a) Avvakum Petrov, Ivan Neronov, Epiphanius, Deacon Fedor, Spiridon Potemkin (schismatics): denunciation of the wrongness of the Nikonians (and the strongest argument in the struggle was mass martyrdom - “sacrificing” oneself for the faith).
b) Simeon of Polotsk, Patriarch Joachim, Bishop Pitirim, Metropolitan Macarius (spiritual-academic school): condemnation of schismatics, accusing them of “ignorance”, “inertia”, “stubbornness”, “heresy” in order to prove the Old Believers wrong.
c) V. O. Klyuchevsky: the problem of the schism is the problem of the Third Rome, Holy Rus', Ecumenical Orthodoxy, the schism contributed to the spread of Western influences; highlighted not only the church-historical, but also the folk-psychological side of the schism.
d) S. M. Solovyov: schism is a conflict that affected only the sphere of ritual.
e) A.I. Herzen, M.A. Bakunin: schism is a manifestation of the freedom of spirit of the Russian people, proof of their ability to stand up for their beliefs.
Key events of the church schism
1652 - Nikon’s church reform;
1654, 1656 - church councils, excommunication and exile of opponents of the reform;
1658 - break between Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich;
1666 - church council with the participation of the ecumenical patriarchs. Nikon's deprivation of the patriarchal rank, a curse on the schismatics;
1667-1676 - Solovetsky uprising.
Key figures: Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Patriarch Nikon, Archpriest Avvakum, noblewoman Morozova.
Reasons for the split:
1) the power-hungry desire of Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich for the world Orthodox kingdom (“Moscow is the Third Rome”);
2) the process of centralization of the Russian state inevitably required the development of a unified ideology capable of rallying the broad masses of the population around the center;
3) political fragmentation led to the collapse of a single church organization, and in different lands the development of religious thought and rituals took its own path;
4) the need for a census of the sacred books (during the rewriting, mistakes were inevitably made, the original meaning of the sacred books was distorted, therefore, discrepancies arose in the interpretation of rituals and the meaning of their performance); Maxim Grek began enormous work, acting as a translator and philologist, highlighting different ways of interpreting the Holy Scriptures - literal, allegorical and spiritual (sacred);
5) in February 1551, on the initiative of Metropolitan Macarius, a council was convened, which began the “church dispensation”, the development of a unified pantheon of Russian saints, the introduction of uniformity in church life, which received the name Stoglavogo;
6) during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Joseph, after long years of Troubles and the beginning of the restoration of the Russian state, the “topic of the day” became the problem with the introduction of triplets.
In March 1649, Nikon became Metropolitan of Novgorod and Velikolutsk, showing himself to be an energetic ruler. In 1650, Nikon took an active part in the massacre of the rebellious Novgorodians. On July 22, 1652, the church council elected Nikon as patriarch, who defended the principle "the priesthood is higher than the kingdom". Nikon's opponents: boyars, who were frightened by his imperious habits, former friends in the circle of zealots of piety.
The Council of 1654 approved the innovations and made changes to the divine service. Having the support of the tsar, Nikon conducted the matter hastily, autocratically, demanding the immediate abandonment of old rituals and the exact fulfillment of new ones. Russian culture was declared backward, and European standards were adopted. The broad masses did not accept such a sharp transition to new customs and greeted the innovations with hostility. Opposition to Nikon also formed at court (boyar F. P. Morozova, princess E. P. Urusova, etc.).
In December 1666, Nikon was deprived of the highest clergy (in his place was installed the “quiet and insignificant” Joasaph II, who was under the control of the king, i.e., secular power). The reason was Nikon’s extreme ambition and the intensifying conflict with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Nikon's place of exile was the Ferapontov Monastery on White Lake. Secular power triumphed over spiritual power.
The Church Council (1666-1667) completed the triumph of the Nikonians and Grecophiles, canceled the decisions of the Stoglavy Council, approved the reforms and marked the beginning of the church schism. From now on, all those who disagreed with the introduction of new details in the performance of rituals were subject to excommunication from the church, received the name schismatics (Old Believers) and were subjected to severe repression by the authorities.
The split took the form of extreme confrontation: ideological factors were touched upon, and the polemics between the Old Believers and the Nikonians resulted in a real ideological war. The most influential of the church traditionalists were Ivan Neronov, Avvakum Petrov, Stefan Vonifatiev (who had the opportunity to become patriarch instead of Nikon, but refused to nominate his candidacy), Andrei Denisov, Spiridon Potemkin. The Church Council of 1666 anathematized and cursed as heretics and rebellious all those who did not accept the reform.
Consequences of the split
— Many ordinary people experienced the abandonment of previous rituals as a national and personal catastrophe.
— The reform was carried out from an elite position.
— The reform was carried out with the help of violence, the essence of the pre-Nikon understanding of Christianity in Rus' was that it was impossible to force people to believe by force.
— Before the split, Rus' was spiritually united. The reform prepared the ground for the spread of disdainful sentiments towards national customs and forms of organizing everyday life.
— The consequence of the split was a certain confusion in the people's worldview. The Old Believers perceived history as “eternity in the present.” In the worldview of the New Believers, more material practicality and a desire to quickly achieve practical results appeared.
— The state persecuted the Old Believers. Repressions against them expanded after the death of Alexei, during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich and Princess Sophia. In 1681, any distribution of ancient books and writings of the Old Believers was prohibited. In 1682, by order of Tsar Fedor, the most prominent leader of the schism, Avvakum, was burned. Under Sophia, a law was passed that finally prohibited any activity of schismatics. The Old Believers showed exceptional spiritual fortitude, responded to repression with acts of mass self-immolation, and burned entire clans and communities.
— The remaining Old Believers introduced a unique current into Russian spiritual and cultural thought and did a lot to preserve antiquity. The reform outlined a substitution of the main goals of education: instead of a person - the bearer of the highest spiritual principle, they began to prepare a person who performs a narrow range of certain functions.
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. TO end of XVII- at the beginning of the 18th century, there were various currents 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 decrees:
— “On the recognition of old Russian rituals as salutary, like new rituals, and equal to them”;
— “On the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals, and especially to double-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.”
The Local Council of 1971 approved three resolutions of the Synod of 1929.
On January 12, 2013, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, the first liturgy after the schism according to the ancient rite was celebrated.
The material was prepared based on information from open sources V
The 17th century in Russia was marked by church reform, which had far-reaching consequences both for the Church and for the entire Russian state. It is customary to associate changes in church life that time with the activities of Patriarch Nikon. Many studies have been devoted to the study of this phenomenon, but there is no uniformity of opinions. This publication talks about the reasons for the existence of different points of view on the authorship and implementation of church reform of the 17th century.
1. The generally accepted view of church reform in the 17th century
The mid-17th century in Russia was marked by church reform, which had far-reaching consequences both for the Church and for the entire Russian state. It is customary to associate changes in church life at that time with the activities of Patriarch Nikon. In various versions, this point of view can be found both in pre-revolutionary and modern authors. “Under him (Nikon) and with his main participation, a completely faithful and fundamentally reliable correction of our church books and rituals really began, which almost never happened before...” writes the outstanding church historian of the 19th century, Metropolitan Macarius. It is worth noting how carefully the Metropolitan speaks about Patriarch Nikon’s participation in the reform: the correction began “with him and with his main participation.” We find a somewhat different view among most researchers of the Russian schism, where the correction of “liturgical books and church rites” or “church liturgical books and rites” is already firmly connected with the name of Nikon. Some authors make even more categorical judgments when they claim that Nikon’s care “put a limit to the sowing of chaff” in printed books. Without touching on the individuals who were involved in “sowing the tares” for now, we note the widespread belief that under Patriarch Joseph “those opinions that later became dogmas in the schism were predominantly included in liturgical and teaching books,” and the new patriarch “gave the correct formulation of this issue.” Thus, the phrases “church innovations of Patriarch Nikon” or “his church corrections” for many years become a generally accepted cliche and wander from one book to another with enviable persistence. We open the Dictionary of Scribes and Books of Ancient Rus' and read: “In the spring of 1653, Nikon, with the support of the tsar, began to implement the church reforms he had conceived...” The author of the article is not alone in his judgments, as far as can be judged from their articles and books , the same opinion is shared by: Shashkov A.T. , Urushev D.A. , Batser M.I. etc. Even written by such famous scientists as N.V. Ponyrko and E.M. Yukhimenko, the preface of the new scientific edition of the famous primary source - “Stories about the Fathers and Sufferers of Solovetsky” by Semyon Denisov - could not do without a paraphrase of the above-mentioned statement, moreover, in the first sentence. Despite the polarity of opinions in assessing Nikon’s activities, where some write about “ill-considered and ineptly implemented reforms carried out by the patriarch,” while others see in him the creator of “enlightened Orthodox culture,” which he “learns from the Orthodox East,” Patriarch Nikon remains a key figure reforms.
In church publications of the Soviet period and our time, as a rule, we find the same opinions in their pre-revolutionary or modern versions. This is not surprising, because after the defeat of the Russian Church at the beginning of the 20th century, on many issues we still have to turn to representatives of the secular scientific school or resort to the legacy of Tsarist Russia. An uncritical approach to this heritage sometimes gives rise to books containing information that was refuted in the 19th century and is erroneous. In recent years, a number of anniversary publications have been published, the work on which was either of a joint church-secular nature, or representatives of church science were invited to review, which in itself seems to be a gratifying phenomenon in our life. Unfortunately, these studies often contain extreme views and suffer from bias. So, for example, in the voluminous tome of the works of Patriarch Nikon, attention is drawn to the panegyric to the First Hierarch, according to which Nikon “brought Moscow Russia out of the position of isolationism among the Orthodox Churches and through ritual reform brought it closer to other Local Churches, recalled the unity of the Church during local division, prepared a canonical the unification of Great Russia and Little Russia, revived the life of the Church, making the works of its fathers accessible to the people and explaining its rites, worked to change the morals of the clergy...", etc. Almost the same can be read in the address of Archbishop Georgy of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas, published in a regional publication , dedicated to the 355th anniversary of Nikon’s accession to the Primate Throne. There are also more shocking statements: “In modern language, the “democrats” of that time dreamed of “Russia’s integration into the world community,” writes N.A. Koloty, - and the great Nikon consistently implemented the idea of “Moscow - the Third Rome”. This was the time when the Holy Spirit left the “Second Rome” - Constantinople and sanctified Moscow,” the author concludes. Without going into theological discussions about the time of the consecration of Moscow by the Holy Spirit, we consider it necessary to note that A.V. Kartashev sets out a completely opposite point of view - in the matter of reform: “Nikon tactlessly and blindly drove the church ship against the rock of Rome III.”
There is an enthusiastic attitude towards Nikon and his transformations among Russian scientists abroad, for example N. Talberg, who, however, in the introduction to his book considered it necessary to write the following: “This work does not claim to have scientific research significance.” Even Fr. John Meyendorff writes about this in a traditional way, comprehending the events somewhat deeper and more restrained: “...Moscow Patriarch Nikon... energetically tried to restore what seemed to him to be Byzantine traditions, and to reform the Russian Church, making it in ritual and organizational respects identical to the contemporary Greek one Churches. His reform,” continues the protopresbyter, “was actively supported by the tsar, who, not at all in the custom of Moscow, solemnly promised to obey the patriarch.”
So, we have two versions of the generally accepted assessment of the church reform of the 17th century, which owe their origin to the division of the Russian Orthodox Church into the Old Believer and New Believer or, as they said before the revolution, the Greek-Russian Church. For various reasons, and especially under the influence of the preaching activities of both sides and fierce disputes between them, this point of view became widespread among the people and established itself in the scientific community. The main feature of this view, regardless of the positive or negative attitude towards the personality and activities of Patriarch Nikon, is its fundamental and dominant significance in the reform of the Russian Church. In our opinion, it will be more convenient to consider this point of view in the future as a simplified-traditional one.
