Church reform in the mid-17th century. Consequences and significance of the church schism. Church schism of the 17th century in Rus' and the Old Believers. Brief historical background

The turmoil became a severe test for the church. Part of the clergy, led by Patriarch Ignatius, supported False Dmitry I. However, most of the clergy showed examples of high service to the fatherland and the church.

The Poles, who were in Moscow during the Time of Troubles, not only plundered church utensils and desecrated the relics of saints, but also destroyed almost 450 Moscow churches during the retreat. Among the prisoners was Metropolitan Philaret.

After an eight-year stay in Polish captivity, Metropolitan Philaret, the father of Tsar Michael, returned to Moscow in 1619. The participants in the Church Council elected him the new Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. He was, in essence, the second tsar: the tsar and the patriarch heard all reports on state affairs jointly, and Michael never made decisions without the consent of his father.

The main thing that Filaret managed to achieve was to strengthen the authority and power of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. However, many issues of a church nature were not resolved either under him or under his successors, Patriarchs Joasaph I and Joseph. In an effort to counteract the Western influence that increased during the Time of Troubles, the church intensified its struggle against heterodoxy during these years.

In the middle of the 17th century. it became clear that in Russian church books, copied by hand, there are many descriptions and distortions of the text in comparison with the originals. Many doubts were caused by the custom of polyphony during the church service (everyone could pray at the same time, using different prayers), baptism with two fingers, etc. Believers are divided. Some suggested correcting church books and ceremonies by returning to ancient Russian models. Others believed that it was necessary to turn not to old books, but to the Greek sources themselves, from which they corresponded in their time.

After the death of Patriarch Joseph, the new primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, at the suggestion of Alexei Mikhailovich, was elected Nikon, Metropolitan of Novgorod. He was instructed to carry out church reform.

It took place in 1653-1655. and dealt mainly with church rites and books. Baptism with three fingers was introduced, waist bows instead of earthly ones, icons and church books were corrected according to Greek models.

Convened in 1654, the Church Council approved the reform, but proposed to bring the existing rites into line not only with the Greek, but also with the Russian tradition.

The new patriarch, having received immense power over the believers, soon came up with the idea of the primacy of church power over royal power and suggested that Alexei Mikhailovich share power with him, following the example of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and Patriarch Filaret. But the king did not want to endure this statement for a long time. He stopped attending patriarchal services in the Assumption Cathedral and inviting Nikon to state receptions. This was a serious blow to the pride of the patriarch. During one of the sermons in the Assumption Cathedral, he announced the resignation of patriarchal duties and retired to the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery, thinking that the king would ask him to return, however, the king acted quite differently. He began to prepare a church trial over Nikon. For the trial in 1666, a Church Council was convened. The tsar condemned Nikon for having personally renounced the patriarchate, while the church hierarchs present supported the tsar and condemned Nikon, imprisoning him forever in a monastery.

At the same time the Cathedral of 1666-1667. supported church reform and cursed all its opponents. The participants of the Council decided to transfer the leaders of the Old Believers into the hands of the secular authorities. According to the Council Code of 1649, they were threatened with death at the stake.

Thus, the Council of 1666-1667. initiated a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.

An outstanding leader of the Old Believers was Archpriest Avvakum, who from a young age devoted himself to the church. He took Nikon's reforms sharply negatively, believing that if he turned to the fundamental principle of faith, then in Russian sources. For his views, he was deprived of a place in the Moscow Kazan Cathedral, and then arrested and imprisoned in a monastery. Later he was exiled to Siberia. But nowhere could he come to terms with the new reform, and at the Church Council he was cursed by the Church and dismissed from the priesthood, and then re-imprisoned. On April 11, 1682, the archpriest and his associates were executed, burned alive.

Thus, the church, having strengthened its position after the Troubles, tried to take a dominant position in political system countries. However, in the context of the strengthening of autocracy, this led to a sharp conflict between the church and secular leadership. The defeat of the church in this clash paved the way for its actual transformation into an appendage of autocratic power.

For a modern person, immersed in information flows, the need to edit texts designed for wide circulation does not raise doubts, and the role of an editor seems to him for granted. Now it is impossible to imagine that correction in books can lead to opposition in society. Meanwhile, in the Russian medieval consciousness, the view of editing, or, as the sources of that time called it, “bookish right”, was fundamentally different. Disputes about book rights have become the cause of one of the most significant and long-lasting disasters in Russian culture -.

The reason for this is in relation to the text and the language of the text: the book did not carry information, it allowed the earthly person to come into contact with the heavenly world. Like an icon, it was on the border of the ideal and the material, creating an opportunity to comprehend divine revelation. Therefore, everything that was connected with the book was considered sacred.

In ancient Russian culture, a clear hierarchy of texts developed. The book was understood as Holy Scripture, its interpretation by the Fathers of the Church (Holy Tradition),. Through the book, as well as the icon, a person on an irrational level conducted a dialogue with God. In the teachings of the 14th-century Byzantine theologian Saint Gregory Palamas, the late antique philosopher Plotinus developed the idea of the identity of form and content, the unity of word and essence. This led to the symbolic perception of any sign in the book. Holiness possessed a written word, a letter, through the graphics of which there was an approach to the incomprehensible divine wisdom. The sacralization of the word and letter of Scripture spread to the language. The Church Slavonic language used in ancient Russian writing was specially created to express divinely revealed truth. Its sacredness was initially opposed to the secular, colloquial Russian language, and its use belonged exclusively to the church sphere. In everyday life it was impossible to speak Church Slavonic.

Accordingly, there should have been rules governing the life of books. The creation of new lists was not mechanical copying. The rewriting was intended to restore the integrity of the form of Revelation. It was a search for the correct text, where each word accurately recorded the God-given truth. But scribes could distort it, so the texts had to be corrected by eliminating formal errors, such as accidental typos, and sometimes mistranslations. Book right in Russia belonged exclusively to the prerogative of the church and the state. The correctness of the books was a guarantee of the correctness of the entire church ritual and the very essence of the dogma. At the Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551, the requirement for mandatory comparison of the manuscript created by the scribe according to correct ori-gi-na-lams was approved: “... and whichever holy books will be the essence of the church in every case, you will find that they are not correct and descriptive, and you would correct those books from good translations at the council, but the sacred rules forbid and do not command uncorrected books to be brought into the church, below sing over them." The discovered faulty books had to be removed from the churches.

However, a natural question arises: what was meant by the “correct” text? Of course, the main criterion was linguistic and dogmatic-canonical accuracy. It was possible to achieve it in two ways: by editing books on the basis of grammar (formal approach) or by reproducing texts recognized as the most authoritative (textological approach).

