When did the church split occur? Church schism

The religious and political movement of the 17th century, which resulted in the separation from the Russian Orthodox Church of a part of the believers who did not accept the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, was called a schism.

The reason for the schism was the correction of church books. The need for such a correction has been felt for a long time, since many opinions were included in the books that disagreed with the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

The members of the Circle of Zealots of Piety, which was formed in the late 1640s and early 1650s and existed until 1652, advocated for the elimination of discrepancies and correction of liturgical books, as well as the elimination of local differences in church practice. The rector of the Kazan Cathedral, Archpriest Ivan Neronov, Archpriests Avvakum, Loggin, and Lazar believed that the Russian Church had preserved ancient piety, and proposed unification based on ancient Russian liturgical books. The confessor of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Stefan Vonifatiev, the nobleman Fyodor Rtishchev, who were later joined by Archimandrite Nikon (later the patriarch), advocated following Greek liturgical models and strengthening their ties with the Eastern Autocephalous Orthodox Churches.

In 1652, Metropolitan Nikon was elected patriarch. He entered into the administration of the Russian Church with the determination to restore its full harmony with the Greek Church, destroying all the ritual features by which the former differed from the latter. The first step of Patriarch Nikon on the path of liturgical reform, taken immediately after assuming the Patriarchate, was to compare the text of the Creed in the edition of printed Moscow liturgical books with the text of the Symbol inscribed on the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius. Having discovered discrepancies between them (as well as between the Service Book and other books), Patriarch Nikon decided to begin correcting the books and rites. Conscious of his “duty” to abolish all liturgical and ritual differences with the Greek Church, Patriarch Nikon began to correct Russian liturgical books and church rituals according to Greek models.

About six months after his accession to the patriarchal throne, on February 11, 1653, Patriarch Nikon indicated that in the publication of the Followed Psalter the chapters on the number of bows in prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian and on the two-fingered sign of the cross should be omitted. 10 days later, at the beginning of Lent in 1653, the Patriarch sent out a “Memory” to Moscow churches about replacing part of the prostrations at the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian with waist ones and about using the three-fingered sign of the cross instead of the two-fingered one. It was this decree on how many prostrations should be made when reading the Lenten prayer of Ephraim the Syrian (four instead of 16), as well as the order to be baptized with three fingers instead of two, that caused a huge protest among believers against such a liturgical reform, which over time developed into a church schism.

Also during the reform, the liturgical tradition was changed in the following points:

Large-scale “bookishness on the right”, expressed in the editing of the texts of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, which led to changes even in the wording of the Creed - the conjunction-opposition was removed "A" in the words about faith in the Son of God “begotten, not made”, they began to talk about the Kingdom of God in the future ("there will be no end"), and not in the present tense ( "no end"). In the eighth member of the Creed (“In the Holy Spirit of the true Lord”) the word is excluded from the definition of the properties of the Holy Spirit "True". Many other innovations were also introduced into historical liturgical texts, for example, by analogy with Greek texts in the name "Jesus" in newly printed books one more letter was added and it began to be written "Jesus".

At the service, instead of singing “Hallelujah” twice (extreme hallelujah), it was ordered to sing three times (three times). Instead of circling the temple during baptism and weddings in the direction of the sun, circling against the sun was introduced, rather than with salting. Instead of seven prosphoras, the liturgy began to be served with five. Instead of the eight-pointed cross, they began to use four-pointed and six-pointed ones.

In addition, the subject of criticism of Patriarch Nikon was Russian icon painters, who deviated from Greek models in the writing of icons and used the techniques of Catholic painters. Next, the patriarch introduced, instead of the ancient monophonic singing, polyphonic partes singing, as well as the custom of delivering sermons of his own composition in the church - in ancient Rus' they saw such sermons as a sign of conceit. Nikon himself loved and knew how to pronounce his own teachings.

The reforms of Patriarch Nikon weakened both the Church and the state. Seeing what resistance the attempted correction of church rites and liturgical books encountered from zealots and their like-minded people, Nikon decided to give this correction the authority of the highest spiritual authority, i.e. cathedral Nikon's innovations were approved by the Church Councils of 1654-1655. Only one of the members of the Council, Bishop Pavel of Kolomna, tried to express disagreement with the decree on bowing, the same decree that the zealous archpriests had already objected to. Nikon treated Paul not only harshly, but very cruelly: he forced him to condemn him, took off his bishop's robe, tortured him and sent him to prison. During 1653-1656, corrected or newly translated liturgical books were published at the Printing Yard.

From the point of view of Patriarch Nikon, corrections and liturgical reforms, bringing the rites of the Russian Church closer to Greek liturgical practice, were absolutely necessary. But this is a very controversial issue: there was no urgent need for them; one could limit oneself to eliminating inaccuracies in the liturgical books. Some differences with the Greeks did not prevent us from being completely Orthodox. There is no doubt that the too hasty and abrupt breakdown of the Russian church rite and liturgical traditions was not forced by any real, pressing need and necessity of the then church life.

The discontent of the population was caused by the violent measures with which Patriarch Nikon introduced new books and rituals into use. Some members of the Circle of Zealots of Piety were the first to speak out for the “old faith” and against the reforms and actions of the patriarch. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel submitted a note to the king in defense of double-fingering and about bowing during services and prayers. Then they began to argue that introducing corrections according to Greek models desecrates the true faith, since the Greek Church apostatized from the “ancient piety”, and its books are printed in Catholic printing houses. Archimandrite Ivan Neronov opposed the strengthening of the power of the patriarch and for the democratization of church government. The clash between Nikon and the defenders of the “old faith” took on drastic forms. Avvakum, Ivan Neronov and other opponents of reforms were subjected to severe persecution. The speeches of the defenders of the “old faith” received support in various layers of Russian society, from individual representatives of the highest secular nobility to peasants. The sermons of the dissenters about the advent of the “last time”, about the accession of the Antichrist, to whom the tsar, the patriarch and all the authorities had supposedly already bowed and were carrying out his will, found a lively response among the masses.

The Great Moscow Council of 1667 anathematized (excommunicated from the Church) those who, after repeated admonitions, refused to accept new rituals and newly printed books, and also continued to scold the Church, accusing it of heresy. The council also deprived Nikon himself of the patriarchal rank. The deposed patriarch was sent to prison - first to Ferapontov, and then to the Kirillo Belozersky monastery.

Carried away by the preaching of the dissenters, many townspeople, especially peasants, fled to the dense forests of the Volga region and the North, to the southern outskirts of the Russian state and abroad, and founded their own communities there.

From 1667 to 1676, the country was engulfed in riots in the capital and in the outskirts. Then, in 1682, the Streltsy riots began, in which schismatics played an important role. The schismatics attacked monasteries, robbed monks, and seized churches.

A terrible consequence of the split was burning - mass self-immolations. The earliest report of them dates back to 1672, when 2,700 people self-immolated in the Paleostrovsky monastery. From 1676 to 1685, according to documented information, about 20,000 people died. Self-immolations continued into the 18th century, and isolated cases - at the end of the 19th century.

The main result of the schism was church division with the formation of a special branch of Orthodoxy - Old Believers. By the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century, there were various movements of the Old Believers, which were called “talks” and “concords”. The Old Believers were divided into clericalism And lack of priesthood. Popovtsy recognized the need for the clergy and all church sacraments, they were settled in the Kerzhensky forests (now the territory of the Nizhny Novgorod region), the areas of Starodubye (now the Chernigov region, Ukraine), Kuban (Krasnodar region), and the Don River.

Bespopovtsy lived in the north of the state. After the death of the priests of the pre-schism ordination, they rejected the priests of the new ordination, so they began to be called bespopovtsy. The sacraments of baptism and repentance and all church services, except the liturgy, were performed by selected laymen.

