New split in the Russian Orthodox Church. Church schism of the 17th century in Rus' and the Old Believers

The split occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church. Three Udmurt priests today announced that they no longer recognize the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church over themselves, however, they remain clergymen of the Moscow Patriarchate.

This scandalous story began in April with the open appeal of Archpriest Sergius Kondakov, Archpriest Mikhail Karpeev and Priest Alexander Malykh to His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'.

In a 20-minute video, which is available on YouTube, the priests criticized the Russian Orthodox Church "for the tendency of some of the clergy to luxury, for flirting with moneybags, for the blind agreement of the Russian Orthodox Church with the authorities." Almost immediately, they were relieved of their positions, formally for refusing to mention Patriarch Kirill in divine services.

Today they announced that they not only refuse to mention Kirill, but also no longer recognize any authority of the head of the RCP. "We have reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, headed by the outstanding Archpastor Metropolitan Agafangel." This refers to the former bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, who did not recognize the unification of the ROC and ROCOR that took place in 2008. He calls himself "Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America, and also Archbishop of Tauride and Odessa".

We are discussing the split in the Russian Orthodox Church with Vladimir Vigilyansky, head of the press service of the Moscow Patriarchate, and Priest Mikhail Vasiliev, chief priest of the Airborne Forces.

Pispanen: Before leaving for a structure independent of the Russian Orthodox Church, the priests reproached the Russian Orthodox Church for being prone to luxury and flirting with the authorities. Do you agree with such accusations?

Vigilyansky: Partly agree. In general, many of the questions that they raise, sharpening them publicistically, are openly discussed here, without resorting to going into schism or violating church canons, as the unfortunate ones did, it seems to me, I sincerely feel sorry for them, these Izhevsk priests . In general, the document that was published on Youtube and to which you refer is such a mixture of theological problems with politics, canon law with newspaper journalism, you gave some examples, these issues are freely discussed in our bishops' councils and in the information space of the church . For this, it was absolutely not necessary, as it seems to me, to go to such an extreme measure, to violate the apostolic rules, when not remembering their primate before the church court, they announced that they did not remember him, thereby putting themselves, of course, outside any right to discuss with them. It is surprising that these clergymen studied at the seminary, but not a single document ... we have a charter of the church, where absolutely everything is written - the functions of the patriarch, what clerics should do when they disagree with someone or something - such the impression that this, God forgive me, is some kind of homegrown catacomb idea of ​​ecclesiastical and other law.

Pispanen: If you yourself confirm that yes, it is, yes, we are discussing it at the council, and now if some priests, realizing that nothing is being done and nothing is changing, although you are discussing it, they still understand that it is easier to leave, than to fight and treat the ROC. Why is nothing being done?

Vigilyansky: Who claims this? I think it's being done. There is something to be said for each of those 12 counts. Now on the air to delve into each of these points is rather strange. I'm ready, you're just not ready. As for the fact that we are not fighting poverty, nothing of the kind. It was the cathedral that in February just adopted a resolution regarding the fight against poverty in the parishes and the creation of special commissions for clergy who are undergoing material hardships.

Pispanen: In fact, we were not talking about poverty, but about luxury on the contrary.

Vigilyansky: I speak as an example. As for luxury, I would like examples - at least one example could be given by critics in order to further reason. The clergy are very poor.

Fishman: Let's continue this conversation. In part, Father Vladimir admitted the very fact of the claims. It's probably not so much about luxury, but about excessive secularism and, probably, if I understand correctly, liberality. In fact, those schismatics, I will call them that, these priests accuse the church under the rule of Patriarch Kirill of excessive liberalism. Am I right or not?

Vasiliev: I did not understand the question.

Fishman: Am I right or not, that in fact these are reproaches in liberalism?

Vasiliev: The truth is that there is a stain on the sun. The truth is that the Russian Orthodox Church and its clergy are not taken from Mars in a hermetic package - you are absolutely right in this, they are taken from the same society, and a person very often brings his work, his business, his own personal characteristics. One has more decency by dad and mom, habitat, traditions of ancestors, and he behaves with dignity - he doesn’t sell for money, he doesn’t cheat on his wife and homeland. For another, these traditions are brought up to a lesser extent, of course, what kind of pop is such a parish. Obviously, very often we are faced with the fact that our politicians and athletes are not quite the same as we would like. Unfortunately, this applies equally to priests - they have nowhere to come up with ideal ones. And we really do not just recognize these phenomena - we are annually defrocked for disciplinary crimes, from the point of view of church canons, I emphasize, not criminal law. Our requirements for a pastor are much stricter than the criminal code. For example, if a priest smokes, he is defrocked.