Grammars of the Church Slavonic language appeared relatively late. Initially, the textual principle of book right dominated. The task of the scribe was to turn to "good translations", that is, to ancient texts. In the medieval period, truth was in the past. It was given to the prophets of the Old Testament, but fully embodied by the appearance of Christ into the world. The purpose and meaning of the work of the scribes was fidelity to the primary source - the Bible. It is no coincidence that they emphasized: “We do not create new things, but we renew old ones.” But under antiquity in different periods was understood both the Russian tradition and the Greek. The vagueness of the criteria gave rise to theological disputes about book rights.

There were several stages of the book right, and each time these major stages ended dramatically. The most famous example was the case of Maxim the Greek, a Greek learned monk who was accused at three church councils (in 1525, 1531 and 1549) of intentionally damaging Russian books. Most likely, he can be compared with a person about whom information from sources in Italy has been preserved. This is a native of the city of Arta, coming from an aristocratic family, in the world Mikhail Trivolis (Μιχαήλ Τριβώλης). He studied on the island of Corfu, where he graduated from high school. Then he went to improve his education in Italy, where Greek learning was highly valued. The previous migration from the former provoked the interest of Italian intellectuals in the Greek tradition, especially the ancient one. Maxim Grek studied at the University of Padua, then visited Milan, Venice, Florence. He was a member of the circles of leading humanists, among whom the study and systematization of the Greek language took place. The young man was associated with the Venetian printer Aldus Manutius, who began printing books, including biblical books, in Greek and Greek script. Another center of attraction for Maximus the Greek was Florence, where he met an ascetic who shocked him with his purity of thoughts and ardent criticism of the shortcomings of society - Girolamo Savonarola. This rector called to follow the early Christian ideals. The personality of Savonarola made a colossal impression on Maxim the Greek, and became a strong blow. The Greek left Italy and decided to return to his roots. His choice fell on Athos, the center of the Isi-chasm teaching, whose monastic practices and mysticism he perceived as a point of contact between the two confessions. The aristocrat took the tonsure under the name Maxim.

An educated monk enjoyed the authority of the brethren. And when the Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow Vasily III turned to them with a request to send a scribe to translate church books, the choice fell on Maxim the Greek. Vasily III, the son of Ivan III and Sophia Paleolog, who received a humanistic education in Rome in her youth, realized the need to turn to Greek originals, so Maxim the Greek was received favorably in Moscow. The learned monk, who arrived from Athos in 1518, began translating the Explanatory Psalter (1519), interpretations of the Acts of the Apostles, and checking the Colored Triodion (1525) with the Greek text.

Maxim Grek saw his task as the maximum approximation of the Church Slavonic to the Greek language, the constructions of which replaced (in his understanding) the missing grammar. By analogy with the Greek language, he established the uniformity of the verb forms of the second person singular of the past tense. He replaced the aorist, which fixed the existence of the heavenly world, with the perfect, reflecting the variability of the earthly world. As a result, the phrase of the Creed "Christ ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father" (or "sit at the right hand of the Father") began to look like "sitting at the right hand of the Father" (or "sitting at the right hand of the Father", or even "sat at the right hand of the Father"). The guilt of Maxim the Greek was seen in the fact that with such a choice of verb tenses, he spoke of Christ as transient, temporary, past, and not about eternal. In addition, Maxim the Greek was charged with espionage in favor of the Ottoman Empire. Traditionally in Russia accusations of heresy were supported by accusations of high treason. A betrayal of faith was identical to a betrayal of the fatherland. The courts ruled on imprisonment. Initially, the holy mountaineer was deprived of any opportunity to write, in despair he scratched phrases on the walls of the dungeon.

Subsequently, the conditions of detention softened, and Maxim the Greek found the opportunity to create. The scholarly elder substantiated his practice of book right in special essays (“The word is responsible for the correction of Russian books”), which were supposed to prove him right. In captivity, Maxim the Greek continued to work and created a whole corpus of theological works. He turned out to be the leading theologian of the entire Russian Middle Ages, and his linguistic views were transformed during his stay in Russia. In addition to the Greek language, he began to increasingly focus on the Russian spoken language. At the same time, in translations from Greek, he followed the principles of hesychasm, which was characterized by literalism, linguistic calculus of the text. The ideas of Maxim the Greek were embodied in a variety of directions, and his attempts to apply a formal approach to the sacred language were continued.

The next stage of the book right was associated with the appearance of book printing in Russia. The initiators were Ivan IV the Terrible and Metropolitan Macarius. By the time of the repose of Maxim the Greek in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the new ruler of the country turned to the idea of creating a printing house. Its very establishment was justified by the need to convey absolutely identical texts to the flock. Of course, theological, canonical and liturgical writings had to be uniform for the entire state. There could be no differences. It is impossible to conduct a divine service, a theological controversy or a church court, relying on different editions of works. Accordingly, the printing house should be one for the whole country, and all its publications were published only with the blessing of the tsar and the metropolitan, later the patriarch. Spravschiki (editors) appeared, quotation marks - proof copies with the amendments made. Ivan Fedorov, while preparing the first dated book - "The Apostle" of 1564 - did the work of reconciling the texts. He drew on ancient lists in Church Slavonic, as well as Greek, Latin and Czech editions of the Bible. Ivan Fedorov eliminated archaisms and obsolete expressions, in a number of cases the Church Slavonic language approached the spoken language, in other cases more accurate Greek analogues were found: “hypostasis” (instead of “stav”), “elements” (instead of “formation”), etc. In the afterword to the “Apostle”, Ivan Fedorov substantiated the need to correct handwritten texts. He spoke of their distortion by scribes.

But not only editing, but also the very principle of replacing a handwritten book with a printed book caused opposition in Russian society. After all, before that, the process of creating a book was an individual contact of the scribe with God. Now it has been delivered as a technological process. The corrections of the Apostle and the Chasovnik were also subjected to criticism, and the new metropolitan, Afanasy, was unable to protect the printers from attacks and accusations. The printing house was destroyed, and Ivan Fedorov and Pyotr Mstislavets had to flee. The first printers found shelter in the East Slavic lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where they were able to continue publishing Church Slavonic books in Zabludovo, Lvov, and Ostrog. Their work on reconciliation of texts gave impetus to further philological research.

