Church reform is a set of measures carried out by Peter I in the period 1701-1722 to reduce the influence of the church, its independence and strengthen control over its administrative and financial issues. One of the most important transformations was the actual abolition of the position of Patriarch and the approval on January 25, 1721 of a new highest church body - Holy Governing Synod, or the Spiritual College.
Scheme church reform
Reasons and background
The clergy did not approve of the reforms carried out by Peter I - many monks considered the king to be the Antichrist, which they were not afraid to say out loud and even distributed handwritten leaflets in cities and villages.
Excessive authority of the church - The Patriarch had no less opportunity than Peter I himself to influence ordinary people; this did not fit into the absolutist model of the state, where the emperor is the only full-fledged ruler.
Economic independence of the church— numerous wars and industrial development required more and more financial and human resources, some of which were in the possession of monasteries and churches not accountable to the state.
Goals and objectives
Elimination of economic and administrative autonomy - a detailed audit of property, followed by secularization, the introduction of positions appointed by the state apparatus, as well as clear regulation financial flows and responsibilities assigned to the church.
Decrease in the number of clergy - determining the required number of clergy and monks based on the number of citizens served, limiting “wandering” priests and banning the construction of monasteries.
The fight against beggary the tsar was a categorical opponent of spontaneous beggary; he believed that only the “blessed” and outright disabled people could be allowed to live on alms.
Table “Content and progress of church reform”
| Year/Event | Target | Content |
| 1700
Appointment of the “Guardian and Manager of the Patriarchal Throne” |
Prevent the election of a new Patriarch after the death of Patriarch Adrian. | The Tsar personally appointed Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky to the new position. |
| January 24, 1701 Secularization of peasants and lands |
Elimination of the financial autonomy of the church. Increasing efficiency of land use and tax revenues |
Church peasants and lands were transferred to the management of the restored Monastic Order, income was transferred to the treasury from which salaries were paid to the former owners (monasteries and churches) according to strictly established rules. |
| December 30, 1701 Prohibitions regarding monasticism |
Decline in the number of monks | Prohibitions on the construction of new monasteries, on the ownership of lands and estates by monks, on becoming a monk at one's own request (without the permission of the monastic order). Also, to establish the staff of monasteries - a census of the monks located in them |
| 1711 Senate control over church affairs |
Restriction of administrative freedom of the church | Created in 1711, the Governing Senate received control of church affairs - the appointment of bishops, the construction of churches, the determination of the staff of parishes and permission for the disabled to settle in monasteries. |
| 1716 Decree on limiting the number of priests and deacons |
Increasing the efficiency of using human resources | The fight against “wandering priests” - ministers are assigned to a specific parish. Without |
| 1717-1720 Preparation of the main part of the reform |
Peter I sought to consolidate his own status as a full-fledged autocrat and integrate the church as much as possible into the administrative apparatus of the state | Feofan Prokopovich, by order of the Tsar, is developing a project for the creation of the Theological College. |
| January 25, 1721 | The actual abolition of the patriarchate and the introduction of a new highest church body - the Holy Governing Synod | Each of the 12 members of the newly formed Synod was required to take an oath to the king before taking office. |
| February 14, 1721 The monastic order came under the control of the Synod |
Maintaining records and increasing tax revenues | The Synod, controlled by Peter I, was obliged to follow the established norms and transfer all funds remaining after payments to the state to the state treasury. |
| April 28, 1722 Introduction of the supervisory and protective function of the church |
Fight against opponents of power | A resolution of the Synod was issued in which the clergy were obliged to violate the secret of confession if they had the opportunity to communicate any information important to the state. |
| May 11, 1722 Introduction of the post of Chief Prosecutor at the Synod |
Additional control over the Synod and prevention of decisions not agreed with Peter I | The chief prosecutor reported directly to the tsar and was his “sovereign eye and solicitor on state affairs.” |
The essence and significance of the church reform of Peter I
The main point The church reforms undertaken by Peter I consisted of the elimination of autonomy and the integration of the church institution into the state apparatus, with all the accompanying characteristics - reporting, a limited number of personnel, etc.
Creation of the Spiritual College, or Holy Synod
The key figure in the organization of the Theological College was the Little Russian theologian, rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy Feofan Prokopovich. On June 1, 1718, he was named bishop of Pskov, and the next day he was consecrated to the rank of bishop in the presence of the sovereign. Soon Prokopovich was entrusted with drawing up a project for the creation of the Theological College.
January 25, 1721 Peter signed a manifesto on the establishment of the Theological College, which soon received the new name of the Holy Governing Synod.
Feofan Prokopovich
The composition of the Holy Synod was determined by the regulations of 12 officials, of whom three must certainly bear the rank of bishop.
Before entering into the position assigned to him, each member of the Synod had to take an oath and swear allegiance to serve the reigning sovereign and his successors, and were obliged to report in advance about damage to His Majesty’s interest, harm or loss.
May 11, 1722 a special person was ordered to be present at the Synod Chief Prosecutor. The main responsibility of the chief prosecutor was to conduct all relations between the Synod and the civil authorities and vote against the decisions of the Synod when they were not consistent with the laws and decrees of Peter. The Chief Prosecutor was subject to trial only by the sovereign. At first, the power of the Chief Prosecutor was exclusively observational, but little by little the Chief Prosecutor becomes the arbiter of the fate of the Synod and its leader in practice.
Any decisions made by the Synod were controlled by the chief prosecutor, and therefore by Peter I himself. The active fight against beggary, the distribution of the number of clergy and monks depending on the number of parishioners and the extension of uniform taxes and recruitment kits to church peasants - all these measures transformed church services to yet another institution, another cog in the general mechanism of the country that was completely dependent on the emperor.
Administrative significance of church governance reform in the general key of the policy of Peter I - the centralization of power in the hands of the monarch, the establishment of the church in the service of the tsar (and later the emperor) and the state.
Economic significance - optimization of human and financial resources, increasing the efficiency of taxation and use of property previously completely controlled by the church
Estate meaning - decrease in the influence of the clergy class.
Results and results of the Church reform
- The position of Patriarch has actually been abolished
- The Church began to lose financial and administrative autonomy
- Reduced the number of monks and monasteries
- Increased number of taxes
- Recruitment sets are being made from church peasants
Church reform of Patriarch Nikon
Introduction
As the Russian autocracy developed, the issue of the priority of state power over church power became more and more pressing on the agenda. During the period of feudal fragmentation, the Russian church played a significant role in uniting the country to fight the Mongol-Tatar invasion. However, for all its desire to play an independent role, the Russian Orthodox Church has always been dependent on state power. This made her very different from Roman Catholic Church, who had complete independence in church affairs.