2. A scientific view of church reform, its gradual formation and development
There is another approach to this problem, which apparently did not take shape right away. Let us first turn to the authors who, although they adhere to a simplified traditional point of view, nevertheless cite a number of facts from which opposite conclusions can be drawn. So, for example, Metropolitan Macarius, who also laid the foundation for the reform under Nikon, left us the following information: “Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself turned to Kiev with a request to send learned men who knew Greek to Moscow so that they would correct the Slavic Bible according to the text of seventy interpreters, which they then intended to print again." Scientists soon arrived and “even during the lifetime of Patriarch Joseph, they managed to correct one book, “The Six Days,” from the Greek text, which was already being printed, and printed their corrections at the end of the book...” Count A. Heyden, pointing out that “the new patriarch set the whole matter in motion corrections of church books and rituals on an inter-church basis”, it is immediately stipulated: “True, even Nikon’s predecessor, Patriarch Joseph, in 1650, not daring to introduce unanimous singing in churches, applied for permission to this “great church need” to the Constantinople Patriarch Parthenius." Having devoted his work to the confrontation between Patriarch Nikon and Archpriest John Neronov, the count draws attention to the activities of the “main leader of the schism” before his opponent took the patriarchal throne. Neronov, according to his research, “took an active part in correcting church books, being a member of the council at the printing court” and “together with his future enemy Nikon, at that time still Metropolitan of Novgorod, he also contributed to the establishment of church deanery, the revival of church preaching and the correction of some church rituals, for example, the introduction of unanimous singing...” Interesting information about publishing activity during the time of Patriarch Joseph is given to us by the Olonets diocesan missionary and the author of a completely traditional textbook on the history of the schism, priest K. Plotnikov: “During the 10 years (1642-1652) of his patriarchate, such a number of books (116) were published as did not work under any of the previous patriarchs.” Even among supporters of deliberately introducing errors into printed publications under Patriarch Joseph, one can detect some discrepancies in the facts. “Damage of church books,” according to Count M.V. Tolstoy, - reached the highest degree and was all the more regrettable and dismal because it was carried out clearly, asserting itself, apparently, on legal grounds.” But if the “reasons are legal,” then the activity of the inspectors is no longer “damage,” but the correction of books, according to certain views on this issue, carried out not “from the wind of their head,” but on the basis of an officially approved program. Even during the time of Patriarchate Filaret, to improve book corrections, the “Trinity Inspectors” proposed the following system: “a) to have educated inspectors and b) special printing observers from the capital’s clergy,” which was organized. Only based on this alone, we can come to the conclusion that even with the participation of such personalities as “archpriests Ivan Neronov, Avvakum Petrov and deacon of the Annunciation Cathedral Fedor,” whose influence, according to S.F. Platonov, “many errors and incorrect opinions were introduced and disseminated in the new books,” the so-called “damage” could turn out to be extremely difficult. However, the venerable historian expresses this point of view, already outdated and criticized in his time, as an assumption. Along with Heyden, Platonov argues that the correction of books undertaken by the new patriarch “lost its former significance as a household matter and became an inter-church matter.” But if the “work” of church reform began before it became “inter-church,” then only its character changed and, therefore, it was not Nikon who started it.
More in-depth studies on this issue in the late 19th and early 20th centuries contradict generally accepted views, pointing to other authors of the reform. N.F. Kapterev, in his fundamental work, convincingly proves this, shifting the initiative of church reform onto the shoulders of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and his confessor, Archpriest Stefan. “They were the first, even before Nikon,” the author reports, “to plan to carry out church reform, they had previously outlined it general character and they began, before Nikon, to gradually implement it... they also created Nikon himself, as a Greek-phile reformer.” Some of his other contemporaries hold the same view. HER. Golubinsky believes that Nikon’s sole takeover of the enterprise of correcting rituals and books seems “unfair and unfounded.” “The first thought about correction,” he continues, “did not belong to Nikon alone... but as much as he did, so did Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with the latter’s other closest advisers, and if the sovereign, like Nikon, were not able to heed the ideas about the injustice of our opinion regarding the later Greeks, as if they had lost the purity of the Orthodoxy of the ancient Greeks, even Nikon’s correction of rituals and books could not have taken place, for the sovereign’s veto could have stopped the matter at the very beginning.” Without the approval and support of the tsar, according to Golubinsky, Nikon and his ideas simply would not have been allowed to the Patriarchal throne. “At present, it can be considered completely proven that the ground for Nikon’s activities, in essence, was prepared earlier, under his predecessors,” we read from A. Galkin. He considers only the predecessor of the “first Russian reformer” to be Patriarch Joseph, who “just like Nikon, came to realize the need for a radical correction of books and rituals, and, moreover, according to Greek originals, and not according to Slavic manuscripts.” In our opinion, this is an unjustifiably bold statement, although one cannot, of course, agree with the statements of some scientists who called Joseph “indecisive and weak” and stated: “It is not surprising that such a patriarch did not leave a good memory among the people and in history.” Perhaps Galkin made such hasty conclusions from the events of the last years of the reign of the First Hierarch, and it was precisely at this time that the arrival of the Kiev learned monks in Moscow, the first and second trips of Arseny Sukhanov to the East, or the fact that Joseph turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople for clarification about the introduction of unanimous worship occurred . “Many outstanding things happened in the Russian Church under his leadership,” writes A.K. Borozdin, - but recently his personal participation in the affairs of the church has weakened significantly, thanks to the activities of the Vonifatiev circle and the Novgorod Metropolitan Nikon, who was adjacent to this circle.” Archpriest Pavel Nikolaevsky shares his observations of the progress of this activity, reporting that the books published in 1651 “in many places bear obvious traces of corrections from Greek sources”; as we can observe, the reform in the form in which Nikon usually assimilates it has already begun. Consequently, the circle of zealots of piety initially worked to implement church reforms, and some of its representatives are the creators of this reform.
The February Revolution and the October Revolution of 1917 made their own adjustments to scientific research activities, as a result of which the study of this issue went in two directions. Emigration was the successor of the Russian pre-revolutionary scientific school and preserved the church-historical tradition, and in Soviet Russia, under the influence of Marxism-Leninism, a materialist position was established with its negative attitude towards religion, which extended in its negation, depending on the political situation, even to militant atheism. However, the Bolsheviks initially had no time for historians and their stories, so in the first two decades of Soviet power there are studies that develop the direction set before the great upheavals.
Adhering to a simplified traditional point of view, Marxist historian N.M. Nikolsky describes the beginning of church reform activities as follows: “Nikon really began reforms, but not those and not in the spirit that the zealots desired.” But a little earlier, falling into a contradiction, the author reasonably leads the reader to the conclusion that “supremacy in the church in all respects actually belonged to the king, and not the patriarch.” N.K. shares the same view. Gudziy, seeing the reason for the “gradual loss by the Church of its relative independence” in “the destruction of dependence ... on the Patriarch of Constantinople.” Unlike the previous author, he calls Nikon just a “conductor of reform.” According to Nikolsky, having headed the Church, the patriarch-reformer promoted his reform, and everything that came before him was preparation. Here he echoes the emigrant historian E.F. Shmurlo, who, although he claims that “the Tsar and Vonifatiev decided to introduce a transformation in the Russian Church in the spirit of its complete unity with the Greek Church,” for some reason calls the period dedicated to church transformations under Patriarch Joseph in the “Course of Russian History” “Preparation reforms". In our opinion, this is unfounded; contrary to the facts, both authors unconditionally follow the established tradition, when the question is much more complicated. “The religious reform, begun without the patriarch, from now on went past and further than the lovers of God,” writes a researcher of the Siberian exile of Archpriest Avvakum, namesake and contemporary of N.M. Nikolsky, Nikolsky V.K., thereby indicating that both patriarchs were not its initiators. Here is how he develops his thought further: “Nikon began to carry it through people obedient to him, whom until recently, together with other lovers of God, he had honored as “enemies of God” and “destroyers of the law.” Having become a patriarch, the tsar’s “king’s friend” removed the zealots from the reforms, shifting this concern onto the shoulders of the administration and those who were entirely obliged to him.
Studying Russian issues church history , in its classical sense, has fallen on the shoulders of our emigration since the middle of the 20th century. Following Kapterev and Golubinsky, Archpriest Georgy Florovsky also writes that “the “reform” was decided and thought out in the palace,” but Nikon brought his incredible temperament to it. “...It was he who put all the passion of his stormy and reckless nature into the execution of these transformative plans, so it was with his name that this attempt to Greekize the Russian Church in all its life and way of life was forever associated.” Of interest is the psychological portrait of the patriarch compiled by Fr. George, in which, in our opinion, he tried to avoid extremes of both a positive and negative nature. Apologist of Patriarch Nikon M.V. Zyzykin, referring to the same Kapterev, also denies him the authorship of the church reform. “Nikon,” writes the professor, “was not its initiator, but only the executor of the intentions of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and his confessor Stefan Vonifatiev, which is why he completely lost interest in the reform after the death of Stefan, who died as a monk on November 11, 1656, and after the end of his friendship with king." Zyzykin reports the following about Nikon’s influence on the nature of the reforms: “...having agreed to carry it out, he carried it out with the authority of the Patriarch, with the energy characteristic of him in any matter.” Due to the specifics of his work, the author pays special attention to the confrontation between the first hierarch and the boyars, who sought to push the “king’s friend” away from the tsar and for this did not disdain anything, even an alliance with the church opposition. “The Old Believers,” according to Zyzykin, “albeit mistakenly, considered Nikon the initiator of the reform... and therefore created the most unflattering idea about Nikon, saw only bad things in his activities and put various low motives into his actions and willingly joined any fight against Nikon ". Russian scientist of the German school I.K. Smolich touches on this topic in his unique work dedicated to Russian monasticism. “Nikon’s measures to correct church books and change some liturgical rituals,” the historian reports, “in essence, did not contain anything new; they were only the last link in a long chain of similar events that either had already been carried out before him or were supposed to be carried out in the future." The author emphasizes that the patriarch was forced to continue correcting the books, “but this compulsion was precisely contrary to his character and could not awaken in him a genuine interest in the matter.” According to another representative of our abroad, A. V. Kartashev, the author of the reform was Archpriest Stefan, who headed the God-loving movement. “The new patriarch,” he writes in his essays on the history of the Russian Church, “began with inspiration to carry out the program of his ministry, which was well known to the tsar from long-term personal conversations and suggestions and was shared by the latter, because it came from the tsar’s confessor, Archpriest Stefan Vonifatiev ". The matter of correcting books and rituals, the author believes, “which gave rise to our unfortunate schism, has become so well known that to the uninitiated it seems to be Nikon’s main business.” The real state of affairs, according to Kartashev, is such that the idea of a book council for the patriarch “was a passing accident, a conclusion from his main idea, and the thing itself... was for him the old traditional work of the patriarchs, which had to be continued simply by inertia.” Nikon was obsessed with another idea: he dreamed of raising spiritual power over secular power, and the young tsar, with his disposition and affection, favored its strengthening and development. “The thought of the primacy of the Church over the state clouded Nikon’s head,” we read from A.V. Kartashev, and in this context we must consider all his activities. The author of the fundamental work on Old Believers S.A. Zenkovsky notes: “The Tsar hastened to elect a new patriarch, since the conflict between the lovers of God and the patriarchal administration, which had dragged on for too long, naturally disrupted the normal life of the Church and did not make it possible to carry out the reforms planned by the Tsar and the lovers of God.” But in one of the prefaces to his study, he writes that “the death of the weak-willed Patriarch Joseph in 1652 completely unexpectedly changed the course of the “Russian Reformation”. This kind of inconsistency among this and other authors can be explained by the uncertainty and undeveloped terminology on this issue, when tradition says one thing, and the facts say something else. However, elsewhere in the book the author limits the transformative actions of the “extreme bishop” to the correction of the Service Book, “which is what all Nikon’s “reforms” actually amounted to.” Zenkovsky also draws attention to the changing nature of the reform under the influence of the new patriarch: “He sought to carry out the reform autocratically, from the position of the growing power of the patriarchal throne.” Following N.M. Nikolsky, who wrote about the fundamental difference in views on the organization of church corrections between the lovers of God and Nikon, when the latter “wanted to correct the church... not by establishing a conciliar principle in it, but through the elevation of the priesthood over the kingdom,” S. A. Zenkovsky points out that “the authoritarian principle was opposed in practice to the beginning of conciliarity.”