Russian first printers ended up in a country where Western and Eastern Christianity coexisted. The difficult confessional situation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and then the Commonwealth) gave rise to new forms of book right. The controversy with the Catholics (and then the Uniates) about the essence of the language, about the possibility of reflecting the Revelation with the help of the Church Slavonic language led to the creation of numerous Orthodox writings in its defense. Along with polemical texts, grammars also appeared. The most famous were the Grammar by Lavrenty Zizaniy (Vilna, 1596) and the Grammar by Melety Smotrytsky (Evie, 1619). They were already built according to the western mod-de-li, suggesting the presence universal system in the languages of divine revelation. Lavrenty Zizaniy and Melety Smotrytsky codified the Church Slavonic language by analogy with Greek and Latin. The analytical way of comprehending the language, creating its uniform rules, applied to both church and secular texts, was innovative. The assertion of the formal principle of book right, based on grammar, could not but have an impact on the Russian tradition, especially after the Time of Troubles, which marked a new stage in book right in Russia.

The establishment of the Romanov dynasty determined the confessional policy of the new government. Among the first measures in this direction was a book correction. In 1614, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich restored the Printing House in Moscow, and in 1615 the issue of reconciliation of books intended for publication was raised. During the Time of Troubles, Russian churches were filled with books printed in the Orthodox printing houses of the Commonwealth. The use of the so-called books of the Lithuanian press for worship caused fears of the Russian spiritual and secular authorities. It was required to replace them with Russian publications, but they were absent in full.

Existing Russian publications were also critically evaluated. There were doubts about the infallibility of Russian liturgical books, it was necessary to cleanse them of clerical errors and discrepancies. The work was headed by the hero of the Time of Troubles, archmandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Dionysius Zobninovsky. The principles of editing in the circle of Dionysius Zobninovsky gravitated towards the textological tradition, the references turned to the most ancient Russian lists. If necessary, Greek samples were involved. In addition, they also referred to "grammatical regulations", that is, they were ready to operate with elements of a formal approach. They were also familiar with the works of Maxim the Greek. The archimandrite and his associates, Elder Arseniy Glukhoi and white priest Ivan Nasedka, did a colossal job in three years. They edited the breviary, the Colored Triodion, the Octoechos, the general and monthly Menaion, the Psalter, and the canon. At the same time, the main dispute revolved around one phrase - “and with fire” in the prayer for the consecration of water on the feast of Theophany: “You yourself and now, Vlady, sanctify this water with your holy Spirit and fire.” This text corresponded to the ritual of immersing lighted candles in water. The clerks of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, not finding the phrase “and by fire” in ancient Russian manuscripts and Greek books, excluded it from prayer. Emphasizing the heretical nature of the phrase, the editors argued that the water is sanctified by the Holy Spirit, but not by fire. But there were opponents. The secular employee of the order of the Money Desk, Anthony Podolsky, who had previously taken part in the work of the Moscow Printing House, proved the validity of the phrase. In his interpretation, the phrase “and by fire” meant the possibility of the visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the form of the fire of epiphany candles. Especially to clarify this issue, the Council of 1618 was convened, which was led by the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Jonah. He recognized the true position of Anthony Podolsky. Dionysius Zobninovsky and his assistants appeared at the Council on charges of damaging liturgical books and, consequently, heresy. The book correction was conceived as capable of violating Russian Orthodoxy and making visible changes in church practice - the symbolic embodiment of faith. Spravshchikov as heretics sent to prison and excommunicated from communion. They were saved by the father of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Filaret, who returned from Polish captivity in 1619 and was ordained patriarch. The primate categorically disagreed with the opinion of the locum tenens. He assembled his Council of 1619 against Metropolitan Jonah, at which the point of view of Dionysius Zobninovsky triumphed. Anthony Podolsky has now been sent into exile. Patriarch Filaret confirmed his views with the Greek hierarchs. In 1625, four Orthodox patriarchs (Constantinople, Jerusalem-Salim, Antioch, Alexandria) recognized the non-canonicity of the phrase "and by fire." Subsequently, Patriarch Nikon canceled the ceremony of immersing lit candles on the day of Theophany.

Under Patriarch Filaret, disputes over book rights continued. In 1626, the issue of the admissibility of publishing Orthodox works of the Commonwealth in Russia was again discussed. The reason was the arrival in Russia of the famous Ukrainian theologian and linguist Lavrenty Zizania. He brought a new text for the Russian tradition - a catechism compiled by him. Patriarch Filaret initially blessed the publication, but with the condition of translation and corrections. The text was prepared for printing and published. But the initiator (Patriarch Filaret himself), seeing the finished publication, decided to abandon his idea. In 1627, he organized conciliar hearings on the admissibility of the text for distribution. The hearings revealed ideological and linguistic differences between the scribes of the Moscow Patriarchy and the Kyiv Metropolis. Russian reference books refused to use Greek editions in book references. They were well aware that the Greek schools and printing houses banned by the Ottoman authorities had moved to Italy, primarily to Venice. Therefore, the modern Greek tradition in their presentation bore the "seal of Latinism." The “Debate” stated: “We have all the old Greek translations of the rule. And new translations of the Greek language and all sorts of books are not acceptable. For the Greeks now live in great narrowness among the infidels, and according to their own wills, they do not have their own books printed. And for this they introduce other faiths into the translations of the Greek language, whatever they want. And we do not need such new translations of the Greek language, although what is in them is from the new custom of the printed one, and we do not accept that new input. It was just about the publications that were so important earlier for Maxim Grek. But the paradox lay in the fact that during the council hearings, Lavrenty Zizaniy was only repeated all the remarks made earlier when working on the text. IN printed edition they have all been fixed. Nevertheless, the book was recognized as heretical, and its circulation was destroyed (although it was actively distributed in the manuscript tradition).

Under the next patriarch, Josaph I (1634-1640), disputes about book corrections did not resume. Liturgical and canonical books were consistently published at the Printing Yard. The printing house fulfilled the task set after the Time of Troubles by Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich - to publish a complete cycle of Russian liturgical books. Only the next patriarch, Joseph (1642-1652), could complete this mandate. But he saw the goal already much wider. Under Patriarch Joseph, the subjects of publications of the Printing House began to change. In addition to liturgical texts, codices of patristic writings, codes of Byzantine ecclesiastical law (pilot books), treatises in defense of icon veneration, anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant works were selected for publication. In the 40s of the 17th century, a significant number of texts were published at the Moscow Printing Yard, designed to denounce the heterodox and protect the Orthodox from communicating with them. For the most part, non-liturgical publications date back to Orthodox texts that came to Russia from the Commonwealth and the Balkans. In addition, there was a need for the publication of the full text of the Bible, which was previously absent in Russia. To do this, they needed referees familiar with Greek and Latin. This time it was decided to invite them from the Commonwealth. In 1649, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich turned to the Kyiv Metropolitan Sylvester Kossov with a request to send learned monks who "lead the Divine Scriptures and are familiar with the Hellenic language." Arseny Satanovsky and Epiphanius Slavinetsky arrived in Moscow after a second invitation.