The transformation of the church from an instrument of the domination of feudal lords into an instrument of the domination of the noble state was completed in the 17th century, when, after the unrest, the nobility finally seized the leadership position in the Moscow state. This also affected the church. She lost a significant part of her influence, and even the patriarch was forced to reckon with the constant control of the tsar and the boyar duma.
This change in the position of the church had an economic basis. True, the absolute size of church estates and the number of church people were very impressive in the 17th century: at the end of the century, the patriarch, metropolitans and bishops owned about 37,000 households, which included about 440,000 souls of the tax population; in addition, significant lands belonged to individual monasteries. But, still, compared to the noble state, it was not so much. Commercial and industrial cities and settlements grew. The nobility jealously monitored the church economy and continued to take measures against its growth. At the council of 1580, the Moscow government passed a resolution according to which it was forbidden to give monasteries estates for the funeral of the soul, and it was also generally prohibited for church persons and institutions to buy and take land as collateral. The Troubles paralyzed the operation of this rule; but in 1649, when the Code was drawn up, it was restored, expanded and implemented as a national law. It was the Council Code that decreed (chapter XVII, art. 42): “The patriarch and the metropolitan and the archbishop and the bishop, and in monasteries, should not buy ancestral, and served and purchased estates from anyone, and do not mortgage them, and do not keep them for themselves.” , and a heart-to-heart in eternal remembrance, do not deal with some matters ... "
The Code finally abolished church jurisdiction in relation to church people in civil and criminal cases. These measures, in addition to their legal significance, caused considerable material damage to the church, depriving it of constant and large income in the form of court fees.
The initiative to establish the patriarchate came from the tsar. All of them were “elected” by the councils on the instructions of the king.
The king intervened not only in administrative, financial and judicial matters. He also issued orders on the observance of fasts, the service of prayers, and order in churches. And often these decrees were sent not to the bishops, but to the royal governors, who zealously monitored their implementation and punished those who disobeyed.
Thus, the leadership of the church in all respects actually belonged to the king, and not to the patriarch. This position is in church circles Not only was it not considered abnormal, but it was even officially recognized by the councils.
The church reform of the 50-60s of the 17th century was caused by the desire to strengthen the centralization of the Russian church in a similar way to other parts of the state apparatus.
1. Church reform of Patriarch Nikon. Reasons and results
nikon reform church
Tsar and Nikon
This man’s thirst for activity was truly boundless. He understood the title of Great Sovereign in the literal sense as giving the right to govern the country. While still Metropolitan of Novgorod, Nikon actively intervened in government affairs. Having become a patriarch, he begins to direct the domestic and then foreign policy of the government. Already on the seventeenth day of his patriarchate, he sought a decree prohibiting the sale of vodka on holidays and some fast days. After another four weeks, a decree appears on the closure of taverns in estates and estates held by moneylenders. On October 4th, all foreigners in Moscow were transferred to a separate settlement on the banks of the Yauza River, they were forbidden to dress in Russian dress and have Russian servants. If the patriarch even got around to such trifles, then not a single important decision can be made without Nikon’s approval. Under his direct influence, a war was started with Poland, which ended with the annexation of Orthodox Ukraine. The tsar himself pointed this out when on October 23, 1653, he declared that he, “after consulting with his father, with the great sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Nikon, decided to go to war against the enemy - the Polish king.” On the eve of their departure to the army, Nikon served a special prayer service for them in the Assumption Cathedral, inspiring them for the upcoming feat of arms. When the troops leaving for war passed the Kremlin, Nikon blessed them, reminding them of the “Orthodox Ukrainian brothers languishing under the yoke of Catholic Poland.” According to the historian S. M. Solovyov, Bogdan Khmelnitsky “looked at Nikon as the main person who inspired the tsar to fight the Poles, as his personal supporter and intercessor.” The Patriarch did not limit himself only to moral influence on the Tsar, the boyars and the army. According to his orders, grain, horses and carts were collected from all monastery lands to be sent to the army in the field, and manufactories were created for the production of bladed weapons and firearms. Using his own funds, he equipped an entire army and 10,000 people and moved it to the aid of the fighting army. He even developed plans for military operations, in particular, an attack on Stockholm. He called on the tsar to move to Vilna and further to Warsaw. Under his influence, they started fighting against Sweden for access to the Baltic Sea. Many of the patriarch’s deeds and plans were subsequently continued and implemented by Peter 1. Therefore, a number of prominent historians, in particular A.P. Shchapov, V.S. Ikonnikov and others, saw in Nikon the direct predecessor of Peter the Great. “So Nikon achieved his immediate goal in the most brilliant way. He became not only an independent church ruler, independent of secular power, but next to the tsar, the second great sovereign, who had direct influence on the entire course of state affairs, which depended on him almost as much as on the first real sovereign, since the latter He relied on his “brother friend” for everything, looked at everything through his eyes, and submitted to his authority and leadership.”
In 1654-1658, the tsar was constantly with the army, visiting Moscow only on visits. At the introduction of the patriarch, he transferred the care of his family and the management of the entire country. And in this field Nikon acted in the most successful way. He personally listened daily to the reports of the boyars and Duma clerks, the leaders of the most important orders, the then executive authorities. Gave orders and monitored their implementation. His comprehensive memory absorbed information from all over the vast country, his magnificent intellect found hundreds of solutions to numerous problems, and his strong will saw them through to completion. The strong rear he organized greatly contributed to the success of Russian troops in the battles against the Poles and Swedes. Finances were in satisfactory condition, the active army was regularly replenished, and the intrigues of the boyars and the arbitrariness of officials were restrained by the iron grip of the patriarch.
Nikon behaved harshly and even arrogantly with the boyars, descendants of Russian appanages and grand dukes. As deacon Pavel Alepsky, who accompanied one of the eastern patriarchs to Moscow, wrote: “The boyars previously entered the patriarch without a report from the gatekeepers; he went out to meet them and when they left, he went to see them off. Now, as we have seen with our own eyes, the king’s ministers and his entourage sit for a long time at the outer doors, until Nikon allows them to enter, and until the very end of their work, they stand on their feet, and when they finally leave, Nikon continues to sit.”