Pispanen: Then it is not clear if the priest smokes, he has some very strict codes and canons, and nevertheless, he allows himself to really lavish when his flock is malnourished.

Vasiliev: What priest are we talking about now?

Pispanen: Let's not call them by their names now, shall we?

Vasiliev: We can call them by name, and it seems to me that this will be correct and interesting for viewers. Everything else, if we are talking about the abstract collective image of a journalist - Dorenko, Kiselev are included in this collective image, the priests - the priest Gapon, let's take the tale of the priest and his worker Balda.

Pispanen: We are talking about modern Russia.

Vasiliev: In modern Russia, we will see people who really, like some kind of Mikhail Ardov or, respectively, Gleb Yakunin, went into political activity and were defrocked, who refused to leave their warm place in the State Duma, as was the case with Yakunin, and accordingly preferred to leave their coming. In this case, we are talking about a very specific position of specific priests. I personally know one of them, the eldest, Father Sergius, who fed the military. I can say about his personal decency, I know it, and at the same time, I can say that his performance, in my opinion, is a completely eclectic mixture of unfulfilled ambitions, personal problems and a wide variety of claims, which, in my opinion, just typed from the internet.

Fishman: Everyone has their own problems, all people are different, and all priests are also different. It is clear that everyone remains human at the same time, but we are talking about how this performance reflects something, whether you see some kind of trend in it. The question is whether it can be argued that under Patriarch Kirill the church is more inclined to cooperate with the state than it was before.

Vasiliev: We can talk about something else - that from the prone position, in which the church was still relatively historically recent, roughly speaking, I exaggerate, of course, we begin to rise. And when you start to rise, then naturally, you are more noticeable, more susceptible to the influence of precipitation, criticism, whatever you want. I may be exaggerating a little - the genre itself suggests, but please understand that even if we remain in the knee-elbow position, we still will not suit everyone to the fullest. Therefore, our task is not to please princes and not people, but to serve God, by worship. We are doing this.

Fishman: Let me add a couple of words that, of course, Patriarch Kirill, when he was first elected patriarch, became extremely active, and active in the purely political sense of the word. This period lasted quite a long time, and then gradually began to fade away. There were considerations that this was somehow connected with his relations with the secular authorities.

Vasiliev: These are your conjectures.

Fishman: Certainly speculation. However, this was discussed. But the most apotheosis in some sense of cooperation with the authorities, which happened this week, is the statement of Patriarch Kirill that draft evasion is a mortal sin.

Vasiliev: Did you read the text? Take the text, take the video, and you will see that the phrase you are referring to is not in it. I specifically looked before coming to you.

Pispanen: What is there?

Vasiliev: There is a very clear definition of betrayal as a mortal sin. In this case, it doesn't matter if it's a betrayal of one's wife or one's homeland. In the same place, His Holiness the Patriarch said that betrayal of the oath is a mortal sin. Church canons, which date back to the tradition of one of the local councils in North Africa in the 4th century, I emphasize, in the Roman, then still pagan state, it was determined that if a Christian, even in peacetime, would not serve in the armed forces when he was called, fulfill his duty to protect the fatherland, such a person commits a sin.

Pispanen: But he hasn't sworn in yet.

Vasiliev: The institution of the oath, which exists in the modern army in different states, did not exist, it was not always there. A man was called, since he is a man, it means that he is a protector. Not everywhere and not always was there an oral or written oath, which was sealed with blood, sealing wax or something else. Therefore, realize that this applies not only to those countries where there is an oath, but in general to any person who fulfills his duty to defend the fatherland.

Pispanen: So you agree that any young man who did not join the army commits a mortal sin?

Vasiliev: I only agree that any person who does not fulfill his military duty, evades it, I emphasize, deliberately, does not do it due to illness or, for example, due to studies or some other objective circumstances, this person really, if he is a Christian - this is projected only on those who call themselves Christians - commits a sin. As for the concept of mortal sin, in the Russian Orthodox Church, in general in Christianity, there is no rigid division of sins into mortal and non-mortal. It's just a beautiful phrase. The meaning is very simple - any wound on the finger can be fatal if it becomes infected and is not treated, and will lead, for example, to sepsis. Also, any sin, if a person is rooted in it, does not repent, is not corrected, can lead to the degradation of the personality and, unfortunately, the death of the soul. But this happens if this sin is not healed, if a person has no desire to correct himself, but has a desire to aggravate this sin.