During the reigns of Patriarchs Joasaph I and Joseph, the interpreters demonstrated their familiarity with the book and language principles of Maximus the Greek and knowledge of grammatical compositions. In the Russian manuscript tradition, new treatises on grammar appear, in which borrowing from the works of Lavrenty Zizaniy and Melety Smotrytsky was manifested. In 1648, the work of Meletiy Smotrytsky, containing the codification of the Church Slavonic language, was republished in Moscow. Moreover, the name of the author was removed, and instead of the preface, an essay by Maxim Grek was introduced, which made him the author of the entire publication.

But, turning to grammar, the referees under Patriarchs Joasaph I and Joseph remained supporters of the textual approach, and continued to be chosen as exemplary oldest lists, by which only Russians were understood. Only the Moscow tradition was recognized as true, as the only one that preserved religious purity. The referees succeeded, although not always consistently, in connecting two opposite principles of book right.

The gap between textological and grammatical approaches occurred under Patriarch Nikon (1652-1666), who proclaimed the need for book editing solely on the basis of grammar. The main thing is that Nikon insisted on the piety of Greek literature. Russian spies who disagreed with the innovations were removed from the Printing Yard. They were replaced by Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Arseniy Grek.

The bookstore on the right became one of the main components of the church ritual reform of Patriarch Nikon. The Greek ancient manuscripts were called the main role models: at the Council of 1654, it was decided to “worthily and righteously correct against the old and Greek” books.

The unification of rites according to the Greek model changed the idea of the correctness of Russian liturgical books. The landmarks changed, the Russian tradition was declared completely distorted, which led to an acute conflict in Russian society, which grew into a schism within the Church. The conflict was exacerbated by the methods of activity of the new spravschiki. In fact, the Moscow Printing Yard reproduced editions of the 16th and 17th centuries by Greek printing houses in Italy, as well as Orthodox editions of the Commonwealth. In addition, adherence to the formal principle of book right was openly proclaimed, that is, exact adherence to the norms of Meletius Smotrytsky's Grammar. In the formula "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit", the referees excluded the first union, as a result of which it turned out "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." This was perceived as a violation of the equality of the three hypostases of God. The application of a formal approach to book writing, which now proceeded exclusively from grammatical norms, led to a split in the Church. And although the Old Believers, like their opponents, started from the same texts, primarily the works of Maxim the Greek and the rules of the book right of the era of patriarchs Joasaph I and Joseph, the innovations radically changed the entire previous worldview. They destroyed the idea of the relationship between the form and content of the sacred text.

The trend was consolidated under Patriarch Joachim, when the referees relied exclusively on Greek sources, which was approved at the Council of 1674. The main aim of the spravshchikov was to liken the Church-Slavic language to Greek, they strove to write “in Slavonic”, as the Holy Fathers wrote in the “Greek dialect”. At the same time, the correctness of the changes introduced could be argued by references not only to the grammar of the Church Slavonic language, but also to the grammar of the Greek language. The formal approach has become dominant.

In 1682, Patriarch Joachim, in a debate with the Old Believers, stated that the book on the right was conducted "according to grammar." In a similar situation, the Old Believer literacy in the 17th century moved into the field of the manuscript tradition. Deprived of the opportunity to publish their works in the only printing house in the country - the Moscow Printing Yard - the Old Believers defended their views on the nature of the book right in handwritten essays.

New editing principles led to the secularization of bookishness. Thanks to borrowings from the Greek and Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodox traditions, located on the border with the West, Russia was included in the pan-European processes of secularization of culture. The reform of Patriarch Nikon was a significant step in the desecularization of the book. This caused an active protest of the majority of scribes, who defended the old textological principles of editing and the sacredness of the book. But the conflict quickly outgrew the level of theological disputes between learned monks and priests. The widest social strata became the opponents of the church reform: boyars, merchants, artisans, peasants. They called themselves Old Believers, and considered the slightest change in words and rituals to be heresy. Medieval views are a thing of the past, but they are carefully preserved to this day in the Old Believer culture. Preserving the pre-Nikonian Russian tradition as the only one that preserved the purity of the Christian faith, the Old Believers are in perfect harmony with the different way of life. The scale of the movement is huge, supporters of the old faith fled to the borders Russian Empire, and then further, mastering new countries and continents - you. The followers of Avvakum organically fit into the context of any culture - from Moldova and Lithuania to the USA, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, etc. And many returned to the ancient capital, and pre-revolutionary Moscow became one of the important centers of the Old Believers.

Russian Old Believers became the first collectors of the most ancient codes in the Church Slavonic language. Most of these unique monuments are now in the collections of the largest libraries in Russia. They enable modern man, touching them, to feel the deification of the book that has gone into oblivion.

The church reform of Patriarch Nikon had a great influence on the spirituality of the Russian people and Russian history. To this day, this question is open. Historical literature has not fully revealed the reasons for the split and the presence of the Old Believers in Orthodox Church in Rus'.

Church reforms found not only supporters, but also opponents. Each of them gives reasonable arguments for being right and has his own interpretation of events. Wanderers are of the opinion that the reform led to the disappearance of church differences between the Russian and Byzantine Orthodox churches, confusion in rituals and books was eliminated. They also argue about the inevitability of the reform that any patriarch of that time carried out. Opponents believe that Orthodoxy in Rus' went its own way of development, and doubt the veracity of church books and rites of the Orthodox Church in Byzantium, which were a model for Nikon. They believe that the Greek Church should have been the successor to the Russian one. Nikon for many became the destroyer of Russian Orthodoxy, which was at that time on the rise.

Of course, there are more defenders of Nikon, including the modern Orthodox Church. Most of the historical books written by them. In order to clarify the situation, one should find out the reasons for the church reform of Patriarch Nikon, get to know the personality of the reformer, find out the circumstances of the split in the Russian Orthodox Church.

The reasons for the church reform of Patriarch Nikon

At the end of the 17th century, the opinion was established in the world that only the Russian Orthodox Church turned out to be the spiritual successor of Orthodoxy. Until the XV century, Rus' was the successor of Byzantium. But later, the Turks began to attack it often, and the country's economy worsened. The Greek emperor turned to the Pope for assistance in uniting the two churches, with significant concessions to the Pope. In 1439, the signing of the Union of Florence took place, in which the Moscow Metropolitan Isidore participated. In Moscow, this was considered a betrayal of the Orthodox Church. The formation of the Ottoman Empire on the site of the Byzantine state was regarded as God's punishment for treason.

