The main events of the church schism of the 17th century. Church schism of the 17th century in Russia and the Old Believers
The main reason for the split of the Russian Church lay in the spiritual sphere. Traditionally, Russian religiosity attached great importance to rituals, considering them the basis of faith. According to many Orthodox, the Greeks "shook" in faith, for which they were punished by the loss of the "Orthodox kingdom" (the fall of Byzantium). Therefore, "old Russian antiquity", they believed, is the only correct faith.
Nikon reform
The reform of Patriarch Nikon mainly concerned the rules for conducting a church ceremony. It was prescribed that the worshiper make the sign of the cross with three fingers (fingers), as was customary in the Greek church, instead of two, as previously existed in Russia; waist bows were introduced during prayer instead of earthly bows; it was prescribed during the service in the church to sing "Hallelujah" (praise) not two, but three times; during the procession, move not according to the sun (salting), but against; write the name Jesus with two "and", and not with one, as before; new words were introduced into the process of worship.
Church books and icons were corrected according to newly printed Greek models instead of Old Russian ones. Uncorrected books and icons were publicly burned.
The council supported Nikon's church reform and cursed its opponents. That part of the population that did not accept the reform began to be called Old Believers or old believer mi. The Council's decision deepened the schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.
The movement of the Old Believers became widespread. People went to the forests, to the deserted places of the North, the Volga region, Siberia. Large settlements of Old Believers appeared in the Nizhny Novgorod and Bryansk forests. They founded sketes (remote settlements in remote places), where they performed rituals according to the old rules. The tsarist troops were sent against the Old Believers. At their approach, some Old Believers with their whole families closed themselves in houses and burned themselves.
Archpriest Avvakum
The Old Believers demonstrated firmness and adherence to the old faith. Archpriest Avvakum (1620/1621-1682) became the spiritual leader of the Old Believers.
Avvakum advocated the preservation of the old Orthodox rites. He was imprisoned in the monastery prison and offered to renounce his views. He didn't. Then he was exiled to Siberia. But he did not relent there either. At the Church Council he was defrocked and cursed. In response, Avvakum himself cursed the Church Council. He was exiled to the polar prison Pustozersk, where he spent 14 years with his associates in an earthen pit. In captivity, Avvakum wrote an autobiographical book, Life (before that, they wrote only about the lives of saints). On April 14, 1682, he, along with "fellow prisoners ... for great blasphemy," was burned at the stake. material from the site
Feodosia Morozova
Boyar Theodosia Prokopyevna Morozova was a supporter of the Old Believers. She made her rich house a refuge for all those persecuted "for the old faith." Morozova did not succumb to persuasion to move away from the old faith. Neither the persuasion of the patriarch and other bishops, nor cruel torture, nor the confiscation of all her vast wealth had any effect. Boyar Morozova and her sister Princess Urusova were sent to the Borovsky Monastery and imprisoned in an earthen prison. There Morozova died, but did not deviate from her convictions.
Monks of the Solovetsky Monastery
Among the Old Believers were the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery. They refused to read the traditional Orthodox prayer for the tsar, believing that he had submitted to the Antichrist. The government could not bear this. Government troops were sent against the recalcitrants. Mona Styr resisted for eight years (1668-1676). Of the 500 of his defenders, 60 survived.
One of the most significant events of the 17th century. there was a schism in the church. He seriously influenced the formation of cultural values and worldview of the Russian people. Among the prerequisites and causes of the church schism, one can distinguish both political factors, formed as a result of the turbulent events of the beginning of the century, and church factors, which, however, are of secondary importance.
At the beginning of the century, the first representative of the Romanov dynasty, Mikhail, ascended the throne. He and, later, his son, Alexei, nicknamed "The Quietest", gradually restored the internal economy, devastated during the Time of Troubles. Foreign trade was restored, the first manufactories appeared, and state power was strengthened. But, at the same time, serfdom took shape legislatively, which could not but cause mass discontent among the people. Initially, the foreign policy of the first Romanovs was cautious. But already in the plans of Alexei Mikhailovich there is a desire to unite the Orthodox peoples who lived outside the territory of Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
This put the tsar and the patriarch, already in the period of the annexation of the Left-Bank Ukraine, before a rather difficult problem of an ideological nature. Most of the Orthodox peoples, having accepted the Greek innovations, were baptized with three fingers. According to the tradition of Moscow, two fingers were used for baptism. One could either impose one's own traditions, or submit to the canon accepted by the entire Orthodox world. Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon chose the second option. The centralization of power taking place at that time and the emerging idea of Moscow's future dominance in the Orthodox world, the "Third Rome", demanded a unified ideology capable of uniting the people. The subsequent reform split Russian society for a long time. Discrepancies in the sacred books and the interpretation of the performance of rituals required changes and the restoration of uniformity. The need to correct church books was noted not only by spiritual authorities, but also by secular ones.
The name of Patriarch Nikon and the church schism are closely connected. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia was distinguished not only by his intelligence, but also by his tough character, determination, lust for power, love of luxury. He gave his consent to stand at the head of the church only after the request of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The beginning of the church schism of the 17th century was laid by the reform prepared by Nikon and carried out in 1652, which included such innovations as tripartite, serving the liturgy on 5 prosphora, and so on. All these changes were subsequently approved at the Council of 1654.
But, the transition to new customs was too abrupt. The situation in the church schism in Russia was aggravated by the cruel persecution of opponents of innovations. Many refused to accept the change in rites. The old sacred books, according to which the ancestors lived, refused to give, many families fled to the forests. An opposition movement formed at court. But in 1658 Nikon's position changed dramatically. The royal disgrace turned into a demonstrative departure of the patriarch. However, he overestimated his influence on Alexei. Nikon was completely deprived of power, but retained wealth and honors. At the council of 1666, in which the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch took part, the hood was removed from Nikon. And the former patriarch was sent into exile, to the Ferapontov Monastery on the White Lake. However, Nikon, who loved luxury, lived there far from being a simple monk.
The church council, which deposed the masterful patriarch and eased the fate of opponents of innovations, fully approved the reforms carried out, declaring them not a whim of Nikon, but a matter of the church. Those who did not obey the innovations were declared heretics.
The final stage of the split was the Solovetsky uprising of 1667 - 1676, which ended for the dissatisfied with death or exile. Heretics were persecuted even after the death of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. After the fall of Nikon, the church retained its influence and strength, but not a single patriarch laid claim to supreme power.
21. Foreign policy in the 17th century.
The years of the Great Troubles turned into the loss of many lands for Russia. The most important task during the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich was to overcome the consequences of this difficult time for Russia. Of great importance was the renunciation of the Polish prince Vladislav from the rights to the throne of Moscow.
Lost during the Time of Troubles, Novgorod and Smolensk were not returned immediately. Russia, at that time, was seriously weakened and the wars with Poland and Sweden did not bring success. Novgorod was returned only in 1617 after the conclusion of the Pillar Peace with Sweden, but the coast of the Gulf of Finland was lost. Only in 1634, according to the Treaty of Polyana, Vladislav finally renounced his claim to the throne of Moscow. However, the Seversky lands and Smolensk remained in the power of the Commonwealth.
Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich directed his energy to solving problems left by the previous reign. At this time, most of Ukraine and Belarus belonged to the Polish Crown. The riots that began against the Poles in 1648 in Ukraine grew into a large-scale war of liberation that engulfed all Belarusian lands. At the head of this powerful movement was Bogdan Khmelnitsky. The rebels turned to Moscow for help. However, the decision to unite Russia and Ukraine was made only in 1654. This caused another war with the Commonwealth. The result of it was "Eternal Peace". Russia was finally able to regain Smolensk, and the Commonwealth was forced to recognize the reunification of Russia and Ukraine. Also, under the terms of this peace, Kyiv also departed Russia.
Russian-Turkish relations also remained difficult. The Crimean campaigns of Prince Golitsyn in 1687 and 1689 did not bring success. Russia never managed to get access to the Black Sea. However, it is worth noting the Azov campaigns of 1695 and 1676. But the capture of Azov was clearly not enough to ensure safe trade routes to the west. The Black Sea remained completely in the hands of the Ottoman Empire.
A striking success of Russian foreign policy in the 17th century was the annexation of the lands of Eastern Siberia to the territory of the country. Dezhnev and Poyarkov, famous Russian pioneers, were able to reach the shores of the Amur and the Pacific Ocean. The expansion of the territory of the Russian Empire at the expense of the Amur lands could not but arouse the concern of the rulers of China. Nevertheless, in 1689 the border along the Amur River (and its tributaries) was fixed by the Nerchinsk Treaty.
On May 23, 1666, by decision of the Council of the Holy Orthodox Church, Archpriest Avvakum Petrov was stripped and anathematized. This event is considered the beginning of the church schism in Russia.Background of the event
The church reform of the 17th century, the authorship of which is traditionally attributed to Patriarch Nikon, was aimed at changing the ritual tradition that existed then in Moscow (the northeastern part of the Russian Church) in order to unify it with the modern Greek one. In fact, the reform did not affect anything except the ritual side of worship and initially met with the approval of both the sovereign himself and the highest church hierarchy.
During the reform, the liturgical tradition was changed in the following points:
- Large-scale "book right", expressed in the editing of the texts of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, which led to changes in the wording of the Creed. The union “a” was removed in the words about faith in the Son of God “born, not created”, they began to talk about the Kingdom of God in the future (“there will be no end”), and not in the present tense (“there is no end”), from the definition properties of the Holy Spirit, the word "True" is excluded. Many other innovations were introduced into historical liturgical texts, for example, another letter was added to the name "Jesus" (under the title "Ic") - "Jesus".