Until 1685, the government suppressed riots and executed several leaders of the schism, but there was no special law on the persecution of schismatics for their faith. In 1685, under Princess Sophia, a decree was issued on the persecution of detractors of the Church, instigators of self-immolation, and harborers of schismatics, up to the death penalty (some by burning, others by sword). Other Old Believers were ordered to be whipped and, having been deprived of their property, exiled to monasteries. Those who harbored Old Believers were “beaten with batogs and, after confiscation of property, also exiled to a monastery.”

During the persecution of the Old Believers, a riot in the Solovetsky monastery was brutally suppressed, during which 400 people died in 1676. In Borovsk, two sisters died in captivity from hunger in 1675 - noblewoman Feodosia Morozova and princess Evdokia Urusova. The head and ideologist of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum, as well as priest Lazar, deacon Theodore, and monk Epiphanius were exiled to the Far North and imprisoned in an earthen prison in Pustozersk. After 14 years of imprisonment and torture, they were burned alive in a log house in 1682.

Patriarch Nikon no longer had anything to do with the persecution of Old Believers - from 1658 until his death in 1681, he was first in voluntary and then in forced exile.

Gradually, the majority of the Old Believers' consensus, especially the priesthood, lost their oppositional character in relation to the official Russian Church, and the Old Believers themselves began to make attempts to get closer to the Church. Preserving their rituals, they submitted to the local diocesan bishops. This is how Edinoverie arose: on October 27, 1800, in Russia, by decree of Emperor Paul, Edinoverie was established as a form of reunification of Old Believers with the Orthodox Church. The Old Believers, who wished to return to the Synodal Church, were allowed to serve according to the old books and observe the old rituals, among which the greatest importance was attached to double-fingering, but the services and services were performed by Orthodox clergy.

The priests, who did not want to make reconciliation with the official Church, created their own church. In 1846, they recognized as their head the retired Bosnian Archbishop Ambrose, who “dedicated” the first two “bishops” to the Old Believers. From them came the so-called Belokrinitsky hierarchy. The center of this Old Believer organization was the Belokrinitsky monastery in the town of Belaya Krinitsa in the Austrian Empire (now the territory of the Chernivtsi region, Ukraine). In 1853, the Moscow Old Believer Archdiocese was created, which became the second center of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy. Part of the community of priests, who began to be called fugitive popovism(they accepted “fugitive” priests - those who came to them from the Orthodox Church), did not recognize the Belokrinitsky hierarchy.

Soon, 12 dioceses of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy were established in Russia with the administrative center - an Old Believer settlement at the Rogozhskoye cemetery in Moscow. They began to call themselves the “Old Orthodox Church of Christ.”

In July 1856, by order of Emperor Alexander II, the police sealed the altars of the Intercession and Nativity Cathedrals of the Old Believer Rogozhskoe cemetery in Moscow. The reason was denunciations that liturgies were solemnly celebrated in churches, “seducing” the believers of the Synodal Church. Divine services were held in private prayer houses, in the houses of the capital's merchants and manufacturers.

On April 16, 1905, on the eve of Easter, a telegram from Nicholas II arrived in Moscow, allowing “to unseal the altars of the Old Believer chapels of the Rogozhsky cemetery.” The next day, April 17, the imperial “Decree on Tolerance” was promulgated, guaranteeing freedom of religion to the Old Believers.

The revolutionary events of the early twentieth century gave rise in the church environment to considerable concessions to the spirit of the times, which then penetrated into many church heads who did not notice the replacement of Orthodox conciliarity with Protestant democratization. The ideas that many Old Believers were obsessed with at the beginning of the twentieth century had a pronounced liberal-revolutionary character: “equalization of status”, “cancellation” of the decisions of the Councils, “the principle of electing all church and ministerial positions”, etc. - stamps of the emancipated time, reflected in a more radical form in the “widest democratization” and “widest access to the bosom of the Heavenly Father” of the renovationist schism. It is not surprising that these imaginary opposites (Old Believers and Renovationism), according to the law of dialectical development, soon converged in the synthesis of new Old Believer interpretations with renovationist false hierarchs at their head.

Here is one example. When the revolution broke out in Russia, new schismatics appeared in the Church - renovationists. One of them, the renovationist Archbishop of Saratov Nikolai (P.A. Pozdnev, 1853-1934), who was banned, became in 1923 the founder of the hierarchy of the “Old Orthodox Church” among the Beglopopovites who did not recognize the Belokrinitsky hierarchy. Its administrative center moved several times, and since 1963 it has settled in Novozybkov, Bryansk region, which is why they are also called "Novozybkovites"...

In 1929, the Patriarchal Holy Synod formulated three decrees:

- “On the recognition of old Russian rituals as salutary, like new rituals, and equal to them”;

- “On the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals, and especially to double-fingering”;

- “On the abolition of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667, imposed by them on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christians who adhere to them, and to consider these oaths as if they had not been.”

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church MP in 1971 approved three resolutions of the Synod of 1929. The Acts of the Council of 1971 end with the following words: “The Consecrated Local Council lovingly embraces all who sacredly preserve the ancient Russian rites, both members of our Holy Church and those who call themselves Old Believers, but sacredly professing the saving Orthodox faith."

The well-known church historian Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, speaking about the acceptance of this act of the Council of 1971, states: “After the act of the Council, filled with the spirit of Christian love and humility, the Old Believer communities did not take a counter step aimed at healing the schism, and continue to remain out of communion with the Church.” .

On May 23, 1666, by decision of the Council of the Holy Orthodox Church, Archpriest Avvakum Petrov was defrocked and anathematized. This event is considered the beginning of the church schism in Rus'.

Background of the event

The church reform of the 17th century, the authorship of which is traditionally attributed to Patriarch Nikon, was aimed at changing the ritual tradition that then existed in Moscow (the northeastern part of the Russian Church) in order to unify it with the modern Greek one. In fact, the reform did not affect anything other than the ritual side of worship and initially met with approval from both the sovereign himself and the highest church hierarchy.

During the reform, the liturgical tradition was changed in the following points:

1. Large-scale "bookish right", expressed in the editing of the texts of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, which led to changes in the wording of the Creed. The conjunction “a” was removed from the words about faith in the Son of God “born and not created”; they began to speak about the Kingdom of God in the future (“there will be no end”), and not in the present tense (“there will be no end”), from the definition properties of the Holy Spirit, the word “True” is excluded. Many other innovations were introduced into historical liturgical texts, for example, another letter was added to the name “Isus” (under the title “Ic”) - “Jesus”.
2. Replacing the two-finger sign of the cross with the three-finger one and abolishing “throwings”, or small prostrations to the ground.
3. Nikon ordered religious processions to be carried out in the opposite direction (against the sun, not in the direction of salt).
4. The exclamation “Hallelujah” during worship began to be pronounced not twice, but three times.
5. The number of prosphora on the proskomedia and the style of the seal on the prosphora have been changed.

However, the inherent harshness of Nikon's character, as well as the procedural incorrectness of the reform, caused discontent among a significant part of the clergy and laity. This discontent was largely fueled by personal hostility towards the patriarch, who was distinguished by his intolerance and ambition.

Speaking about the peculiarities of Nikon’s own religiosity, historian Nikolai Kostomarov noted:

“Having spent ten years as a parish priest, Nikon, involuntarily, assimilated all the roughness of the environment around him and carried it with him even to the patriarchal throne. In this respect, he was a completely Russian man of his time, and if he was truly pious, then in the old Russian sense. The piety of the Russian person consisted in the most accurate execution of external techniques, to which symbolic power was attributed, bestowing God's grace; and Nikon’s piety did not go far beyond ritual. The letter of worship leads to salvation; therefore, it is necessary that this letter be expressed as correctly as possible.”

Having the support of the tsar, who gave him the title of “great sovereign,” Nikon conducted the matter hastily, autocratically and abruptly, demanding the immediate abandonment of old rituals and the exact fulfillment of new ones. Old Russian rituals were ridiculed with inappropriate vehemence and harshness; Nikon's Grecophilism knew no bounds. But it was not based on admiration for Hellenistic culture and the Byzantine heritage, but on the provincialism of the patriarch, who unexpectedly emerged from ordinary people (“rags to riches”) and claimed the role of head of the universal Greek Church.