In Russia, the strengthening of autocracy took place, the monarchy sought to subordinate itself to church authority. Since ancient times, the church has had a great influence on people's lives: it helped get rid of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, united the Russian lands into a single state, was the leader in the fight against the Time of Troubles, approved the Romanovs to the throne. However, Russian Orthodoxy has always been subordinate to state power, in contrast to Roman Catholicism. Rus' was baptized by a prince, and not by a clergyman. So the priority of the authorities was provided from the very beginning.

Those who had lands left Orthodox cathedrals, but in the future others could join only with the approval of the king. In 1580, a ban was imposed on the acquisition of land by the church in any way.

The Russian Church developed to the patriarchate, which contributed to its further flourishing. Moscow began to be called the Third Rome.

By the middle of the 17th century, changes in society and the state required the strengthening of church authority, unification with other Orthodox churches of the Balkan peoples and Ukraine, and large-scale reform.

The reason for the reform was church books for worship. Differences in practical matters between the Russian and Byzantine churches were clearly visible. Since the 15th century, there have been disputes about “salting walking” and “hallelujah”. In the 16th century, significant discrepancies in translated church books were discussed: few of the translators were fluent in both languages, the scribe monks were semi-literate and made many mistakes during the copying of books.

In 1645, Arseny Sukhanov was sent to the Eastern Lands to census the ranks of the Greek Church and inspect the holy places.

The turmoil became a threat to the autocracy. The issue was the unification of Ukraine and Russia. But differences in religion were an obstacle to this. Relations between church and tsarist authorities began to heat up and required significant reforms in the religious field. It was necessary to establish relations with the church authorities. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich needed a supporter of the reform of the Russian church, who could lead them. Approximation of the Russian Church to the Byzantine one was under the power of only an independent and strong patriarchal authority, possessing political authority and capable of organizing a centralized control of the Church.

The beginning of the church reform of Patriarch Nikon

A reform to change church rites and books was being prepared, but it was discussed not with the patriarch, but in the tsar's entourage. The opponent of the church reform was Archpriest Avvakum Petrov, and the supporter was Archimandrite Nikon, the future reformer. Also participating in the discussion were Archpriest of the Kremlin Stefan Vonifatiev, Tsar Alexei, bed-keeper F.M. Rtishchev with his sister, deacon Felor Ivanov, priests Daniil Lazar, Ivan Neronov, Loggin and others.

Those present sought to exclude bureaucratic violations, polyphony, discrepancies; raising the teaching elements (sermons, teachings, teaching religious literature), the moral level of clerics. Many believed that the mercenary shepherds would gradually be replaced by reformed clergy. All this must take place with the confident support of the king.

In 1648, Nikon was appointed Metropolitan of Pskov and Novgorod, many adherents of piety were transferred to large cities and appointed to the posts of archpriests. However, they did not find their followers in the parish clergy. Coercive measures to increase the piety of parishioners and priests led to indignation among the population.

Between 1645 and 1652, the Moscow Printing House published a great deal of ecclesiastical literature, including reading books on religious topics.

The provincial zealots of piety believed that the differences between the Russian and Byzantine churches appeared as a result of the loss of the true faith by the Greeks due to the presence of the Turks in Byzantium and rapprochement with the Roman church. A similar situation was with Ukrainian church after the reforms of Peter Mohyla.

Approximate king had the opposite opinion. For political reasons, they adhered to the rejection of the Greek Church, which had departed from the true faith. This group called for the elimination of differences in the system of theology and church rituals, taking the Greek church as a model. This opinion was held by a minority. secular power and the clergy, but which had a great influence on the life of the people. Without waiting for unification, the king with the capital's zealots of piety began to independently lay the foundation for future reform. The beginning of Nikon's reform began with the arrival of Kyiv scholar-monks with excellent knowledge of the Greek language to introduce the correction of church books.

Dissatisfied with Patriarch Joseph, at a church meeting, he decided to put an end to the interference. He rejected the "unanimity", explaining that the parishioners could not stand such a long service and receive "spiritual food". Tsar Alexei was dissatisfied with the decision of the council, but he could not cancel it. He handed over the decision of the issue to the Patriarch of Constantinople. After 2 years, a new cathedral was assembled, which canceled the decision of the previous one. The patriarch was dissatisfied with the interference of the tsarist authorities in church affairs. The king needed support for the division of power.

Nikon came from a peasant family. Nature endowed him with a good memory and intelligence, and the village priest taught him to read and write. IN

he had been a priest for years. The tsar liked Nikon with his solidity and confidence. The young king felt confident next to him. Nikon himself openly exploited the suspicious king.

The new archimandrite Nikon became actively involved in church affairs. In 1648, he becomes metropolitan in Novgorod and shows his dominion and energy. Later, the tsar helped Nikon become patriarch. Here his intolerance, rigidity and harshness manifested themselves. Exorbitant ambition developed with a fast-paced ecclesiastical career.

In the distant plans of the new patriarch was the deliverance of church power from the royal. He strove for an equal government of Russia together with the tsar. The implementation of the plans began in 1652. He demanded the transfer of Philip's relics to Moscow and a "prayer" royal letter for Alexei. Now the tsar was atoning for the sins of his ancestor Ivan the Terrible. Nikon significantly raised the authority of the patriarch of Russia.

The secular authorities agreed with Nikon in order to carry out church reforms and resolve acute foreign policy issues. The tsar stopped interfering in the affairs of the patriarch, allowed him to solve important external and internal political issues. A close alliance was formed between the king and the church.

Nikon eliminated the previous interference in the affairs of the church of his colleagues and even stopped communicating with them. The energy and determination of Nikon determined the nature of the future church reform.

The essence of the church reforms of Patriarch Nikon

First of all, Nikon took up the correction of books. After his election, he organized a systematic correction not only of errors, but also of rites. It was based on ancient Greek lists and consultations with the East. The change in rites was seen by many as an unforgivable attack on faith.

In the church books there were many misprints and typos, small disagreements in the same prayers.

The main differences between the Russian Church and the Greek Church were:

The implementation of proskomedia on 5 prosphora instead of 7;

The double hallelujah replaced the demanding one;

Walking was according to the sun, not against it;

There was no leave from the royal gates;

Two fingers were used for baptism, not three.

Not everywhere the reforms were accepted by the people, but so far no one has dared to lead the protest.

The church reform of Patriarch Nikon was necessary. But it should have been carried out gradually, so that the people could accept and get used to all the changes.