What is it 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 seven hills, seven-headed, and so on 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, 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 remains so to this day, that the conciliar mind of the Church is considered the authority in 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 was condemned and rejected, who rejected the Divinity and the eternal birth of the Son of God. The Council affirmed the immutable truth - the dogma that the Son of God is the true God, born of God the Father before all ages and is just as eternal as God the Father; He is begotten, not created, and consubstantial with God the Father. In order for all Orthodox Christians to know exactly the true teaching of the faith, it was clearly and briefly stated in the first seven members 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 Macedonia, who rejected the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. This heresy was condemned and rejected at the Council. The Council also supplemented the Nicene Creed with five articles, which set forth the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the church, the sacraments, the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Thus, the Nicetsaregrad Creed was drawn up, 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 impiously taught that the Most Holy Theotokos gave birth to a simple man Christ, with whom God later united morally, 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 Mother of God. The council was attended by 200 bishops. The Fourth Ecumenical Council was convened in 451 in Chalcedon under the emperor Marcian, against the false teaching of Eutyches, who denied human nature in the Lord Jesus Christ. This false doctrine is called Monophysitism. The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Eutyches. The council was attended by 650 bishops. 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 writings and Theodore of Mopsuet himself as unrepentant. The council was attended by 165 bishops. The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened in 630 in Constantinople under the emperor Constantine Pogonates against the false teachings of the monothelite heretics, who recognized only one Divine will in Jesus Christ. The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of the Monothelites. The Council was attended by 170 bishops. 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 - to believe and supply in the holy temples, along with the image of the Holy and Life-Giving Cross of the Lord, and holy icons. At this Council, the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was established, which is celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent. The council was attended by 367 fathers. http://hram-troicy.prihod.ru/pravoslavnye_prazdniki/view/id/...

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

Now the new top of the ROC plans to arrange 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 cathedral; they call it wolf, antichrist, etc. “The Eighth Council will be impious. The Antichrist will not let you sing "I Believe". The bird will fly by, he will order her: “To my feet”, she, without breaking the wall, 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 also show his strength, and then many will bow to him. And whoever of the priests does not bow down will immediately kill him. Archpriest Nikolai Ragozin.

“The Eighth Ecumenical Council will no longer be Orthodox, the Antichrist will secretly attend it. There will be only three Orthodox (bishops) in the Holy Synod, the rest will meet the Antichrist with outstretched arms” Abbot Guriy.

“The eighth ecumenical council is being planned. If this happens, then after the cathedral it will no longer be possible to go to churches, grace will leave. 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 "Saint". But it 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. Newsletter 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 it. People will be forced to go to church, but we will not have to go there under any circumstances. I beg you, stand in the Orthodox faith until the end of your days and be saved!” Reverend Kuksha (Velichko, 1875-11/24.12.1964).

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

If the Pan-Orthodox Council takes place, and without the ROC 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, China's attack on Russia, etc., since the prophecies began to come true. So the 8th Canine Council was appointed for this year 2016. God already has (will have) a reason to punish the Orthodox with universal grief.

1. Reasons for church reform

The centralization of the Russian state required the unification of church rules and rituals. Already in the XVI century. A uniform all-Russian set of saints was established. However, significant discrepancies remained in the liturgical books, often caused by scribal errors. The elimination of these differences became one of the goals created in the 40s. 17th century in Moscow, a circle of "zealots of ancient piety", which consisted of prominent representatives of the clergy. He also sought to correct the morals of the clergy.

The spread of printing made it possible to establish the uniformity of texts, but first it was necessary to decide on which models to make corrections.

Political considerations played a decisive role in resolving this issue. The desire to make Moscow (the "Third Rome") the center of world Orthodoxy demanded rapprochement with Greek Orthodoxy. However, the Greek clergy insisted on correcting Russian church books and rites according to the Greek model.

Since the introduction of Orthodoxy in Rus', the Greek Church has gone through a number of reforms and differed significantly from the ancient Byzantine and Russian models. Therefore, part of the Russian clergy, led by "zealots of ancient piety," opposed the proposed reforms. However, Patriarch Nikon, relying on the support of Alexei Mikhailovich, resolutely carried out the planned reforms.

2. Patriarch Nikon

Nikon comes from the family of the Mordovian peasant Mina, in the world - Nikita Minin. He became patriarch in 1652. Nikon, distinguished by his inflexible, resolute character, had tremendous influence on Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his "sobin (special) friend."

The most important ceremonial changes were: baptism not with two, but with three fingers, the replacement of prostrations with the waist, the singing of "hallelujah" three times instead of twice, the movement of believers in the church past the altar not in the direction of the sun, but against it. The name of Christ began to be written differently - "Jesus" instead of "Jesus". Some changes were made to the rules of worship and icon painting. All books and icons painted according to old models were to be destroyed.