A visible revival of church-scientific thought in Russia itself occurred during the events associated with the celebration of the millennium of the Baptism of Rus', although a gradual weakening of pressure state power on the Church began earlier. Somewhere from the mid-70s, there has been a gradual attenuation of ideological influence on the work of historians, which was reflected in their works by greater objectivity. The efforts of scientists are still aimed at searching for new sources and new factual data, at describing and systematizing the achievements of their predecessors. As a result of their activities, autographs and previously unknown writings of participants in the events of the 17th century are published, studies appear that can be called unique, for example, “Materials for the “Chronicle of the Life of Archpriest Avvakum”” by V.I. Malyshev is the work of his entire life, the most important primary source not only for the study of Avvakum and the Old Believers, but also for the entire era as a whole. Working with primary sources certainly leads to the need to evaluate the historical events mentioned in them. This is what N.Yu. writes in his article. Bubnov: “Patriarch Nikon carried out the will of the tsar, who consciously set a course to change the ideological orientation of the country, taking the path of cultural rapprochement with European countries.” Describing the activities of the zealots of piety, the scientist draws attention to the hopes of the latter that the new patriarch “will consolidate their predominant influence on the course of ideological restructuring in the Moscow state.” However, all this does not prevent the author from connecting the beginning of reforms with Nikon; Apparently, the influence of Old Believer primary sources is felt, but they will be discussed below. In the context of the problem under consideration, the remark of the church historian Archpriest John Belevtsev is of interest. The transformations, in his opinion, “were not a personal matter for Patriarch Nikon, and therefore the correction of liturgical books and changes in church rituals continued even after he left the patriarchal see.” Famous Eurasianist L.N. Gumilyov, in his original research, did not ignore church reform. He writes that “after the turmoil, the reform of the Church became the most pressing problem,” and the reformers were “zealots of piety.” “The reform was carried out not by bishops,” the author emphasizes, “but by priests: Archpriest Ivan Neronov, confessor of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Stefan Vonifatiev, the famous Avvakum.” For some reason, Gumilyov forgets about the secular component of the “circle of God-lovers.” In the candidate’s thesis devoted to the activities of the Moscow Printing House under Patriarch Joseph, priest Ioann Mirolyubov, we read: “The “Lovers of God” advocated the living and active participation of the lower priesthood and laity in the affairs of church life, up to and including participation in church councils and the administration of the Church.” John Neronov, the author points out, was a “link” between Moscow lovers of God and “zealots of piety from the provinces.” The initiators of the “novins” were Fr. John considers the core of the capital's circle of God-lovers, namely Fyodor Rtishchev, the future Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who “gradually came to the firm conviction that ritual reform and book correction should be carried out in order to bring Russian liturgical practice into conformity with Greek ". However, as we have already noted, this point of view is quite widespread; only the composition of the circle of people who were inspired by this idea changes.
The change in the political course of Russia was not slow to affect the increase in interest in this topic; life itself in an era of change forces us to study the experience of our ancestors. “Patriarch Nikon is a direct parallel with the Russian reformers of the 1990s - Gaidar, etc.,” we read in one Old Believer publication, “in both cases, reforms were necessary, but there was an essential question: how to carry them out? » Wide publishing activities of the Russian Orthodox Church, with the support of the government, commercial organizations and private individuals, Old Believer publications, as well as scientific and commercial projects, on the one hand, made it possible to make available many wonderful, but already bibliographically rare, works of pre-revolutionary authors, works of Russian emigration and little-known modern research, and on the other hand, they splashed out everything that had accumulated over three centuries, a wide variety of opinions, which is extremely difficult for an unprepared reader to navigate. Perhaps that is why some modern authors often begin with a simplified view of the reform, first describing the great plans and vigorous activity of the patriarch-reformer, such as, for example, “the last attempt to reverse the process unfavorable for the church” of the decline of its political role and considering church-ritual corrections in in this context as “replacing specific diversity with uniformity.” But under the pressure of facts, they come to an unexpected result: “After Nikon’s deposition, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself took into his own hands the continuation of reforms, who tried to come to an agreement with the anti-Nikon opposition, without conceding to it on the merits.” The question arises: why should the tsar engage in the reform of the disgraced patriarch? This is only possible if the changes owe their existence not to Nikon, but to Alexei Mikhailovich himself and his entourage. In this context, it is also possible to explain the exclusion from the reforms of the circle of God-lovers who sought “to carry out church reform based on Russian traditions.” They interfered with someone, perhaps the “moderate Westerners” from the tsar’s entourage; these experienced intriguers could well have played on the repentant feelings of the tsar, Archpriest Stefan and Nikon himself regarding the late Patriarch Joseph, whom they, along with other lovers of God, actually removed from business. Calling the zealots “a society of clergy and secular persons interested in theological issues and focused on streamlining church life,” D.F. Poloznev adheres to a simplified-traditional point of view on the issue of starting the reform. At the same time, he draws attention to the fact that the tsar promoted the Novgorod metropolitan to the patriarchate against the wishes of the courtiers and notes: “In Nikon, the tsar saw a man capable of transformation in the spirit of the ideas of the universal significance of Russian Orthodoxy that were close to both of them.” It turns out that Nikon started the reforms, but the tsar took care of this in advance, who, due to his youth, himself still needed support and care. V.V. Molzinsky notes: “It was the tsar, driven by political thoughts, who initiated this state-church reform, which is most often called Nikon’s.” His opinion about Nikon coincides with the view of Bubnov: “The modern level of scientific knowledge... forces us to recognize the patriarch only as an executor of “sovereign” aspirations, although not without his goals, political ambitions and a (deeply erroneous) vision of the prospects for his place in the structure supreme authority ". The author is more consistent in his judgment regarding the term “Nikon reform”. He writes about the “total dissemination” and rooting of this concept in Russian historiography due to established “stereotypes of thinking.” One of the last major studies on church reform of the 17th century is the work of the same name by B.P. Kutuzov, in which he also criticizes the “stereotypical ideas” on this issue, widespread among “average believers.” “However, such an understanding of the reform of the 17th century,” the author claims, “is far from the truth.” “Nikon,” according to Kutuzov, “was just a performer, and behind him, invisible to many, stood Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich...”, who “conceived the reform and made Nikon patriarch, having become confident in his full readiness to carry out this reform.” In his other book, which is one of the continuations of the author’s first work, he writes even more categorically: “Attention is drawn to the fact that Tsar Alexei began preparing the reform immediately after ascending the throne, i.e. when he was only 16 years old! This indicates that the tsar was raised in this direction from childhood; there were, of course, experienced advisers and actual leaders.” Unfortunately, the information in the works of B.P. Kutuzov is presented in a tendentious manner: the author is focused on the “conspiracy against Russia” and the apology of the Old Believers, so he reduces all the rich factual material to these problems, which significantly complicates the work with his books. S.V. Lobachev, in a study dedicated to Patriarch Nikon, through a “comparison of sources from different times,” also comes to the conclusion that “the history of the early schism, apparently, does not fit into the framework of the usual scheme.” The result of the chapter devoted to church reform is the conclusion already known to us from the works of emigration: “... Nikon’s main task was not reform, but the elevation of the role of the priesthood and universal Orthodoxy, which was reflected in the new foreign policy course of the Russian state.” Archpriest Georgy Krylov, who studied the book of liturgical minas in the 17th century, traditionally connects the beginning of “the actual liturgical reform, which is usually called Nikon’s,” with Nikon’s accession to the patriarchal throne. But further in his “plan-scheme” of this “immense”, according to the author of the topic, he writes the following: “The last two mentioned periods - Nikon’s and Joachim’s - must be considered in connection with Greek and Latin influence in Russia.” O. George divides the book literature of the 17th century into the following periods: Philaret-Joasaph, Joseph, Nikon (before the council of 1666-1667), pre-Joakimov (1667-1673), Joakimov (includes the first years of the reign of Patriarch Adrian). For our work, the very fact of dividing book corrections and the associated church reform into periods is of greatest importance.
Thus, we have a significant number of studies in which the initiators of the reforms are other members of the God-loving movement, namely: Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (in the vast majority of works), Archpriest Stefan Vonifatiev, “experienced advisers and actual leaders” and even Patriarch Joseph. Nikon is engaged in reform “by inertia”; he is the executor of the will of its author, and only at a certain stage. Church reform began (and was being prepared by a number of historians) before Nikon and continued after his departure from the pulpit. It owes its name to the unbridled temperament of the patriarch, his domineering and hasty methods of introducing changes and, consequently, numerous miscalculations; One should not forget about the influence of factors beyond his control, such as the approach of 1666, with all the circumstances that flow from this, according to Cyril’s book. This point of view is supported by logical conclusions and numerous factual materials, which allows us to further call it scientific.
As we can observe, not all of the mentioned authors fully share the scientific view on the problem under consideration. This is due, firstly, to the gradualness of its formation, secondly, to the influence of established stereotypes and the influence of censorship, and thirdly, to the religious beliefs of the scientists themselves. That is why the works of many researchers remained in a transitional state, i.e. contain elements of both simplified-traditional and scientific points of view. It should be especially emphasized the ongoing ideological pressure that they had to overcome, along with scientific research difficulties, this applies to both the 19th century and the 20th, although we must not forget that communist pressure had a comprehensive anti-religious character. These factors will be discussed in more detail in paragraphs 3 and 4.
3. Old Believer point of view and its influence on science
Echoes of the simplified-traditional point of view found everywhere in various modern publications do not seem to be something unusual. Even N.F. Kapterev resorts to the expression “Nikon reform” that has become a term. To be sure of this, just look at the table of contents of his book; this, however, is not surprising, because the author considers the patriarch “during the entire period of his patriarchate... an independent and independent figure.” The vitality of this tradition is directly related to the Old Believers, the views and works of whose representatives on the issue under study we will consider. In the preface of one anti-Old Believers book, you can read the following passage: “At present, the Old Believers are fighting the Orthodox Church in a completely different way than before: they are not satisfied with old printed books and manuscripts, but are “on the prowl, as the Rev. says.” Vincent of Lirinsky, according to all books of the divine law"; they carefully follow modern spiritual literature, noticing everywhere one way or another thoughts that are favorable to their delusions; they cite evidence “from outside”, not only Orthodox spiritual and secular writers, but also non-Orthodox ones; especially with a full hand they draw evidence from the patristic works in the Russian translation.” This statement, quite intriguing in terms of the polemical and research activities of the Old Believers, left hope of finding some objectivity in the presentation of the history of the beginning of the church division by the Old Believer authors. But here, too, we are faced with a split in views on the church reform of the 17th century, albeit of a somewhat different nature.