For some reason, it is believed that in the schism of Russian Orthodoxy, which finally took place after the Great Moscow Council of the Russian Church (1666-1667), the intrigues of Catholics also played an important role: “ And the Vatican also had its own interest in the reform of the Orthodox Church... Paisios Ligarid, continuing the work of Metropolitan Isidore, was at that time negotiating with the Catholic West on the union of the Russian Church with the Roman» .

Something similar, in one form or another, can be found in many publications. Moreover, the public writing on this topic is already becoming a kind of norm for complaining about agents " Colleges of Propaganda", which was organized by the Vatican, or " impregnated» Catholicism of Greek and Little Russian monks, teachers and politicians. Which not only come in large numbers” to Moscow, but also looked at the Russians with obvious disdain.

Of course, this all sounds very, very tempting, but there are also serious objections to the version of the sinister "Latin" trace. At least about her dominant role in those events:

It is not for nothing that the above thesis deserved such a detailed critical analysis: unfortunately, now, as before, a negative trend continues to be observed, when many articles and books about the events of church life in the 17th century are literally stuffed with pseudo-historical ideological clichés from the Soviet past that are very far from reality and myths from the time of Patriarch Nikon.

For example, one article suggests as the main reason for the need for a book fair: “ correction of errors in church books was necessary, for there were even nonsense that arose during careless correspondence» . And although the theory depravity"Old Russian rite was refuted by the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Nikolai Kaptev (1847-1917), this dubious thesis comes from" distant antiquity continues to be cultivated to this day.

In reality, “the slightest mistake in a book, an oversight or a mistake was considered a great sin. The pious people watched carefully so that no mistakes crept in ... That is why the numerous manuscripts of the old time that have survived to us are distinguished by the purity and beauty of writing, the correctness and accuracy of the text. In ancient manuscripts, it is difficult to find blots or strikethroughs ... Significant errors noted in previous books were eliminated even before Nikon, when the Printing House began to operate in Moscow.

Or another hypothesis from the same clip: “ The split grew because other forces influenced it. In particular, the selfish boyars used the Old Believers in the fight against the demanding Patriarch Nikon and gave them strength.» . Again very unconvincing: selfish boyars supported the reform in its majority. Only noblewomen Theodosia Morozova and Evdokia Urusova completely and unconditionally went over to the side of the keepers of the old faith. And one should not consider the ideological leaders of the emerging Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum Petrov and Bishop Pavel Kolomensky, as some kind of immature men who were manipulated by some evil forces.

Therefore, the second misfortune is also obvious: many modern authors writing on the topic of the split of Russian Orthodoxy, for some reason, completely ignore serious scientific work prominent experts. But they not only debunk Nikon's " spiritual heritage”, but also revealed some historical moments of great importance. For example, in the historian's book Sergei Zenkovsky"Russian Old Believers" very convincingly explains the reasons for the division of the Old Believers into priesthood and non-priesthood. Moreover, this delimitation was predetermined long before the book right or the Great Moscow Cathedral. And the fact that many communities, after the beginning of the persecution of the Old Believers, lost their last priests and somehow had to organize their church life in a different way is just a combination of tragic circumstances, and not the root cause.

Zenkovsky proposes to pay attention to the dramatic events of the Time of Troubles (1598 - 1613), which shook the foundations of Russian state(section of his book titled " Crisis of the Third Rome"). Which could not but affect the mindset of the broad masses: two ideological currents appeared that reinterpreted the almost catastrophe in completely different ways.

So, the God-lovers or " zealots of piety" were " are optimistic, hoping that Russian Orthodoxy will stand until the Second Coming» . It was they who started the movement for liturgical and moral revival in the 1630s, with their submission the sale of alcoholic beverages was limited, gambling and performances of buffoons were prohibited.

Representatives of another powerful religious movement - " forest elders"were pessimists and" like the leaders of the European Reformation expected the end of the world» . Already at the end of the 1620s, the monk Kapiton and his followers, the ideological inspirer of the movement, they even avoided going into churches and taking communion, clearly considering the priests too sinful, and the communion prepared by their unworthy hands as graceless» .

And after the start of the persecution of opponents of Nikon's reform, many supporters of " zealots of piety"became Old Believers-priests, and like-minded people" forest elders"- bespopovtsy.

The key moment of Nikonianism

Thus, if we accept this point of view, then the Time of Troubles became a kind of starting point for the emerging Old Believers, but with Nikonianism everything is not so obvious. For example, this suggests a parallel between the church reform in Russia and the European Reformation, because Martin Luther, like Nikon, also insisted on a return to " original» Christianity. Of course, in the Catholic variant". However, the severity of the second important issue for Europe about monastic land ownership in Russia was significantly reduced during the dispute " Josephites" With " nonpossessors"(late XV - early XVI centuries), which is the Reformation" does not pull” absolutely. There are no other clearly expressed similarities for comparison in this matter.

But logically, the changes taking place in the Catholic world should have been reflected in one way or another on the events of church life in Russia. But the fact that Simeon of Polotsk and Paisius Ligarid came from a Catholic background gives little: without the support of the entourage of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (who is considered to be a Greek, not a Latinophile), these guest performers would obviously not have got into the co-founders of the Great Moscow Cathedral. And whether they acted mainly in accordance with instructions from the Vatican or started their own game is also an open question.

The moment is as follows: the Old Believers nicknamed the patriarch for cruel persecution " Nikon Antichrist”, and the end result of his ebullient activity is the Nikonian schism or the Nikonian heresy. But in Rus', something similar happened periodically before. And to some extent without pernicious influence” from the outside also did not manage. And all this is worth dwelling on in more detail.

Heresies of medieval Europe: here and there

In the 14th century, a religious movement arose in Pskov called hairdressers, which then spread to Novgorod. Their leaders were a deacon named Nikita and a carp hairdresser, or, as they said then, a strigolnik, from where, it is believed, the movement got its name.

Russian literary critic and philologist Gelian Prokhorov put forward a version, " What"strigolism" - trace of the first influence of Karaism in Northern Rus'» . Another similar touch: in their deeds, Nikita and Karp were guided by the book "Vlasfimiya", which exposed simony; the authorship of this compilation treatise of 67 chapters is attributed to a certain Russified Greek, or Russian, but who knew very well Greek language.

Not satisfied with the decisions of the Vladimir Cathedral (1274), which established a fixed fee for those who were ordained deacons and priests, the strigolniks opposed the sale of church positions. First, by convincing the people, “that those shepherds of the church who have been placed on bribes are unlawful. Further, they began to reproach all the clergy with the fact that it takes exactions from the living and the dead; that it lives badly; that all the sacraments and sacraments performed by such unworthy persons have no power ... To repent, the hairdressers said, is possible without a priest, crouching to the ground; the sacrament of communion must be understood in a spiritual sense; other sacraments and rituals are not needed at all.