- Replacing the two-fingered sign of the cross with a three-fingered one and the abolition of "throwing", or small bows to the earth.
- Nikon ordered the religious processions to be carried out in the opposite direction (against the sun, and not salting).
- The exclamation of "Hallelujah" during the service began to be pronounced not twice, but three times.
- The number of prosphora on proskomedia and the inscription of the seal on prosphora have been changed.
However, the harshness inherent in Nikon's character, as well as the procedural incorrectness of the reform, caused discontent among a significant part of the clergy and laity. This dissatisfaction was largely fueled by personal hostility towards the patriarch, who was distinguished by intolerance and ambition.
Speaking about the peculiarities of Nikon's religiosity, historian Nikolai Kostomarov noted:
“Having spent ten years as a parish priest, Nikon, involuntarily, learned to himself all the rudeness of the environment around him and transferred it with him even to the patriarchal throne. In this respect, he was a completely Russian man of his time, and if he was truly pious, then in the old Russian sense. The piety of a Russian person consisted in the most accurate execution of external methods, to which a symbolic power was attributed, bestowing God's grace; and Nikon's piety did not go far beyond ritualism. The letter of worship leads to salvation; therefore, it is necessary that this letter be expressed as correctly as possible.”
Having the support of the tsar, who granted him the title of "great sovereign", Nikon conducted business hastily, autocratically and abruptly, demanding an immediate rejection of the old rites and the exact execution of new ones. Old Russian rituals were ridiculed with inappropriate vehemence and harshness; Nikon's Greekophilia knew no bounds. But it was based not at all on admiration for Hellenistic culture and the Byzantine heritage, but on the provincialism of the patriarch, who unexpectedly emerged from ordinary people (“from rags to riches”) and claimed the role of head of the universal Greek church.
Moreover, Nikon showed outrageous ignorance, rejecting scientific knowledge, and hated "Greek wisdom." For example, the patriarch wrote to the sovereign:
“Christ taught us neither dialectics nor eloquence, because a rhetorician and philosopher cannot be a Christian. Unless a Christian exhausts all outward wisdom and all the memory of Greek philosophers from his thinking, he cannot be saved. Wisdom is the Hellenic mother of all crafty dogmas.
Even during his enthronement (assuming the office of patriarch), Nikon forced Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to promise not to interfere in the affairs of the Church. The king and the people swore to "obey him in everything, as the chief and shepherd and the most beautiful father."
And in the future, Nikon was not at all shy in the methods of dealing with his opponents. At the council of 1654, he publicly beat, tore off his mantle, and then, without a council decision, he single-handedly deprived the cathedra and exiled the opponent of the liturgical reform, Bishop Pavel Kolomensky. Subsequently, he was killed under unclear circumstances. Contemporaries, not without reason, believed that it was Nikon who sent assassins to Pavel.
Throughout his patriarchate, Nikon constantly expressed dissatisfaction with the interference of the secular government in church administration. A special protest was caused by the adoption of the Council Code of 1649, which belittled the status of the clergy, placing the Church in fact subordinate to the state. This violated the Symphony of Authorities - the principle of cooperation between secular and spiritual authorities, described by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I, which at first the tsar and the patriarch sought to implement. For example, income from monastic estates was transferred to the Monastic order created within the framework of the Code, i.e. They no longer acted for the needs of the Church, but for the state treasury.
It is difficult to say what exactly became the main "stumbling block" in the quarrel between Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon. Today, all known reasons look ridiculous and are more reminiscent of the conflict between two children in kindergarten - "do not play with my toys and do not pee in my pot!" But we should not forget that Alexei Mikhailovich, according to many historians, was a fairly progressive ruler. For his time, he was known as an educated man, moreover, not badly brought up. Perhaps the matured sovereign was simply tired of the whims and antics of the dork-patriarch. In his desire to govern the state, Nikon lost all sense of proportion: he challenged the decisions of the tsar and the Boyar Duma, liked to make public scandals, and showed open disobedience to Alexei Mikhailovich and his close boyars.
“You see, sir,” those dissatisfied with the autocracy of the patriarch turned to Alexei Mikhailovich, “that he loved to stand high and ride widely. This patriarch manages instead of the Gospel with reeds, instead of a cross - axes ... "
According to one version, after another quarrel with the patriarch, Alexei Mikhailovich forbade him to "be written as a great sovereign." Nikon was mortally offended. On July 10, 1658, without renouncing the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, he took off his patriarchal klobuk and arbitrarily withdrew on foot to the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery, which he himself founded in 1656 and had in his personal property. The patriarch hoped that the king would quickly repent of his behavior and call him back, but this did not happen. In 1666, Nikon was officially deprived of his patriarchate and monasticism, convicted and exiled under strict supervision to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. The secular power won over the spiritual. The Old Believers thought that their time was returning, but they were mistaken - since the reform was fully in the interests of the state, it began to be carried out further, only under the leadership of the king.
The Council of 1666-1667 completed the triumph of the Nikonians and Grecophiles. The council canceled the decisions of the Stoglavy Council of 1551, recognizing that Macarius, along with other Moscow hierarchs, “was foolish with his ignorance.” It was the cathedral of 1666-1667, at which the zealots of the old Moscow piety were anathematized, that marked the beginning of the Russian schism. From now on, all those who disagreed with the introduction of new details of the performance of rituals were subject to excommunication from the church. They were called schismatics, or Old Believers, and were severely repressed by the authorities.
Split
Meanwhile, the movement for the "old faith" (Old Believers) began long before the Council. It originated even during the Patriarchate of Nikon, immediately after the beginning of the “right” church books and represented, first of all, resistance to the methods by which the patriarch implanted Greek learning “from above”. As noted by many well-known historians and researchers (N. Kostomarov, V. Klyuchevsky, A. Kartashev and others), the split in Russian society of the 17th century was actually a contrast between “spirit” and “intellect”, true faith and book learning, people’s self-consciousness and state arbitrariness.
The consciousness of a Russian person was not prepared for those drastic changes in rituals that were carried out by the church under the leadership of Nikon. For the vast majority of the population of the country for many centuries, the Christian faith consisted, first of all, in the ritual side and fidelity to church traditions. The priests themselves sometimes did not understand the essence and root causes of the reform being carried out, and, of course, no one bothered to explain anything to them. And was it possible to explain the essence of the changes to the broad masses, when the clergy themselves in the villages did not possess great literacy, being flesh and blood from the same peasants? There was no purposeful propaganda of new ideas at all.
Therefore, the lower classes met the innovations with hostility. Old books were often not given away, they were hidden. The peasants fled with their families to the forests, hiding from Nikon's "news". Sometimes local parishioners did not give old books, so in some places they used force, there were fights that ended not only in injuries or bruises, but also in murders. The aggravation of the situation was facilitated by the scientists "spravshchiki", who sometimes knew the Greek language perfectly, but did not speak Russian well enough. Instead of grammatically correcting the old text, they gave new translations from the Greek language, slightly different from the old ones, increasing the already strong irritation among the peasant masses.
Patriarch Paisios of Constantinople addressed Nikon with a special message, where, approving the reform carried out in Russia, he called on the Moscow Patriarch to soften measures in relation to people who do not want to accept “novina” now.
Even Paisius agreed to the existence in some areas and regions of local features of worship, if only the faith was one and the same. However, in Constantinople they did not understand the main characteristic of the Russian people: if you forbid (or allow) - everything and everyone is sure. The rulers of destinies in the history of our country found the principle of the "golden mean" very, very rarely.
The initial opposition to Nikon and his "innovations" developed among the church hierarchs and the boyars close to the court. "Old Believers" was headed by Bishop Pavel Kolomna and Kashirsky. He was publicly beaten by Nikon at the council of 1654 and exiled to the Paleostrovsky monastery. After the exile and death of the Bishop of Kolomna, the movement for the "old faith" was headed by several clerics: archpriests Avvakum, Loggin of Murom and Daniil Kostroma, priest Lazar Romanovsky, priest Nikita Dobrynin, nicknamed Pustosvyat, and others. In a secular environment, the boyar Feodosia Morozova and her sister Evdokia Urusova - close relatives of the Empress herself.
Avvakum Petrov
Archpriest Avvakum Petrov (Avvakum Petrovich Kondratyev), who was once a friend of the future Patriarch Nikon, is considered to be one of the brightest "leaders" of the schismatic movement. Just like Nikon, Avvakum came out of the people's "lower classes". At first he was a parish priest in the village of Lopatitsy, Makaryevsky district, Nizhny Novgorod province, then an archpriest in Yuryevets-Povolsky. Already here, Avvakum showed his rigorism, which did not know the slightest concession, which subsequently made his whole life a chain of sheer torment and persecution. The active intolerance of the priest towards any deviation from the canons of the Orthodox faith more than once led him to conflicts with the local secular authorities and the flock. She also forced Avvakum to flee, leaving the parish, to seek protection in Moscow, from her friends who were close to the court: the archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral Ivan Neronov, the royal confessor Stefan Vonifatiev and Patriarch Nikon himself. In 1653, Avvakum, who took part in the work of collating spiritual books, quarreled with Nikon and became one of the first victims of the Nikonian reform. The patriarch, using violence, tried to force the archpriest to accept his ritual innovations, but he refused. The characters of Nikon and his opponent Avvakum were in many ways similar. The sharpness and intolerance with which the patriarch fought for his reform initiatives collided with the same intolerance towards everything “new” in the person of his opponent. The patriarch wanted to cut the disobedient clergyman, but the queen stood up for Avvakum. The matter ended with the exile of the archpriest to Tobolsk.