Further, Alepsky writes: “Usually every day, early in the morning, the ministers came to order... All the ministers, having gathered in the divan, remained there until the patriarch’s bell rang. The boyars stood at his door in the bitter cold until the patriarch ordered them to be let in... Each of them, approaching, bowed to the ground, approached him for a blessing and, in conclusion, bowed to the ground a second time... and they reported to him all current affairs , to which he gave an answer, ordering them what they should do. As we happened to see, state nobles generally do not feel any particular fear of the tsar and are not afraid of him, and they are probably more afraid of the patriarch. The predecessors of Patriarch Nikon were never involved in state affairs, but this patriarch, thanks to his insightful, sharp mind and knowledge, is skilled in all branches of spiritual, state and worldly affairs...” Professor Kapterev, who quotes these quotes, concludes: “It is clear that those who are proud of their breed and arrogant The Moscow boyars were deeply offended by Nikon’s imperious, arrogant treatment of them, but for the time being they were forced to hide their true feelings for him, they were even forced to ingratiate themselves in every possible way, to seek favor and attention from the peasant’s son, since Nikon’s disposition or disposition then meant for there are too many of them." The patriarch treated the highest hierarchs of the church, bishops and metropolitans in a similar way. In addition to the arrogance that developed in him under conditions of unlimited power, a great sense of superiority apparently also played a role here. Here is what N.F. Kapterev thinks about this: “But almost the main reason Why Nikon treated the Russian bishops so arrogantly and disdainfully was the characteristic circumstance that Nikon had the lowest idea about our hierarchs of that time, both regarding their moral qualities and overall behavior, and regarding the level of their mental development and knowledge and, especially, their relationship to secular power. This is how Nikon spoke about the Pskov archbishop that he was “both old and stupid”; about the Novgorod metropolitan, the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, he said: “The metropolitan of Piterim does not even know why he is a man.”
Having strengthened his position as a “great sovereign” equal to the tsar, Nikon began to openly declare the superiority of the patriarchal power over the royal one. The substantiation of the idea that “there is a greater priesthood of the kingdom” was comprehensively outlined by him in the “Helmsman” book. Moreover, this idea did not remain on paper, but was everywhere introduced into practice by his adherents. According to V.I. Lenin, he tried to “play in Russia the role of the popes, who combined spiritual power in the West with secular supremacy...”. The most prominent leader of the schismatic Old Believers, Archpriest Neronov, forced to bow down and reconcile with Nikon, told him during the solemnly arranged act of reconciliation: “I am amazed that the sovereign’s royal authorities can no longer be heard; From you everyone fears, and your envoys are more fearful to everyone than the king’s, and no one dares to say to them that even if by force we embitter them.” It is confirmed with them: do you know the patriarch.” He said the same thing to the king; “He has confused the entire Russian land and trampled your royal honor, and no longer hears your power - from him all enemies fear.”
2.Church reform of Patriarch Nikon, goals, causes and consequences
Patriarch Nikon was born in 1605 in a peasant environment, with the help of his literacy he became a rural priest, but due to the circumstances of his life he entered monasticism early and tempered himself with a harsh lifestyle in northern monasteries. He acquired the ability to greatly influence people and the unlimited trust of the king. He quite quickly achieved the rank of Metropolitan of Novgorod and finally, at the age of 47, became the All-Russian Patriarch.
His behavior in 1650 with the Novgorod rebels, to whom he allowed himself to be beaten in order to bring them to reason, then during the Moscow pestilence of 1654, when in the absence of the Tsar he rescued his family from the infection, reveals in him rare courage and self-control. But he easily got lost and lost his temper over everyday trifles, everyday nonsense: a momentary impression grew into a whole mood. In the most difficult moments, which he created for himself and required full work of thought, he occupied himself with trifles and was ready to raise a big fuss over trifles. Convicted and exiled to the Ferapontov monastery, he received gifts from the tsar, and when one day the tsar sent him a lot of good fish, Nikon was offended and responded with a reproach for why they did not send vegetables, grapes, and apples. In a good mood he was resourceful and witty, but, offended and irritated, he lost all tact and took the whims of his embittered imagination for reality. In captivity, he began to treat the sick, but could not resist, so as not to prick the king with his healing miracles, sent him a list of those cured, and told the royal messenger that the patriarchate had been taken away from him, but he was given a “cup of medicine: “heal the sick.” Nikon was one of those people who calmly endure terrible pain, but groan and despair from a pinprick. He had a weakness that often affects strong, but little-constrained people: he missed peace, did not know how to wait patiently; he constantly needed anxiety, a passion for courage; whether by thought or a broad enterprise, even just a quarrel with a person.
Reasons for church reform
Until July 1652, that is, before Nikon was elected to the patriarchal throne (Patriarch Joseph died on April 15, 1652), the situation in the church and ritual sphere remained uncertain. Archpriests and priests from the zealots of piety and Metropolitan Nikon in Novgorod, regardless of the decision of the church council of 1649 on moderate “multiharmony,” sought to perform a “unanimous” service. On the contrary, the parish clergy, reflecting the sentiments of the parishioners, did not comply with the decision of the church council of 1651 on “unanimity”, and therefore “multivocal” services were preserved in most churches. The results of the correction of liturgical books were not put into practice, since there was no church approval of these corrections. This uncertainty worried the royal authorities most of all.
In foreign policy terms, the issues of reunification of Ukraine with Russia and the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was associated with the start of the liberation war in 1648, became of paramount importance for her. Ukrainian people against the power of the gentry of Poland (already in 1649, a representative of B. Khmelnitsky, S. Muzhilovsky, arrived in Moscow with a proposal to accept Ukraine under Russian rule). To begin to resolve these issues without eliminating the religious and ritual differences between the Russian and Greek churches and without overcoming the negative attitude of the Russians Orthodox hierarchs to the Church of Ukraine was, to say the least, careless. However, the events of 1649 - 1651 in the church sphere, and especially the deterioration of relations between secular and church authorities, played a partly positive role. Their consequence was that the tsar and his closest secular circle felt the complexity and enormity of the changes that were to be carried out in religious area, and the impossibility of carrying out this kind of reform without the closest alliance with church authorities. Alexei Mikhailovich also realized that it was not enough to have a supporter of such a reform at the head of the church. The successful implementation of the transformation of church life in Russia according to the Greek model was accessible only to a strong patriarchal government that had independence and high political authority and was capable of centralizing church administration. This determined the subsequent attitude of Tsar Alexei towards church authority.
The tsar's choice fell on Nikon, and this choice was supported by the tsar's confessor Stefan Vonifatiev. Kazan Metropolitan Korniliy and the zealots of piety who were in the capital, who were not privy to the tsar’s plans, submitted a petition with a proposal to elect Stefan Vonifatiev, the most influential and authoritative member of the circle, as patriarch. There was no reaction from the tsar to the petition, and Stefan avoided the proposal and persistently recommended Nikon’s candidacy to his like-minded people. The latter was also a member of the circle. Therefore, the zealots of piety in the new petition to the tsar spoke out in favor of electing Nikon, who was then the Novgorod metropolitan, as patriarch.