Pre-revolutionary authors, as a rule, write in the traditional vein, whose books, like ours, are now being actively republished. For example, in short biography Avvakum, compiled by S. Melgunov, printed in a brochure containing the canon of this “hieromartyr and confessor” revered by the Old Believers, in the preface to the Justification of the Old Believer Church of Christ by Belokrinitsky Bishop Arseny of Ural, etc. Here is the most typical example: “...Inflated by the spirit of pride, ambition and uncontrollable lust for power,” writes the famous Old Believer scholar D.S. Varakin, - he (Nikon) attacked the holy antiquity together with his “hangers-on” - the eastern “Paisiys”, “Makarii” and “Arsens” - let’s “blaspheme”... and “blame” everything holy and saving..."
Contemporary Old Believer writers should be examined in more detail. “The reason for the split,” we read from M.O. Shakhov, - was the attempt of Patriarch Nikon and his successors, with the active participation of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, to transform the liturgical practice of the Russian Church, completely likening it to the modern Eastern Orthodox churches or, as they said in Rus' then, the “Greek Church”. This is the most scientifically verified form of the simplified-traditional point of view. The further presentation of events is such that in the context of “news” the author mentions only Nikon. But elsewhere in the book, where Shakhov discusses the attitude of the Old Believers to the Tsar, we already encounter a different opinion, which looks like this: “The inextricable connection between state and church authorities excluded the possibility that the reform of Patriarch Nikon would remain a purely church matter, in relation to which the state could remain neutral." Moreover, the author immediately strengthens his idea with the statement that “from the very beginning, the civil authorities were in complete solidarity with Nikon,” which contradicts, for example, the statement of E.F. Shmurlo: “Nikon was hated, and to a large extent this hatred was the reason that many of his measures, in themselves quite fair and reasonable, met with hostility in advance solely because they came from him.” It is clear that not everyone hated the patriarch, and at different times this hatred manifested itself in different ways, but it could only have no influence in one case: if the patriarch followed the instructions of the state authorities, which is what we see in the matter of church reform. What we have before us is a typical transitional version from one view to another, which arose as a result of the influence of the author’s religious affiliation, which is characterized by a simplified traditional perception of the reform in combination with data that contradicts this tradition. It is more convenient to call this point of view mixed. A similar position is taken by the creators of the encyclopedic dictionary called Old Believers. There are works that contain two views at once, for example, S.I. Bystrov in his book follows a simplified tradition, speaking about “the reforms of Patriarch Nikon,” and the author of the preface, L.S. Dementieva looks at the transformations more broadly, calling them “the reforms of Tsar Alexei and Patriarch Nikon.” From the brief statements of the above authors, of course, it is difficult to judge their opinions, but both this and other similar books themselves serve as an example of an unsettled point of view and an uncertain state of terminology on this issue.
To find out the reasons for the origin of this uncertainty, let us turn for clarification to the famous Old Believer writer and polemicist F.E. Melnikov. Thanks to the publishing activities of the Belokrinitsky Old Believer Metropolis, we have two options for describing the events of the 17th century by this author. In the earliest book, the author mainly adheres to a simplified-traditional view, where Nikon uses “the good nature and trust of the young king” to achieve his goals. Following Kapterev, Melnikov points out that the visiting Greeks seduced the sovereign with the “exalted throne of the great Tsar Constantine,” and the patriarch with the fact that he “will consecrate the Cathedral Apostolic Church Sophia the Wisdom of God in Constantinople." It was only necessary to make corrections, since, according to the Greeks, “the Russian Church has largely departed from the true church traditions and customs.” The author attributes all further activity in the matter of reform exclusively to Nikon, and this continues until he left the patriarchate. Further in the story, the king looks like a completely independent and even dexterous ruler. “It was Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich who destroyed Nikon: the Greek and Russian bishops were only a tool in his hands.” Moreover, the author tells us that “at the palace and in the highest circles of Moscow society, a fairly strong church-political party was formed,” headed by “the tsar himself,” who dreamed of becoming “both the Byzantine emperor and the Polish king.” Indeed, such a sharp change in the character of the Russian autocrat is difficult to explain without taking into account his environment. F.E. Melnikov lists the diverse composition of this party, calling some by name, in particular Paisius Ligarid and Simeon of Polotsk, who led the Greeks and Little Russians, respectively. “Russian courtiers” - Westerners, “boyars - intriguers” and “various foreigners” are indicated without their main bosses. These people, according to the author, thanks to Nikon, seized power in the Church and were not interested in restoring the desecrated antiquity, and given the dependence of the episcopate on the government and the fear of bishops to lose their position and income, supporters of the old rite had no chance. The question immediately arises: did this “church-political party” really appear only at the time the patriarch left his see? Let us turn to another work of the author in question, written in Romania after the Russian disaster of 1917. Just as in his first work, the historian of the Old Belief points to the influence of the Greeks who came to Moscow, led by the Jesuit Paisius Ligarid, who helped the sovereign in condemning the patriarch he disliked and governing the Church. Mentions “Southwestern monks, teachers, politicians and other businessmen infected with Latin” who arrived from Little Russia, points to Western trends among the courtiers and boyars. Only the reform begins differently: “The Tsar and Patriarch, Alexei and Nikon, and their successors and followers, began to introduce new rituals, new liturgical books and rites into the Russian Church, establish new relationships with the Church, as well as with Russia itself, with the Russian people; to root other concepts about piety, about church sacraments, about hierarchy; impose on the Russian people a completely different worldview and so on.” There is no doubt that the historical information in these books is presented under the influence of the religious beliefs of the author, but if in the first Nikon plays the main role in the reform, then in the second the emphasis in the matter of transformation is already placed on the tsar and the patriarch. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the second book was written after the fall of tsarism, or perhaps Melnikov changed his view of some events under the influence of new research. It is important for us that three factors can be traced here at once, under the influence of which a mixed point of view on church corrections is formed, i.e. the author’s religious beliefs, his overcoming of ingrained stereotypes, the presence or absence of ideological pressure. But the most important thing is that in his short history F.E. Melnikov writes further: “Who followed Nikon, accepted new rituals and ranks, learned new faith, - those people began to call Nikonians and New Believers.” On the one hand, the author tells us the facts presented in the Old Believer interpretation, i.e. a mixed vision of the problem, and on the other hand, a simplified and traditional popular perception of events related to the reform. Let us turn to the origins of this perception, which was most directly influenced by people from among the people - persecuted traditionalists led by Archpriest Avvakum.
So, the roots of the simplified tradition in its Old Believer version go back to the very first Old Believer writers - eyewitnesses and participants in these tragic events. “In the summer of 7160,” we read from Avvakum, “on the 10th day of June, by God’s permission, the patriarchal former priest Nikita Minich, in the monks Nikon, climbed onto the throne, seducing the holy soul of the archpriest of the spiritual tsar, Stefan, appearing to him like an angel, and inside there is a devil.” According to the archpriest, it was Stefan Vonifatiev who “admonished the Tsar and Tsarina to put Nikon in Joseph’s place.” Describing the attempt of the lovers of God to elevate the royal confessor to the patriarchate, the leader of the emerging Old Belief in another of his works reports: “He did not want it himself and pointed to Metropolitan Nikon.” Further events, according to the memoirs of Avvakum, look like this: “...When the evil leader and boss became the patriarch, and the orthodoxy began, commanding three fingers to be baptized and during Lent to do throwing in the church at the waist.” Another Pustozersky prisoner, priest Lazar, complements Avvakum’s story, reporting on the activities of the new patriarch after the “fiery archpriest” was exiled to Siberia. This is what he writes: “To God, who allowed for our sin, to you, the noble king, who was in battle, the evil shepherd, who was a wolf in sheep’s skin, Patriarch Nikon, change the holy rite, pervert the books and the beauty of the holy Church, and refute the absurd discords and ranks into the holy He brought the church down from various heresies, and his disciples are perpetrating great persecution on the faithful even to this day.” Protopopov's fellow prisoner and confessor monk Epiphanius is more occupied by the unsuccessful tandem of the patriarch and the adventurer Arseny the Greek who was released by him, who discredited the entire Nikon book. The monk probably knew him personally; at least, he was the cell attendant of Elder Martyrius, under whom Arseny was “under command.” “And as a sin for our sakes, God allowed Nikon, the forerunner of the Antichrist, to attack the patriarchal throne; he, the accursed one, soon placed on the Printing House the enemy of God Arseny, a Jew and a Greek, a heretic who was imprisoned in our Solovetsky Monastery,” writes Epiphanius, - and with this Arseny, the mark and with the enemy of Christ, Nikon, the enemy of Christ, they, the enemies of God, began to sow heretical, cursed tares in printed books, and with those evil tares they began to send those new books to the whole Russian land for mourning, and for mourning to the churches of God, and for the destruction of the souls of men.” The very title of the work of another representative of the “Pustozersk bitter brethren”, Deacon Fyodor, speaks of his views on what is happening: “About the wolf, and the predator, and Nikon, the mark of God, there is a reliable testimony, who was a shepherd in sheep’s skin, the forerunner of the Antichrists, who divided the Church of God and the entire universe stir up, and slander and hate the saints, and create much bloodshed for the true right faith of Christ.” Half a century later, in the works of Vygov’s writers, these events take on poetic form. This is how it looks like from the author of Vinograd of Russia, Simeon Denisov: “When, by God’s permission, the All-Russian Church Government handed over the ship to Nikon, on the highest patriarchal throne, in the summer of 7160, unworthy of a worthy one, which did not raise all-dark storms? Why don’t you let the sea into the Russian sea? What kind of vortex vibrations did you not cause to the all-red ship? Did the sails of the all-blessed, spiritually inspired dogmas gain the insolence of this discord, did the all-good church statutes mercilessly break, did the walls of the all-strong divine laws, cut with all fury, did the oars of the father’s all-blessed rites break with all malice, and in short, the whole church robe was shamelessly torn to pieces, the whole ship of the Russian Church ya crush with all wrath, utterly disturb the entire church refuge, fill all of Russia with rebellion, confusion, hesitation and bloodshed with much lament; The Orthodox commandments of the ancient Church in Russia, and the pious laws that embellished Russia with all grace, were rejected by the Church without reverence, and instead of these, others and new ones were betrayed with all impudence.” The historian of the Vygovskaya hermitage, Ivan Filipov, repeating word for word much of Denisov’s above statement, provides the following details: “... As if Nikon, having been invested with patriarchal robes, has received the highest throne: he approaches the highest royal majesty with his evil, crafty intentions; The Tsar's Majesty asks that he be ordered to edit the Russian books with the ancient Greek charateans on the printing yard, saying that the Russian books from many prescribers are incorrect in appearing with the ancient Greek books: but the Tsar's Majesty does not expect such evil in him, evil, crafty intentions and deceit and allow him to do so his evil crafty invention and petition, to give him the power to do this; He, having accepted power without fear, began to fulfill his desire and the great confusion and rebellion of the Church, the great embitterment and misfortunes of the people, the great hesitation and cowardice of all Russia: having shaken the unshakable limits of the church and the immovable statutes of piety, foreseeing the synod of saints, the father of the oaths broke.” Thus, we can observe how the participants in the events, in this case Pustozersky prisoners, formed a simplified-traditional view of the reform, and how the later iconization of this point of view took place on Vyg. But if you look more closely at the works of the Pustozerians, and especially the works of Avvakum, you can find very interesting information. Here, for example, are the statements of the archpriest about the participation of Alexei Mikhailovich in the fateful events of the era: “You, autocrat, bring judgment against all of them, who have given such impudence to us... Who would dare to say such blasphemous words against the saints, if not your power had allowed will it be?.. Everything is in you, the king, the matter is closed and it’s only about you.” Or the details reported by Avvakum about the events of Nikon’s election to the patriarchate: “The king calls him to the patriarchate, but he doesn’t want to be, he gloomed the king and the people, and with Anna they put him to bed at night, what to do, and having dallied a lot with the devil, he went up to the patriarchate by God’s permission, strengthening the king with his intrigues and evil oath.” And how could the “Mordvin man” come up with all this and carry it out alone? Even if we agree with the opinion of the archpriest that Nikon “took away the mind from Milov (the Tsar), from the current one, as he was close to him,” we must remember that the Russian monarchy was then only on the path to absolutism, and the influence of the favorite, and even with such origin, could not be so significant, unless of course it was the other way around, as, for example, S.S. believes. Mikhailov. “The ambitious patriarch,” he declares, “who decided to act on the principle of “reform for the sake of reform,” turned out to be easy to use by the cunning Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with his political dreams of pan-Orthodox domination.” And although the author’s judgment seems overly categorical, the “cunning” of the king alone in such a matter is not enough, and it is doubtful that this cunning was inherent in him from the very beginning. Eyewitness accounts show in the best possible way that behind Nikon there were strong and influential people: the royal confessor Archpriest Stefan, the okolnichy Fyodor Rtishchev and his sister, the second close noblewoman of the Queen Anna. There is no doubt that there were other, more influential and less noticeable personalities, and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich took a very direct part in everything. The betrayal, in the understanding of the lovers of God, by the new patriarch of his friends, when he “didn’t let them into the Cross,” the sole decision-making on issues of church reform, the passion and cruelty that accompanied his actions and decrees, apparently shocked the zealots so much that behind the figure of Nikon they no longer saw anyone or anything. To understand the currents of Moscow politics, the intricacies of palace intrigues and other behind-the-scenes fuss that accompanied the events in question was extremely difficult, and even impossible, for Ioann Neronov, and even more so for the provincial archpriests. They very soon went into exile. Therefore, it was Patriarch Nikon who was primarily to blame for everything, who with his colorful personality overshadowed the true creators and inspirers of the reform, and thanks to the sermons and writings of the first leaders and inspirers of the fight against the “Nikon innovations”, this tradition was entrenched in the Old Believers and throughout the Russian people.