In Tobolsk, the same story was repeated as in Lopatitsy and Yuryevets-Povolsky: Avvakum again had a conflict with the local authorities and the flock. Publicly rejecting Nikon's church reform, Avvakum gained fame as an "irreconcilable fighter" and spiritual leader of all those who disagreed with Nikonian innovations.
After Nikon lost his influence, Avvakum was returned to Moscow, brought closer to the court and treated kindly by the sovereign himself in every possible way. But soon Alexei Mikhailovich realized that the archpriest was not at all a personal enemy of the deposed patriarch. Avvakum was a fundamental opponent of church reform, and, consequently, an opponent of the authorities and the state in this matter. In 1664, the archpriest gave the tsar a sharp petition in which he insistently demanded that the reform of the church be curtailed and a return to the old ritual tradition. For this he was exiled to Mizen, where he stayed for a year and a half, continuing his preaching and supporting his adherents scattered throughout Russia. In his epistles, Avvakum called himself "a slave and messenger of Jesus Christ", "protosingel of the Russian Church".
 Burning of Archpriest Avvakum |
In 1666, Avvakum was brought to Moscow, where on 13 (23) May, after futile exhortations at a council that met to try Nikon, he was cut and “cursed” at the Dormition Cathedral at Mass. In response to this, the archpriest immediately declared that he himself was imposing an anathema on all bishops who adhered to the Nikonian rite. After this, the disrobed archpriest was taken to the Pafnutiev Monastery and there, "locked in a dark tent, chained, they kept him for a year without a little."
The defrocking of Avvakum was greeted with great indignation among the people, and in many boyar houses, and even at the court, where the tsarina, who interceded for him, had a “great discord” with the tsar on his day of defrocking.
Avvakum was again persuaded in front of the eastern patriarchs in the Chudov Monastery (“you are stubborn; all of our Palestine, and the Serbs, and the Albans, and the Wallachians, and the Romans, and the Lyakhs, all of them are crossed with three fingers; one de you stand on your stubbornness and cross yourself with two fingers; it is not befitting"), but he firmly stood his ground.
At this time, his associates were executed. Avvakum was punished with a whip and exiled to Pustozersk on the Pechora. At the same time, they did not cut out his tongue, like Lazar and Epiphanius, with whom he and Nicephorus, the archpriest of Simbirsk, were exiled to Pustozersk.
For 14 years he sat on bread and water in an earthen prison in Pustozersk, continuing his sermon, sending letters and messages. Finally, his sharp letter to Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, in which he criticized Alexei Mikhailovich and scolded Patriarch Joachim, decided the fate of both him and his comrades: they were all burned in Pustozersk.
In most Old Believer churches and communities, Avvakum is revered as a holy martyr and confessor. In 1916, the Old Believer Church of the Belokrinitsy Accord canonized Avvakum as a saint.
Solovetsky seat
At the church council of 1666-1667, one of the leaders of the Solovetsky schismatics, Nikandr, chose a line of conduct other than Avvakum. He pretended to agree with the decisions of the council and received permission to return to the monastery. However, upon his return, he threw off the Greek klobuk, again put on the Russian one, and became the head of the monastic brethren. The famous “Solovki Petition” was sent to the Tsar, expounding the credo of the old faith. In another petition, the monks threw down a direct challenge to the secular authorities: "Command, sire, to send us your royal sword and from this rebellious life, relocate us to this serene and eternal life."
S. M. Solovyov wrote: "The monks challenged the worldly authorities to a difficult struggle, presenting themselves as defenseless victims, without resistance bowing their heads under the royal sword. But when in 1668 the lawyer Ignatius Volokhov appeared under the walls of the monastery with a hundred archers, instead of submissively bowing his heads under the sword, he was met with shots. Such an insignificant detachment, such as Volokhov had, could not defeat the besieged, who had strong walls, plenty of supplies, 90 guns. "
"Solovki Sitting" (the siege of the monastery by government troops) dragged on for eight years (1668 - 1676). At first, the authorities could not send large forces to the White Sea because of the movement of Stenka Razin. After the rebellion was suppressed, a large detachment of archers appeared under the walls of the Solovetsky Monastery, and the shelling of the monastery began. The besieged responded with well-aimed shots, and abbot Nikandr sprinkled the cannons with holy water and said: “My mothers, Galanochki! Our hope is in you, you will defend us!”
But in the besieged monastery, disagreements soon arose between moderates and supporters of decisive action. Most of the monks hoped for reconciliation with the royal power. The minority, led by Nikandr, and the laity - "Baltsy", led by centurions Voronin and Samko, demanded "for the great sovereign to set aside piety", and such words were said about the king himself that "not only to write, but also to think is terrible." In the monastery they stopped confessing, taking communion, they refused to recognize priests. These disagreements predetermined the fall of the Solovetsky Monastery. The archers could not manage to take it by storm, but the defector monk Theoktist showed them a hole in the wall, blocked with stones. On the night of January 22, 1676, in a heavy snowstorm, the archers dismantled the stones and entered the monastery. The defenders of the monastery died in an unequal battle. Some instigators of the uprising were executed, others were sent into exile.
Results
The immediate cause for the Schism was the book reform and minor changes in some of the rites. However, the real, serious reasons lay much deeper, rooted in the foundations of Russian religious self-consciousness, as well as in the foundations of the emerging relations between society, the state and the Orthodox Church.
In Russian historiography, dedicated to the Russian events of the second half of the 17th century, there was no clear opinion either about the causes, or about the results and consequences of such a phenomenon as the Schism. Church historians (A. Kartashev and others) tend to see the main reason for this phenomenon in the policies and actions of Patriarch Nikon himself. The fact that Nikon used church reform, first of all, to strengthen his own power, in their opinion, led to a conflict between church and state. This conflict first resulted in a confrontation between the patriarch and the monarch, and then, after the removal of Nikon, split the entire society into two warring camps.
The methods by which the church reform was carried out aroused open rejection on the part of the masses and most of the clergy.
To eliminate the unrest that had risen in the country, the Council of 1666-1667 was convened. This council condemned Nikon himself, but recognized his reforms, because. they at that time corresponded to the state goals and objectives. The same Council of 1666-1667 summoned to its meetings the main propagators of the Schism and cursed their beliefs as "alien to spiritual reason and common sense." Some schismatics obeyed the exhortations of the Church and repented of their errors. Others remained uncompromising. The decision of the council, which in 1667 took an oath on those who, due to adherence to uncorrected books and imaginary old customs, is an opponent of the church, decisively separated the followers of these errors from the church flock, effectively placing these people outside the law.
The schism troubled the state life of Russia for a long time. For eight years (1668 - 1676) the siege of the Solovetsky Monastery dragged on. Six years later, a schismatic revolt arose in Moscow itself, where the archers under the command of Prince Khovansky took the side of the Old Believers. The debate about faith, at the request of the rebels, was held right in the Kremlin in the presence of the ruler Sophia Alekseevna and the patriarch. The archers, however, stood on the side of the schismatics for only one day. The very next morning they brought guilt to the princess and handed over the instigators. Nikita Pustosvyat and Prince Khovansky, the leader of the pop-defiant Old Believers, were executed, plotting to raise a new schismatic revolt.
This is where the direct political consequences of the Schism end, although schismatic troubles flare up here and there for a long time - all over the vast expanses of Russian land. The split ceases to be a factor in the political life of the country, but as a spiritual wound that does not heal, it leaves its mark on the entire course of Russian life.
The confrontation between "spirit" and "common sense" ends in favor of the latter already at the beginning of the new 18th century. The expulsion of schismatics into the dense forests, the worship of the church before the state, the leveling of its role in the era of Peter's reforms ultimately led to the fact that the church under Peter I became just a state institution (one of the colleges). In the 19th century, it completely lost its influence on educated society, at the same time discrediting itself in the eyes of the broad masses of the people. The split between church and society deepened more and more, causing the emergence of numerous sects and religious movements calling for the rejection of traditional Orthodoxy. L.N. Tolstoy, one of the most progressive thinkers of his time, created his own teaching, which won many followers (“Tolstoy”), who rejected the church and the entire ritual side of worship. In the 20th century, a complete restructuring of public consciousness and the demolition of the old state machine, to which the Orthodox Church belonged in one way or another, led to repressions and persecution of clergy, the widespread destruction of churches, made possible the bloody bacchanalia of the militant "atheism" of the Soviet era ...
The church schism became one of the main events for Russia in the 17th century. This process seriously influenced the subsequent formation of the worldview of the Russian people. As the main reason for the church schism, scientists name the political situation that took shape in the 17th century. And church disagreements are attributed to a number of secondary causes.
Tsar Michael, the founder of the Romanov dynasty, and his son Alexei were engaged in the restoration of the country's economy, which was devastated during the Time of Troubles. State power was strengthened, the first manufactories appeared, and foreign trade was restored. In the same period, the legislative registration of serfdom took place.