After the execution in Novgorod (1375) of three " perverts of the Christian faith- Nikita, Karp and a certain layman from their followers - the movement continued only in Pskov. But even there it gradually fell into disrepair, and after 1429 it was no longer mentioned in the annals.

It is very tempting to consider the strigolnikov " the first Russian Protestants"or even ideological predecessors" forest elders» Monk Kapiton. But these are only features of external similarity: their teaching outside Novgorod and Pskov did not receive significant distribution, and the authorities did not have to exert much effort to suppress this movement. Consequently, the strigolniks, unlike, for example, the later bespopovtsy Old Believers, did not receive wide support in the then Russian society.

Another thing is Europe, where the Albigensian heresy appeared somewhat earlier (the second half of the 12th century - 1321). Which, like the heresy of the Strigolnikov, had a limited distribution area (only part of northern Italy and southern France).

The teaching of the Albigensians can be considered Christian only with a great deal of conventionality: it stated " the coexistence of two fundamental principles - a good deity (God of the New Testament), who created spirit and light, and an evil deity (God of the Old Testament), who created matter and darkness» . As a result, marriage and childbearing among heretics were rejected, and cohabitation, as a lesser evil, in comparison with marriage, on the contrary, was encouraged. They also believed in the reincarnation of souls and did not believe in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

There were especially many followers of heresy in the French province of Languedoc, which is why the pope even had to declare a crusade there (1209-1229). A long struggle went on there with varying success - only the active intervention of the French king allowed the Catholics to gain the upper hand. The number of victims of this conflict is estimated at 1 million people.

The next major Russian heresy in chronology is “ Judaizers"(1470 - 1504). " Judaizers"went away from canonical Orthodoxy much further than their predecessors, the Strigolniki: some of them, in fact, converted to Judaism, others were sectarians, like the European Bogomils, and still others were guided by reformist or even humanistic considerations.

The beginning of the heresy was laid in 1470, when the Kiev Jew Skhariya, taught " every invention of villainy, sorcery and witchcraft, astrology and astrology", arrived in Novgorod, where" deceived»the local priest Dionysius, behind whom some other clergy became apostates from the true faith of Christ. Later, the heresy spread to Moscow, where " turned to the Jews"even some of the people from the environment of the Grand Duke.

However, it did not receive further wide distribution, like the heresy of the Strigolnikov, although the prerequisites for this were: “ Judaizers” acted secretly, which is why they could not be detected for a long time. Only in 1480 did the archbishop of Novgorod, Gennady, succeed in exposing some heretics, however, " the main leaders of the heresy were not discovered» .

The heresy was beheaded when the abbot joined in the fight against it Joseph Volotsky(1439 - 1515). The main patrons were repressed " Judaizers”: Metropolitan Zosima was deprived of the chair, and the wife of the eldest son of Ivan III, Elena Voloshanka, was imprisoned. With heretics of a lower rank, the authorities did not stand on ceremony at all: the clerk Ivan Kuritsyn and a dozen other active participants in the movement were simply burned. After that, this heresy gradually came to naught, which is the second obvious parallel with the movement of the Strigolniks. But if in those days in Rus' heresy ended with the execution of the main instigators, then, for example, in the Czech Republic it was just beginning. So, on July 6, 1415, the declared “ incorrigible» the heretic Czech church reformer Jan Hus, who, like the Strigolniks, was opposed to the sale of church positions. He also opposed German dominance in the Czech Republic.

The Czechs were outraged, especially because the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund guaranteed Hus's safety, but he never kept his promise. As a result, a movement called the Hussite appeared in the Czech Republic.

The Pope, as usual, organized a crusade against the next heretics. It did not help - the crusaders were beaten by the Hussites; military luck was mostly on their side and in the next four crusades. This is despite the fact that the Hussites were not limited to passive defense, but made sorties into Austria, Hungary and a number of German lands. Yes, and initially a single movement split into different currents, between which skirmishes often arose, turning into serious clashes. Finally, in 1434, the moderate Hussites-cups made an agreement with the Catholics, bargaining for themselves a number of privileges, and by joint efforts defeated the radical Hussites - the Taborites.

The general result of the Hussite wars: " The Czechs lost most of their population; Saxony, Bavaria and Austria - about half; Hungary, Pomerania and Brandenburg - much less, but also pretty» .

Definitely in the fight against heretics Holy See did not particularly succeed; Western European society turned out to be very receptive to heretical or reformist ideas, which is why their distributors quite often received wide public support. And the Reformation that occurred a little later, in fact, was inevitable.

In Russia, everything was different: heresy is the lot of relatively small outcasts, and the more radical it was, the more severely it received a rebuff. The instigators of heresy did not have wide support among the masses, therefore, bloody massacres on religious grounds, as in Europe, did not occur.

And this is by no means a reason dense backwardness» patriarchal Russian society: it is obvious that the resistance to heresy or reformist encroachments of the then Orthodoxy was much higher than that of Catholicism.

The one who conceived the reform understood this: if Nikon and his supporters had started something similar to the Reformation, they would have been exposed and repressed as just another heretics. For their opponent would be the whole of society. Experience " Judaizers" and Strigolnikov was taken into account: no radical steps were proposed, but only " correction» mistakes in church books and « small"changes in several elements of the Orthodox rite, so that they are more consistent, as it was then believed, with the original Greek canons.

And even so, a third of the country revolted. Lev Usykin is completely wrong, seeing in this situation " the seriousness of the conflict with the frivolity of the occasion» . No - the reason was just serious! Many ordinary Russian people of that time—some in their guts and some in their minds—understood that the reform was only the beginning, and if they yielded only once, Orthodox piety would be lost.

And so it happened in the future: Nikon's reform turned out to be only the first stage of transformations, " translated» the Russian Church on the position of Greek Catholicism, although more moderate than that of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church subordinate to the Pope. As a result, inherent in Orthodoxy " immunity» against heresy and attempts at the Reformation was significantly weakened.

And after the final defeat of the opponents of the reforms, already under Peter I, the second stage began: the institution of the patriarchate was abolished, and instead an ersatz appeared - a substitute, the Holy Governing Synod, headed by the chief prosecutor from among the secular officials appointed by the emperor.

To this administrative arbitrariness, the church, which lost many of its active members during the split and thoroughly squandered its authority among the broad masses of the people, could not give a worthy answer, which allowed it finally " mount' to the state. Otherwise it could not be.