Nikon (before becoming a monk - Nikita Minov) had all the qualities Tsar Alexei needed. He was born in 1605 in Nizhny Novgorod district into a peasant family. Richly gifted by nature with energy, intelligence, excellent memory and sensitivity, Nikon early, with the help village priest, mastered literacy, professional knowledge of a church minister, and at the age of 20 became a priest in his village. In 1635, he became a monk at the Solovetsky Monastery and was appointed in 1643 as abbot of the Kozheozersk Monastery. In 1646, Nikon, on monastery business, ended up in Moscow, where he met with Tsar Alexei. He made the most favorable impression on the tsar and therefore received the position of archimandrite of the influential capital Novospassky monastery. The newly-minted archimandrite became close to Stefan Vonifatiev and other metropolitan zealots of piety, entered their circle, repeatedly talked about faith and rituals with the Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius (when he was in Moscow) and became active church leader. He acted before the king most often as an intercessor for the poor, disadvantaged or innocently convicted, and won his favor and trust. Having become the Novgorod metropolitan on the recommendation of the tsar in 1648, Nikon proved himself to be a decisive and energetic ruler and a zealous champion of piety. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was also impressed by the fact that Nikon moved away from the point of view of provincial zealots of piety on church reform and became a supporter of the plan for transforming church life in Russia according to the Greek model.
Nikon considered himself the only real candidate for patriarch. The essence of his far-reaching plans was to eliminate the dependence of church power on secular power, to place it in church affairs above the tsarist power and, having become a patriarch, to occupy at least an equal position with the tsar in the governance of Russia.
A decisive step followed on July 25, 1652, when the church council had already elected Nikon as patriarch and the tsar approved the election results. On this day, the Tsar, members of the royal family, the boyar Duma and participants in the church council gathered in the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral to consecrate the newly elected patriarch. Nikon appeared only after a number of delegations were sent to him from the tsar. Nikon announced that he could not accept the rank of patriarch. He gave his consent only after the “praying” of the tsar and representatives of secular and ecclesiastical authorities present at the cathedral. With this “prayer” they, and, first of all, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, pledged to obey Nikon in everything that he would “proclaim” to them about “the dogmas of God and the rules”, to obey him “as a chief, a shepherd and a most noble father.” This act significantly raised the prestige of the new patriarch.
The secular authorities accepted Nikon's conditions because they considered this measure useful for carrying out church reform, and the patriarch himself was a reliable supporter of the reform plan. Moreover, in order to solve priority foreign policy problems (reunification with Ukraine, war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), which was supposed to be facilitated by church reform, the secular government made new concessions. The tsar refused to interfere in the actions of the patriarch that affected the church and ritual sphere. He also allowed Nikon’s participation in solving all domestic and foreign political affairs that interested the patriarch, recognized Nikon as his friend, and began to call him the great sovereign, that is, as if he bestowed on him a title that, of the previous patriarchs, only Filaret Romanov had. As a result, a close union of secular and ecclesiastical authorities arose in the form of the “wise two,” that is, the king and the patriarch.
Patriarch Nikon soon after his election became the autocratic ruler of the Russian church. He began by eliminating the interference in church affairs of his former associates in the circle of zealots of piety. Nikon even ordered that the archpriests Ivan Neronov, Avvakum, Daniil and others should not be allowed to visit him. Their complaints were not supported by the tsar, nor Stefan Vonifatiev, nor F. M. Rtishchev, who avoided interfering in the actions of the patriarch.
Already at the end of 1652, some of the abbots of the monasteries, in order to please Nikon, began to slavishly call him the great sovereign. The bishops followed their example. In the 50s of the 17th century. Thanks to Nikon’s energetic and decisive activity, a set of measures was implemented that determined the content and nature of church reform.
Church reform
Its implementation began in the spring of 1653, almost immediately after the Tsar and the Boyar Duma made the final decision to include Ukraine in Russian state. This coincidence was not accidental.
The first step was the sole order of the patriarch, which affected two rituals, bowing and making the sign of the cross. In the memory of March 14, 1653, sent to churches, it was said that from now on believers “it is not appropriate to do throwing on the knee in church, but bow to the waist, and also cross yourself with three fingers naturally” (instead of two) . At the same time, the memory did not contain any justification for the need for this change in rituals.
Moreover, the patriarch's order was not supported by the authority of the church council. This beginning of the reform cannot be called successful. After all, this decision affected the most familiar rituals, which the clergy and believers considered an indicator of the truth of their faith. Therefore, it is not surprising that the change in bowing and signing caused discontent among believers. This was openly expressed by the provincial members of the circle of zealots of piety. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel prepared an extensive petition, in which they pointed out the inconsistency of the innovations with the institutions of the Russian Church. They submitted the petition to Tsar Alexei, but the Tsar handed it over to Nikon. The patriarch's order was also condemned by archpriests Ivan Neronov, Lazar and Loggin and deacon Fyodor Ivanov. Their judgments sowed distrust and hostility towards the reform and, of course, undermined the authority of the patriarch. Therefore, Nikon decisively suppressed the protest of his former like-minded people. He exiled Ivan Neronov under close supervision to the Spasokamenny Monastery in the Vologda district, Avvakum to Siberia, Daniel to Astrakhan, depriving him of the rank of clergyman, etc. The circle of zealots of piety disintegrated and ceased to exist.
Nikon's subsequent decisions were more deliberate and supported by the authority of the church council and the hierarchs of the Greek church, which gave these undertakings the appearance of decisions of the entire Russian church, which were supported by the “ecumenical” (that is, Constantinople) Orthodox Church. This was the nature of, in particular, the decisions on the procedure for corrections in church rites and rituals, approved in the spring of 1654 by the church council.
Changes in rituals were carried out on the basis of Greek books contemporary to Nikon and the practice of the Church of Constantinople, information about which the reformer received mainly from the Antiochian Patriarch Macarius. Decisions on changes of a ritual nature were approved by church councils convened in March 1655 and April 1656. These decisions eliminated the difference in church ritual practice between Russian and churches of Constantinople. Most of the changes concerned the design of church services and the actions of clergy and clergy during services. All believers were affected by the replacement of two fingers with three fingers when performing the sign of the cross, a “three-part” (eight-pointed) cross with a two-part (four-pointed) one, walking during the baptismal rite in the sun (“salting”) with walking against the sun, and some other changes in rituals.