Despite the fact that at the beginning the Romanovs pursued a rather cautious policy, already the plans of Alexei, nicknamed the Quietest, included the unification of the Orthodox peoples living in the Balkans and the territory of Eastern Europe. This is what led the patriarch and the tsar to a rather difficult ideological problem. According to tradition in Russia, they were baptized with two fingers. And the vast majority of Orthodox peoples, according to Greek innovations, three. There were only two possible options: to obey the canon, or to impose their own traditions on others. Alexei and Patriarch Nikon began to act according to the second option. A single ideology was necessary due to the ongoing centralization of power and the concept of the "Third Rome" at that time. All this became a prerequisite for the reform, which split Russian society for a very long time. A large number of discrepancies in church books, different interpretations of rituals - all this needed to be brought to uniformity. It is worth noting that the need to correct church books was discussed along with church and secular authorities.
The name of Patriarch Nikon and the church schism are closely connected. Nikon possessed not only intelligence, but also a love of luxury and power. He became the head of the church only after the personal request of the Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
The church reform of 1652 marked the beginning of a schism in the church. All proposed changes were approved at the church council of 1654 (for example, tripartite). However, a too abrupt transition to new customs led to the emergence of a considerable number of opponents of innovations. Opposition also formed at court. The patriarch, who overestimated his influence on the tsar, fell into disgrace in 1658. Nikon's departure was demonstrative.
Having retained his wealth and honors, Nikon nevertheless was deprived of any power. In 1666, at the Council, with the participation of the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, the hood was removed from Nikon. After that, the former patriarch was exiled to White Lake, to the Ferapontov Monastery. I must say that there Nikon led a far from poor life. The deposition of Nikon was an important stage in the church schism of the 17th century.
The same council of 1666 once again approved all the changes introduced, declaring them to be the work of the church. All those who did not obey were declared heretics. During the church schism in Russia, another significant event took place - the Solovetsky uprising of 1667-76. All the rebels were eventually either exiled or executed. In conclusion, it should be noted that after Nikon, not a single patriarch laid claim to supreme power in the country.
| Topic 8. Church schism in the 17th century Plan: Introduction
Conclusion Bibliography At turning points in Russian history, it is customary to look for the roots of what is happening in its distant past. Therefore, the appeal to such periods as the period of the church schism seems to be especially important and relevant.
In the middle of the 17th century, a reorientation began in relations between church and state. Its causes are assessed by researchers in different ways. In the historical literature, the point of view prevails, according to which the process of the formation of absolutism inevitably led to the deprivation of the church of its feudal privileges and subordination to the state. The reason for this was the attempt of Patriarch Nikon to put the spiritual power above the secular. Church historians deny this position of the patriarch, considering Nikon to be a consistent ideologist of the “symphony of power”’. They see the initiative to abandon this theory in the activities of the tsarist administration and the influence of Protestant ideas. In 1653-1656, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and the patriarchate of Nikon, a church reform was carried out, aimed at unifying religious rites, correcting books according to Greek models. The tasks of centralizing church administration, increasing the collection of taxes levied on the lower clergy, and strengthening the power of the patriarch were also set. The foreign policy goals of the reform were to bring the Russian Church closer to the Ukrainian one in connection with the reunification of the Left-Bank Ukraine (and Kyiv) with Russia in 1654. Prior to this reunification, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, subordinate to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, had already undergone a similar reform. It was Patriarch Nikon who began the reform to unify the rites and establish the uniformity of the church service. Greek rules and rituals were taken as a model. The Holy Council of 1666-1667, having approved the results of the church reform, removed Nikon from the post of patriarch, and cursed the schismatics for their disobedience. The zealots of the old faith ceased to recognize the church that had excommunicated them. In 1674, the Old Believers decided to stop praying for the health of the king. This meant a complete break of the Old Believers with the existing society, the beginning of the struggle to preserve the ideal of "truth" within their communities. The split has not been overcome to this day. The Russian schism is a significant event in the history of the church. The split of the Orthodox Church was the result of the difficult times experienced by the great power. The Time of Troubles could not but affect the situation in Russia and the history of the church schism. Nikon's reforms and the Old Believers The essence of the official reform was the establishment of uniformity in the liturgical ranks. Until July 1652, that is, until Nikon was elected to the patriarchal throne (Patriarch Joseph died on April 15, 1652), the situation in the church ritual sphere remained uncertain. Archpriests and priests from the zealots of piety and Metropolitan Nikon in Novgorod, ignoring the decision of the church council of 1649 on moderate "polyopia", sought to perform a "unanimous" service. On the contrary, the parish clergy, reflecting the mood of the parishioners, did not comply with the decision of the church council of 1651 on “unanimity”, in connection with which “multi-voiced” services were preserved in most churches. The results of the correction of liturgical books were not put into practice, since there was no church approval of these corrections (16, p. 173). The first step of the reform was the sole order of the patriarch, which affected two ceremonies, bows and the sign of the cross. In memory of March 14, 1653, sent to the churches, it was said that henceforth it is not appropriate for believers in the church to “throw on their knees, but to make bows to everyone’s waist, and even three fingers would be baptized” (instead of two) . At the same time, the memory did not contain any justification for the need for this change in rituals. Therefore, it is not surprising that the change in prostration and signification caused bewilderment and discontent among believers. This dissatisfaction was openly expressed by the provincial members of the circle of zealots of piety. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel prepared an extensive petition in which they pointed out the inconsistency of the innovations with the establishments of the Russian Church and, to justify their correctness, they cited in it “extracts from the books about folding the fingers and bowing.” They submitted a petition to Tsar Alexei, but the Tsar handed it over to Nikon. The order of the patriarch was also condemned by archpriests Ivan Neronov, Lazar and Loggin and deacon Fyodor Ivanov. Nikon resolutely suppressed the protest of his former friends and like-minded people (13, p. 94). Nikon's subsequent decisions were more deliberate and supported by the authority of the church council and the hierarchs of the Greek church, which gave these undertakings the appearance of decisions of the entire Russian church, which was supported by the "universal" Orthodox Church. Of this nature were, in particular, decisions on the order of corrections in church ranks and ceremonies, approved in the spring of 1654 by a church council. Changes in the rites were carried out on the basis of contemporary Greek books for Nikon and the practice of the Church of Constantinople, information about which the reformer received mainly from the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius. Decisions on ritual changes were approved by church councils convened in March 1655 and April 1656. In 1653 - 1656. liturgical books were also corrected. For this, a large number of Greek and Slavic books, including ancient manuscripts, were collected. Due to discrepancies in the texts of the collected books, the directors of the Printing House (with the knowledge of Nikon) took as a basis the text, which was a translation into Church Slavonic of the Greek service book of the 17th century, which, in turn, went back to the text of the liturgical books of the 12th - 15th centuries. and repeated it in many ways. As this basis was compared with ancient Slavic manuscripts, individual corrections were made to its text, as a result, in the new service book (compared to the previous Russian service books), certain psalms became shorter, others more complete, new words and expressions appeared; tripling “hallelujah” (instead of doubling), writing the name of Christ Jesus (instead of Jesus), etc. The new service book was approved by the church council of 1656 and soon published. But the correction of its text in this way continued even after 1656, in connection with which the text of the service books published in 1658 and 1665 did not quite coincide with the text of the service book of 1656. In the 1650s, work was also carried out to correct the Psalter and other liturgical books. These measures determined the content of the church reform of Patriarch Nikon. Consequences and significance of the church schism The split and formation of the Old Believer church was the main, but not the only indicator of the decline in the influence of the official church on the masses in the last third of the 17th century. Along with this, especially in the cities, the growth of religious indifference continued, due to socio-economic development, an increase in the importance of worldly needs and interests in people's lives at the expense of church-religious ones. Absences from church services and violations of other obligations established by the church for believers (refusal to fast, failure to appear for confession, etc.) became commonplace. Development in the 17th century the sprouts of a new culture were opposed by the patriarchal conservative "old times". The "zealots of antiquity" from the most diverse social circles relied on the principle of the inviolability of the orders and customs that were bequeathed by the generations of their ancestors. However, the church itself taught in the 17th century. a clear example of a violation of the principle she defends, “Everything old is holy!” The church reform of Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich testified to the forced recognition by the church of the possibility of some changes, but only those that would be carried out within the framework of the canonized orthodox "old times", in the name and for the sake of strengthening it. The material for innovations was not the results of the further progress of human culture, which went beyond the culture of the Middle Ages, but the same transformable elements of medieval "old times". The new could only be established as a result of the abandonment of the intolerance that had been planted by the church towards the “change of customs”, towards innovations, especially towards the borrowing of cultural values created by other peoples. Signs of the new in the spiritual and cultural life of Russian society in the 17th century. appeared in a variety of ways. In the field of social thought, new views began to develop, and if they did not directly concern the general worldview foundations of medieval thinking, based on theology, then they went far ahead in the development of specific problems of social life. The foundations of the political ideology of absolutism were laid, the need for broad reforms was recognized, and a program for these transformations was outlined. In the center of attention of thinkers of the XVII century. more and more questions of economic life were put forward. The growth of cities, the merchant class, the development of commodity-money relations raised new problems discussed by a number of public figures of that time. In the very measures of government policy, carried out by such figures as B. I. Morozov or A. S. Matveev, one can clearly see the understanding of the growing role of money circulation in the country's economy (14, p. 44). One of the most