4. Reaction to reform

For believers, this was a serious departure from the traditional canon. After all, a prayer uttered not according to the rules is not only ineffective - it is blasphemous! The most stubborn and consistent opponents of Nikon were the "zealots of ancient piety" (previously the patriarch himself was a member of this circle). They accused him of introducing "Latinism", since the Greek Church since the time of the Union of Florence in 1439 was considered "spoiled" in Russia. Moreover, Greek liturgical books were printed not in Turkish Constantinople, but in Catholic Venice.

5. The emergence of a split

Nikon's opponents - the "Old Believers" - refused to recognize the reforms he had carried out. At church councils in 1654 and 1656. Nikon's opponents were accused of schism, excommunicated and exiled.

The most prominent supporter of the schism was Archpriest Avvakum, a talented publicist and preacher. The former court priest, a member of the circle of "zealots of ancient piety" survived a difficult exile, suffering, death of children, but did not abandon the fanatical opposition to "Nikonianism" and its defender - the king. After a 14-year imprisonment in an "earth prison", Avvakum was burned alive for "blasphemy against the royal house." Avvakum's "Life" written by himself became the most famous work of the Stora-Rite literature.

6. Old Believers

The church council of 1666/1667 cursed the Old Believers. Severe persecution of dissenters began. Supporters of the split were hiding in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, the Volga region, and the Urals. Here they created sketes, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, in the event of the approach of the royal punitive detachments, they staged a "burn" - self-immolation.

The monks of the Solovetsky Monastery did not accept Nikon's reforms. Until 1676, the rebellious monastery withstood the siege of the tsarist troops. The rebels, believing that Alexei Mikhailovich had become a servant of the Antichrist, abandoned the traditional Orthodox prayer for the tsar.

The reasons for the fanatical stubbornness of the schismatics were rooted, first of all, in their belief that Nikonianism was a product of Satan. However, this confidence itself was fed by certain social reasons.

There were many clerics among the schismatics. For the ordinary priest, the innovations meant that he had lived his whole life incorrectly. In addition, many clergymen were illiterate and not prepared to master new books and customs. Posad people and merchants also widely participated in the split. Nikon had long been in conflict with the settlements, objecting to the liquidation of the "white settlements" that belonged to the church. The monasteries and the patriarchal see were engaged in trade and crafts, which irritated the merchants, who believed that the clergy were illegally intruding into their sphere of activity. Therefore, the settlement readily perceived everything that came from the patriarch as evil.

Among the Old Believers were also representatives of the ruling strata, for example, the noblewoman Morozova and Princess Urusova. However, these are still isolated examples.

The bulk of the schismatics were peasants who left for sketes not only for the right faith, but also for freedom, from the lordly and monastic requisitions.

Naturally, subjectively, each Old Believer saw the reasons for his leaving the schism solely in the rejection of "Nikon's heresy."

There were no bishops among the schismatics. There was no one to ordain new priests. In this situation, some of the Old Believers resorted to "re-baptizing" the Nikonian priests who had gone into schism, while others abandoned the clergy altogether. The community of such "priestless" schismatics was led by "mentors" or "learners" - the most versed believers in the Scriptures. Outwardly, the "priestless" trend in the schism resembled Protestantism. However, this similarity is illusory. Protestants rejected the priesthood on principle, believing that a person does not need an intermediary in communion with God. The schismatics, on the other hand, rejected the priesthood and the church hierarchy by force, in an accidental situation.

The ideology of the split, which was based on the rejection of everything new, the fundamental rejection of any foreign influence, secular education, was extremely conservative.

7. The conflict of the church and secular authorities. Fall of Nikon

The question of the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities was one of the most important in the political life of the Russian state in the 15th-17th centuries. The struggle of the Josephites and non-possessors was closely connected with him. In the XVI century. the dominant Josephite trend in the Russian Church abandoned the thesis of the superiority of church authority over secular. After the massacre of Grozny over Metropolitan Philip, the subordination of the church to the state seemed final. However, the situation changed during the Troubles. The authority of the royal power was shaken due to the abundance of impostors and a series of perjury. The authority of the church, thanks to Patriarch Hermogenes, who led the spiritual resistance to the Poles and was martyred by them, became the most important unifying force, increased. The political role of the church increased even more under Patriarch Filaret, the father of Tsar Michael.

The imperious Nikon sought to revive the correlation of secular and ecclesiastical authorities that existed under Filaret. Nikon argued that the priesthood is higher than the kingdom, since it represents God, and secular power is from God. He actively intervened in secular affairs.

