkovsky to a general glorification.” [36] “Opredeleniia Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei, Tserkovnaia zhizn’, 1988: 5-6, p. 135. In 1990 the Council of Bishops directed the celebration of St. Paisius’ memory to take place everywhere. [37] Accepted April 29, o. c. “Deianiia Arkhiereiskogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, 1999:10, p. 3.

The Venerable Elders of Optina

 On July 26/August 8, 1988 Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles presented a report regarding the glorification of the Optina elders. Referring to E. E. Golubinsky Archbishop Anthony pointed out that among the Greeks clearly expressed criteria of holiness appeared only in the seventeenth century, and they were true Orthodoxy, piety, and miracles. [38] Isstoriia kanonizatsii sviatykh Russkoi Tserkvi, (Moscow: 1903), 28. Before that the question of glorification was decided by the local bishop with the metropolitan’s consent. Archbishop Anthony provided biographical information on the God-pleasers who were being offered for glorification, which was put together at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville by Hierodeacon Ephraim (Krasovsky). [39] Minutes no. 6, Archive of the Synod of Bishops in New York. On April 28/May 11, 1990 the ROCOR Council of Bishops decided to glorify “among the saints who have shone forth in Russia the Optina Elders, our Venerable and God-Bearing Fathers Leo, Moses, Anthony, Isaac the First, Macarios, Ambrose, Joseph, Anatole the First, Hilarion, Barsonuphius, Anatole the Younger, Isaac the Second, Nektary, and Nikon. [40] “Iz deianii Arkhiereiskogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei”, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, 1999:10, p. 4. The glorification took place at St. Nicholas Cathedral in Montreal on May 13, 1990.

Hierarchs Innocent of Moscow (+1879), Nicholas of Japan (+ 1912), and John of Shanghai and San Francisco (+1966)

The question of their glorification was brought up on April 21/May 4 at the 1983 Council of Bishops by Archbishop Anthony of Western America and San Francisco. During the ensuing discussion, Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles asked whether there are miracles in response to the prayers of Archbishop Nicholas, to which Archbishop Anthony of Western America pointed out that miracles weren’t a condition for the glorification of the Holy Prince Vladimir, Equal to the Apostles. Also, Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles and Bishop Gregory pointed out the necessity of popular veneration of the hierarchs Innocent and Nicholas. With regard to the glorification of Archbishop John, there was no disagreement among Council members, with the exception of Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles, who acknowledged the efficacy of miracles that were performed at the intercession of Vladyka John, but he noted that purely “theologically, miracle-working is not yet a sign of sainthood. [41] Minutes no. 2, Archive of the Synod of Bishops in New York.

In 1989 the Synod of Bishops blessed Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles to create a commission to collect additional information on the life and feats of St. John in connection with the upcoming (in 1991) 25^th anniversary of his repose. [42] Journal no. 287, in” Zasedaniia Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei ot 8/21 marta 1989 g., Tserkovnaia zhizn’, 1989: 1-2, p. 6. At the session on April 24/May 7, 1993 Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco read a letter from Archpriest Valery Lukianov containing a petition of many parishioners of the Western American Diocese urging the glorification of Archbishop John of Shanghai and San Francisco. On that same day, the council enacted the glorification of these three hierarchs, timing the celebrations to coincide with the 200^th anniversary of Orthodoxy in America. [43] Archive of the Synod of Bishops in New York, Minutes no. 1. Metropolitan Innocent of Moscow and Archbishop Nicholas of Japan were glorified at St. John the Baptist Cathedral in Mayfield, Pennsylvania. Archbishop John of Shanghai and San Francisco was glorified on July 2-3, 1994 at the Holy Virgin Joy of All Who Sorrow Cathedral in San Francisco.

Bishop Jonah of Hankou (+1925)

On August 31/September 13, 1996 Archbishop Anthony of Western America announced at a session of the Council of Bishops a proposal to glorify this ascetic and wonderworker, who was revered by Orthodox immigrants from Manchuria. A ruling was made to acknowledge St. Jonah as being “among the saints of Russia” [44] Archive of the Synod of Bishops in New York, Minutes no. 9. The glorification took place on October 20, 1996, at the Holy Virgin Joy of All Who Sorrow Cathedral in San Francisco, at the Holy Virgin Protection Cathedral in Chicago, and at the Holy Virgin Joy of All Who Sorrow Cathedral in Geelong, Australia.