interesting monuments of socio-political thought of the second half of the XVII century. are the works of Yuri Krizhanich, a Croat by origin, who worked in Russia on the correction of liturgical books. On suspicion of activities in favor of the Catholic Church, Krizhanich was exiled in 1661 to Tobolsk, where he lived for 15 years, after which he returned to Moscow, and then went abroad. In the essay "Dumas are political" ("Politics"), Krizhanich came up with a broad program of internal transformations in Russia as a necessary condition for its further development and prosperity. Krizhanich considered it necessary to develop trade and industry and change the order of government. Being a supporter of wise autocracy, Krizhanich condemned despotic methods of government. Plans for reforms in Russia were developed by Krizhanich in close connection with his ardent interest in the fate of the Slavic peoples. He saw their way out of their difficult situation in uniting them under the leadership of Russia, but Krizhanich considered the elimination of religious differences by converting them, including Russia, to Catholicism (7) as a necessary condition for the unity of the Slavs. In society, most of all among the metropolitan nobility and townspeople of large cities, there was a marked increase in interest in secular knowledge and freedom of thought, which left a deep imprint on the development of culture, especially literature. In historical science, this imprint is designated by the concept of "secularization" of culture. The educated stratum of society, although narrow at that time, was no longer satisfied with the reading of one religious literature, in which the sacred scriptures (the Bible) and liturgical books were the main ones. In this circle, handwritten literature of secular content, translated and original Russian, is spreading. Entertaining artistic narratives, satirical writings, including criticism of church orders, and works of historical content were in great demand. Various works appeared that sharply criticized the church and churchmen. It became widespread in the first half of the 17th century. "The Tale of the Chicken and the Fox", which portrayed the hypocrisy and money-grubbing of the clergy. Wanting to catch a chicken, the fox denounces the “sins” of the chicken with the words “holy scripture”, and having caught him, throws off the guise of piety and declares: “And now I myself am hungry, I want to eat you so that I can be healthy with you.” “And so the belly of chickens died,” concludes the Tale (3, p. 161). Never before have attacks on the Church been as widespread as in the literature of the 17th century, and this circumstance is very indicative of the incipient crisis of the medieval worldview in Russia. Of course, the satirical mockery of the clergy did not yet contain criticism of religion as a whole and was limited so far to the denunciation of the unseemly behavior of the clergy, which outraged the people. But this satire debunked the aura of "holiness" of the church itself. In court circles, interest in the Polish language, literature in this language, Polish customs and fashion increased. The distribution of the latter is evidenced, in particular, by the decree of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich of 1675, which ordered that the nobles of the capital's ranks (stewardesses, solicitors, Moscow nobles and residents) "do not adopt foreign German and other habits, do not cut their hair on their heads , so they didn’t wear dresses, caftans and hats from foreign samples, and therefore they didn’t order to wear their own people. The tsarist government actively supported the church in the fight against schism and heterodoxy and used the full power of the state apparatus in this. She also initiated new measures aimed at improving the church organization and its further centralization. But the attitude of the tsarist government to secular knowledge, rapprochement with the West and foreigners was different than that of the clergy. This discrepancy gave rise to new conflicts, which also revealed the desire of the church leadership to impose their decisions on secular authorities. Thus, the events that followed the reform of church administration in the second half of the 17th century showed that, in defending its political interests, church authority turned into a serious obstacle to progress. It hindered Russia's rapprochement with Western countries, the assimilation of their experience and the implementation of the necessary changes. Under the slogan of protecting Orthodoxy and its fortress, the church authorities sought to isolate Russia. Neither the government of Princess Sophia - V.V. Golitsyn, nor the government of Peter I agreed to this. As a result, the question of the complete subordination of church power to secular power and its transformation into one of the links of the bureaucratic system of absolute monarchy was put on the agenda. Conclusion The split of the last third of the seventeenth century is a vital social and religious movement. But the hostility of the schismatics to the official church and the state was by no means determined by a divergence of a religious and ritual nature. The ideology of the split reflected the aspirations of the peasantry and partly of the townsman class, and it had both conservative and progressive features. Conservative features include: idealization and protection of antiquity; preaching national isolation; hostility to the dissemination of secular knowledge propaganda of the adoption of a martyr's crown in the name of the "old faith" as the only way to save the soul; The progressive sides of the ideological schism include: sanctification, that is, the religious justification and justification of various forms of resistance to the authority of the official church; exposing the repressive policy of the tsarist and church authorities in relation to the Old Believers and other believers who did not recognize the official church; assessment of this repressive policy as actions contrary to Christian doctrine. These features of the ideology of the movement and the predominance of peasants and townspeople, who suffered from feudal-serf oppression, among its participants, gave the split the character of a social, anti-serfdom movement in its essence, which was revealed by popular uprisings of the last third of the seventeenth century. So the struggle of the royal and church authorities at that time was primarily a struggle against the popular movement, hostile to the ruling class of feudal lords and its ideology. The events of those times showed that, while defending its political interests, church power turned into a serious obstacle to progress. It interfered with the rapprochement between Russia and Western countries. Learning from their experiences and making the necessary changes. Under the slogan of defending Orthodoxy, church authorities sought to isolate Russia. Neither the government of Princess Sophia nor the reign of Peter I agreed to this. As a result, the question of complete subordination to church power and its transformation into one of the links in the bureaucratic system of absolute monarchy was put on the agenda. |
The split of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century
Reasons for church reform
The centralization of the Russian state required the unification of church rules and rituals. Already in the XVI century. A uniform all-Russian set of saints was established. However, significant discrepancies remained in the liturgical books, often caused by scribal errors. The elimination of these differences became one of the goals created in the 40s. 17th century in Moscow, a circle of "zealots of ancient piety", which consisted of prominent representatives of the clergy. He also sought to correct the morals of the clergy.
Political considerations played a decisive role in resolving this issue. The desire to make Moscow (the "Third Rome") the center of world Orthodoxy demanded rapprochement with Greek Orthodoxy. However, the Greek clergy insisted on correcting Russian church books and rituals according to the Greek model.
Since the introduction of Orthodoxy in Russia, the Greek Church has gone through a number of reforms and differed significantly from the ancient Byzantine and Russian models. Therefore, part of the Russian clergy, led by "zealots of ancient piety," opposed the proposed reforms. However, Patriarch Nikon, relying on the support of Alexei Mikhailovich, resolutely carried out the planned reforms.
Patriarch Nikon
Nikon comes from the family of the Mordovian peasant Mina, in the world - Nikita Minin. He became patriarch in 1652. Nikon, distinguished by his inflexible, resolute character, had tremendous influence on Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his "sobin (special) friend."
The most important ceremonial changes were: baptism not with two, but with three fingers, the replacement of prostrations with the waist, the singing of "hallelujah" three times instead of twice, the movement of believers in the church past the altar not in the direction of the sun, but against it. The name of Christ began to be written differently - "Jesus" instead of "Jesus". Some changes were made to the rules of worship and icon painting. All books and icons painted according to old models were to be destroyed.
For believers, this was a serious departure from the traditional canon. After all, a prayer uttered not according to the rules is not only ineffective - it is blasphemous! The most stubborn and consistent opponents of Nikon were the "zealots of ancient piety" (previously the patriarch himself was a member of this circle). They accused him of introducing "Latinism", since the Greek Church since the time of the Union of Florence in 1439 was considered "spoiled" in Russia. Moreover, Greek liturgical books were printed not in Turkish Constantinople, but in Catholic Venice.
The emergence of a split
Nikon's opponents - the "Old Believers" - refused to recognize the reforms he had carried out. At church councils in 1654 and 1656. Nikon's opponents were accused of schism, excommunicated and exiled.
The most prominent supporter of the schism was Archpriest Avvakum, a talented publicist and preacher. The former court priest, a member of the circle of "zealots of ancient piety" survived a difficult exile, suffering, the death of children, but did not abandon the fanatical opposition to "Nikonianism" and its defender - the king. After a 14-year imprisonment in an "earth prison", Avvakum was burned alive for "blasphemy against the royal house." Avvakum's "Life" written by himself became the most famous work of the Stora-Rite literature.
Old Believers
The church council of 1666/1667 cursed the Old Believers. Severe persecution of dissenters began. Supporters of the split were hiding in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, the Volga region, and the Urals. Here they created sketes, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, in the event of the approach of the royal punitive detachments, they staged a "gar" - self-immolation.
The reasons for the fanatical stubbornness of the schismatics were rooted, first of all, in their belief that Nikonianism was a product of Satan. However, this confidence itself was fed by certain social reasons.
There were many clerics among the schismatics. For the ordinary priest, the innovations meant that he had lived his whole life incorrectly. In addition, many clergy were illiterate and not prepared to master new books and customs. Posad people and merchants also widely participated in the split. Nikon had long been in conflict with the settlements, objecting to the liquidation of the "white settlements" that belonged to the church. The monasteries and the patriarchal see were engaged in trade and crafts, which annoyed the merchants, who believed that the clergy were illegally intruding into their sphere of activity. Therefore, the settlement readily perceived everything that came from the patriarch as evil.
Naturally, subjectively, each Old Believer saw the reasons for his leaving the schism solely in the rejection of "Nikon's heresy."
There were no bishops among the schismatics. There was no one to ordain new priests. In this situation, some of the Old Believers resorted to "re-baptizing" the Nikonian priests who had gone into schism, while others abandoned the clergy altogether. The community of such schismatics - "bespriests" was led by "mentors" or "learners" - the most versed in the Scripture believers. Outwardly, the "priestless" trend in the schism resembled Protestantism. However, this similarity is illusory. Protestants rejected the priesthood on principle, believing that a person does not need an intermediary in communion with God. The schismatics, on the other hand, rejected the priesthood and the church hierarchy by force, in an accidental situation.