Returning to the issue of approval and dissemination of simplified-traditional and mixed points of view, we note the influence of the Old Believers on the formation of scientific views in Soviet times. This happened primarily for reasons of an ideological nature under the influence of the beloved new government socio-political explanation of the events in question in the 17th century. “...Split,” notes D.A. Balalykin, - in Soviet historiography of the first years it was assessed as passive, but still resistance to the tsarist regime." Back in the middle of the 19th century A.P. Shchapov saw in the schism a protest of those dissatisfied with the Code (1648) and the spreading “German customs” of the zemstvo, and this hostility to the overthrown government made the Old Believers “socially close” to the Bolshevik regime. However, for communists, Old Belief always remained just one of the forms of “religious obscurantism,” although “in the first years after the revolution, the wave of persecution had little impact on the Old Believers.” Works related to the search for new monuments of the history of early Old Belief and their description, undertaken in Soviet times and bearing rich fruits, represent another way of influence of the Old Believer tradition on the Soviet scientific school. The point here is not only about the “new Marxist concept” developed by N.K. Gudziem and focusing on the “ideological and aesthetic value of monuments of ancient literature.” Historical truth was on the side of the Old Believers, which naturally affected the critical understanding of their scientific achievements.
To summarize, I would like to note that the description of events received from the martyrs and confessors of the Old Belief was established among the masses not as scientific knowledge, but was and is perceived in most cases as an object of faith. That is why Old Believer authors, although they try to use new materials and facts in their scientific research, are almost always forced to look back at the teaching that has become church tradition and sanctified by the suffering of previous generations. Thus, a point of view arises, more or less successfully, depending on the author, combining the religious-historical tradition and new scientific facts. The same problem may arise for the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the nature of the research of the authors who are supporters of the canonization of Patriarch Nikon. We call this scientific view mixed and, due to its dependent nature, is not considered in detail. In addition to supporters of the old faith, this point of view is widespread both in secular circles and among new believers. In the scientific community, this view became most widespread during the Soviet period and retains its influence to this day, especially if the scientists are Old Believers or sympathize with it.
4. Reasons for the emergence and spread of different points of view on church reforms
Before addressing the main issues of this paragraph, it is necessary to determine what types of understanding we have of the events under study. According to the material reviewed, there are two main points of view on the topic under consideration - simplified-traditional and scientific. The first arose in the second half of the 17th century and is divided into two versions - official and Old Believer. Scientific approach was finally formed towards the end of the 19th century, under its influence the simplified tradition began to undergo changes, and many works of a mixed nature appeared. This point of view is not independent and, adjacent to the simplified-traditional view, also has two variants of the same name. It is worth mentioning the socio-political tradition of explaining the events of the church schism, which originates from the works of A.P. Shchapova, is developed by democratically and materialistically minded scientists and argues that church reform is only a slogan, a reason, a call to action in the struggle of the dissatisfied, and under the communists, the oppressed masses. It is loved by Marxist scientists, but apart from this characteristic explanation of events it has almost nothing independent, because the presentation of events is borrowed depending on the author’s sympathies, either from some version of a simplified or mixed point of view, or from a scientific one. The connection between the main views on the Church Reform of the 17th century and historical facts, the degree of influence on them by various circumstances (benefits, controversy, established church and scientific traditions) and the relationship between them is more convenient to show schematically:
As we can see, the most free view of the reform and related events from various external influences is the scientific one. In relation to the polemicizing parties, he is, as it were, between a rock and a hard place, this feature should also be taken into account.
So, why, despite the abundance of facts, despite the presence of the fundamental research we mentioned, do we have such a diversity of views on the authorship and implementation of the church reform of the 17th century? N.F. shows us the path to solving this problem. Kapterev. “...The history of the emergence of the Old Believers in our country was studied and written mainly by polemicists with a schism,” writes the historian, “who, in most cases, studied events from a tendentious polemical point of view, tried to see and find in them only what contributed and helped them polemics with the Old Believers...” Modern authors also say the same thing, this is what T.V. reports on the consideration in scientific literature of the issue of book corrections under Patriarch Nikon. Suzdaltseva: “...the pronounced tendency of anti-Old Believer polemics did not allow the majority of authors of the 19th century. XX century fully critically look at the results of this campaign and the quality of the resulting books.” Consequently, one of the reasons is the polemical nature that both versions of the simplified-traditional point of view on the events in question initially received. Thanks to this, “archpriests Avvakum and Ivan Neronov, priests Lazar and Nikita, deacon Theodore Ivanov” turned out to be inquirers. This is where the myth of the “centuries-old Russian ignorance”, which distorted rites and rituals, originates, about the famous “literal-rite-belief” of our ancestors and, undoubtedly, the assertion that Nikon is the creator of the reform. The latter, as we could already see, was facilitated by the teaching of the apostles of the Old Belief - the Pustozersky prisoners.
The polemic itself is also dependent, secondary in relation to another factor, which even the most progressive pre-revolutionary authors tried to talk about as carefully as possible. Public policy gave rise to both church reform and the entire controversy around it - here main reason, which influenced both the emergence and vitality of the simplified tradition in all its variants. Aleksei Mikhailovich himself, when he needed to prevent the trial of Nikon from extending to reforms, “put and brought to the fore those bishops who, of course, were devoted to the church reform carried out.” By doing this, the tsar, according to Kapterev, carried out “a systematic selection of persons of a strictly defined direction, from whom... he could no longer expect opposition.” Peter I turned out to be a worthy disciple and successor of his father; very soon the Russian Church found itself completely subordinated to tsarist power, and its hierarchical structure was absorbed by the state bureaucratic apparatus. That is why, even before it appeared, Russian church-scientific thought was forced to work only in the direction provided for by the censorship. This state persisted almost until the end of the synodal period. As an example, we can cite the events associated with MDA professor Gilyarov-Platonov. This outstanding teacher, I.K. tells us. Smolich, “read hermeneutics, non-Orthodox confessions, the history of heresies and schisms in the Church, but at the request of Metropolitan Philaret he had to give up lecturing on the schism because of his “liberal criticism” of the positions of the Orthodox Church.” But the matter did not end there, since “as a result of the memorandum he submitted demanding religious tolerance towards the Old Believers, he was dismissed from the academy in 1854.” A sad illustration of the era is the statement of V.M. Undolsky about the work of censorship: “My more than six-month work: Patriarch Nikon’s review of the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was not missed by the St. Petersburg censorship due to the harsh expressions of His Holiness the author of the Objection.” It is not surprising if, after the publication of the famous work of Academician E.E. Golubinsky, dedicated to polemics with the Old Believers, the scientist was accused of writing in favor of the Old Believers. N.F. Kapterev also suffered when, through the machinations of the famous historian of the schism and publisher of Old Believer primary sources, Prof. N.I. Subbotina Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev ordered the printing of his work to be interrupted. Only twenty years later the book saw its reader.
Why obstacles to the objective study of the fatal events of the 17th century by the church hierarchy were so zealously erected can be told to us by one interesting statement by Metropolitan Platon Levshin. This is what he writes to Archbishop Ambrose (Podobedov) on the issue of establishing the Unity of Faith: “This matter is important: after 160 years the Church has stood against this, the advice of all the pastors of the Russian Church is needed, and general position, and, moreover, to preserve the honor of the Church, that it was not in vain that she fought so much against and condemned so many definitions, so many proclamations, so many published works, so many regulations for joining them to the Church, so that we would not remain in shame and our opponents would not proclaim the former “victor” and already and scream." If the church hierarchs of that time were so concerned about issues of honor and shame, if they were so afraid to see their opponents as winners, then it was impossible to expect understanding, much less love and mercy, from the state bureaucratic machine, the nobility and the royal house. The honor of the imperial family was much more important for them than some Old Believers, and a change in attitude towards the schism necessarily led to the recognition of the unjustification and criminality of the persecution.
The events of the mid-17th century are the key to understanding the entire subsequent development of the Russian state, the helm of which was first in the hands of the Westerners, and then passed into the hands of their idols - the Germans. Lack of understanding of the needs of the people and fear of losing power led to total control over everything Russian, including the Church. Hence the long-term (more than two and a half centuries) fear of Patriarch Nikon, “as an example of strong independent church power,” hence the brutal persecution of traditionalists - Old Believers, whose existence did not fit into the pro-Western regulations of that era. As a result of unbiased scientific research, “inconvenient” facts could be revealed that cast a shadow not only on Alexei Mikhailovich and subsequent rulers, but also on the Council of 1666-1667, which, in the opinion of synodal officials and the church hierarchy, undermined the authority of the Church and became a temptation for Orthodox people. Oddly enough, for some reason the brutal persecution of dissidents, in this case the Old Believers, was not considered such a temptation. Apparently, concern for the “honor of the Church” in the conditions of Caesar-papism was primarily associated with justifying the actions of its leader, the tsar, caused by political expediency.