Exclusion from services, mainly from the liturgy, bishop's prayer, and dismissal, was also of significant importance for church ministers and believers. (prayer at the end of the service) and some litanies (prayer for someone, most often a prayer for health for the king and members of his family). This entailed a significant reduction in the volume of the text, a shortening of the church service and contributed to the establishment of “unanimity.” In 1653 - 1656 The liturgical books were also corrected. Officially, the need for corrections was motivated at the council of 1654 by the fact that there were many errors and insertions in the old printed books, and by the fact that the Russian liturgical order was very significantly different from the Greek. For this purpose, a large number of Greek and Slavic books, including ancient handwritten ones. Due to the presence of discrepancies in the texts of the collected books, the reference workers (with the knowledge of Nikon) took as a basis the text that was a translation into Church Slavonic language Greek service book of the 17th century, which, in turn, went back to the text of liturgical books of the 12th-15th centuries. As this basis was compared with ancient Slavic manuscripts, individual corrections were made to its text. As a result, in the new service book (compared to the previous Russian service books), some psalms became shorter, others became fuller, new words and expressions appeared, the triple “hallelujah” (instead of double), the spelling of the name of Christ Jesus (instead of Jesus), etc. New the missal was approved by the church council in 1656 and soon published. Over the seven centuries that have passed since the religious reform of Prince Vladimir, the entire Greek liturgical rite has changed greatly. Double-fingering (which became a custom to replace the former single-fingering), which the first Greek priests taught to the Russian and Balkan Slavs and which until the middle of the 17th century was also maintained in the Kyiv and Serbian Church, in Byzantium - was replaced, under the influence of the fight against the Nestorians, by triplicate (late 12th century). The finger formation during blessing also changed, all liturgical rites became shorter, and some important chants were replaced by others. Thus, the rites of confirmation and baptism, repentance, consecration of oil and marriage were changed and shortened. The biggest changes were in the liturgy. As a result, when Nikon replaced old books and rituals with new ones, it was like the introduction of a “new faith.” In addition, among the parish clergy and monks there were many illiterate people who had to relearn their voice, which was a very difficult task for them. The majority of the city clergy, and even the monasteries, found themselves in the same position. Nikon, in 1654-1656, also became a leader in resolving matters that fell within the competence of the royal government. “great sovereign”, de facto co-ruler of Alexei Mikhailovich. In the summer of 1654, when a plague epidemic broke out in Moscow, Nikon facilitated the departure royal family from the capital to a safe place. During the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden, the tsar left the capital for a long time. During these months, Nikon played the role of head of government and independently decided on civil and military affairs. True, a commission of the boyar duma remained in Moscow for observation, and more important matters were sent to the king and the boyar duma for decision. But Nikon subordinated the commission of the boyar duma to his authority. In the absence of the king, she began to report all matters to him. Even the formula appeared in the verdicts on the cases: “... the Holy Patriarch indicated, and the boyars sentenced.” To make reports, members of the boyar duma commission and court judges came to the patriarchal palace and waited here for reception. During receptions, Nikon behaved arrogantly, including towards the most noble boyars. This behavior of the patriarch offended the arrogance of the courtiers, but in 1654-1656. they not only tolerated, but also subserviently before him. Nikon's self-esteem and activity grew along with the successes of Russian foreign policy, since he also took an active part in determining its course. But for the failures of 1656-1657. in foreign policy, the tsar's entourage placed the blame on Nikon. Active interference in literally all the affairs of the state and the desire to impose his decisions everywhere, including through threats (at least twice, due to the tsar’s disagreement with his “advices,” Nikon threatened to leave the patriarchal see), the tsar also began to feel burdened. The relationship between them began to cool. The Patriarch was invited to the royal palace less often; Alexei Mikhailovich increasingly communicated with him with the help of messengers from the courtiers and made attempts to limit his power, which, of course, Nikon did not want to put up with. This change was used by secular and spiritual feudal lords. Nikon was accused of violating laws, greed and cruelty. An open clash between the tsar and the patriarch, which led to the fall of Nikon, occurred in July 1658. The reason for it was the insult by the okolnichy B. M. Khitrovo of the patriarchal solicitor Prince D. Meshchersky on July 6 during a reception in the Kremlin of the Georgian prince Teimuraz (Nikon was not invited). The Patriarch demanded in a letter that the Tsar immediately punish B.M. Khitrovo, but received only a note with a promise to investigate the case and see the Patriarch. Nikon was not satisfied with this and regarded the incident as an open disdain for his rank as head of the Russian church. On July 10, 1658, the tsar did not appear at the solemn mass in the Assumption Cathedral. Prince Yu. Romodanovsky, who came in his place, said to Nikon: “The Tsar’s Majesty honored you as a father and shepherd, but you did not understand this, now the Tsar’s Majesty ordered me to tell you that in the future you should not be written or called a great sovereign and will not honor you in the future.” " At the end of the service, Nikon announced his resignation from the patriarchal chair. He hoped that his unprecedented step would cause confusion in government circles and in the country, and then he would be able to dictate the terms of his return to the king. This situation did not suit the royal authorities. The only way out of this situation was to depose Nikon and choose a new patriarch. For this purpose, in 1660, a church council was convened, which decided to deprive him of the patriarchal throne and priesthood, accusing Nikon of unauthorized removal from the patriarchal see. Epiphany Slavinetsky, speaking, pointed out the illegality of the council’s decision, since Nikon was not guilty of heresy, and only other patriarchs had the right to judge him. Given Nikon's international fame, the tsar was forced to agree and order the convening of a new council with the participation of the ecumenical patriarchs. To win over the eastern patriarchs to his side, Nikon tried to enter into correspondence with them. In November 1666, the patriarchs arrived in Moscow. On December 1, Nikon appeared before a council of church hierarchs, which was attended by the tsar and the boyars. The patriarch either denied all accusations or pleaded ignorance. Nikon was sentenced to deprivation of the patriarchal throne, but retained his previous title, prohibiting him from interfering “in the worldly affairs of the Moscow state and all of Russia, except for his three monasteries given to him and their estates.” The Eastern Patriarchs sought to restore the relationship between the two authorities on the basis of the Byzantine principle of “all-wise twos." At the same time, the limits of both authorities were established as follows: “Let the Patriarch not enter into the royal things of the royal court, and let him not retreat outside the boundaries of the church, as the king also preserves his rank.” At the same time, a reservation was made: “but when there is a heretic and it is wrong to rule, then it is most appropriate for the patriarch to confront him and protect him.” Thus, the council gave the church authorities a formidable weapon that the patriarch could use by declaring the tsar’s policy heretical. This decision did not satisfy the government. On December 12, the final verdict in the Nikon case was announced. The place of exile of the deposed patriarch was determined to be the Ferapontov Monastery. But the question of the relationship between the “priesthood” and secular power remained open. In the end, the disputing parties came to a compromise solution: “The Tsar has precedence in civil affairs, and the patriarch in church affairs.” This decision remained unsigned by the council participants and was not included in the official acts of the council of 1666-1667. Church schism, its essence and consequences The introduction of new rituals and services according to the corrected books was perceived by many as the introduction of a new religious faith, different from the previous one, “truly Orthodox”. A movement of supporters emerged old faith- a schism, the founders of which were provincial zealots of piety. They became the ideologists of this movement, the composition of which was heterogeneous. Among them were many low-income