The conflict between church and secular power. Fall of Nikon
The imperious Nikon sought to revive the correlation of secular and ecclesiastical authorities that existed under Filaret. Nikon argued that the priesthood is higher than the kingdom, since it represents God, and secular power is from God. He actively intervened in secular affairs.
Gradually, Alexei Mikhailovich began to be weary of the power of the patriarch. In 1658 there was a gap between them. The king demanded that Nikon no longer be called the great sovereign. Then Nikon declared that he did not want to be a patriarch "in Moscow" and left for the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery on the river. Istra.
Report: The split of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century
He hoped that the king would yield, but he was mistaken. On the contrary, the patriarch was required to resign so that a new head of the church could be elected. Nikon replied that he did not refuse the rank of patriarch, and did not want to be patriarch only "in Moscow."
Neither the tsar nor the church council could remove the patriarch. Only in 1666 did a church council take place in Moscow with the participation of two ecumenical patriarchs - Antioch and Alexandria. The council supported the tsar and deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank. Nikon was imprisoned in the monastery prison, where he died in 1681.
The resolution of the "Nikon case" in favor of the secular authorities meant that the church could no longer interfere in state affairs. Since that time, the process of subordinating the church to the state began, which ended under Peter I with the liquidation of the patriarchate, the creation of the Holy Synod headed by a secular official, and the transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church into a state church.
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. In the XVI century. the dominant Josephite trend in the Russian Church abandoned the thesis of the superiority of church authority over secular. After the massacre of Grozny over Metropolitan Philip, the subordination of the church to the state seemed final. However, the situation changed during the Troubles. The authority of the royal power was shaken due to the abundance of impostors and a series of perjury. The authority of the church, thanks to Patriarch Hermogenes, who led the spiritual resistance to the Poles and accepted martyrdom from them, which became the most important unifying force, increased. The political role of the church increased even more under Patriarch Filaret, the father of Tsar Michael.
The split in the Russian Orthodox Church occurred for the following reasons:
- The need for church reform in the middle of the XVII century. from the point of view of establishing the uniformity of worship.
· The striving of secular and ecclesiastical authorities to correct books and rituals according to Greek models in order to strengthen the leading role of the Muscovite state in the Orthodox world.
· The combination of social and purely religious motives in the emergence of the Old Believers.
· The conservative nature of the ideology of the split.
Nikon's confrontation with Alexei Mikhailovich is the last open conflict between the church and state power, after which it is only a question of the degree of subordination of the church to secular authorities.
Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action
Nothing strikes like a miracle, except for the naivete with which it is taken for granted.
Mark Twain
The church schism in Russia is associated with the name of Patriarch Nikon, who in the 50s and 60s of the 17th century staged a grandiose reform of the Russian church. The changes affected literally all church structures. The need for such changes was due to the religious backwardness of Russia, as well as significant misprints in religious texts. The implementation of the reform led to a split not only in the church, but also in society. People openly opposed the new trends in religion, actively expressing their position with uprisings and popular unrest. In today's article, we will talk about the reform of Patriarch Nikon, as one of the most important events of the 17th century, which had a huge impact not only for the church, but for the whole of Russia.
Prerequisites for the reform
According to the assurances of many historians who study the 17th century, a unique situation developed in Russia at that time, when the religious rites in the country were very different from the global ones, including from the Greek rites, from where Christianity came to Russia. In addition, it is often said that religious texts, as well as icons, were distorted. Therefore, the following phenomena can be singled out as the main reasons for the church schism in Russia:
- Books that have been hand-copied for centuries have had typographical errors and distortions.
- Difference from world religious rites. In particular, in Russia until the 17th century everyone was baptized with two fingers, and in other countries with three.
- conducting church ceremonies. The rites were conducted according to the principle of "polyphony", which was expressed in the fact that at the same time the service was conducted by the priest, and the clerk, and the singers, and the parishioners. As a result, polyphony was formed, in which it was difficult to make out something.
The Russian tsar was one of the first to point out these problems, proposing to take measures to restore order in religion.
Patriarch Nikon
Tsar Alexei Romanov, who wanted to reform the Russian church, decided to appoint Nikon to the post of Patriarch of the country. It was this man who was instructed to carry out reform in Russia. The choice was, to put it mildly, rather strange, since the new patriarch had no experience in holding such events, and also did not enjoy respect among other priests.
Patriarch Nikon was known to the world under the name Nikita Minov. He was born and raised in a simple peasant family. From an early age, he paid great attention to his religious education, studying prayers, stories and rituals. At the age of 19, Nikita became a priest in his native village. At the age of thirty, the future patriarch moved to the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow. It was here that he met the young Russian Tsar Alexei Romanov. The views of the two people were quite similar, which determined the fate of Nikita Minov.
Patriarch Nikon, as many historians note, was distinguished not so much by his knowledge, but by cruelty and dominance. He literally raved about the idea of obtaining unlimited power, which was, for example, Patriarch Filaret. Trying to prove his importance for the state and for the Russian tsar, Nikon manifests himself in every possible way, including not only in the religious field. For example, in 1650 he actively participated in the suppression of the uprising, being the main initiator of the brutal reprisal against all the rebels.
Lust for power, cruelty, literacy - all this was combined into a patriarchy. These were exactly the qualities that were needed for the reform of the Russian church.
Implementation of the reform
The reform of Patriarch Nikon began to be implemented in 1653-1655. This reform carried in itself fundamental changes in religion, which were expressed in the following:
- Baptism with three fingers instead of two.
- Bows should be made to the waist, and not to the ground, as it was before.
- Religious books and icons have been changed.
- The concept of "Orthodoxy" was introduced.
- Changed the name of God, in accordance with the global spelling.
Church schism (17th century)
Now instead of "Jesus" it was written "Jesus".
- Replacement of the Christian cross. Patriarch Nikon proposed replacing it with a four-pointed cross.
- Changing the rites of the church service. Now the procession took place not clockwise, as it was before, but counterclockwise.
All this is described in detail in the Church Catechism. Surprisingly, if we consider Russian history textbooks, especially school textbooks, the reform of Patriarch Nikon comes down to only the first and second points of the above. Rare textbooks say in the third paragraph. The rest is not even mentioned. As a result, one gets the impression that the Russian patriarch did not carry out any cardinal reformatory activity, but this was not so ... The reforms were cardinal. They crossed out everything that was before. It is no coincidence that these reforms are also called the church schism of the Russian church. The very word "split" indicates a fundamental change.
Let's look at the individual provisions of the reform in more detail. This will allow you to correctly understand the essence of the phenomena of those days.
The Scriptures Predetermined the Church Schism in Russia
Patriarch Nikon, arguing for his reform, said that church texts in Russia have many typos that should be eliminated. It was said that one should turn to Greek sources in order to understand the original meaning of religion. In fact, it was not implemented quite like that ...
In the 10th century, when Russia adopted Christianity, there were 2 statutes in Greece:
- Studio. The main charter of the Christian church. For many years it was considered the main one in the Greek Church, therefore it was the Studium charter that came to Russia. For 7 centuries, the Russian Church in all religious matters was guided by this charter.
- Jerusalem. It is more modern, aimed at the unity of all religions and the commonality of their interests. The charter, starting from the 12th century, becomes the main one in Greece, it also becomes the main one in other Christian countries.
The process of rewriting Russian texts is also indicative. It was planned to take Greek sources and, on their basis, bring religious scriptures into line. For this, in 1653 Arseny Sukhanov was sent to Greece. The expedition lasted almost two years. He arrived in Moscow on February 22, 1655. He brought with him as many as 7 manuscripts. In fact, this violated the church council of 1653-55. Most of the priests then spoke in favor of the idea of supporting Nikon's reform only on the grounds that the rewriting of texts had to come exclusively from Greek manuscript sources.
Arseniy Sukhanov brought only seven sources, thus making it impossible to rewrite texts based on primary sources. Patriarch Nikon's next step was so cynical that it led to mass uprisings. The Moscow Patriarch stated that if there are no handwritten sources, then the rewriting of Russian texts will be carried out according to modern Greek and Roman books. At that time, all these books were printed in Paris (Catholic state).
ancient religion
For a very long time, the reforms of Patriarch Nikon were justified by the fact that he made the Orthodox Church enlightened. As a rule, there is nothing behind such formulations, since the vast majority of people can hardly imagine what is the fundamental difference between orthodox and enlightened beliefs. What's the real difference? To begin with, let's deal with the terminology and define the meaning of the concept of "orthodox".
Orthodox (orthodox) came from the Greek language and means: orthos - correct, doha - opinion. It turns out that an orthodox person, in the true sense of the word, is a person with a correct opinion.
Historical guide 
Here, the correct opinion does not mean the modern sense (when people who do everything for the sake of the state are called so). So they called people who for centuries carried ancient science and ancient knowledge. A striking example is the Jewish school. Everyone knows perfectly well that today there are Jews, and there are Orthodox Jews. They believe in the same thing, they have a common religion, common views, beliefs. The difference is that Orthodox Jews brought their true faith in its ancient, true meaning. And everyone admits it.
From this point of view, it is much easier to evaluate the actions of Patriarch Nikon. His attempts to destroy the orthodox church, which is what he planned to do and successfully did, lie in the destruction of the ancient religion. And for the most part, this has been done:
- All ancient religious texts were rewritten. They did not stand on ceremony with old books; as a rule, they were destroyed. This process outlived the patriarch himself for many years. For example, Siberian legends are indicative, which say that under Peter 1 a huge amount of orthodox literature was burned. After burning, more than 650 kg of copper fasteners were removed from the fires!