Moreover, Nikon showed outrageous ignorance, rejecting scientific knowledge, and hated “Hellenic wisdom.” For example, the patriarch wrote to the sovereign:

“Christ did not teach us dialectics or eloquence, because a rhetorician and philosopher cannot be a Christian. Unless someone from Christians drains from his own thoughts all external wisdom and all the memory of Hellenic philosophers, he cannot be saved. Hellenic wisdom is the mother of all evil dogmas.”

Even during his enthronement (assuming the position of patriarch), Nikon forced Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to promise not to interfere in the affairs of the Church. The king and the people swore to “listen to him in everything, as a leader and a shepherd and a most noble father.”

And in the future, Nikon was not at all shy in the methods of fighting his opponents. At the council of 1654, he publicly beat him, tore off his robe, and then, without a council decision, single-handedly deprived him of his see and exiled Bishop Pavel Kolomensky, an opponent of the liturgical reform. He was subsequently killed under unclear circumstances. Contemporaries, not without reason, believed that it was Nikon who sent hired killers to Pavel.

Throughout his patriarchate, Nikon constantly expressed dissatisfaction with the interference of the secular government in church governance. Particular protest was caused by the adoption of the Council Code of 1649, which belittled the status of the clergy, placing the Church virtually subordinate to the state. This violated the Symphony of Powers - the principle of cooperation between secular and spiritual authorities, described by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I, which the king and the patriarch initially sought to implement. For example, income from monastic estates passed to the Monastic Prikaz created within the framework of the Code, i.e. no longer went to the needs of the Church, but to the state treasury.

It is difficult to say what exactly became the main “stumbling block” in the quarrel between Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon. Today, all the known reasons look ridiculous and are more reminiscent of a conflict between two children in a kindergarten - “don’t play with my toys and don’t pee in my potty!” But we should not forget that Alexei Mikhailovich, according to many historians, was a rather progressive ruler. For his time, he was known as an educated man, and, moreover, well mannered. Perhaps the matured sovereign was simply tired of the whims and antics of the dork-patriarch. In his quest to govern the state, Nikon lost all sense of proportion: he challenged the decisions of the tsar and the Boyar Duma, loved to create public scandals, and showed open disobedience to Alexei Mikhailovich and his close boyars.

“You see, sir,” those dissatisfied with the patriarch’s autocracy turned to Alexei Mikhailovich, “that he loved to stand high and ride wide. This patriarch rules instead of the Gospel with reeds, instead of a cross with axes...”

According to one version, after another quarrel with the patriarch, Alexei Mikhailovich forbade him to “be written as a great sovereign.” Nikon was mortally offended. On July 10, 1658, without renouncing the primacy of the Russian Orthodox Church, he took off his patriarchal hood and voluntarily retired on foot to the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery, which he himself founded in 1656 and was his personal property. The Patriarch hoped that the king would quickly repent of his behavior and call him back, but this did not happen. In 1666, Nikon was officially deprived of the patriarchate and monasticism, convicted and exiled under strict supervision to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. Secular power triumphed over spiritual power. The Old Believers thought that their time was returning, but they were mistaken - since the reform fully met the interests of the state, it began to be carried out further, only under the leadership of the tsar.

The council of 1666-1667 completed the triumph of the Nikonians and Grecophiles. The Council overturned the decisions of the Stoglavy Council of 1551, recognizing that Macarius and other Moscow hierarchs “recklessly practiced their ignorance.” It was the council of 1666-1667, at which the zealots of the old Moscow piety were anathematized, that marked the beginning of the Russian schism. From now on, all those who disagreed with the introduction of new details in the performance of rituals were subject to excommunication. They were called schismatics, or Old Believers, and were subjected to severe repression by the authorities.

Split

Meanwhile, the movement for the “old faith” (Old Believers) began long before the Council. It arose during the patriarchate of Nikon, immediately after the beginning of the “right” of church books and represented, first of all, resistance to the methods by which the patriarch implanted Greek scholarship “from above.” As many famous historians and researchers noted (N. Kostomarov, V. Klyuchevsky, A. Kartashev, etc.), the split in Russian society of the 17th century actually represented a opposition between “spirit” and “intellect,” true faith and book learning, and national self-awareness and state arbitrariness.

The consciousness of the Russian people was not prepared for the drastic changes in rituals that were carried out by the church under the leadership of Nikon. For the absolute majority of the country's population, for many centuries the Christian faith consisted, first of all, in the ritual side and fidelity to church traditions. The priests themselves sometimes did not understand the essence and root causes of the reform being carried out, and, of course, no one bothered to explain anything to them. And was it possible to explain the essence of the changes to the broad masses, when the clergy themselves in the villages did not have much literacy, being flesh and blood of the same peasants? There was no targeted propaganda of new ideas at all.

Therefore, the lower classes met the innovations with hostility. Old books were often not given back, they were hidden. The peasants fled with their families into the forests, hiding from Nikon’s “new products”. Sometimes local parishioners did not give away old books, so in some places they used force, fights broke out, ending not only in injuries or bruises, but also in murders. The aggravation of the situation was facilitated by learned “inquirers”, who sometimes knew the Greek language perfectly, but did not speak Russian to an insufficient extent. Instead of grammatically correcting the old text, they gave new translations from Greek, slightly different from the old ones, increasing the already strong irritation among the peasant masses.

Patriarch Paisius of Constantinople addressed Nikon with a special message, where, approving the reform being carried out in Rus', he called on the Moscow Patriarch to soften measures in relation to people who do not want to accept “new things” now.

Even Paisius agreed to the existence in some areas and regions of local peculiarities of worship, as long as the faith was the same. However, in Constantinople they did not understand the main characteristic feature of the Russian person: if you prohibit (or allow) everything and everyone is obligatory. The rulers of destinies in the history of our country found the principle of the “golden mean” very, very rarely.

The initial opposition to Nikon and his “innovations” arose among church hierarchs and the boyars close to the court. The “Old Believers” were led by Bishop Pavel of Kolomna and Kashirsky. He was beaten publicly by Nikon at the council of 1654 and exiled to the Paleostrovsky monastery. After the exile and death of Bishop Kolomna, the movement for the “old faith” was led by several clergy: archpriests Avvakum, Loggin of Murom and Daniil of Kostroma, priest Lazar Romanovsky, priest Nikita Dobrynin, nicknamed Pustosvyat, and others. In a secular environment, the undoubted leaders of the Old Believers can be considered noblewoman Theodosya Morozova and her sister Evdokia Urusova - close relatives of the empress herself.

Avvakum Petrov

Archpriest Avvakum Petrov (Avvakum Petrovich Kondratyev), who was once a friend of the future Patriarch Nikon, is rightfully considered one of the most prominent “leaders” of the schismatic movement. Just like Nikon, Avvakum came from the “lower classes” of the people. He first was the parish priest of the village of Lopatitsy, Makaryevsky district, Nizhny Novgorod province, then the archpriest in Yuryevets-Povolsky. Already here Avvakum showed his rigorism, which did not know the slightest concession, which subsequently made his whole life a chain of continuous torment and persecution. The priest's active intolerance to any deviations from the canons of the Orthodox faith more than once led him into conflicts with the local secular authorities and flock. She forced Avvakum to flee, leaving the parish, to seek protection in Moscow, with his friends who were close to the court: the archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral Ivan Neronov, the royal confessor Stefan Vonifatiev and Patriarch Nikon himself. In 1653, Avvakum, who took part in the work of collating spiritual books, quarreled with Nikon and became one of the first victims of the Nikonian reform. The patriarch, using violence, tried to force the archpriest to accept his ritual innovations, but he refused. The characters of Nikon and his opponent Avvakum were in many ways similar. The harshness and intolerance with which the patriarch fought for his reform initiatives collided with the same intolerance towards everything “new” in the person of his opponent. The Patriarch wanted to cut off the rebellious clergyman’s hair, but the queen stood up for Avvakum. The matter ended with the archpriest's exile to Tobolsk.