Gradually, Alexei Mikhailovich began to be weary of the power of the patriarch. In 1658 there was a gap between them. The king demanded that Nikon no longer be called the great sovereign. Then Nikon declared that he did not want to be a patriarch "in Moscow" and left for the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery on the river. Istra. He hoped that the king would yield, but he was mistaken. On the contrary, the patriarch was required to resign so that a new head of the church could be elected. Nikon replied that he did not refuse the rank of patriarch, and did not want to be patriarch only "in Moscow."

Neither the tsar nor the church council could remove the patriarch. Only in 1666 did a church council take place in Moscow with the participation of two ecumenical patriarchs - Antioch and Alexandria. The council supported the tsar and deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank. Nikon was imprisoned in the monastery prison, where he died in 1681.

The resolution of the "Nikon case" in favor of the secular authorities meant that the church could no longer interfere in state affairs. Since that time, the process of subordinating the church to the state began, which ended under Peter I with the liquidation of the patriarchate, the creation of the Holy Synod headed by a secular official, and the transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church into a state church.

What to look for when answering:

The need for church reform in the middle of the XVII century. from the point of view of establishing the uniformity of worship.

The desire of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities to correct books and rituals according to Greek models in order to strengthen the leading role of the Muscovite state in the Orthodox world.

The combination of social and purely religious motives in the emergence of the Old Believers.

The conservative nature of the ideology of the split.

Nikon's confrontation with Alexei Mikhailovich is the last open conflict between the church and state power, after which it is only a question of the degree of subordination of the church to secular authorities.

The Solovetsky uprising should also be discussed in connection with topic 26 "People's uprisings in Russia in the 17th century."

On May 23, 1666, by decision of the Council of the Holy Orthodox Church, Archpriest Avvakum Petrov was stripped 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 existed then 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 except the ritual side of worship and initially met with the approval of both the sovereign himself and the highest church hierarchy.

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

1. Large-scale "book 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 union “a” was removed in the words about faith in the Son of God “born, not created”, they began to talk about the Kingdom of God in the future (“there will be no end”), and not in the present tense (“there is 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 "Jesus" (under the title "Ic") - "Jesus".
2. Replacing the two-fingered sign of the cross with a three-fingered one and the abolition of "throwing", or small bows to the earth.
3. Nikon ordered the religious processions to be carried out in the opposite direction (against the sun, and not salting).
4. The exclamation of "Hallelujah" during the service began to be pronounced not twice, but three times.
5. The number of prosphora on proskomedia and the inscription of the seal on prosphora have been changed.

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

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

“Having spent ten years as a parish priest, Nikon, involuntarily, learned to himself all the rudeness of the environment around him and transferred 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 a Russian person consisted in the most accurate execution of external methods, to which a symbolic power was attributed, bestowing God's grace; and Nikon's piety did not go far beyond ritualism. 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 granted him the title of "great sovereign", Nikon conducted business hastily, autocratically and abruptly, demanding an immediate rejection of the old rites and the exact execution of new ones. Old Russian rituals were ridiculed with inappropriate vehemence and harshness; Nikon's Greekophilia knew no bounds. But it was based not at all on admiration for Hellenistic culture and the Byzantine heritage, but on the provincialism of the patriarch, who unexpectedly emerged from ordinary people (“from rags to riches”) and claimed the role of head of the universal Greek church.

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

“Christ taught us neither dialectics nor eloquence, because a rhetorician and philosopher cannot be a Christian. Unless a Christian exhausts all outward wisdom and all the memory of Greek philosophers from his thinking, he cannot be saved. Wisdom is the Hellenic mother of all crafty dogmas.

Even during his enthronement (assuming the office 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 "obey him in everything, as the chief and shepherd and the most beautiful father."

And in the future, Nikon was not at all shy in the methods of dealing with his opponents. At the council of 1654, he publicly beat, tore off his mantle, and then, without a council decision, he single-handedly deprived the cathedra and exiled the opponent of the liturgical reform, Bishop Pavel Kolomensky. Subsequently, he was killed under unclear circumstances. Contemporaries, not without reason, believed that it was Nikon who sent assassins to Pavel.