- The icons were repainted in accordance with the new religious requirements and in accordance with the reform.
- The principles of religion are changed, sometimes even without the necessary justification. For example, Nikon's idea that the procession should go counterclockwise, against the movement of the sun, is absolutely incomprehensible. This caused a lot of resentment as people began to regard the new religion as a religion of darkness.
- Change of concepts. The term "Orthodoxy" appeared for the first time. Until the 17th century, this term was not used, but such concepts as "orthodox", "true faith", "immaculate faith", "Christian faith", "God's faith" were used. Various terms, but not "Orthodoxy".
Therefore, we can say that the orthodox religion is as close as possible to the ancient postulates. That is why any attempt to radically change these views leads to mass indignation, as well as to what is commonly called heresy today. It was heresy that many people called the reforms of Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century. That is why the church split, because the "orthodox" priests and religious people called what was happening a heresy, and saw how fundamental the difference between the old and the new religion was.
The reaction of the people to the church schism
The reaction to Nikon's reform is extremely indicative, emphasizing that the changes were much deeper than it is customary to talk about. It is known for certain that after the start of the implementation of the reform, massive popular uprisings swept across the country, directed against changes in the church way of life. Some people openly expressed their dissatisfaction, others simply left this country, not wanting to remain in this heresy. People went to the forests, to distant settlements, to other countries. They were caught, brought back, they left again - and so many times. Indicative is the reaction of the state, which actually staged the Inquisition. Not only books were burning, but also people. Nikon, who was particularly cruel, personally welcomed all the reprisals against the rebels. Thousands of people died opposing the reformist ideas of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The reaction of the people and the state to the reform is indicative. We can say that mass unrest began. And now answer the simple question, are such uprisings and reprisals possible in the case of simple superficial changes? To answer this question, it is necessary to transfer the events of those days to today's reality. Let's imagine that today the Patriarch of Moscow will say that now it is necessary to be baptized, for example, with four fingers, to make bows with a nod of the head, and books should be changed in accordance with ancient scriptures. How will people perceive this? Most likely, it is neutral, and with some propaganda, even positive.
Another situation. Suppose that the Moscow Patriarch today will oblige everyone to be baptized with four fingers, use nods instead of bows, wear a Catholic cross instead of an Orthodox one, turn in all the books of the icon so that they can be rewritten and redrawn, the name of God will now be, for example, "Jesus", and the procession will go for example an arc. This nature of the reform will certainly lead to an uprising of religious people. Everything changes, crosses out the whole age-old religious history. This is exactly what Nikon's reform did. Therefore, a church schism occurred in the 17th century, since the contradictions between the Old Believers and Nikon were insoluble.
What did the reform lead to?
Nikon's reform should be assessed from the point of view of the realities of that day. Of course, the patriarch destroyed the ancient religion of Russia, but he did what the tsar wanted from him - the ghost of the Russian church in line with the international religion. And there were both pros and cons:
- Pros. The Russian religion has ceased to be isolated, and has become more like Greek and Roman. This made it possible to create great religious ties with other states.
- Minuses. Religion in Russia at the time of the 17th century was most oriented towards original Christianity. It was here that there were ancient icons, ancient books and ancient rituals. All this was destroyed for the sake of integration with other states, in modern terms.
Nikon's reforms cannot be regarded as the total destruction of everything (although this is what most authors are doing, including the principle of "everything is lost"). We can only say with certainty that the Moscow Patriarch made significant changes to the ancient religion and deprived Christians of a significant part of their cultural and religious heritage.
Article: Schism of the Russian Orthodox Church causes of the schism
RUSSIAN SCHIMEN IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. CHURCH AND STATE IN THE 17TH CENTURY
1. Reasons for church reform
The centralization of the Russian state required the unification of church rules and rituals. Already in the XVI century. A uniform all-Russian set of saints was established. However, significant discrepancies remained in the liturgical books, often caused by scribal errors. The elimination of these differences became one of the goals created in the 40s. 17th century in Moscow, a circle of "zealots of ancient piety", which consisted of prominent representatives of the clergy. He also sought to correct the morals of the clergy.
The spread of printing made it possible to establish the uniformity of texts, but first it was necessary to decide on which models to make corrections.
Political considerations played a decisive role in resolving this issue. The desire to make Moscow (“Third Rome”) the center of world Orthodoxy demanded rapprochement with Greek Orthodoxy. However, the Greek clergy insisted on correcting Russian church books and rites according to the Greek model.
Since the introduction of Orthodoxy in Russia, the Greek Church has gone through a number of reforms and differed significantly from the ancient Byzantine and Russian models. Therefore, part of the Russian clergy, led by "zealots of ancient piety," opposed the proposed reforms. However, Patriarch Nikon, relying on the support of Alexei Mikhailovich, resolutely carried out the planned reforms.
2. Patriarch Nikon
Nikon comes from the family of the Mordovian peasant Mina, in the world - Nikita Minin. He became patriarch in 1652. Nikon, distinguished by his inflexible, resolute character, had a tremendous influence on Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his "sobin (special) friend."
The most important ceremonial changes were: baptism not with two, but with three fingers, the replacement of prostrations with the waist, the singing of hallelujah three times instead of twice, the movement of believers in the church past the altar not in the direction of the sun, but against it. The name of Christ began to be written in a different way - “Jesus” instead of “Jesus”. Some changes were made to the rules of worship and icon painting. All books and icons painted according to old models were to be destroyed.
4. Reaction to reform
For believers, this was a serious departure from the traditional canon. After all, a prayer uttered not according to the rules is not only ineffective - it is blasphemous! The most stubborn and consistent opponents of Nikon were the "zealots of ancient piety" (previously the patriarch himself was a member of this circle). They accused him of introducing "Latinism", because the Greek Church since the time of the Florentine Union of 1439 was considered "spoiled" in Russia. Moreover, Greek liturgical books were printed not in Turkish Constantinople, but in Catholic Venice.
5. The emergence of a split
Nikon's opponents - the "Old Believers" - refused to recognize the reforms he had carried out. At church councils in 1654 and 1656. Nikon's opponents were accused of schism, excommunicated and exiled.
The most prominent supporter of the schism was Archpriest Avvakum, a talented publicist and preacher. The former court priest, a member of the circle of "zealots of ancient piety" survived a difficult exile, suffering, the death of children, but did not abandon the fanatical opposition to "Nikonianism" and its defender - the king. After a 14-year imprisonment in an "earth prison", Avvakum was burned alive for "blasphemy against the royal house." Avvakum's "Life" written by himself became the most famous work of the Hundred-Rite literature.
6. Old Believers
The church council of 1666/1667 cursed the Old Believers. Severe persecution of dissenters began. Supporters of the split were hiding in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, the Volga region, and the Urals. Here they created sketes, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, in the event of the approach of the royal punitive detachments, they staged a "burn" - self-immolation.
The monks of the Solovetsky Monastery did not accept Nikon's reforms. Until 1676, the rebellious monastery withstood the siege of the tsarist troops. The rebels, believing that Alexei Mikhailovich had become a servant of the Antichrist, abandoned the traditional Orthodox prayer for the tsar.
The reasons for the fanatical stubbornness of the schismatics were rooted, first of all, in their belief that Nikonianism was a product of Satan. However, this confidence itself was fed by certain social reasons.
There were many clerics among the schismatics. For the ordinary priest, the innovations meant that he had lived his whole life incorrectly. In addition, many clergy were illiterate and not prepared to master new books and customs. Posad people and merchants also widely participated in the split. Nikon had long been in conflict with the settlements, objecting to the liquidation of the “white settlements” that belonged to the church. The monasteries and the patriarchal see were engaged in trade and crafts, which annoyed the merchants, who believed that the clergy were illegally intruding into their sphere of activity. Therefore, the settlement readily perceived everything that came from the patriarch as evil.
Among the Old Believers were also representatives of the ruling strata, for example, the noblewoman Morozova and Princess Urusova. However, these are still isolated examples.
The bulk of the schismatics were peasants who left for sketes not only for the right faith, but also for freedom, from the lordly and monastic requisitions.
Naturally, subjectively, each Old Believer saw the reasons for his leaving the schism solely in the rejection of 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 "re-baptizing" the Nikonian priests who had gone into schism, while others abandoned the clergy altogether. The community of such schismatics-"priestless" was led by "mentors" or "learners" - the most versed in Scripture believers. Outwardly, the "priestless" trend in the schism resembled Protestantism. However, this similarity is illusory. Protestants rejected the priesthood on principle, believing that a person does not need an intermediary in communion with God. The schismatics, on the other hand, rejected the priesthood and the church hierarchy by force, in an accidental situation.
The ideology of the split, which was based on the rejection of everything new, the fundamental rejection of any foreign influence, secular education, was extremely conservative.
7. The conflict of the church and secular authorities. Fall of Nikon
The question of the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities was one of the most important in the political life of the Russian state in the 15th-17th centuries. The struggle of the Josephites and non-possessors was closely connected with him. In the XVI century. the dominant Josephite trend in the Russian Church abandoned the thesis of the superiority of church authority over secular. After the massacre of Grozny over Metropolitan Philip, the subordination of the church to the state seemed final. However, the situation changed during the Troubles. The authority of the royal power was shaken due to the abundance of impostors and a series of perjury. The authority of the church, thanks to Patriarch Hermogenes, who led the spiritual resistance to the Poles and was martyred by them, became the most important unifying force, increased. The political role of the church increased even more under Patriarch Filaret, the father of Tsar Michael.