Hierarchs Philaret of Moscow (+1867), Ignatius of the Caucasus (+1867), Theophan of Vysha (+1894), and Venerable Theophilus of Kiev (+1853)

In 1988 the Synod of Bishops, while acknowledging the sanctity of Hierarchs Ignatius and Theophan, at the same time refused to recognize their glorification by the Moscow Patriarchate, since the new martyrs “whose recognition of sanctity should have been the starting point for true conciliar activity both on our part and in Russia” had not been glorified prior to that. [45] “Arkhiereiskii Sobor Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi: Tserkovnaia zhizn’, 1988:3-4, p. 74.

The 1996 Council of Bishops Bishop Evtikhii of Ishimsky announced the uncovering of the relics of the Venerable Elder Theophilos. [46] Archive of the Synod of Bishops in New York. Minutes no. 5, for August 27/September 9, 1996. The 2000 Council of Bishops ruled that they are “counted” among the glorified saints. [47] “Opredeleniia Arkhiereiskogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei ot 4/17 po 14/27 octiabria 2000 g., Tserkovanaia zhizn’, p. 14. The glorification took place at the Cathedral of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in Munich on April 30/May 13, 2001.

Hieromartyr Maxim Sandovich (+1914), the First Chinese Martyrs (+1900)

At the 1996 ROCOR Council of Bishops, Archbishop Hilarion made an announcement about the feat of Priest Maxim Sandovich, who was executed for Orthodox pastoral and Russian patriotic activity in the Lemko region within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His execution took place on August 24/September 6, 1914 in the courtyard of the Gorlitsa jail. A description of Fr. Maxim’s martyrdom was presented. [48] Archive of the Synod of Bishops in New York, Minutes no. 5 for August 27/September 9, 1996. On the same day Archbishop Hilarion gave “a report on the Chinese new martyrs, who were put to death during the Boxer Rebellion in Beijing. Most of the martyrdoms of 200 Chinese Orthodox [49]A list containing 205 names are taken from the degree thesis of N. Dubrov, “Sviatsy Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi”, (Holy Trinity Theological Seminary); “Spisok Novomuchenikov Kitaiskikh”, … Continue reading occurred on June 11, 1900. Of special note is the feat of Priest Mitrophan Tsi-Chung with his entire family, and the Orthodox catechizer Pavel Wang. It was resolved to commemorate the Chinese New Martyrs on June 11/24.” [50] Archive of the Synod of Bishops in New York, Minutes no. 5 for August 27/September 9, 1996. Their glorification took place at the Protection of the Holy Virgin Church in Cabramatta, Australia, on June 11/24, 1997. [51] “Torzhestvo novomuchenikov kitaiskikh”, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, 1997:22, p. 2.

Conclusion

We can deduce the following based on the examined material:

• The glorifications by ROCOR were made mostly on the basis of hagiographic material. A possible exception to this might be information about the new martyrs.
• The fact that most of the saints glorified by ROCOR were also glorified by the ROC confirms the correctness of the ROCOR glorifications. The presence of popular veneration is clearly evident with respect to St. John of Kronstadt, the Blessed Xenia, St. John of Shanghai, and the Royal Martyr Nicholas. Local veneration was present with respect to St. Herman of Alaska. One can say that with respect to Saints Philaret and Innocent of Moscow, Theophan of Vyshna, Ignatius of the Caucasus, and Venerable Theophilos there was a wish to open up to the people of God the possibility of addressing in prayer those who had already been glorified by the ROC.
• The glorifications by ROCOR were moved by recognition of responsibility for its mission, as the free portion of the Russian Church, to do what could not have been done in the fatherland. The glorifications were regarded as a means of combatting godlessness.
• If the issue of the necessity of miracles was decided equivocally, the issue of the necessity of God-pleasing podvig during the course of the earthly life of a particularly righteous person was regarded as totally unequivocally.
• The issue of questioning the members of the ROCOR Council of Bishops, and the clergy in one instance, regarding glorification, was put forth. Efforts were made toward widespread notification of God’s people regarding the glorifications.
• Church divisions in the Russian Church and in the diaspora were reflected in the approach to the glorifications as well. There was also a problematic approach toward local Churches in the local glorification by ROCOR hierarchs of a saint of the Romanian Church on the territory of the Constantinople Patriarchate.