church ministers. Speaking for the “old faith,” they expressed dissatisfaction with the increasing oppression on the part of the church authorities. The majority of supporters of the “old faith” were townspeople and peasants, dissatisfied with the strengthening of the feudal-serf regime and the deterioration of their position, which they associated with innovations, including in the religious and church sphere. Nikon's reform was not accepted by some secular feudal lords, bishops and monks. Nikon's departure gave rise to hopes among supporters of the “old faith” of abandoning innovations and returning to the old ways church ranks and rituals. Investigations of schismatics carried out by the tsarist authorities showed that already in the late 50s and early 60s of the 17th century. in some areas this movement became widespread. Moreover, among the schismatics found, along with supporters of the “old faith,” there were many followers of the teachings of the monk Capito, that is, people who denied the need for a professional clergy and church authorities. Under these conditions, the leader Orthodox Church Russia became a tsarist government, which after 1658 focused on solving two main tasks - consolidating the results of church reform and overcoming the crisis in church governance caused by Nikon's abandonment of the patriarchal see. This was to be facilitated by the investigation of schismatics, the return from exile of Archpriest Avvakum, Daniel and other clergy, the ideologists of the schism, and the government’s attempts to persuade them to reconcile with the official church (Ivan Neronov reconciled with it back in 1656). The solution to these problems took almost eight years, mainly due to Nikon’s opposition. The church council elected Archimandrite Joasaph of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery as the new patriarch. At the request of the Eastern Patriarchs, the convened council condemned the old rituals and canceled the resolution of the Stoglavy Council of 1551 on these rituals as unfounded. Believers who adhered to the old rites and defended them were condemned as heretics; it was ordered to excommunicate them from the church, and the secular authorities were ordered to try them in a civil court as opponents of the church. The decisions of the council on the old rituals contributed to the formalization and consolidation of the split of the Russian Orthodox Church into the official church that dominated society and the Old Believers. The latter, in those conditions, was hostile not only to the official church, but also to the state closely associated with it. In the 1650-1660s, a movement of supporters of the “old faith” and a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church arose. Entertaining artistic narratives and hysterical writings, including those criticizing church orders, were in great demand. Struggling with the desire for secular education, churchmen insisted that only through study scripture and theological literature, believers can achieve true enlightenment, cleansing the soul from sins and spiritual salvation - the main goal of a person’s earthly life. Western influence they regarded it as a source of penetration into Russia of harmful foreign customs, innovations and views of Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism hostile to Orthodoxy. Therefore, they were supporters of Russia's national isolation and opponents of its rapprochement with Western states. A consistent exponent and conductor of the policy of hostility and intolerance towards the Old Believers and other church opponents, other faiths, foreigners, their faith and customs, and secular knowledge was Joachim, Patriarch from 1674 to 1690. Opponents of the desire for secular knowledge, rapprochement with the West and the spread of foreign culture and customs there were also leaders of the schism, among them Archpriest Avvakum, and those that developed in the last third of the 17th century. Old Believer religious communities. The tsarist government actively supported the church in the fight against schism and heterodoxy and used the full power of the state apparatus. She also initiated new measures aimed at improving the church organization and its further centralization. Schism of the last third of the 17th century. is a complex socio-religious movement. It was attended by supporters of the “old faith” (they made up the majority of participants in the movement), members of various sects and heretical movements who did not recognize the official church and were hostile to it and the state, which was closely associated with this church. The hostility of the schism to the official church and the state was not determined by differences of a religious and ritual nature. It was determined by the progressive aspects of the ideology of this movement, its social composition and character. The ideology of the split reflected the aspirations of the peasantry and partly the townspeople, and therefore it had both conservative and progressive features. The first include the idealization and defense of antiquity, isolation and propaganda of accepting the crown of martyrdom in the name of the “old faith” as the only way to save the soul. These ideas left their mark on the schism movement, giving rise to conservative religious aspirations and the practice of “baptisms of fire” (self-immolation). The progressive sides of the ideology of schism include sanctification, that is religious justification various forms resistance to the power of the official church and the feudal-serf state, the struggle for the democratization of the church. The complexity and inconsistency of the schism movement was manifested in the uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery of 1668-1676, which began as an uprising by supporters of the “old faith.” The aristocratic elite of the “elders” opposed Nikon’s church reform, the ordinary mass of monks - moreover - for the democratization of the church, and the “beltsy”, that is, novices and monastic workers, were against feudal oppression, and in particular against serfdom in the monastery itself. To suppress the movement, various means were used, including ideological ones, in particular, anti-schismatic polemical works were published (“Rod of Rule” by Simeon of Polotsk in 1667, “Spiritual Doom” by Patriarch Joachim” in 1682, etc.), and to increase the “educational quality” of church services, the publication of books containing sermons began (for example, “The Soulful Dinner” and “The Soulful Supper” by Simeon of Polotsk). But the main ones were violent means of combating schism, which were used by secular authorities at the request of the church leadership. The period of repression began with the exile of the ideologists of the schism, who refused reconciliation with the official church at a church council in April 1666; of them, archpriests Avvakum and Lazar, deacon Fedor and former monk Epiphanius were exiled and kept in the Pustozersk prison. The exiles were followed by the mass execution of the surviving participants of the Solovetsky Uprising (more than 50 people were executed). Patriarch Joachim insisted on such a severe punishment. Cruel punishments, including executions, were more often practiced under Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682). This caused a new uprising of schismatics during the Moscow uprising of 1682. The failure of the “rebellion” of supporters of the old faith led to the execution of their leaders. The hatred of the ruling class and the official church for the schism and schismatics was expressed in legislation. According to the decree of 1684, schismatics were to be tortured and, if they did not submit to the official church, executed. Those schismatics who, wishing to be saved, submitted to the church and then returned to the schism again, were to be “executed by death without trial.” This marked the beginning of mass persecution. Conclusion The church reform of Patriarch Nikon had a huge impact on inner life country and laid the foundation for such a socio-religious movement in the 17th century. like a split. But one also cannot deny its certain role in the foreign policy of the Russian state. Church reform was intended to strengthen relations with some countries and opened up opportunities for new, stronger alliances in politics. And the support of Orthodox churches in other countries was also very important for Russia. Nikon defended the principle of independence of the church from state power. He tried to achieve complete non-interference between the tsar and the boyars in internal church affairs, and to have power himself equal to that of the tsar. What led to such serious changes in the Russian Church? The immediate cause of the Schism was the book reform, but the reasons, real and serious, lay much deeper, rooted in the foundations of Russian religious self-awareness. It is not surprising that, striving for the unification of the Russian church liturgical sphere, and complete equality with Eastern Church, Patriarch Nikon resolutely took up the task of correcting liturgical books according to Greek models. This is what caused the greatest resonance. The Russian people did not want to recognize the “innovations” that came from the Greeks. The changes and additions made by scribes to the liturgical books, and the rituals inherited from their ancestors, were