The imperious Nikon sought to revive the correlation of secular and ecclesiastical authorities that existed under Filaret. Nikon argued that the priesthood is higher than the kingdom, since it represents God, and secular power is from God. He actively intervened in secular affairs.
Gradually, Alexei Mikhailovich began to be weary of the power of the patriarch. In 1658 there was a gap between them. The king demanded that Nikon no longer be called the great sovereign. Then Nikon declared that he did not want to be a patriarch "in Moscow" and left for the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery on the river. Istra. He hoped that the king would yield, but he was mistaken. On the contrary, the patriarch was required to resign so that a new head of the church could be elected. Nikon replied that he did not refuse the rank of patriarch, and did not want to be patriarch only "in Moscow."
Neither the tsar nor the church council could remove the patriarch.
Church schism in Russia in the 17th century. Wanted the best...
Only in 1666 did a church council take place in Moscow with the participation of two ecumenical patriarchs - Antioch and Alexandria. The council supported the tsar and deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank. Nikon was imprisoned in the monastery prison, where he died in 1681.
The resolution of the “Nikon case” in favor of the secular authorities meant that the church could no longer interfere in state affairs. Since that time, the process of subordinating the church to the state began, which ended under Peter I with the liquidation of the patriarchate, the creation of the Holy Synod headed by a secular official, and the transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church into a state church.
Download abstract
Mysteries of history
The split of the Russian Orthodox Church
The 17th century was a turning point for Russia. It is noteworthy not only for political, but also for church reforms. As a result of this, "bright Russia" has become a thing of the past, and it has been replaced by a completely different power, in which there was no longer a unity of worldview and people's behavior.
The spiritual basis of the state was the church. Back in the 15th and 16th centuries, there were conflicts between the non-possessors and the Josephites. In the 17th century, intellectual differences continued and resulted in a split in the Russian Orthodox Church. This was due to a number of reasons.
Origins of the split
During the Time of Troubles, the church was unable to play the role of a "spiritual doctor" and guardian of the moral health of the Russian people. Therefore, after the end of the Time of Troubles, church reform became an urgent problem. The priests were in charge of it. These are 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 sermons and work among the flock, that is, the closing of taverns, the organization of orphanages and the creation of almshouses. The second is the correction of rites and liturgical books.
The question of polyphony. In church churches, in order to save time, simultaneous services were practiced for various holidays and saints. For centuries, this has not caused criticism from anyone. But after the troubled times, people began to look at polyphony differently. He was named among the main reasons for the spiritual degradation of society. This negative needed to be corrected, and it was corrected. Triumphed in all churches unanimity.
But the conflict situation after that did not come to naught, but only escalated. The essence of the problem lay in the difference between the Moscow and Greek rites. And it concerned, first of all, Composition. 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 legitimacy of the Russian church rite. It included: two-fingered, divine service on seven prosphora, an eight-pointed cross, salting (according to the sun), a special hallelujah, etc. Some clergy began to assert that the liturgical books were distorted as a result of ignorant scribes.
Subsequently, the most authoritative historian of the Russian Orthodox Church, Yevgeny Evsigneevich Golubinsky (1834-1912), proved that the Russians did not distort the rite 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 XVII century.
The thing was that when Russia adopted Christianity, then in Byzantium there were two charters: Jerusalem and studio. In ritual terms, they disagreed. 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 Studian Rule.
However, it should be noted here that the rites are not dogmas at all. Those are holy and indestructible, and the rites can change. And in Russia this happened several times, and there were no shocks. For example, in 1551, under Metropolitan Cyprian, the Stoglavy Cathedral obliged the inhabitants of Pskov, who practiced three-fingered, to return to two-fingered. This did not result in any conflicts.
But you need to understand that the middle of the 17th century was radically different from the middle of the 16th. People who went through the oprichnina and the Time of Troubles became different. The country faced three choices. Habakkuk's path is isolationism. Nikon's path is the creation of a theocratic Orthodox empire. The path of Peter - joining the European powers with the subordination of the church to the state.
The accession of Ukraine to Russia exacerbated the problem. Now I had to think about the uniformity of the church rite. Kyiv monks appeared in Moscow. The most notable of them was Epiphanius Slavinetsky. The Ukrainian guests began to insist on correcting church books and services in accordance with their ideas.
Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon
The split of the Russian Orthodox Church is inextricably linked with these two people
Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich
The fundamental role in the split 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 of Nikita Minich. He made a dizzying career, and became famous for his strong temper and excessive severity. It was more characteristic of a secular ruler than a church hierarch.
Nikon was not satisfied with the huge influence on the king and the boyars. He was guided by the principle that "God's is higher than the king's." Therefore, he swung at undivided dominance and power equal to that of the king. The situation favored him. Patriarch Joseph died in 1652. The question arose about the election of a new patriarch, because without the patriarchal blessing it was impossible to hold any state and church events in Moscow.
Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich was an extremely pious and pious person, so he was primarily interested in the speedy election of a new patriarch. In this post, he just wanted to see the Novgorod Metropolitan Nikon, since he highly valued and respected him.
The desire of the king 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 strove for absolute power, and therefore resorted to pressure.
The day has come for the procedure of appointment to the patriarchs. The Emperor was also present. But at the very last moment, Nikon announced that he refused to accept the signs of patriarchal dignity. This caused a stir in everyone present. The tsar himself knelt down and, with tears in his eyes, began to ask the wayward clergyman not to renounce his priesthood.
Then Nikon set conditions. He demanded that they honor him as a father and archpastor and let him arrange the Church at his own discretion. The king gave his word and consent. All the boyars supported him. Only then did the newly-made patriarch pick up the symbol of patriarchal power - the staff of the Russian Metropolitan Peter, who lived in Moscow the very first.
Alexei Mikhailovich fulfilled all his promises, and Nikon had 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 in letters to ask him to be softer and more tolerant of people.
Church reform and its main cause
With the coming to power of a new Orthodox ruler in the church rite, at first everything remained as before. Vladyka himself was baptized with two fingers and was a supporter of unanimity. But he began to talk frequently with Epiphanius Slavinetsky. After a very short time, he managed to convince Nikon that it was still necessary to change the church rite.
In Great Lent 1653, a special "memory" was published, in which it was attributed to the flock to accept three fingers. Supporters of Neronov and Vonifatiev opposed this and were exiled. The rest were warned that if they were baptized with two fingers during prayers, they would be betrayed by the church curse. In 1556, the church council officially confirmed this order. After this, the paths of the patriarch and his former associates diverged completely and irrevocably.
This is how the Russian Orthodox Church split. Supporters of the "ancient piety" found themselves in opposition to the official church policy, while the church reform itself was entrusted to the Ukrainian by nationality Epiphany Slavinetsky and the Greek Arseniy.
Why did Nikon go on about the Ukrainian monks? But much more interesting, why did the tsar, the cathedral and many parishioners also support the innovations? The answers to these questions are relatively simple.
The Old Believers, as the opponents of innovations began to be called, advocated the superiority of local Orthodoxy. It developed and prevailed in North-Eastern Russia over the traditions of universal Greek Orthodoxy. In fact, "ancient piety" was a platform for narrow Moscow nationalism.
Among the Old Believers, the opinion dominated that the Orthodoxy of the Serbs, Greeks and Ukrainians was inferior. These peoples were seen as victims of delusion. And God punished them for this, giving them under the power of the Gentiles.
But such a worldview did not arouse sympathy in anyone and discouraged any desire to unite with Moscow. That is why Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich, in an effort 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.
The decline of the career of Patriarch Nikon
The exorbitant lust for power of the Orthodox Bishop was the cause of his fall. Nikon had many enemies among the boyars. They tried with all their might to set the king against him. In the end, they succeeded. And it all started with little things.
In 1658, during one of the feasts, the tsar's devious man hit a patriarchal 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 patriarchal boyar son." But then he received another blow with a stick on his forehead.
Nikon was informed about what had happened, and he became indignant. He wrote an angry letter to the tsar, in which he demanded a thorough investigation of this incident and the punishment of the guilty boyar. However, no one started an investigation, and the culprit was never punished. It became clear to everyone that the attitude of the king towards the lord 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 robes and announced that he was leaving the patriarchal place and leaving for a permanent life in the Resurrection Monastery. It was located near Moscow and was called New Jerusalem. The people tried to dissuade the lord, but he was adamant. Then the horses were unharnessed from the carriage, but Nikon did not change his decision and left Moscow on foot.
New Jerusalem Monastery
In it, Patriarch Nikon spent several years before the patriarchal court, at which he was deposed
The throne of the patriarch remained empty. Vladyka believed that the sovereign would be frightened, but he did not appear in New Jerusalem. On the contrary, Aleksey Mikhailovich tried to get the wayward lord to give up his patriarchal power and return all the regalia so that he could legally elect a new spiritual leader. 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 Alexei Mikhailovich turned to the ecumenical patriarchs. However, their arrival had to wait a long time. Only in 1666 two of the four patriarchs arrived in the capital. These are Alexandrian and Antioch, but they had powers from their other two counterparts.
Nikon really did not want to appear before the patriarchal court. But still he was forced to do it. As a result, the wayward lord was deprived of his high rank.
Church schism of the 17th century in Russia and the Old Believers. Brief historical background
But the long conflict did not change the situation with the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. The same council of 1666-1667 officially approved all the 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 policy.