In Tobolsk the same story was repeated as in Lopatitsy and Yuryevets-Povolsky: Avvakum again had a conflict with the local authorities and flock. Publicly rejecting Nikon's church reform, Avvakum gained fame as an “irreconcilable fighter” and the spiritual leader of all those who disagree with Nikonian innovations.

After Nikon lost his influence, Avvakum was returned to Moscow, brought closer to the court and treated kindly by the sovereign himself in every possible way. But soon Alexei Mikhailovich realized that the archpriest was not at all the personal enemy of the deposed patriarch. Habakkuk was a principled opponent of church reform, and, therefore, an opponent of the authorities and the state in this matter. In 1664, the archpriest submitted a harsh petition to the tsar, in which he insistently demanded that the reform of the church be curtailed and a return to the old ritual tradition. For this he was exiled to Mizen, where he stayed for a year and a half, continuing his preaching and supporting his followers scattered throughout Russia. In his messages, Avvakum called himself “a slave and messenger of Jesus Christ,” “a proto-Singelian of the Russian church.”

Burning of Archpriest Avvakum, Old Believer icon

In 1666, Avvakum was brought to Moscow, where on May 13 (23), after futile exhortations at the cathedral that had gathered to try Nikon, he was stripped of his hair and “cursed” in the Assumption Cathedral at mass. In response to this, the archpriest immediately declared that he himself would impose an anathema on all bishops who adhered to the Nikonian rite. After this, the disrobed archpriest was taken to the Pafnutiev Monastery and there, “locked in a dark tent, chained, and kept for almost a year.”

Avvakum's defrocking was met with great indignation among the people, and in many boyar houses, and even at court, where the queen, who interceded for him, had a “great disturbance” with the tsar on the day of his defrocking.

Avvakum was again persuaded in the face of the Eastern patriarchs in the Chudov Monastery (“you are stubborn; all of our Palestine, and Serbia, and Albans, and Wallachians, and Romans, and Lyakhs, all of them cross themselves with three fingers; you alone stand on your stubbornness and cross yourself with two fingers; that’s not proper”), but he firmly stood his ground.

At this time, his comrades were executed. Avvakum was punished with a whip and exiled to Pustozersk on Pechora. At the same time, his tongue was not cut out, like Lazarus and Epiphanius, with whom he and Nikifor, the archpriest of Simbirsk, were exiled to Pustozersk.

For 14 years he sat on bread and water in an earthen prison in Pustozersk, continuing his preaching, sending out letters and messages. Finally, his harsh letter to Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, in which he criticized Alexei Mikhailovich and scolded Patriarch Joachim, decided the fate of both him and his comrades: they were all burned in Pustozersk.

In most Old Believer churches and communities, Avvakum is revered as a martyr and confessor. In 1916, the Old Believer Church of Belokrinitsky Consent canonized Avvakum as a saint.

Solovetsky seat

At the church council of 1666-1667, one of the leaders of the Solovetsky schismatics, Nikandr, chose a different line of behavior than Avvakum. He feigned agreement with the resolutions of the council and received permission to return to the monastery. However, upon his return, he threw off the Greek hood, put on the Russian one again and became the head of the monastery brethren. The famous “Solovetsky Petition” was sent to the Tsar, setting out the credo of the old faith. In another petition, the monks directly challenged secular authorities: “Command, sir, to send your royal sword against us and to transfer us from this rebellious life to a serene and eternal life.”

S. M. Solovyov wrote: “The monks challenged the worldly authorities to a difficult struggle, presenting themselves as defenseless victims, bowing their heads under the royal sword without resistance. But when in 1668, solicitor Ignatius Volokhov appeared under the walls of the monastery with a hundred archers, instead of submissively bowing his heads under the sword, he was met with shots. It was impossible for an insignificant detachment like Volokhov’s to defeat the besieged, who had strong walls, plenty of supplies, and 90 cannons.”

The “Solovetsky Sitting” (the siege of the monastery by government troops) dragged on for eight years (1668 - 1676). At first, the authorities could not send large forces to the White Sea due to the movement of Stenka Razin. After the revolt was suppressed, a large detachment of riflemen appeared under the walls of the Solovetsky Monastery, and shelling of the monastery began. The besieged responded with well-aimed shots, and Abbot Nikander sprinkled the cannons with holy water and said: “My mother galanochki! We have hope in you, you will defend us!”

But in the besieged monastery, disagreements soon began between moderates and supporters of decisive action. Most of the monks hoped for reconciliation with the royal power. The minority, led by Nikander, and the lay people - the “Beltsy”, led by the centurions Voronin and Samko, demanded “to leave the prayer for the great sovereign,” and about the tsar himself they said such words that “it’s scary not only to write, but even to think.” The monastery stopped confessing, receiving communion, and refused to recognize priests. These disagreements predetermined the fall of the Solovetsky Monastery. The archers were unable to take it by storm, but the defector monk Theoktist showed them a hole in the wall blocked with stones. On the night of January 22, 1676, during a heavy snowstorm, the archers dismantled the stones and entered the monastery. The defenders of the monastery died in an unequal battle. Some of the instigators of the uprising were executed, others were sent into exile.

Results

The immediate cause of the Schism was the book reform and minor changes in some rituals. However, the real, serious reasons lay much deeper, rooted in the foundations of Russian religious identity, as well as in the foundations of the emerging relations between society, the state and the Orthodox Church.

In domestic historiography dedicated to Russian events in the second half of the 17th century, there has not been a clear opinion either about the causes, or about the results and consequences of such a phenomenon as the Schism. Church historians (A. Kartashev and others) tend to see the main reason for this phenomenon in the policies and actions of Patriarch Nikon himself. The fact that Nikon used church reform, first of all, to strengthen his own power, in their opinion, led to a conflict between church and state. This conflict first resulted in a confrontation between the patriarch and the monarch, and then, after the elimination of Nikon, it split the entire society into two warring camps.

The methods by which church reform was carried out aroused open rejection by the masses and most of the clergy.

To eliminate the unrest that arose in the country, the Council of 1666-1667 was convened. This council condemned Nikon himself, but recognized his reforms, because at that time they corresponded to state goals and objectives. The same Council of 1666-1667 summoned the main propagators of the Schism to its meetings and cursed their beliefs as “alien to spiritual reason and common sense.” Some schismatics obeyed the exhortations of the Church and repented of their errors. Others remained irreconcilable. The definition of the council, which in 1667 placed an oath on those who, due to adherence to uncorrected books and supposedly old customs, are opponents of the church, decisively separated the followers of these errors from the church flock, effectively placing these people outside the law.

The split troubled the state life of Rus' for a long time. The siege of the Solovetsky Monastery lasted for eight years (1668 – 1676). Six years later, a schismatic revolt arose in Moscow itself, where the archers under the command of Prince Khovansky took the side of the Old Believers. The debate on faith, at the request of the rebels, was held right in the Kremlin in the presence of the ruler Sofia Alekseevna and the patriarch. The Sagittarius, however, stood on the side of the schismatics for only one day. The very next morning they confessed to the princess and handed over the instigators. The leader of the Old Believers of the populist Nikita Pustosvyat and Prince Khovansky, who were plotting to raise a new schismatic rebellion, were executed.

This is where the direct political consequences of the Schism end, although schismatic unrest continues to flare up here and there for a long time - throughout the vast expanses of the Russian land. The split ceases to be a factor in the political life of the country, but like a spiritual wound that does not heal, it leaves its mark on the entire further course of Russian life.