Throughout his patriarchate, Nikon constantly expressed dissatisfaction with the interference of the secular government in church administration. A special protest was caused by the adoption of the Council Code of 1649, which belittled the status of the clergy, placing the Church in fact subordinate to the state. This violated the Symphony of Authorities - the principle of cooperation between secular and spiritual authorities, described by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I, which at first the tsar and the patriarch sought to implement. For example, income from monastic estates was transferred to the Monastic order created within the framework of the Code, i.e. They no longer acted for the needs of the Church, but for 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 known reasons look ridiculous and are more reminiscent of a conflict between two kids in a kindergarten - “don't play with my toys and don't pee in my pot!” But we should not forget that Alexei Mikhailovich, according to many historians, was a fairly progressive ruler. For his time, he was known as an educated man, moreover, not badly brought up. Perhaps the matured sovereign was simply tired of the whims and antics of the dork-patriarch. In his desire to govern the state, Nikon lost all sense of proportion: he challenged the decisions of the tsar and the Boyar Duma, liked to make public scandals, and showed open disobedience to Alexei Mikhailovich and his close boyars.

“You see, sir,” those dissatisfied with the autocracy of the patriarch turned to Alexei Mikhailovich, “that he loved to stand high and ride widely. This patriarch manages instead of the Gospel with reeds, instead of a cross - 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 leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, he took off his patriarchal hood and arbitrarily withdrew on foot to the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery, which he himself founded in 1656 and had in 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 his patriarchate and monasticism, convicted and exiled under strict supervision to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. The secular power won over the spiritual. The Old Believers thought that their time was returning, but they were mistaken - since the reform was fully in the interests of the state, it began to be carried out further, only under the leadership of the king.

The Council of 1666-1667 completed the triumph of the Nikonians and Grecophiles. The council canceled the decisions of the Stoglavy Council of 1551, recognizing that Macarius, along with other Moscow hierarchs, "was foolish with his ignorance." It was the cathedral 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 of the performance of rituals were subject to excommunication from the church. They were called schismatics, or Old Believers, and were severely repressed by the authorities.

Split

Meanwhile, the movement for the "old faith" (Old Believers) began long before the Council. It originated even during the Patriarchate of Nikon, immediately after the beginning of the “right” church books and was, first of all, resistance to the methods by which the patriarch planted Greek learning “from above”. As noted by many well-known historians and researchers (N. Kostomarov, V. Klyuchevsky, A. Kartashev and others), the split in Russian society of the 17th century was actually an opposition of “spirit” and “intelligence”, true faith and book scholarship, people’s self-consciousness and state arbitrariness.

The consciousness of a Russian person was not prepared for those drastic changes in rituals that were carried out by the church under the leadership of Nikon. For the vast majority of the population of the country 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 possess great literacy, being flesh and blood from the blood of the same peasants? There was no purposeful propaganda of new ideas at all.

Therefore, the lower classes met the innovations with hostility. Old books were often not given away, they were hidden. The peasants fled with their families to the forests, hiding from Nikon's "news". Sometimes local parishioners did not give old books, so in some places they used force, there were fights that ended not only in injuries or bruises, but also in murders. The aggravation of the situation was facilitated by the scientists "spravshchiki", who sometimes knew the Greek language perfectly, but did not speak Russian well enough. Instead of grammatically correcting the old text, they gave new translations from the Greek language, slightly different from the old ones, increasing the already strong irritation among the peasant masses.

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

Even Paisius agreed to the existence in some areas and regions of local features of worship, if only the faith was one and the same. However, in Constantinople they did not understand the main characteristic of the Russian people: if you forbid (or allow) - everything and everyone is sure. 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" developed among the church hierarchs and the boyars close to the court. "Old Believers" was headed by Bishop Pavel Kolomna and Kashirsky. He was publicly beaten by Nikon at the council of 1654 and exiled to the Paleostrovsky monastery. After the exile and death of the Bishop of Kolomna, the movement for the "old faith" was headed by several clerics: archpriests Avvakum, Loggin of Murom and Daniil Kostroma, priest Lazar Romanovsky, priest Nikita Dobrynin, nicknamed Pustosvyat, and others. In a secular environment, the boyar Feodosia 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 considered to be one of the brightest "leaders" of the schismatic movement. Just like Nikon, Avvakum came out of the people's "lower classes". At first he was a parish priest in the village of Lopatitsy, Makaryevsky district, Nizhny Novgorod province, then an 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 sheer torment and persecution. The active intolerance of the priest towards any deviation from the canons of the Orthodox faith more than once led him to conflicts with the local secular authorities and the flock. She also forced Avvakum to flee, leaving the parish, to seek protection in Moscow, with her 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 sharpness and intolerance with which the patriarch fought for his reform initiatives collided with the same intolerance towards everything “new” in the face of his opponent. The patriarch wanted to cut the disobedient clergyman, but the queen stood up for Avvakum. The matter ended with the exile of the archpriest 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 the flock. Publicly rejecting Nikon's church reform, Avvakum gained fame as an "irreconcilable fighter" and spiritual leader of all those who disagreed 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 a personal enemy of the deposed patriarch. Avvakum was a fundamental opponent of church reform, and, consequently, an opponent of the authorities and the state in this matter. In 1664, the archpriest gave the tsar a sharp petition 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 adherents scattered throughout Russia. In his epistles, Avvakum called himself "a slave and messenger of Jesus Christ", "protosingel of the Russian Church".