About a term that doesn't exist

Historians studying the church reform of Patriarch Nikon and the events that followed it distinguish three opposing religious movements in Russia at that time:
the Old Believers, who strove to follow the old Russian religious traditions, oriented towards the Byzantine Orthodox culture of the Grecophiles, and supporters of Catholic Europe - the Latinophiles. With the defeat of the first current, the other two for some reason gradually lose their influence and by the middle of the 18th century leave the political scene.

The second strange thing is that a suspiciously large number of Protestants appear in the environment of Peter I: for example, the closest assistant and adviser to the tsar was the Calvinist F. Ya. Lefort; Lutheran Martha Skavronskaya eventually became Empress Catherine I; Lutheran R. H. Baur (Bour) commanded the cavalry in Poltava battle etc.

And was it only that, in order to attract allies and associates, Peter did not consider their origin and religion? Or maybe the king was more favorably disposed towards someone than towards others? For example, he " calmly took the sacrament in England according to the Anglican model, and in Germany in front of the monument to Luther he delivered a eulogy in honor of “this great shepherd”» . A strange gesture on the part of the Orthodox sovereign - one could well speak of his Protestantophilism. However, this term was not introduced into circulation by historians for some reason.

Meanwhile, in the pre-Petrine era, Protestants were also often persecuted. Moreover, harassment fell upon them long before the appearance of the Old Believers: in the 1620s, at the request of Patriarch Filaret, foreigners who were in the state service were obliged to either convert to Orthodoxy or immediately resign; in 1633, foreigners living in Moscow began to be forcibly relocated to the settlement, later called the German; at the same time, again at the initiative of Filaret, one of the Lutheran churches was temporarily closed.

In 1642, Muscovites filed a petition to the tsar for the closure of Protestant churches in the Myasnitskaya and Prokhorovskaya settlements; 1647 - a new campaign for " circulation» foreigners to Orthodoxy; in 1648, foreigners were forbidden to trade in the internal Russian markets at retail. In 1652, already under Patriarch Nikon, the second resettlement of foreigners to the German Quarter began. In addition, they were forbidden to use Russian servants under the age of 50 at home and dress in Russian dress, “ so that during a conversation with them, the Russians know in advance who they are dealing with, and can react accordingly in the event of anti-Orthodox propaganda» . The following year, customs duties were introduced for foreigners, which were much higher than for Russian merchants.

With the beginning of the persecution of the Old Believers, the intensity of repression against the Protestants decreased significantly: only in 1676 did the Protestant preacher K. Kuhlman and his fellow believer K. Nordemann, burned at the stake, become victims of the new Patriarch Joachim only in 1676 - apparently, one of the last such cases. And it is rather difficult to say whether this is all an accident, or whether the Protestants, in order to ward off new persecution, surreptitiously set the authorities on the Old Believers.

The role of Protestants in the confrontation between Greekophiles and Latinophiles is also incomprehensible - either by outside observers, who turned out to be in the end, surprisingly, in a win, or provocateurs, who contributed a lot to deepening the conflict between the warring parties. So the questions raised above require a separate thorough study.

On the other hand, the church reform of Peter I was carried out not without looking back at the Protestants: both the Old Believers and the Greekophiles could not imagine themselves without the patriarchate, the Latinophile party, the Holy Governing Synod, was also without special need - they would have been more satisfied, if not the conversion of Russia to Catholicism, then at least the conclusion of a union with Rome. In addition, the Protestant influence can be traced in the very name " Holy Governing Synod”: in ancient Russian Orthodoxy, the analogue of the synod was the cathedral, in the Orthodox East and among Catholics, synods were only meetings of bishops, but the highest body of the state church in England is the General Synod. Which, by the way, for some reason is translated into Russian as the General Council.

Certainly, the Russian tsar took advantage of the advice of the English king William III of Orange, who, during their joint meeting in 1698, suggested that “ arrange the Church in Russia in the manner of the Anglican, declaring himself its Head http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/234802

In the middle of the XVII century. relations between the church and the authorities in the Muscovite state became more complicated. This happened at a time of strengthening autocracy and growing social tension. Under these conditions, the transformation of the Orthodox Church took place, which led to serious changes in political and spiritual life. Russian society and church schism.

Causes and background

The division of the church took place in the 1650s-1660s during the church reform initiated by Patriarch Nikon. The reasons for the split of the church in Rus' in the 17th century can be divided into several groups:

social crisis,
church crisis,
spiritual crisis,
foreign policy interests of the country.

social crisis was caused by the desire of the authorities to limit the rights of the church, since it had significant privileges, influence on politics and ideology. The church one was generated by the low level of professionalism of the clergy, its promiscuity, differences in rituals, interpretation of the content of sacred books. spiritual crisis - society was changing, people understood their role and position in society in a new way. They expected that the church would also meet the requirements of the time.

Rice. 1. Double-fingered.

Russia's interests in foreign policy also required changes. The Moscow ruler wanted to become the heir of the Byzantine emperors both in matters of faith and in their territorial possessions. In order to fulfill the desired, it was necessary to bring the rites into unity with the Greek models adopted in the territories of the Orthodox lands, which the tsar sought to annex to Russia, or take under her control.

Reform and split

The split of the church in Rus' in the 17th century began with the election of Nikon as patriarch and church reform. In 1653, a document (circular) was sent to all Moscow churches on the replacement of the two-fingered sign of the cross with the three-fingered one. The haste, repressive methods of Nikon during the reform caused a protest of the population and led to a split.

Rice. 2. Patriarch Nikon.

In 1658 Nikon was expelled from Moscow. His lust for power and the intrigues of the boyars caused disgrace. The transformation was continued by the king himself. In accordance with the latest Greek models, church rites and liturgical books were reformed, which did not change over the centuries, but were preserved in the form in which they received them from Byzantium.

Consequences

On the one hand, the reform strengthened the centralization of the church and its hierarchy. On the other hand, the trial of Nikon became a prologue to the liquidation of the patriarchate and the complete subordination of the church institution to the state. The transformations that have taken place in society have created an atmosphere of perception of the new, which has given rise to criticism of tradition.

Rice. 3. Old Believers.

Those who did not accept the innovations were called Old Believers. The Old Believers became one of the most complex and controversial consequences of the reform, the split of society and the church.

What have we learned?

We learned about the time of the church reform, its main content and results. One of the main ones was the split of the church, its flock was divided into Old Believers and Nikonians. .

Report Evaluation

Average rating: 4.3. Total ratings received: 25.