The confrontation between “spirit” and “common sense” ends in favor of the latter already at the beginning of the new 18th century. The expulsion of schismatics into deep forests, the worship of the church before the state, and the leveling of its role in the era of Peter’s reforms ultimately led to the fact that the church under Peter I became just a state institution (one of the collegiums). In the 19th century, it completely lost its influence on educated society, while at the same time discrediting itself in the eyes of the broad masses. The split between church and society deepened further, causing the emergence of numerous sects and religious movements calling for the abandonment of traditional Orthodoxy. L.N. Tolstoy, one of the most progressive thinkers of his time, created his own teaching, which gained many followers (“Tolstoyites”) who rejected the church and the entire ritual side of worship. In the 20th century, a complete restructuring of public consciousness and the destruction of the old state machine, to which the Orthodox Church one way or another belonged, led to repression and persecution of clergy, widespread destruction of churches, and made possible the bloody orgy of militant “atheism” of the Soviet era...

Split of the Russian Orthodox Church

Church schism - in the 1650s - 1660s. a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church due to the reform of Patriarch Nikon, which consisted of liturgical and ritual innovations that were aimed at introducing changes into liturgical books and rituals in order to unify them with modern Greek ones.

Background

One of the most profound sociocultural upheavals in the state was the church schism. In the early 50s of the 17th century in Moscow, a circle of “zealots of piety” formed among the highest clergy, whose members wanted to eliminate various church disorders and unify worship throughout the vast territory of the state. The first step had already been taken: the Church Council of 1651, under pressure from the sovereign, introduced unanimous church singing. Now it was necessary to make a choice of what to follow in church reforms: our own Russian tradition or someone else’s.

This choice was made in the context of an internal church conflict that had already emerged in the late 1640s, caused by the struggle of Patriarch Joseph with increasing Ukrainian and Greek borrowings initiated by the sovereign’s entourage.

Church schism - causes, consequences

The Church, which strengthened its position after the Time of Troubles, tried to take a dominant position in the political system of the state. The desire of Patriarch Nikon to strengthen his position of power, to concentrate in his hands not only church, but also secular power. But in conditions of strengthening autocracy, this caused a conflict between church and secular authorities. The defeat of the church in this clash paved the way for its transformation into an appendage of state power.

The innovations in church rituals begun in 1652 by Patriarch Nikon and the correction of Orthodox books according to the Greek model led to a split in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Key dates

The main reason for the split was the reforms of Patriarch Nikon (1633–1656).
Nikon (worldly name - Nikita Minov) enjoyed unlimited influence on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
1649 – Appointment of Nikon as Metropolitan of Novgorod
1652 – Nikon elected patriarch
1653 – Church reform
As a result of the reform:
– Correction of church books in accordance with the “Greek” canons;
– Changes in the rituals of the Russian Orthodox Church;
– Introduction of three fingers during the sign of the cross.
1654 – Patriarchal reform was approved at a church council
1656 – Excommunication of opponents of the reform
1658 – Nikon’s abdication of the patriarchate
1666 - Nikon's deposition at a church council
1667–1676 – Revolt of the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery.
Failure to accept the reforms led to a division into supporters of the reforms (Nikonians) and opponents (schismatics or Old Believers), as a result - the emergence of many movements and churches.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon

Election of Metropolitan Nikon to Patriarchate

1652 - after the death of Joseph, the Kremlin clergy and the tsar wanted Novgorod Metropolitan Nikon to take his place: Nikon’s character and views seemed to belong to a man who was capable of leading the church and ritual reform conceived by the sovereign and his confessor. But Nikon gave his consent to become patriarch only after much persuasion from Alexei Mikhailovich and on the condition that there were no restrictions on his patriarchal power. And such restrictions were created by the Monastic Order.

Nikon had great influence on the young sovereign, who considered the patriarch his closest friend and assistant. Departing from the capital, the tsar transferred control not to the boyar commission, as was previously customary, but to the care of Nikon. He was allowed to be called not only the patriarch, but also the “sovereign of all Rus'.” Having taken such an extraordinary position in power, Nikon began to abuse it, seize foreign lands for his monasteries, humiliate the boyars, and deal harshly with the clergy. He was not so interested in reform as in establishing strong patriarchal power, for which the power of the Pope served as a model.

Nikon reform

1653 - Nikon began to implement the reform, which he intended to carry out focusing on Greek models as more ancient. In fact, he reproduced contemporary Greek models and copied the Ukrainian reform of Peter Mohyla. The transformations of the Church had foreign policy implications: a new role for Russia and the Russian Church on the world stage. Counting on the annexation of the Kyiv Metropolis, the Russian authorities thought about creating a single Church. This required similarities in church practice between Kiev and Moscow, while they should have been guided by the Greek tradition. Of course, Patriarch Nikon did not need differences, but uniformity with the Kyiv Metropolis, which should become part of the Moscow Patriarchate. He tried in every possible way to develop the ideas of Orthodox universalism.

Church cathedral. 1654 The beginning of the split. A. Kivshenko

Innovations

But many of Nikon’s supporters, while not against the reform as such, preferred its other development - based on ancient Russian, rather than Greek and Ukrainian church traditions. As a result of the reform, the traditional Russian two-fingered consecration of oneself with a cross was replaced by a three-fingered one, the spelling “Isus” was changed to “Jesus”, the exclamation “Hallelujah!” proclaimed three times, not twice. Other words and figures of speech were introduced in prayers, psalms and Creeds, and some changes were made in the order of worship. The correction of the liturgical books was carried out by inspectors at the Printing Yard using Greek and Ukrainian books. The Church Council of 1656 decided to publish the revised Breviary and Service Book, the most important liturgical books for every priest.

Among different segments of the population there were those who refused to recognize the reform: it could mean that the Russian Orthodox custom, which their ancestors had adhered to since ancient times, was flawed. Given the great commitment of the Orthodox to the ritual side of the faith, it was its change that was perceived very painfully. After all, as contemporaries believed, only the exact execution of the ritual made it possible to create contact with sacred forces. “I will die for a single Az”! (that is, for changing at least one letter in the sacred texts), exclaimed the ideological leader of adherents of the old order, Old Believers, and a former member of the circle of “zealots of piety.”

Old Believers

The Old Believers initially fiercely resisted the reform. The boyars' wives and E. Urusova spoke out in defense of the old faith. The Solovetsky Monastery, which did not recognize the reform, resisted the tsarist troops besieging it for more than 8 years (1668 - 1676) and was taken only as a result of betrayal. Because of the innovations, a schism appeared not only in the Church, but also in society; it was accompanied by infighting, executions and suicides, and intense polemical struggle. The Old Believers formed a special type of religious culture with a sacred attitude to the written word, with loyalty to antiquity and an unfriendly attitude towards everything worldly, with belief in the imminent end of the world and with a hostile attitude towards power - both secular and ecclesiastical.

At the end of the 17th century, the Old Believers were divided into two main movements - the Bespopovtsy and the Popovtsy. The Bespopovites, not finding the possibility of establishing their own bishopric as a result, could not supply priests. As a result, based on the ancient canonical rules about the permissibility of the laity performing the sacraments in extreme situations, they began to reject the need for priests and the entire church hierarchy and began to choose spiritual mentors from among themselves. Over time, many Old Believer doctrines (trends) were formed. Some of whom, in anticipation of the imminent end of the world, subjected themselves to “fiery baptism,” that is, self-immolation. They realized that if their community was captured by the sovereign's troops, they would be burned at the stake as heretics. In the event of troops approaching, they preferred to burn themselves in advance, without deviating in any way from their faith, and thereby save their souls.

Patriarch Nikon's break with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

Nikon's deprivation of patriarchal rank

1658 - Patriarch Nikon, as a result of a disagreement with the sovereign, announced that he would no longer fulfill the duties of church head, took off his patriarchal vestments and retired to his beloved New Jerusalem Monastery. He believed that requests from the palace for his speedy return would not be long in coming. However, this did not happen: even if the conscientious tsar regretted what had happened, his entourage no longer wanted to put up with such a comprehensive and aggressive patriarchal power, which, as Nikon put it, was higher than the royal one, “like heaven is higher than earth.” Whose power in reality turned out to be more significant was demonstrated by subsequent events.