so ingrained in the minds of people that they were already accepted as the true and sacred truth. It was not easy to carry out reform in the face of resistance from a large part of the population. But the matter was complicated mainly by the fact that Nikon used church reform, first of all, to strengthen his own power. This also served as the reason for the emergence of his ardent opponents and the split of society into two warring camps. To eliminate the unrest that had arisen in the country, a Council was convened (1666-1667). This council condemned Nikon, but still recognized his reforms. This means that the patriarch was not such a sinner and traitor as the Old Believers tried to make him out to be. The same Council of 1666-1667. summoned the main propagators of the Schism to his meetings, subjected their “philosophies” to the test and cursed them as alien to spiritual reason and common sense. Some schismatics obeyed the maternal admonitions of the Church and repented of their errors. Others remained irreconcilable. Thus, the religious Schism in Russian society became a fact. The split troubled the state life of Rus' for a long time. The siege of the Solovetsky Monastery, which became a stronghold of the Old Believers, lasted for eight years (1668 - 1676). After the monastery was captured, the perpetrators of the rebellion were punished; those who expressed submission to the church and the king were forgiven and left in their previous position. Six years after that, 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 Alexandrovna and the patriarch. It is difficult, and probably impossible, to say unambiguously what caused the split - a crisis in the religious or in the secular sphere. Surely, both of these reasons were combined in the Schism. Since society was not homogeneous, its various representatives, accordingly, defended different interests. The response to their problems in the Schism was found by different segments of the population: serf peasants, who gained the opportunity to express protest to the government, standing under the banner of the defenders of antiquity and part of the lower clergy, dissatisfied with the power of the patriarchal power and seeing in it only an organ of exploitation, and even part of the higher clergy, who wanted to stop the strengthening Nikon authorities. And at the end of the 17th century, denunciations that revealed certain social vices of society began to occupy the most important place in the ideology of the Schism. Some ideologists of the Schism, in particular Avvakum and his comrades, moved on to justify active anti-feudal actions, declaring popular uprisings as heavenly retribution of the royal and spiritual authorities for their actions. Most likely, the true reason for the Schism of the Russian Orthodox Church was the desire of its main characters on both sides to seize power by any means. The consequences that affected the entire course of life in Russia did not bother them; the main thing for them was momentary power. List of used literature 1. History of Russia: textbook. for universities / A. S. Orlov et al. - M.: Prospekt, 2010. - 672 p. - (Grif MO). Derevianko, A.P. History of Russia: textbook. allowance / A. P. Derevyanko, N. A. Shabelnikova. - M.: Prospekt, 2009. - 576 p. - (Grif MO). Zuev M.N. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the twentieth century. /M.N. Zuev. - M.: Bustard, 2000. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861 / Ed. N.I. Pavlenko. - M.: Higher. school, 1996. Kazarezov V.A. The most famous reformers of Russia / V.A. Kazavrezov. - M., 2002.
The religious and political movement of the 17th century, which resulted in the separation from the Russian Orthodox Church of some believers who did not accept the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, was called a schism.
Also at the service, instead of singing “Hallelujah” twice, it was ordered to sing three times. Instead of circling the temple during baptism and weddings in the direction of the sun, circling against the sun was introduced. 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. By analogy with Greek texts, instead of the name of Christ Jesus in newly printed books, the patriarch ordered to write Jesus. In the eighth member of the Creed (“In the Holy Spirit of the true Lord”), the word “true” was removed.
The innovations were approved by church councils of 1654-1655. During 1653-1656, corrected or newly translated liturgical books were published at the Printing Yard.
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. 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 “end times”, about the accession of the Antichrist, to whom the tsar, the patriarch and all the authorities supposedly had already bowed down and were carrying out his will, found a lively response among the masses.
The Great Moscow Council of 1667 anathematized (excommunicated) 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 stripped Nikon of his 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 - the 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 priestly and non-priestly. The priests 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, and therefore began to be called non-priests. The sacraments of baptism and penance and all church services, except the liturgy, were performed by selected laymen.
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.
At the end of the 18th century, the schismatics themselves began to make attempts to get closer to the church. On October 27, 1800, in Russia, by decree of Emperor Paul, Edinoverie was established as a form of reunification of the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church.
The Old Believers 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.
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.
In 1929 the Patriarchal Holy Synod formulated three resolutions:
— “On the recognition of old Russian rites as salutary, like new rites, and equal to them”;
— “On the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals, and especially to double-fingeredness”;
— “On the abolition of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667, which they imposed 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.”
Local Council 1971 approved three resolutions of the Synod of 1929.
January 12, 2013 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin with the blessing His Holiness Patriarch Cyril, the first liturgy after the schism was celebrated according to the ancient rite.
The material was prepared based on information from open sources V
In the 17th century Russian Orthodox Church experienced a schism caused by reforms of rituals and correction of liturgical books.
was a massive religious and social movement that gave birth to its own ideology and culture. Simultaneously with the schism, an acute conflict occurred between the secular and spiritual authorities, which ended with the assertion of the primacy of the power of the king over the power of the patriarch. Church orders of the mid-17th century. caused discontent among ordinary believers and among the clergy. For example, polyphony, when, in order to shorten the time of church services in the temple, they simultaneously read the Gospel, sang and prayed. A circle of “zealots of piety” opposed this form of worship. Among the members of this circle were archpriest Habakkuk (1620-1682) and archbishop Nikon
(1606-1681).
Church reform
In 1652, the Church Council elected Nikon as the new patriarch. It was not enough for Nikon to be elected to the patriarchal throne. He refused this honor and only after Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich fell on his knees before him did he agree to become patriarch. 1653 The first step of Patriarch Nikon was to hold
church reform. Nikon sent instructions to all churches to change the traditional norms of worship for Russian Orthodoxy. Dual finger sign of the cross was replaced by tripartite. Prostrations were replaced by belt ones. it was prescribed to be carried out against the sun, and not along the sun, as was the case before. The exclamation “Hallelujah” during worship was required to be pronounced not twice, but three times. At the same time, a check of Russian liturgical books began. The Greek originals were taken as a basis. The previous liturgical books were ordered to be destroyed.
The situation was complicated by the fact that Nikon, regardless of Russian traditions, emphasized his commitment Greek rites . The Patriarch banned icons painted not according to Greek models. He ordered his servants to gouge out the eyes of the collected icons and carry them around the city in this form.
Those who refused to accept the innovations were called schismatics. The schismatics themselves considered themselves followers of true Orthodoxy, and Nikon and his followers were branded with the name of “Antichrist servants.” The most ardent opponent Nikon was an archpriest Church orders of the mid-17th century. caused discontent among ordinary believers and among the clergy. For example, polyphony, when, in order to shorten the time of church services in the temple, they simultaneously read the Gospel, sang and prayed. A circle of “zealots of piety” opposed this form of worship. Among the members of this circle were archpriest, who was arrested in 1653 and exiled to Siberia . The persecution of Habakkuk's supporters began.