Burning of Archpriest Avvakum old believer icon

In 1666, Avvakum was brought to Moscow, where on 13 (23) May, after futile exhortations at a council that met to try Nikon, he was cut and “cursed” at the Dormition Cathedral at Mass. In response to this, the archpriest immediately declared that he himself was imposing 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, they kept him for a year without a little."

The defrocking of Avvakum was greeted with great indignation among the people, and in many boyar houses, and even at the court, where the tsarina, who interceded for him, had a “great discord” with the tsar on his day of defrocking.

Avvakum was again persuaded in front of the eastern patriarchs in the Chudov Monastery (“you are stubborn; all of our Palestine, and the Serbs, and the Albans, and the Wallachians, and the Romans, and the Lyakhs, all of them are crossed with three fingers; one de you stand on your stubbornness and cross yourself with two fingers; it is not befitting"), but he firmly stood his ground.

At this time, his associates were executed. Avvakum was punished with a whip and exiled to Pustozersk on the Pechora. At the same time, they did not cut out his tongue, like Lazar and Epiphanius, with whom he and Nicephorus, 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 sermon, sending letters and messages. Finally, his sharp 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 holy martyr and confessor. In 1916, the Old Believer Church of Belokrinitsky Accord 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 line of conduct other than Avvakum. He pretended to agree with the decisions of the council and received permission to return to the monastery. However, upon his return, he threw off the Greek klobuk, again put on the Russian one, and became the head of the monastic brethren. The famous “Solovki Petition” was sent to the Tsar, expounding the credo of the old faith. In another petition, the monks threw down a direct challenge to the secular authorities: "Command, sire, to send us your royal sword and from this rebellious life, relocate us to this serene and eternal life."

S. M. Solovyov wrote: “The monks challenged the worldly authorities to a hard struggle, presenting themselves as defenseless victims, without resistance bowing their heads under the royal sword. But when in 1668 the lawyer 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. an insignificant detachment, such as Volokhov had, could not defeat the besieged, who had strong walls, plenty of supplies, 90 guns. "

"Solovki 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 because of the movement of Stenka Razin. After the rebellion was suppressed, a large detachment of archers appeared under the walls of the Solovetsky Monastery, and the shelling of the monastery began. The besieged responded with well-aimed shots, and abbot Nikandr sprinkled the cannons with holy water and said: “My mothers, Galanochki! Our hope is in you, you will defend us!”

But in the besieged monastery, disagreements soon arose between moderates and supporters of decisive action. Most of the monks hoped for reconciliation with the royal power. The minority, led by Nikandr, and the laity - "Baltsy", led by centurions Voronin and Samko, demanded "for the great sovereign to set aside piety", and such words were said about the king himself that "not only to write, but also to think is terrible." In the monastery they stopped confessing, taking communion, they refused to recognize priests. These disagreements predetermined the fall of the Solovetsky Monastery. The archers could not manage 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, in a heavy snowstorm, the archers dismantled the stones and entered the monastery. The defenders of the monastery died in an unequal battle. Some instigators of the uprising were executed, others were sent into exile.

Results

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

In Russian historiography, dedicated to the Russian events of the second half of the 17th century, there was no 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 removal of Nikon, split the entire society into two warring camps.

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

To eliminate the unrest that had risen in the country, the Council of 1666-1667 was convened. This council condemned Nikon himself, but recognized his reforms, because. they at that time corresponded to the state goals and objectives. The same Council of 1666-1667 summoned to its meetings the main propagators of the Schism 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 uncompromising. The decision of the council, which in 1667 took an oath on those who, due to adherence to uncorrected books and supposedly old customs, is an opponent of the church, decisively separated the followers of these errors from the church flock, effectively placing these people outside the law.

The schism troubled the state life of Rus' for a long time. For eight years (1668 - 1676) the siege of the Solovetsky Monastery dragged on. 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 about faith, at the request of the rebels, was held right in the Kremlin in the presence of the ruler Sophia Alekseevna and the patriarch. The archers, however, stood on the side of the schismatics for only one day. The very next morning they brought guilt to the princess and handed over the instigators. Nikita Pustosvyat and Prince Khovansky, the leader of the pop-defiant Old Believers, were executed, plotting to raise a new schismatic revolt.