Alexei Mikhailovich, who accepted the ideas of Orthodox universalism, could no longer defrock the patriarch (as was constantly done in the Russian local church). The focus on Greek rules confronted him with the need to convene an ecumenical Church Council. Based on the stable recognition of the falling away from the true faith of the Roman See, the Ecumenical Council was to consist of Orthodox patriarchs. All of them took part in the cathedral in one way or another. 1666 - such a council condemned Nikon and deprived him of the patriarchal rank. Nikon was exiled to the Ferapontov Monastery, and later transferred to more harsh conditions in Solovki.

At the same time, the council approved church reform and ordered the persecution of Old Believers. Archpriest Avvakum was deprived of the priesthood, cursed and sent to Siberia, where his tongue was cut off. There he wrote many works, and from here he sent messages throughout the state. 1682 - he was executed.

But Nikon’s aspirations to make the clergy beyond the jurisdiction of secular authorities found sympathy among many hierarchs. At the Church Council of 1667 they managed to achieve the destruction of the Monastery Order.

What is this connected with? Remember there was one schismatic Nikon, the second campaign will be Gundyaev. What is the essence of the problem? Everyone remembers such sayings on the seven hills, seven-headed, etc. associated with the number seven. There is even such a religious holiday - the Memory of the Holy Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Our Church separately celebrates the memory of the Holy Fathers of each Ecumenical Council.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils are the formation of the Church, its dogmas, and the definition of the foundations of Christian doctrine. Therefore, it is very important that in the most secret, dogmatic, legislative issues, the Church has never taken the opinion of one person as the highest authority. It was determined, and to this day it remains so, that the authority in the Church is considered to be the conciliar reason of the Church.

The First Ecumenical Council was convened in 325 in the city of Nicaea under Emperor Constantine the Great. At this Council, the heresy of Arius, who rejected the Divinity and the eternal birth of the Son of God, was condemned and rejected. The Council approved the immutable truth - the dogma that the Son of God is the true God, born of God the Father before all ages and is as eternal as God the Father; He is begotten, not created, and is of one essence with God the Father. So that all Orthodox Christians could accurately know the true doctrine of faith, it was clearly and concisely set forth in the first seven articles of the Creed. The council was attended by 318 bishops, among whom were Saints Nicholas the Wonderworker, Spyridon of Trimifuntsky, Athanasius the Great and others. The Second Ecumenical Council was convened in 381 in Constantinople under Emperor Theodosius the Great, against the false teaching of Macedonius, who rejected the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. This heresy was condemned and rejected at the Council. The Council also added five members to the Nicene Creed, which set out the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the church, the sacraments, the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next age. Thus, the Niceno-Tsaregrad Creed was compiled, which serves as a guide for the church. This council was attended by 150 bishops, among whom were Saints Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem and others. The Third Ecumenical Council was convened in 431 in Ephesus under Emperor Theodosius II the Younger against the false teaching of Nestorius, who wickedly taught that the Most Holy Theotokos gave birth to the simple man Christ, with whom God later united morally and dwelt in Him as in a temple. The Council condemned and rejected this heresy and decided to confess Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect Man, and the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. 200 bishops were present at the council. The Fourth Ecumenical Council was convened in 451 in Chalcedon under the emperor Marcian, against the false teaching of Eutyches, who rejected human nature in the Lord Jesus Christ. This false teaching is called Monophysitism. The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Eutyches. 650 bishops were present at the council. The Fifth Ecumenical Council was convened in 553 in Constantinople under Emperor Justinian I over disputes between the followers of Nestorius and Eutyches, the subject of which were the writings of three teachers of the Syrian Church - Theodore of Mopsuet, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa, in which Nestorian errors were clearly expressed. The Council condemned all three works and Theodore of Mopsuet himself as unrepentant. 165 bishops were present at the council. The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened in 630 in Constantinople under Emperor Constantine Pogonatus against the false teachings of the Monothelites heretics, who recognized in Jesus Christ only one Divine will. The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of the Monothelites. 170 bishops were present at the Council. The Seventh Ecumenical Council was convened in 787 in Nicaea under Empress Irene against the iconoclastic heresy that arose 60 years before the Council under the Greek emperor Leo the Isaurian. The Council condemned and rejected the iconoclastic heresy and determined that holy icons should be placed in holy churches along with the image of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross of the Lord. At this Council, the holiday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was established, which is celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent. 367 fathers were present at the council. http://hram-troicy.prihod.ru/pravoslavnye_prazdniki/view/id/...

The era of Ecumenical Councils ends with the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787.

Now the new leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church plans to organize a new 8th Ecumenical Council in Istanbul on June 16, 2016. There has already been a meeting between the Pope and the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which in itself is already an element of ecumenism. What do the prophecies say about this, and there are a lot of them about this council; they call it the wolf, the Antichrist, etc. “The Eighth Council will be wicked. The Antichrist will not allow you to sing “I Believe.” The bird will fly past, he will order it: “At my feet,” and without breaking the wall, it will fall at his feet. And then many will immediately bow to him, but not all. Many Orthodox priests will bow when they see a miracle. At the eighth council there will be a rainbow around him. He will show his strength again, and then many will bow to him. And whoever of the priests does not bow will immediately kill him.” Archpriest Nikolai Ragozin.

“The Eighth Ecumenical Council will no longer be Orthodox; the Antichrist will secretly be present at it. There will be only three Orthodox (bishops) in the Holy Synod, the rest will greet the Antichrist with open arms” Hegumen Gury.

“The eighth ecumenical council is planned. If this happens, then after the council it will no longer be possible to go to churches, grace will go away. If the council takes place, then China will attack Russia...” Elder Adrian.

“The end times are coming. Soon there will be an ecumenical Council called “holy”. But this will be the same “eighth council, which will be a gathering of the godless.” On it all faiths will unite into one. Then all posts will be abolished, monasticism will be completely destroyed, bishops will be married. The New Calendar will be introduced in the Universal Church. Be carefull. Try to visit God's temples while they are still ours. Soon it will be impossible to go there, everything will change. Only a select few will see this. People will be forced to go to church, but we will not have to go there under any circumstances. I pray you, stand in the Orthodox faith until the end of your days and be saved!” Rev. Kuksha (Velichko, 1875-11/24.12.1964).

“... soon all /religions/ will unite... ...before the end, but not the end. This is more like the beginning. The beginning of irreversibility, the countdown will begin. And if we call it the end, then it’s the end of the flow of the usual world order.” http://www.proza.ru/2012/12/26/1509

If the Pan-Orthodox Council takes place, and without the Russian Orthodox Church MP it cannot take place, then... there will be the most severe punishment of the Orthodox people!

Therefore, I wrote more than once about a possible 3rd World War, a Chinese attack on Russia, etc., as the prophecies began to come true. So the 8th Dog Council was appointed for this year 2016. God already has (will) have a reason to punish the Orthodox with universal grief.

Church ritual reform (in particular, the correction of accumulated errors in liturgical books), undertaken with the aim of strengthening the church organization. The reform caused a split in the church.

NIKON

After the end of the Time of Troubles, under Mikhail and Alexei Romanov, foreign innovations began to penetrate into all external spheres of Russian life: blades were cast from Swedish metal, the Dutch set up iron factories, brave German soldiers marched near the Kremlin, a Scots officer taught Russian recruits the European system, the fryags performed performances. Some Russians (even the Tsar's children), looking in Venetian mirrors, tried on foreign costumes, someone created an atmosphere like in the German Settlement...

But was the soul affected by these innovations? No, for the most part, Russian people remained the same zealots of Moscow antiquity, “faith and piety,” as their great-grandfathers were. Moreover, these were very self-confident zealots, who said that “Old Rome fell from heresies. The Second Rome was captured by the godless Turks, Rus' - the Third Rome, which alone remained the custodian of the true faith of Christ!