In July 1658 Mr. Nikon was given the king's order to behave more modestly. Nikon decided to take a desperate step - he wrote a letter to the Tsar renouncing his patriarchal rank. To stop attempts former patriarch return to power, it was decided to deprive him of power. For this purpose, a church council was convened, which condemned and deposed Nikon, the main initiator of church reforms, but at the same time approved the reforms themselves. Nikon was sent to exile to the Ferapontov Monastery on White Lake.
Return and execution of Habakkuk
IN 1666 the main leaders of the schism were brought from different places imprisonment in Moscow. The Church Council anathematized and cursed them. Adherents of old religious traditions were persecuted and punished, including the death penalty. This policy has led to Old Believers(schismatics, Old Believers) entire families fled from the central regions of Russia.
In April 1682, Avvakum and other participants in the schismatic movement were burned at the stake . However, the execution of the leaders of the schism led to the fact that many opponents of religious innovations began to voluntarily self-immolate. Church reform of Patriarch Nikon split the country into two camps - supporters official religion and adherents of old traditions.
Removing anathemas from old rituals
In 1800, for some of the Old Believers-priests who sought rapprochement with the Moscow Patriarchate, a special single-faith structure was created: while maintaining the pre-reform ritual, they came under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, thereby recognizing that ritual differences do not affect the general dogmatic teaching.
In 1905, Nicholas II, by decree on religious tolerance, removed all restrictions on the rights of Old Believers, and in 1971 the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted a resolution on removing oaths and anathemas from old rituals .
In the 17th century, the question of reforming the church became acute. Despite all its desire to play an independent role, the Russian Orthodox Church was still dependent on state power (in this sense, it was very different from the Roman Catholic Church, which had complete independence). And, nevertheless, the emergence of absolutism in Russia required further subordination to its state. The reform was also connected with the foreign policy situation. The unification of the structure of church service, theological system and ritual practice became a necessary condition unification of the Orthodox churches of Ukraine and Russia. Events in the spiritual life of society (the growth of religious indifference, various “moods”) also revealed the need for change. The reform that was overdue in the religious field was carried out on the basis of the closest union of royal power with church power.
The social crisis was accompanied by an ideological crisis that engulfed the sphere of religious views. It became aggravated due to the desire of some churchmen to restore the unity of church rituals and the content of liturgical books. Since in those days religion was viewed primarily as a set of rituals, the unification and regulation of ritual practice was of great importance.
The origins of the religious crisis date back to the 40s. XVII century, when a Circle of zealots of ancient piety formed in Moscow, grouped around the royal confessor Stefan Vonifatiev. It included future enemies - Nikon and Avvakum, as well as the rector of the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow John, the Kostroma archpriest Daniel, the royal bed-guard Fyodor Rtishchev and others.
The zealots tried to solve three problems: they opposed the arbitrary reduction of church services, achieved by introducing polyphony, as well as riots during worship; the program of the zealots included the denunciation of such vices that had taken root among the clergy, such as drunkenness, debauchery, money-grubbing, etc.; finally, they tried to counteract the penetration of secular principles into the spiritual life of the population. The program of the zealots also corresponded to the interests of the autocracy, which was moving toward absolutism. Therefore, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich also advocated the correction of liturgical books and the unification of church rituals.
The unity of views was broken when it came to the choice of samples based on which corrections were to be made. Some believed that the basis should be ancient Russian handwritten books, which, like the Greek ones, were not subject to changes after the fall of Byzantium. It turned out, however, that there were no completely identical texts in ancient Russian books. That is why, others believed, Greek originals should be taken as a model for books. Avvakum adhered to the first point of view, Nikon adhered to the second.
Nature endowed both natives of the Nizhny Novgorod district with a remarkable intelligence, enormous ambition, domineering character, fanatical belief in the correctness of their views and intolerance for the opinions of others. Nikon persecuted dissidents during his patriarchate. Avvakum, who did not have power, could only threaten his opponents to “overwhelm” them “in one day,” and first of all Nikon, “that dog would be cut in four, and then those Nikonians.”
The son of a Mordvin peasant, Nikon made a dizzying career from a priest to a patriarch, which he became in 1652. He immediately began to energetically carry out church reform, approved by church councils with the participation of Eastern patriarchs. The most significant innovations affected church rituals. Nikon replaced the custom of crossing with two fingers with three fingers, ordered to pronounce the word “Hallelujah” not twice, but three times, and to move around the lectern not with the sun (“salting”), but against it.
The clothing of clergy and monks also underwent changes. In the text of the liturgical books itself, some words are replaced with others that are essentially equivalent. Thus, “singers” are replaced by “singers,” “eternal” by “infinite,” “those who have seen” by “those who have seen,” etc.
At first, disputes between zealots and supporters of the reform were of a private nature and did not go beyond the theological discussions of a narrow circle of people. But, having become patriarch, Nikon abruptly broke with the circle of zealots and expelled them from Moscow. He was exiled to Siberia and Avvakum.
The church reform carried out by Nikon eliminated differences in church ritual practice between the Russian and Constantinople churches, which made it possible to restore contact with the European Orthodox world, and also introduced uniformity in church services throughout Russia. Most of the changes concerned religious rituals and the design of liturgical rites. The foundations of Orthodoxy and the dogmas of religion remained inviolable. But such seemingly moderate measures caused bewilderment and dissatisfaction among some believers; In spiritual circles, opposition to Nikon arose, led by Archpriest Avvakum. There was a split between supporters of reforms and zealots of the old faith, which caused a massive emigration of Old Believers outside Russia. Carrying out the reform, Nikon set theocratic goals - to create a strong church power, independent of secular power.
Having received unlimited opportunities in the spiritual department, he began to imperiously interfere in worldly affairs. The patriarch's obvious claims to political supremacy led to a break with the tsar: Nikon's theocratism clearly contradicted the trend of growing absolutism. The Tsar could not accept Nikon’s understanding of the relationship between spiritual and temporal power.
Church Council 1666 - 1667 approved Nikon's reform, but he himself was deposed and exiled to a monastery. Supporters of the old rituals were condemned as heretics (from that moment on they began to be called “schismatics”). The Council formalized and consolidated the split of the Russian Orthodox Church into the official (dominant in society) and the Old Believers. The question of the relationship between the “priesthood” and the “kingdom” occupied a significant place in his work. A compromise formula was proposed that corresponded to the Byzantine ideal of the “wise two”: “The Tsar has precedence in civil affairs, and the patriarch in ecclesiastical affairs.” How the discussion ended is unknown, since Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, being a supporter of the formula “royal power is higher than church power,” did not approve its results.
Cancer