Since the secular power in the Russian Empire subjugated the spiritual power, their unanimity in matters of attitude towards church corrections of the 17th century does not seem surprising. But Caesar-Papism had to be somehow theologically justified, and even under Alexei Mikhailovich, state power turned to the bearers of Western Latin learning in the person of the Greeks and Little Russians. This example of political influence on the formation of public opinion on the issue of reform is noteworthy in that the not yet born church education was already perceived as a means designed to protect the interests of the powerful. We see another reason in the Latin and even Jesuit character of scholarship that influenced the emergence and spread of a simplified understanding of the transformations of the 17th century. It was beneficial for the creators of the reform to carry out external transformations, changes in the letter of the ritual, and not the education of the people in the spirit of the Divine Law, so they removed from the corrections those of the Moscow scribes for whom the achievement of spiritual renewal of life was the main goal of the reforms. This place was filled by people whose church education was not burdened with excessive religiosity. The program for holding the cathedral, fatal for the unity of the Russian Church, and its definition were not without active participation such representatives of Jesuit science as Paisius Ligarid, Simeon of Polotsk and others, where they, together with the Greek patriarchs, in addition to the trial of Nikon and all Russian church antiquity, even then tried to push the idea that the head of the Church was the tsar. The methods of further work of our home-grown specialists directly follow from the church-educational policy of the successor of the work of his father - Peter I, when Little Russians found themselves in the episcopal departments, and the overwhelming majority of schools were organized in the manner of the Latinized Kiev Theological College. The opinion of Empress Catherine II about the graduates of contemporary Ukrainian theological schools of her time is interesting: “Theology students who are preparing in Little Russian educational institutions to occupy spiritual positions become infected by following harmful rules Roman Catholicism, the beginnings of insatiable ambition." The definition of the cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and part-time Russian diplomat and traveler Arseny Sukhanov, can be called prophetic: “Their science is such that they are not trying to find the truth, but only to argue and hush up the truth with verbosity. Their science is Jesuitical... there is a lot of deceit in Latin science; but the truth cannot be found by deceit.”
For a whole century, our theological school had to overcome its dependence on the West, learn to think independently, without looking back at Catholic and Protestant sciences. Only then did we realize what we really needed and what we could refuse. So, for example, in the MDA “the church charter (Typik) ... began to be studied only in 1798.” , and the History of the Russian Church since 1806. It was the overcoming of scholastic influence that contributed to the emergence of such scientific methods, which, in turn, led to the formation of a scientific view of church reform and related events. At the same time, a mixed point of view begins to appear, since it took time to overcome existing stereotypes and a personal feat of impartial coverage of the problem. Unfortunately, throughout the 19th century, the Russian church scientific school had to endure almost constant interference from government authorities and conservative representatives of the episcopate. It is usually customary to give examples of the reaction during the time of Nicholas I, when seminary students went to church in formation, and any deviation from traditional views was considered a crime. M.I., a researcher of the Old Believers in Vyga who has not abandoned the historical methods of Marxism and materialism. Batzer describes this era as follows: “Jurred historians viewed Peter’s times through the prism of “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality,” which obviously excluded the possibility of an objective attitude towards the leaders of the Old Believers.” Problems arose not only due to the negative attitude of the emperor and his entourage towards the Old Belief, but also the methodology for studying this issue left much to be desired. “In school teaching, and in scientific consideration,” writes N.N. Glubokovsky, - the schism did not separate into an independent area for a long time, except for utilitarian works of a polemic-practical nature and private attempts to collect, describe and systematize different materials. The direct question of the scientific specialization of this subject,” he continues, “was raised only in the early 50s of the 19th century, to which time the opening of the corresponding professorial departments at the Theological Academies dates back to.” In connection with the above, one can cite the remark of S. Belokurov: “... only since the 60s of the current century (XIX century) more or less satisfactory research, based on a careful study of primary sources, begins to appear, as well as very important materials from some of which are precious, irreplaceable sources." What else can we talk about, if even such an enlightened hierarch as St. Philaret of Moscow, “the use of scientific-critical methods in theology... believed dangerous sign disbelief." With the assassination of Alexander II, the Narodnaya Volya procured for the Russian people a new long period of reaction and conservatism, which was also reflected in scientific and educational activities. All this immediately affected theological schools and church science. “The constantly deepening application of scientific-critical methods in research and teaching was subjected to the strongest attacks of the Holy Synod,” writes I.K. Smolich about the times of the “authoritarian church-political regime” K.P. Pobedonostseva. And “there can be no justification for the present campaign that the episcopate organized against the secular professors, who have done so much for the development of science and teaching in academies,” according to the scientist. Censorship is again intensifying, and accordingly, the level of scientific work is decreasing, “correct” textbooks are being published, which are far from scientific objectivity. What can we say about the attitude towards the Old Believers, if the Holy Synod until the very collapse Russian Empire I was never able to decide on my attitude towards Edinoverie. “One faith,” writes Hieromartyr Simon Bishop of Okhtensky, “as soon as he can remember, from then to the present day, was not equal in rights and equal to general Orthodoxy - it stood in a lower position in relation to the latter, it was only a missionary means.” Even the toleration declared under the influence of the revolutionary events of 1905-1907 did not help them get a bishop, and the following statements were often heard as arguments for refusal: “if Edinoverie and the Old Believers unite, we will remain in the background.” A paradoxical situation arose - the declared tolerance affected all Old Believers, except those who wanted to remain in unity with the New Believer Russian Orthodox Church. However, this is not surprising, because no one was going to grant freedom to the Russian Church. It, as before, was headed by the emperor and was under the vigilant supervision of chief prosecutors. Edinoverie had to wait until 1918, and this example can be considered as the result of a joint policy of secular and church authorities in the development of science and education of the people, when “the contradiction between the government’s desire to promote education and its attempt to suppress free thought” was resolved in favor of the latter. For the same reason, nothing has actually changed either in solving the problem of the Old Believers or in studying the events associated with its emergence. Trying to consider the development of understanding of the essence of the schism in different historical eras, D.A. Balalykin argues that “contemporaries... understood by schism not only the Old Believers, but in general all religious movements in opposition to the official church.” In his opinion, “pre-revolutionary historiography narrowed the schism to the Old Believers, which was associated with the official church concept of the origin and essence of the schism as a church-ritual movement that emerged in connection with Nikon’s ritual reform.” But in the Orthodox Church there has always been a specific distinction between heresy, schism and unauthorized assembly, and the phenomenon called the schism of the Old Believers still does not fit any of the Helmsman’s definitions. S.A. Zenkovsky writes about it this way: “The schism was not a split from the church of a significant part of its clergy and laity, but a genuine internal rupture in the church itself, which significantly impoverished Russian Orthodoxy, for which not one, but both sides were to blame: both those who were stubborn and those who refused to see the consequences of their persistence are the planters of the new rite, and they are too zealous, and, unfortunately, often also very stubborn, and one-sided defenders of the old.” Consequently, the schism was not narrowed to the Old Believers, but the Old Believers were called a schism. Balalykin’s essentially erroneous conclusions are not without positive dynamics; The author’s historical instinct correctly points us to a steady desire in pre-revolutionary historiography to narrow and simplify the historical and conceptual outline of events associated with the split. Scholastic science, forced to argue with traditionalists and obliged to observe state interests in this dispute, created a simplified traditional point of view in its official version, significantly influenced the Old Believer version and, since it was required to “keep the secret of the Tsarev,” covered the true state of affairs with a foggy veil. Under the influence of these three components - Latinized science, polemical fervor and political expediency - myths about Russian ignorance, the reform of Patriarch Nikon and the emergence of a schism in the Russian Church arose and took hold. In the context of the above, Balalykin’s statement is of interest that “the emerging Soviet “split studies” borrowed, among other ideas, this approach.” For a long time, a different vision of the events of the mid-17th century remained the property of only a few outstanding scientific figures.
As we see, the revolution did not solve this problem, but only fixed it in the state in which it remained until 1917. Long years historical science in Russia was forced to adapt historical events to the templates of class theory, and the achievements of the Russian emigration, for ideological reasons, were not available in their homeland. Under the conditions of a totalitarian regime, literary studies achieved great success, due to the latter's lesser dependence on ideological cliches. Soviet scientists described and introduced into scientific circulation many primary sources on the history of the 17th century, the emergence and development of the Old Believers and other issues related to the study of church reform. In addition, Soviet science, being under the doctrinal influence of the communists, was freed from the influence of confessional biases. Thus, on the one hand, we have enormous developments in the field of factual material, and on the other, the works of the Russian emigration are few, but extremely important for understanding these facts. The most important task of church historical science of our time in this matter is precisely to connect these directions, comprehend the available factual material from the Orthodox point of view and draw the right conclusions.
Bibliography
Sources
1. Basil the Great, St. Saint Basil the Great from the letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, and to Diodorus, and to certain others sent: rule 91. Rule 1. / Helmsman (Nomocanon). Printed from the original of Patriarch Joseph. Russian Orthodox Academy of Theological Sciences and Scientific Theological Research: text preparation, design. Ch. ed. M.V. Danilushkin. - St. Petersburg: Resurrection, 2004.
2. Avvakum, archpriest (defrocked - A.V.). From the Book of Conversations. First conversation. The story of those who suffered in Russia for the pious traditions of the ancient church. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection. Compilation, preface, comments, design under the general editorship of Bishop Zosima (Old Believer - A.V.). Rostov-on-Don, 2009.
3. Habakkuk... Life, written by him. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...
4. Habakkuk... From the “Book of Conversations”. First conversation. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...
5. Habakkuk... From the “Book of Interpretations”. I. Interpretation of the psalms with the application of judgments about Patriarch Nikon and appeals to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...
6. Habakkuk... Petitions, letters, messages. “Fifth” petition. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...
7. Denisov S. Russian Vinograd or description of victims in Russia for ancient church piety (reprint). M.: Old Believer Publishing House “Third Rome”, 2003.
8. Epiphanius, monk (deprived of monasticism - A.V.). Life, written by himself. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...
9. Lazarus, priest. (defrocked - A.V.). Petition to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...
10. Theodore, deacon (defrocked - A.V.). The Legend of Nikon, the Marker of God. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...
11. Filipov I. History of the Vygov Old Believer Hermitage. Published from the manuscript of Ivan Filipov. Chief Editor: Pashinin M.B. M.: Old Believer Publishing House "Third Rome", 2005.
Literature
1. Habakkuk. / Encyclopedic Dictionary of Russian Civilization. Compiled by O.A. Platonov. M.: Orthodox publishing house "Encyclopedia of Russian Civilization", 2000.
2. Arseny (Shvetsov), bishop (Old Believer - A.V.). Justification of the Old Believer Holy Church of Christ in answers to demanding and puzzling questions of the present time. Letters. M.: Kitezh Publishing House, 1999.
3. Atsamba F.M., Bektimirova N.N., Davydov I.P. and others. History of religion in 2 volumes. T.2. Textbook. Under the general editorship. I.N. Yablokov. M.: Higher. school, 2007.
4. Balalykin D.A. Problems of the “Priesthood” and the “Kingdom” in Russia in the second half of the 17th century. in Russian historiography (1917-2000). M.: Publishing house "Vest", 2006.
5. Batser M.I. Two-fingered over Vyg: Historical essays. Petrozavodsk: PetrSU Publishing House, 2005.
6. Belevtsev I., prot. Russian church schism in the 17th century. / Millennium of the Baptism of Rus'. International Church Scientific Conference "Theology and Spirituality", Moscow, May 11-18, 1987. M.: Publication of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1989.
7. Belokurov S. Biography of Arseny Sukhanov. Part 1. // Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. Book first (156). M., 1891.
8. Borozdin A.K. Archpriest Avvakum. Essay on the history of the mental life of Russian society in the 17th century. St. Petersburg, 1900.
9. Bubnov N.Yu. Nikon. / Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Issue 3 (XVII century). Part 2, I-O. St. Petersburg, 1993.
10. Bubnov N.Yu. Old Believer book of the 3rd quarter of the 17th century. as a historical and cultural phenomenon. / Bubnov N.Yu. Book culture of the Old Believers: Articles different years. SPb.: BAN, 2007.
11. Bystrov S.I. Duality in monuments of Christian art and writing. Barnaul: Publishing house AKOOH-I “Fund for Support of the Construction of the Church of the Intercession...”, 2001.
12. Varakin D.S. Consideration of examples given in defense of the reforms of Patriarch Nikon. M.: Publishing house of the magazine “Church”, 2000.
13. Wurgaft S.G., Ushakov I.A. Old Believers. Persons, objects, events and symbols. Experience of an encyclopedic dictionary. M.: Church, 1996.