To Moscow in the 17th century. The authorities increasingly called for “spiritual teachers” - the Greeks, but part of society looked down on them: weren’t it the Greeks who cowardly concluded a union with the Pope in Florence in 1439? No, there is no other pure Orthodoxy other than Russian, and there never will be.

Due to these ideas, the Russians did not feel an “inferiority complex” in front of a more learned, skilled and comfortable foreigner, but they were afraid that these German water-cocking machines, Polish books, together with the “flattering Greeks and Kyivians” would not touch the very foundations of life and faith .

In 1648, before the Tsar’s wedding, they were worried: Alexei had been “learned German” and now he would force him to shave his beard in German, force him to pray in a German church - the end of piety and antiquity, the end of the world was coming.

The king got married. The salt riot of 1648 ended. Not everyone kept their heads, but everyone had beards. However, the tension did not subside. A war broke out with Poland over the Orthodox Little Russian and Belarusian brothers. The victories inspired, the hardships of the war irritated and ruined, the common people grumbled and fled. Tension, suspicion, and expectation of something inevitable grew.

And at such a time, Alexei Mikhailovich’s “son’s friend” Nikon, whom the tsar called “the chosen and strong-standing shepherd, the mentor of souls and bodies, the beloved favorite and comrade, the sun shining throughout the entire universe...”, who became patriarch in 1652, conceived church reforms.

UNIVERSAL CHURCH

Nikon was completely absorbed in the idea of ​​the superiority of spiritual power over secular power, which was embodied in the idea of ​​the Universal Church.

1. The Patriarch was convinced that the world is divided into two spheres: universal (general), eternal, and private, temporary.

2. The universal, the eternal, is more important than everything private and temporary.

3. The Moscow state, like any state, is private.

4. The unification of all Orthodox churches - the Universal Church - is what is closest to God, what personifies the eternal on earth.

5. Everything that does not agree with the eternal, universal must be abolished.

6. Who is higher - the patriarch or the secular ruler? For Nikon this question did not exist. The Patriarch of Moscow is one of the patriarchs of the Ecumenical Church, therefore, his power is higher than the royal one.

When Nikon was reproached for papism, he replied: “Why not honor the pope for good?” Alexei Mikhailovich was apparently partly captivated by the reasoning of his powerful “friend.” The Tsar granted the Patriarch the title of “Great Sovereign.” This was a royal title, and among the patriarchs only Alexei’s own grandfather, Filaret Romanov, bore it.

The Patriarch was a zealot of true Orthodoxy. Considering Greek and Old Slavonic books to be the primary sources of Orthodox truths (for from there Rus' took the faith), Nikon decided to compare the rituals and liturgical customs of the Moscow church with the Greek ones.

And what? Novelty in the rituals and customs of the Moscow Church, which considered itself the only true church of Christ, was everywhere. The Muscovites wrote “Isus”, not “Jesus”, served the liturgy on seven, and not on five, like the Greeks, prosphoras, were baptized with 2 fingers, personifying God the Father and God the Son, and all other Eastern Christians made the sign of the cross with 3 fingers (“pinch”), personifying God the father, son and Holy Spirit. On Mount Athos, one Russian pilgrim monk, by the way, was almost killed as a heretic for two-fingered baptism. And the patriarch found many more discrepancies. In various areas, local service characteristics have developed. The Holy Council of 1551 recognized some of the local differences as all-Russian. With the beginning of printing in the second half of the 16th century. they have become widespread.

Nikon came from peasants, and with peasant straightforwardness he declared war on the differences between the Moscow Church and the Greek.

1. In 1653, Nikon sent out a decree ordering one to be baptized “with a pinch,” and also informing how many prostrations it is correct to make before reading the famous prayer of St. Ephraim.

2. Then the patriarch attacked the icon painters who began to use Western European painting techniques.

3. It was ordered to print “Jesus” in the new books, and Greek liturgical rites and chants according to the “Kievan canons” were introduced.

4. Following the example of the Eastern clergy, priests began to read sermons of their own composition, and the patriarch himself set the tone here.

5. Russian handwritten and printed books on divine services were ordered to be taken to Moscow for inspection. If discrepancies with the Greek ones were found, the books were destroyed and new ones were sent out in return.

The Holy Council of 1654, with the participation of the Tsar and the Boyar Duma, approved all of Nikon’s undertakings. The patriarch “blowed away” everyone who tried to argue. Thus, Bishop Pavel of Kolomna, who objected at the Council of 1654, was defrocked, severely beaten, and exiled without a council trial. He went crazy from humiliation and soon died.

Nikon was furious. In 1654, in the absence of the tsar, the patriarch's people forcibly broke into the houses of Moscow residents - townspeople, merchants, nobles and even boyars. They took icons of “heretical writing” from the “red corners,” gouged out the eyes of the images and carried their mutilated faces through the streets, reading a decree that threatened with excommunication for everyone who painted and kept such icons. “Faulty” icons were burned.

SPLIT

Nikon fought against innovations, thinking that they could cause discord among the people. However, it was his reforms that caused a split, since part of the Moscow people perceived them as innovations that encroached on faith. The church split into “Nikonians” (the church hierarchy and the majority of believers accustomed to obey) and “Old Believers.”

The Old Believers hid books. Secular and spiritual authorities persecuted them. From persecution, zealots of the old faith fled to the forests, united into communities, and founded monasteries in the wilderness. The Solovetsky Monastery, which did not recognize Nikonianism, was under siege for seven years (1668-1676), until the governor Meshcherikov took it and hanged all the rebels.

The leaders of the Old Believers, Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel, wrote petitions to the Tsar, but, seeing that Alexei did not defend the “old times,” they announced the imminent arrival of the end of the world, because the Antichrist had appeared in Russia. The king and the patriarch are “his two horns.” Only the martyrs of the old faith will be saved. The preaching of “purification by fire” was born. The schismatics locked themselves in churches with their entire families and burned themselves so as not to serve the Antichrist. The Old Believers captured all segments of the population - from peasants to boyars.

Boyarina Morozova (Sokovina) Fedosia Prokopyevna (1632-1675) gathered schismatics around her, corresponded with Archpriest Avvakum, and sent him money. In 1671 she was arrested, but neither torture nor persuasion forced her to renounce her beliefs. In the same year, the noblewoman, shackled in iron, was taken to captivity in Borovsk (this moment is captured in the painting “Boyaryna Morozova” by V. Surikov).

The Old Believers considered themselves Orthodox and did not disagree with the Orthodox Church in any dogma of faith. Therefore, the patriarch did not call them heretics, but only schismatics.

Church Council 1666-1667 He cursed the schismatics for their disobedience. The zealots of the old faith ceased to recognize the church that excommunicated them. The split has not been overcome to this day.

Did Nikon regret what he did? May be. At the end of his patriarchate, in a conversation with Ivan Neronov, the former leader of the schismatics, Nikon said: “both old and new books are good; no matter what you want, that’s how you serve...”

But the church could no longer give in to the rebellious rebels, and they could no longer forgive the church, which had encroached on the “holy faith and antiquity.”

OPALA

What was the fate of Nikon himself?

The great sovereign Patriarch Nikon sincerely believed that his power was higher than the royal one. Relationships with the soft and compliant - but to a certain limit! - Alexei Mikhailovich became tense, until, finally, grievances and mutual claims ended in a quarrel. Nikon retired to New Jerusalem (Resurrection Monastery), hoping that Alexei would beg him to return. Time passed... The king was silent. The Patriarch sent him an irritated letter, in which he reported how bad everything was in the Muscovite kingdom. The patience of the Quiet King was not unlimited, and no one could subordinate him to their influence to the end.