This is where the direct political consequences of the Schism end, although schismatic troubles flare up here and there for a long time - all over the vast expanses of Russian land. The split ceases to be a factor in the political life of the country, but as a spiritual wound that does not heal, it leaves its mark on the entire 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 the dense forests, the worship of the church before the state, 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 colleges). In the 19th century, it completely lost its influence on educated society, at the same time discrediting itself in the eyes of the broad masses of the people. The split between church and society deepened more and more, causing the emergence of numerous sects and religious movements calling for the rejection of traditional Orthodoxy. L.N. Tolstoy, one of the most progressive thinkers of his time, created his own teaching, which won many followers (“Tolstoy”), who rejected the church and the entire ritual side of worship. In the 20th century, a complete restructuring of public consciousness and the demolition of the old state machine, to which the Orthodox Church belonged in one way or another, led to repressions and persecution of clergy, the widespread destruction of churches, made possible the bloody bacchanalia of the militant "atheism" of the Soviet era ...

Traditions that are deeply woven into the life of the people are especially difficult to eradicate. The Russian people took the split very tensely. And if it were not for the political will of the leaders of that time, we would still be baptized with two fingers. For the sake of seemingly formal trifles, high-ranking people went to their deaths. This is how Feodosy Morozov paid with his lives and Some people still do not accept Nikon's changes, which caused a split in the Orthodox Church. Such people lead a special way of life and are called Old Believers. What did the religious leader Nikon decide to change?

The Russian split was created in the minds of its ideologists long before it actually happened. By the end of the 17th century, the Russian state had strengthened, the horrors of the Time of Troubles began to be forgotten. Constantinople fell in the 15th century. turned out to be a prophet. He wrote that Moscow should become "the third Rome". It would seem that the prophecy was coming true. The minds of the highest religious figures were captivated by the idea of ​​theocracy. In imitation of Byzantium, they wanted to make the state subordinate to the Church. However, in Russia this, as always, was not without extremes. If in Byzantium the state did not formally depend on the Church, then in Russia Nikon was granted the title of “great sovereign”, which until then was given only to kings. The patriarch sought to create a model characteristic of Catholicism, in which the religious leader would have more importance than the secular one. In Byzantium, the authorities simply expressed their subordination to the interests of the faith and its ideals.

At a time when the schism of the Russian Church was only beginning to take shape, religion was in very great strength. were very pompous and solemn. However, Nikon planned to change a lot in the services and prayers, following the model of the Eastern churches. The problem was that the experts were people of different beliefs. Therefore, the result was very serious discrepancies about how to pray and correct old books. The second problem was that not ancient Greek books were used, but relatively new ones.

The most significant changes were in the ceremonial side. In Rus', people got used to the two-fingered sign, which symbolically reflected the human and divine nature of Christ. The sign of the three fingers was just as ancient, but more characteristic of worship in the Eastern churches. It testified to the importance of the Trinity. Before the reform, it was considered just an option, after the reform it became mandatory for everyone.

However, Nikon did not stop at this change. Previously, the procession was carried out according to the sun, and after the reform, the norm became the opposite, that is, it was necessary to walk against the sun. The number of prosphora on which the liturgy was served has changed: instead of seven, five have been used. The text was also changed. Some words were excluded from there, because they were absent in the Greek version.

Some compare Nikon, who provoked a split in the Russian Orthodox Church, with Peter the Great. Only Peter took everything Western as a model, and Nikon took everything Greek. However, a common feature of both historical figures was uncompromising. However, the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church, like any revolution, destroyed its father. was accused of cruelty and arbitrariness, defrocked, and then even sent into exile. However, the reforms themselves were approved in 1666-1667, when it was decided to defrock Nikon.

People who abandoned the reform began to leave their persecutors and live in isolated communities, not allowing marriages with "Nikonians". They lived very well in material terms, because they were against bad habits and entertainment. They are the most orthodox of all the Orthodox. The protest against the reforms was expressed not only by the laity, but also by the whole monastery - Solovetsky. As a result, the monastery was taken with the help of a traitor, and the rebels were mostly physically destroyed.

The Old Believers became persecuted, and very cruelly. If an army was sent to their communities, people often closed themselves in churches - and the matter ended in self-immolation. Many, in order not to betray the faith, drowned themselves. Some starved themselves to death, believing themselves not to be suicides, but martyrs. The scope of the persecution was reminiscent of the Western Inquisition.

Was it worth suffering for the immutability of the rite? It was not only a matter of form, but also of substance. The schismatics defended a peculiar way of the religious development of Russia, and therefore, at least, they are worthy of respect.