14. Galkin A. On the reasons for the origin of the schism in the Russian Church (public lecture). Kharkov, 1910.
15. Heyden A. From the history of the schism under Patriarch Nikon. St. Petersburg, 1886.
16. Georgy (Danilov) Archbishop. A word to the readers. / Tikhon (Zatekin) archim., Degteva O.V., Davydova A.A., Zelenskaya G.M., Rogozhkina E.I. Patriarch Nikon. Born on the land of Nizhny Novgorod. Nizhny Novgorod, 2007.
17. Glubokovsky N.N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. M.: Publishing house of the St. Vladimir Brotherhood, 2002.
18. Golubinsky E.E. To our polemic with the Old Believers (additions and amendments to the polemic regarding its general formulation and regarding the most important particular points of disagreement between us and the Old Believers). // Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. Book third (214). M., 1905.
19. Gudziy N.K. Archpriest Avvakum as a writer and as a cultural and historical phenomenon. / The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, written by himself, and his other works. Editorial, introductory article and commentary by N.K. Gujia. - M.: JSC "Svarog and K", 1997.
20. Gumilyov L.N. From Rus' to Russia: essays on ethnic history. M.; Iris Press, 2008.
21. Dobroklonsky A.P. Guide to the history of the Russian Church. M.: Krutitskoye Patriarchal Compound, Society of Church History Lovers, 2001.
22. Zenkovsky S.A. Russian Old Believers. In two volumes. Comp. G.M. Prokhorov. General ed. V.V. Nekhotina. M.: Institute DI-DIK, Quadriga, 2009.
23. Znamensky P.V. History of the Russian Church (educational manual). M., 2000.
24. Zyzykin M.V., prof. Patriarch Nikon. His state and canonical ideas (in three parts). Part III. The fall of Nikon and the collapse of his ideas in Peter's legislation. Reviews about Nikon. Warsaw: Synodal Printing House, 1931.
25. Kapterev N.F., prof. Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (reprint). T.1, 2. M., 1996.
26. Karpovich M.M. Imperial Russia (1801-1917). / Vernadsky G.V. Moscow kingdom. Per. from English E.P. Berenstein, B.L. Gubmana, O.V. Stroganova. - Tver: LEAN, M.: AGRAF, 2001.
27. Kartashev A.V., prof. Essays on the history of the Russian Church: in 2 volumes. M.: Publishing house “Nauka”, 1991.
28. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. Full course of lectures. Afterword, comments by A.F. Smirnova. M.: OLMA - PRESS Education, 2004.
29. Kolotiy N.A. Introduction (introductory article). / Way of the Cross of Patriarch Nikon. Kaluga: Orthodox parish of the Temple of the Kazan Icon Mother of God in Yasenevo with the participation of Syntagma LLC, 2000.
30. Krylov G., prot. The book on the right is from the 17th century. Liturgical menaions. M.: Indrik, 2009.
31. Kutuzov B.P. The mistake of the Russian Tsar: the Byzantine temptation. (Conspiracy against Russia). M.: Algorithm, 2008.
32. Kutuzov B.P. Church “reform” of the 17th century as ideological sabotage and national catastrophe. M.: IPA "TRI-L", 2003.
33. Lobachev S.V. Patriarch Nikon. St. Petersburg: “Iskusstvo-SPB”, 2003.
34. Macarius (Bulgakov) Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church, book seven. M.: Publishing house of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1996.
35. Malitsky P.I. Guide to the history of the Russian Church. M.: Krutitskoye Patriarchal Compound, Society of Church History Lovers, print. according to edition: 1897 (Vol. 1) and 1902 (Vol. 2), 2000.
36. Meyendorff I., protopresbyter. Rome-Constantinople-Moscow. Historical and theological studies. M.: Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University, 2006.
37. Melgunov S. The great ascetic Archpriest Avvakum (from the 1907 publication). / Canon to the holy martyr and confessor Avvakum. M.: Kitezh Publishing House, 2002.
38. Melnikov F.E. History of the Russian Church (from the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich to the destruction of the Solovetsky Monastery). Barnaul: AKOOH-I “Fund for Support of the Construction of the Church of the Intercession...”, 2006.
39. Melnikov F.E. A brief history of the Old Orthodox (Old Believer) Church. Barnaul: Publishing house BSPU, 1999.
40. Mirolyubov I., priest. Activities of the Moscow Printing House under Patriarch Joseph. Dissertation for the degree of candidate of theology. Sergiev Posad, 1993.
41. Mikhailov S.S. Sergiev Posad and the Old Believers. M.: “Archeodoxia”, 2008.
42. Molzinsky V.V. Historian N.M. Nikolsky. His views on the Old Believers in Russian history. // Old Believers: history, culture, modernity. Materials. M.: Museum of History and Culture of the Old Believers, Borovsky Museum of History and Local Lore, 2002.
43. Nikolin A., priest. Church and State (history of legal relations). M.: Publication of the Sretensky Monastery, 1997.
45. Nikolsky N.M. History of the Russian Church. M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1985.
46. Platonov S.F. A complete course of lectures on Russian history. St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Crystal", 2001.
47. Plotnikov K., priest. The history of the Russian schism known as the Old Believers. Petrozavodsk, 1898.
48. Poloznev D. F. Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century. / Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2000.
49. Preface. / Extracts from the works of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church on issues of sectarianism (reprint of the publication: Extracts from the works of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church, in Russian translation, as well as from early printed and ancient written books and works of spiritual and secular writers on issues of faith and piety, disputed by the Old Believers Compiled by Samara diocesan missionary Priest Dimitry Alexandrov. St. Petersburg, 1907). Tver: Tver branch of the Russian International Cultural Foundation, 1994.
50. Preface. / Shusherin I. The story of the birth, upbringing and life of His Holiness Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. Translation, notes, preface. Church-scientific center of the Russian Orthodox Church "Orthodox Encyclopedia". M., 1997.
51. Pulkin M.V., Zakharova O.A., Zhukov A.Yu. Orthodoxy in Karelia (XV-first third of XX century). M.: All year round, 1999.
52. His Holiness Patriarch Nikon (article). / Nikon, Patriarch. Proceedings. Scientific research, preparation of documents for publication, drafting and general editing by V.V. Schmidt. - M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 2004.
53. Simon, sschmch. Bishop of Okhtensky. The path to Golgotha. Orthodox St. Tikhon's University for the Humanities, Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Ufa Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. M.: PSTGU Publishing House, 2005.
54. Smirnov P.S. History of the Russian schism of the Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 1895.
55. Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700-1917. / History of the Russian Church, book eight, part one. M.: Publishing house of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1996.
56. Smolich I.K. Russian monasticism. Origin, development and essence (988-1917). / History of the Russian Church. Application. M.: Church and Scientific Center of the Russian Orthodox Church “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, publishing house “Palomnik”, 1999.
57. Sokolov A., prot. The Orthodox Church and the Old Believers. Nizhny Novgorod: Quartz, 2012.
58. Suzdaltseva T.V. Russian typical, problem statement. / Old Russian monastic regulations. Compilation, preface, afterword by Suzdaltseva T.V. M.: Northern Pilgrim, 2001.
59. Talberg N. History of the Russian Church. M.: Publication of the Sretensky Monastery, 1997.
60. Tolstoy M.V. Stories from the history of the Russian Church. / History of the Russian Church. M.: Publication of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1991.
61. Undolsky V.M. Review of Patriarch Nikon on the Code of Alexei Mikhailovich (preface by the Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate). / Nikon, Patriarch. Proceedings. Scientific research, preparation of documents for publication, drafting and general editing by V.V. Schmidt. - M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 2004.
62. Urushev D.A. To the biography of Bishop Pavel Kolomensky. // Old Believers in Russia (XVII-XX centuries): Sat. scientific Proceedings Issue 3. / State Historical Museum; Rep. ed. and comp. EAT. Yukhimenko. M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2004.
63. Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. History of the Russian Church in five periods (reprint). M.: Publication of the Sretensky Monastery, 2001.
64. Florovsky G., prot. Paths of Russian theology. Kyiv: Christian Charitable Association “Path to Truth”, 1991.
65. Khlanta K. History of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy in the 20th century. Graduate work. Kaluga: Moscow Patriarchate, Kaluga Theological Seminary, 2005.
66. Shakhov M.O. Old Believers, society, state. M.: “SIMS” together with the charitable foundation for the development of humanitarian and technical knowledge “SLOVO”, 1998.
67. Shashkov A.T. Habakkuk. / Orthodox Encyclopedia. T.1. A-Alexiy Studit. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2000.
68. Shashkov A.T. Epiphanius. / Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Issue 3 (XVII century). Part 1, A-Z. St. Petersburg, 1992.
70. Shkarovsky M.V. Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century. M.: Veche, Lepta, 2010.
71. Shmurlo E.F. Course of Russian history. Moscow kingdom. St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Aletheya", 2000.
72. Shchapov A. Zemstvo and Raskol. First issue. St. Petersburg, 1862.
73. Yukhimenko E.M., Ponyrko N.V. “The story of the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky” by Semyon Denisov in the spiritual life of the Russian Old Believers of the 18th-20th centuries. / Denisov S. The story of the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky. M., 2002.
RUSSIAN SCHISM IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. CHURCH AND STATE IN THE 17TH CENTURY
1. Reasons for church reform
The centralization of the Russian state required unification church rules and rituals. Already in the 16th century. a uniform all-Russian code of saints was established. However, significant discrepancies remained in the liturgical books, often caused by copyist errors. Eliminating these differences became one of the goals of the system created in the 40s. XVII century in Moscow, a circle of “zealots of ancient piety”, consisting 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 uniformity of texts, but first it was necessary to decide on which models to base corrections on.
Political considerations played a decisive role in resolving this issue. The desire to make Moscow (“Third Rome”) the center of world Orthodoxy required rapprochement with Greek Orthodoxy. However, the Greek clergy insisted on correcting Russian church books and rituals according to the Greek model.
Since the introduction of Orthodoxy in Rus', the Greek Church has experienced 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 transformations. However, Patriarch Nikon, relying on the support of Alexei Mikhailovich, decisively 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 unyielding, decisive character, had enormous influence on Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his “sobin (special) friend.”
The most important ritual changes were: baptism with not two, but three fingers, replacement prostrations waist belts, singing “Hallelujah” three times instead of twice, the movement of believers in the church past the altar not in line with the sun, but against it. The name of Christ began to be written differently - “Jesus” instead of “Iesus”. Some changes were made to the rules of worship and icon painting. All books and icons written according to old models were subject to destruction.
4. Reaction to reform
For believers, this was a serious departure from the traditional canon. After all, a prayer pronounced not according to the rules is not only ineffective - it is blasphemous! Nikon’s most persistent and consistent opponents were the “zealots of ancient piety” (previously the patriarch himself was a member of this circle). They accused him of introducing “Latinism,” because the Greek Church since 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 schism
Nikon's opponents - the "Old Believers" - refused to recognize the reforms he carried out. At the church councils of 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. A former court priest, a member of the circle of “zealots of ancient piety,” he experienced severe exile, suffering, and the death of children, but did not give up his fanatical opposition to “Nikonianism” and its defender, the tsar. After 14 years of imprisonment in an “earth prison,” Avvakum was burned alive for “blasphemy against the royal house.” The most famous work of historical ritual literature was the “Life” of Avvakum, written by himself.
6. Old Believers
The Church Council of 1666/1667 cursed the Old Believers. Brutal persecution of schismatics began. Supporters of the split hid in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, Trans-Volga region, and the Urals. Here they created hermitages, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, when the royal punitive detachments approached, 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 persistence of the schismatics were rooted, first of all, in their belief that Nikonianism was the product of Satan. However, this confidence itself was fueled by certain social reasons.