Did the patriarch expect that they would beg him to return? But Nikon is not and is not the sovereign of Moscow. Cathedral 1666-1667 with the participation of two eastern patriarchs, he anathematized (cursed) the Old Believers and at the same time deprived Nikon of his rank for his unauthorized departure from the patriarchate. Nikon was exiled north to the Ferapontov Monastery.

In the Ferapontov Monastery, Nikon treated the sick and sent the king a list of those cured. But in general, he was bored in the northern monastery, as all strong and enterprising people who are deprived of an active field are bored. The resourcefulness and wit that distinguished Nikon in a good mood were often replaced by a feeling of offended irritation. Then Nikon could no longer distinguish real grievances from those invented by him. Klyuchevsky related the following incident. The tsar sent warm letters and gifts to the former patriarch. One day, from the royal bounty, a whole convoy of expensive fish arrived at the monastery - sturgeon, salmon, sturgeon, etc. “Nikon responded with a reproach to Alexei: why didn’t he send apples, grapes in molasses and vegetables?”

Nikon's health was undermined. “Now I am sick, naked and barefoot,” the former patriarch wrote to the king. “For every need... I got tired, my arms are sore, my left one can’t rise, my eyes are an eyesore from fumes and smoke, my teeth are bleeding stinking... My legs are swollen...” Alexei Mikhailovich several times ordered Nikon to be made easier. The king died before Nikon and before his death he unsuccessfully asked Nikon for forgiveness.

After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich (1676), the persecution of Nikon intensified, he was transferred to the Kirillov Monastery. But then the son of Alexei Mikhailovich, Tsar Fedor, decided to soften the fate of the disgraced man and ordered him to be taken to New Jerusalem. Nikon could not stand this last trip and died on the way on August 17, 1681.

KLUCHEVSKY ON NIKON REFORM

“Nikon did not rebuild the church order in any new spirit and direction, but only replaced one church form with another. He understood the very idea of ​​the universal church, in the name of which this noisy undertaking was undertaken, too narrowly, in a schismatic way, from the external ritual side, and was unable either to introduce a broader view of the universal church into the consciousness of Russian church society, or to consolidate it in any way. or by an ecumenical council resolution and ended the whole matter by swearing to the faces of the eastern patriarchs who judged him as Sultan slaves, vagabonds and thieves: jealous of the unity of the universal church, he split his local one. The main string of mood of the Russian church society, the inertia of religious feeling, pulled too tightly by Nikon, broke, painfully whipped both himself and the ruling Russian hierarchy, which approved his cause.<…>The church storm raised by Nikon far from captured the entire Russian church society. A split began among the Russian clergy, and the struggle at first was between the Russian ruling hierarchy and that part of church society that was carried away by the opposition against Nikon’s ritual innovations, led by agitators from the subordinate white and black clergy.<…>A suspicious attitude towards the West was widespread throughout Russian society, and even in its leading circles, which were especially easy to succumb to Western influence, the native antiquity had not yet lost its charm. This slowed down the transformational movement and weakened the energy of innovators. The schism lowered the authority of antiquity, raising a rebellion in its name against the church, and in connection with it, against the state. Most of Russian church society has now seen what bad feelings and inclinations this antiquity can foster and what dangers a blind attachment to it threatens. The leaders of the reform movement, who were still hesitating between their native antiquity and the West, now, with a lighter conscience, went their own way more decisively and boldly.”

FROM THE NAMED HIGH DECREE OF NICHOLAS II

In constant, according to the covenants of our Ancestors, communication with the Holy Orthodox Church, invariably drawing for ourselves joy and renewal of spiritual strength, We have always had a heartfelt desire to provide each of Our subjects with freedom of belief and prayer according to the dictates of his conscience. Concerned with the fulfillment of these intentions, We included among the reforms outlined in the decree of December 12 last the adoption of effective measures to eliminate restrictions in the field of religion.

Now, having examined the provisions drawn up in pursuance of this in the Committee of Ministers and finding them to correspond to Our cherished desire to strengthen the principles of religious tolerance outlined in the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire, We recognized it as good to approve them.

Recognize that falling away from the Orthodox faith to another Christian denomination or doctrine is not subject to persecution and should not entail any unfavorable consequences in relation to personal or civil rights, and a person who has fallen away from Orthodoxy upon reaching the age of majority is recognized as belonging to that faith or creed, which it has chosen for itself.<…>

Allow Christians of all confessions to baptize unbaptized foundlings and children of unknown parents who they accept to raise according to the rites of their faith.<…>

Establish in the law a distinction between the religious teachings now encompassed by the name “schism”, dividing them into three groups: a) Old Believer consensus, b) sectarianism and c) followers of fanatical teachings, the very affiliation with which is punishable by criminal law.

Recognize that the provisions of the law, which grant the right to perform public worship services and determine the position of the schism in civil matters, include followers of both Old Believer agreements and sectarian interpretations; committing a violation of the law for religious reasons subjects those responsible to liability established by law.

To assign the name Old Believers, instead of the currently used name of schismatics, to all followers of rumors and agreements who accept the basic dogmas of the Orthodox Church, but do not recognize some of the rituals accepted by it and conduct their worship according to old printed books.

To assign to clergy, elected by communities of Old Believers and sectarians to perform spiritual duties, the title of “abbots and mentors,” and these persons, upon confirmation of their positions by the appropriate government authority, are subject to exclusion from the burghers or rural inhabitants, if they belonged to these states, and exemption from conscription for active military service, and naming, with the permission of the same civil authority, the name adopted at the time of tonsure, as well as allowing the designation in the passports issued to them, in the column indicating the occupation, of the position belonging to them among this clergy, without using, however , Orthodox hierarchical names.

1 Comment

Gorbunova Marina/ honorary education worker

In addition to the creation of the Universal Church and the limitation of “innovations,” there were other reasons that not only caused the reforms, but also united around them (for a while!) significant personalities whose interests temporarily coincided.
Both the Tsar, Nikon, and Avvakum were interested in restoring the moral authority of the church and strengthening its spiritual influence on parishioners. This authority gradually lost its significance both because of polyphony during the service, and because of the gradual “weaning” from the church Old Church Slavonic language in which they were conducted, and because of the persisting “immorality” that Stoglav unsuccessfully tried to fight against under Ivan. Grozny (superstition, drunkenness, divination, foul language, etc.). It was these problems that the priests as part of the circle of “zealots of piety” were going to solve. For Alexei Mikhailovich, it was very important that the reforms contributed to the unity of the church and its uniformity, since this was in the interests of the state during a period of increased centralization. To solve this problem, an effective technical means appeared that previous rulers did not have, namely printing. The corrected printed samples had no discrepancies and could be mass-produced in a short time. And initially nothing foreshadowed a split.
Subsequently, the return to the original source (Byzantine “charatean” lists), according to which corrections were made, played a cruel joke on the reformers: it was the ritual side of church service that underwent the most profound changes since the time of St. Vladimir, and turned out to be “unrecognized” by the population. The fact that many Byzantine books were brought after the fall of Constantinople from the “Latins” strengthened the conviction that true Orthodoxy was being destroyed, the fall of the Third Rome and the onset of the kingdom of the Antichrist were coming. The negative consequences of being carried away primarily by ritualism during the retreat are perfectly reflected in the attached text of V.O. Klyuchevsky’s lecture. It should also be added that in the life of many segments of the population during this period there were unfavorable changes (the abolition of “lesson years”, the elimination of “white settlements”, restrictions on boyar influence and parochial traditions), which were directly associated with the “renunciation of the old faith”. In short, there was something for the common people to be afraid of.
As for the confrontation between the tsar and the patriarch, this fact was not decisive for the implementation of reforms (they continued after Nikon’s imprisonment), but influenced the position of the church in the future. Having lost to secular power, the church paid for forgetting its primary role as a spiritual mentor by subsequently becoming part of the state machine: first, the patriarchate was eliminated and the Spiritual Regulations became the guide to service, and then, in the process of secularization, the economic independence of the church was eliminated.