Among the schismatics there were many clergy. For an ordinary priest, innovations meant that he had lived his entire life incorrectly. In addition, many clergy were illiterate and unprepared to master new books and customs. The townspeople and merchants also widely participated in the schism. Nikon had long been in conflict with the settlements, objecting to the liquidation of the “white settlements” belonging to the church. The monasteries and the patriarchal see were engaged in trade and crafts, which irritated the merchants, who believed that the clergy was illegally invading their sphere of activity. Therefore, the posad readily perceived everything that came from the patriarch as evil.
Among the Old Believers there were also representatives of the ruling classes, for example, Boyarina Morozova and Princess Urusova. However, these are still isolated examples.
The bulk of the schismatics were peasants, who went to monasteries not only for the right faith, but also for freedom, from lordly and monastic exactions.
Naturally, subjectively, each Old Believer saw the reasons for his departure into schism solely in his rejection of the “Nikon 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 “rebaptizing” the Nikonian priests who had gone into schism, while others abandoned the clergy altogether. The community of such schismatic “non-priests” was led by “mentors” or “readers” - the most knowledgeable believers in the Scriptures. Outwardly, the “non-priest” 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 communication with God. The schismatics rejected the priesthood and the church hierarchy forcibly, in a random situation.
The ideology of the schism, based on the rejection of everything new, the fundamental rejection of any foreign influence, secular education, was extremely conservative.
7. Conflict between 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 between the Josephites and non-covetous people was closely connected with it. In the 16th century The dominant Josephite trend in the Russian church abandoned the thesis of the superiority of church power over secular power. After Ivan the Terrible's reprisal against Metropolitan Philip, the subordination of the church to the state seemed final. However, the situation changed during the Time of Troubles. The authority of the royal power was shaken due to the abundance of impostors and a series of perjuries. The authority of the church, thanks to Patriarch Hermogenes, who led the spiritual resistance to the Poles and suffered martyrdom from them, becoming the most important unifying force, increased. Has increased even more political role Church under Patriarch Filaret, father of Tsar Michael.
The powerful Nikon sought to revive the relationship between 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, Alexey Mikhailovich began to feel burdened by the power of the patriarch. In 1658 there was a break between them. The Tsar demanded that Nikon should 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 renounce 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 a church council was held 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 a 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. From that time on, 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.
Mikhail Starikov
The 17th century was a turning point for Russia. It is noteworthy not only for its political, but also for its church reforms. As a result of this, “Bright Rus'” became a thing of the past, and it was replaced by a completely different power, in which there was no longer a unity of people’s worldview and behavior.
The spiritual basis of the state was the church. Even in the 15th and 16th centuries, there were conflicts between non-covetous people and the Josephites. In the 17th century, intellectual disagreements continued and resulted in a split in the Russian Orthodox Church. This was due to a number of reasons.
Black Cathedral. The uprising of the Solovetsky monastery against newly printed books in 1666 (S. Miloradovich, 1885)
Origins of the schism
During the Time of Troubles, the church was unable to fulfill the role of “spiritual doctor” and guardian of the moral health of the Russian people. Therefore, after the end of the Time of Troubles, church reform became a pressing issue. The priests took charge of carrying it out. This is Archpriest Ivan Neronov, Stefan Vonifatiev, the confessor of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and Archpriest Avvakum.
These people acted in two directions. The first is oral preaching and work among the flock, that is, closing taverns, organizing orphanages and creating almshouses. The second is the correction of rituals and liturgical books.
There was a very pressing question about polyphony. In church churches, in order to save time, simultaneous services to various holidays and saints were practiced. For centuries, no one criticized this. But after troubled times, they began to look at polyphony differently. It was named among the main reasons for the spiritual degradation of society. This negative thing needed to be corrected, and it was corrected. triumphed in all the temples unanimity.
But conflict situation after that it did not go away, but only worsened. The essence of the problem was the difference between the Moscow and Greek rites. And this concerned, first of all, digitized. The Greeks were baptized with three fingers, and the Great Russians - with two. This difference resulted in a dispute about historical correctness.
The question was raised about the legality of the Russian church rite. It included: two fingers, worship on seven prosphoras, an eight-pointed cross, walking in the sun (in the sun), a special “hallelujah,” etc. Some clergy began to argue that the liturgical books were distorted as a result of ignorant copyists.
Subsequently, the most authoritative historian of the Russian Orthodox Church, Evgeniy Evsigneevich Golubinsky (1834-1912), proved that the Russians did not distort the ritual at all. Under Prince Vladimir in Kyiv they were baptized with two fingers. That is, exactly the same as in Moscow until the middle of the 17th century.
The point was that when Rus' adopted Christianity, there were two charters in Byzantium: Jerusalem And Studio. In terms of ritual, they differed. The Eastern Slavs accepted and observed the Jerusalem Charter. As for the Greeks and other Orthodox peoples, as well as the Little Russians, they observed the Studite Charter.
However, it should be noted here that rituals are not dogmas at all. Those are holy and indestructible, but rituals can change. And in Rus' this happened several times, and there were no shocks. For example, in 1551 under Metropolitan Cyprian Stoglavy Cathedral obliged the residents of Pskov, who practiced three-fingered, to return to two-fingered. This did not lead to any conflicts.
But you need to understand that the middle of the 17th century was radically different from the middle of the 16th century. People who went through the oprichnina and the Time of Troubles became different. The country faced three choices. The path of Habakkuk is isolationism. Nikon's path is the creation of a theocratic Orthodox empire. Peter's path was to join the European powers with the subordination of the church to the state.
The problem was aggravated by the annexation of Ukraine to Russia. Now we had to think about the uniformity of church rites. Kyiv monks appeared in Moscow. The most notable of them was Epiphany Slavinetsky. Ukrainian guests began to insist on correcting church books and services in accordance with their ideas.
Mashkov Igor Gennadievich. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon
The schism of the Russian Orthodox Church is inextricably linked with these two people
Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich
The fundamental role in the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church was played by Patriarch Nikon (1605-1681) and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1629-1676). As for Nikon, he was an extremely vain and power-hungry person. He came from Mordovian peasants, and in the world he bore the name Nikita Minich. He made a dizzying career, and became famous for his strong character and excessive severity. It was more characteristic of a secular ruler than a church hierarch.
Nikon was not satisfied with his enormous influence on the Tsar and the boyars. He was guided by the principle that "God's things are higher than the king's." Therefore, he aimed at undivided dominance and power equal to that of the king. The situation was favorable to him. Patriarch Joseph died in 1652. The question of electing a new patriarch arose urgently, because without the patriarchal blessing it was impossible to hold any state or church event in Moscow.
Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich was an extremely pious and pious man, so he was primarily interested in the speedy election of a new patriarch. He precisely wanted to see Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod in this position, since he valued and respected him extremely.
The king's desire was supported by many boyars, as well as the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch. All this was well known to Nikon, but he strived for absolute power, and therefore resorted to pressure.
The day of the procedure for becoming a patriarch has arrived. The Tsar was also present. But at the very last moment Nikon announced that he refused to accept signs of patriarchal dignity. This caused a commotion among everyone present. The tsar himself knelt down and with tears in his eyes began to ask the wayward clergyman not to renounce his rank.
Then Nikon set the conditions. He demanded that they honor him as a father and archpastor and let him organize the Church at his own discretion. The king gave his word and consent. All the boyars supported him. Only then did the newly-crowned patriarch pick up the symbol of patriarchal power - the staff of the Russian Metropolitan Peter, who was the first to live in Moscow.
Alexei Mikhailovich fulfilled all his promises, and Nikon concentrated enormous power in his hands. In 1652 he even received the title of "Great Sovereign". The new patriarch began to rule harshly. This forced the king to ask him in letters to be softer and more tolerant towards people.
Church reform and its main reason
With the coming to power of a new Orthodox ruler in the church rite, at first everything remained as before. Vladyka himself crossed himself with two fingers and was a supporter of unanimity. But he began to often talk with Epiphany Slavinetsky. After a very short time, he managed to convince Nikon that it was still necessary to change the church ritual.
IN Lent In 1653 a special “memory” was published, in which the flock was attributed to adopt triplicate. Supporters of Neronov and Vonifatiev opposed this and were exiled. The rest were warned that if they crossed themselves with two fingers during prayers, they would be subjected to church damnation. In 1556, a church council officially confirmed this order. After this, the paths of the patriarch and his former comrades diverged completely and irrevocably.
This is how a split occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church. Supporters of the “ancient piety” found themselves in opposition to official church policy, while the church reform itself was entrusted to the Ukrainian by nationality Epiphanius Slavinetsky and the Greek Arseniy.
Why did Nikon follow the lead of the Ukrainian monks? But it is much more interesting why the king, the cathedral and many parishioners also supported the innovations? The answers to these questions are relatively simple.
The Old Believers, as the opponents of innovation came to be called, advocated the superiority of local Orthodoxy. It developed and prevailed in North-Eastern Rus' over the traditions of universal Greek Orthodoxy. In essence, “ancient piety” was a platform for narrow Moscow nationalism.
Among the Old Believers, the prevailing opinion was that the Orthodoxy of Serbs, Greeks and Ukrainians was inferior. These peoples were seen as victims of error. And God punished them for this, placing them under the rule of the Gentiles.
But this worldview did not inspire sympathy among anyone and discouraged any desire to unite with Moscow. That is why Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich, seeking to expand their power, sided with the Greek version of Orthodoxy. That is, Russian Orthodoxy took on a universal character, which contributed to the expansion of state borders and the strengthening of power.
Decline of the career of Patriarch Nikon
The excessive lust for power of the Orthodox ruler was the reason for his downfall. Nikon had many enemies among the boyars. They tried with all their might to turn the king against him. In the end, they succeeded. And it all started with little things.
In 1658, during one of the holidays, the tsar's guard hit the patriarch's man with a stick, paving the way for the tsar through a crowd of people. The one who received the blow was indignant and called himself “the patriarch’s boyar son.” But then he received another blow to the forehead with a stick.
Nikon was informed about what had happened, and he became indignant. He wrote an angry letter to the king, in which he demanded a thorough investigation of this incident and punishment of the guilty boyar. However, no one started an investigation, and the culprit was never punished. It became clear to everyone that the king’s attitude towards the ruler had changed for the worse.
Then the patriarch decided to resort to a proven method. After mass in the Assumption Cathedral, he took off his patriarchal vestments and announced that he was leaving the patriarchal place and going to live permanently in the Resurrection Monastery. It was located near Moscow and was called New Jerusalem. The people tried to dissuade the bishop, but he was adamant. Then they unharnessed the horses from the carriage, but Nikon did not change his decision and left Moscow on foot.
New Jerusalem Monastery
Patriarch Nikon spent several years there until the patriarchal court, at which he was deposed
The throne of the patriarch remained empty. The Bishop believed that the sovereign would be afraid, but he did not appear in New Jerusalem. On the contrary, Alexey Mikhailovich tried to get the wayward ruler to finally renounce patriarchal power and return all regalia so that a new spiritual leader could be legally elected. And Nikon told everyone that he could return to the patriarchal throne at any moment. This confrontation continued for several years.
The situation was absolutely unacceptable, and Alexey Mikhailovich turned to the ecumenical patriarchs. However, they had to wait a long time for their arrival. Only in 1666 did two of the four patriarchs arrive in the capital. These are Alexandrian and Antiochian, but they had powers from their other two colleagues.
Nikon really did not want to appear before the patriarchal court. But still he was forced to do it. As a result, the wayward ruler was deprived of his high rank. But the long conflict did not change the situation with the split of the Russian Orthodox Church. The same council of 1666-1667 officially approved all church reforms that were carried out under the leadership of Nikon. True, he himself turned into a simple monk. They exiled him to a distant northern monastery, from where the man of God watched the triumph of his politics.