Causes and content of reforms
Back in the late 1640s, a “circle of zealots of ancient piety” appeared in Moscow, which included prominent figures of that time. Among them were the future Patriarch Nikon and later his future main opponent in the camp of the Old Believers, Archpriest Ivan Neronov, the Tsar's confessor Stefan Vonifatiev and others. The sovereign himself supported the circle, the topic of discussion of which was the problem of correcting the discrepancies and errors in correspondence that had matured by that time in church books. However, the "zealots" disagreed about what to take as a model for such a correction. Avvakum and Ivan Neronov advocated that they should be ancient Russian church texts, Nikon and Vonifatiev leaned towards modern Greek statutes.
I. Mashkov. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon
The second point of view won out: in the same 40s of the 17th century, the so-called “book right” began - editing the texts of liturgical books. One of the well-known spravochnikov became a Kiev monk and expert in the Greek language Epiphanius Slavinetsky.
The reasons for the victory of Nikon's supporters lay in politics. The most significant of them can be called the entry into the Russian state of the Little Russian lands during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. The territories previously within the Commonwealth, reunited with Russia, including Kyiv, were subject to the jurisdiction of the Throne of Constantinople, and, accordingly, to the New Greek church canons. In such a situation, it was extremely important to strengthen spiritual ties with the new lands.
In addition, in the 17th century there was an expansion of Russian contacts with the Greek East, Grecophile sentiments grew, which were shared by Alexei Mikhailovich himself. All this was natural for a country that considered itself the spiritual successor of Byzantium. Bringing the ritual side of Russian and Greek church life to unity contributed to the rallying of the Greek East and Russia in the face of possible enemies (although there was also a real concrete enemy in the person of the Ottoman Turks). Moreover, the view of Russia as the guardian of true Orthodoxy, framed in the concept of "Moscow - the Third Rome" as early as the beginning of the 16th century and shared by Alexei Mikhailovich, prompted him to think about protecting the interests of all Christians who suffered under the Turkish yoke, and not just the Greeks. In this case, the commonality of church rites with them simplified such a task.
A. Kivshenko. Church Cathedral. 1654. The beginning of the split
The transformation according to Greek models could also contribute to the implementation of the concept of "Moscow - New Jerusalem", which was adhered to by the reformer Nikon himself. If the idea of Moscow as the Third Rome gave the leading role to secular, royal power, then Nikon's concept had a bright theocratic sound, leaving secular power in the background, it was permeated with the idea of the Ecumenical Church headed by the Russian patriarch. Here the imperious ambitions of the hierarch himself sounded.
The beginning of transformation
In 1652, Nikon entered the patriarchate. Possessing a new status, he began large-scale work on a more extensive than before correction of the texts of church books, as well as on introducing changes into the Russian church rite.
P. Myasoedov. Burning of Archpriest Avvakum
The “book right” consisted not only in editing liturgical books (both their content and titles were changed, for example, the Clockwork became the Book of Hours, the Service Book became the Book of Hours, the Charter became the Octoechos, etc.), but also the books of the Holy Scriptures. In addition, the Creed itself has been corrected.
On the ritual side, the changes were as follows: instead of the two-fingered sign, the three-fingered sign of the cross was introduced; religious processions began to take place not according to the sun, but against it; during the service, a three-time, and not a two-time "hallelujah" was proclaimed; the number of prosphora and seals on them changed, and the number of bows also decreased.
Trial of Patriarch Nikon
Split
In addition to the supporters of Nikon's transformation, who represented the official view of the state and the church, his opponents also became more active. Many believers (both clergymen and ordinary people) saw the introduced changes, which were designed to correct the accumulated errors and disagreements, as serious attacks on the purity of the Orthodox faith. In fact, the split began with the Nikon reforms themselves, but officially it can be counted from 1667, when a decision was made at the council to excommunicate the supporters of the old faith - the Old Believers - from the church. The social base of the Old Believers was quite wide, these were representatives of the clergy, boyars, towns and peasants, archers and the Cossacks.
The first and greatest ideologist of the schism was Archpriest Avvakum, who was repeatedly exiled. The last of their number was exile in 1666 to Pustozersk, which became the ideological center of the Old Believers. Avvakum and several of his associates were executed in 1686, other leaders of the movement took over the baton, among them Ivan Neronov, Spiridon Potemkin, Nikita Pustosvyat, the boyar Fedosya Morozova, widely known from the famous painting. The largest protest against Nikon's reforms was the uprising of the Solovetsky Monastery, which lasted from 1668 to 1676, when it was suppressed by armed force.
V. I. Surikov. Boyar Morozova
The ideology of the Old Believers, developed by Avvakum and other leaders of the movement, was based on the teachings and the Tale of the White Klobuk and proclaimed the destruction of true Orthodoxy by Nikon. Many Old Believers saw in him the Antichrist who came to earth, while others believed that the patriarch opened the door to him, which inevitably led to the fall of the Third Rome and the imminent end of the world. The world was abandoned by God, and the blame for everything is an encroachment not only on the content, but also on the form of rituals, which should remain unshakable. Such harsh and irreconcilable views with the official church led the Old Believers to persecution by the renewed church and state, to an existence closed and cut off from the rest of the life of the country.
The Old Believers, which at the end of the 17th century divided into two main branches - priesthood and priestlessness - subsequently repeatedly divided into various interpretations and consents. Many of them exist in our time both within the country and abroad.
V. Perov. Nikita Pustosvyat. Dispute about faith. 1880-1881
The schism of the Russian Orthodox Church at that time became a dramatic, in many ways tragic page in the history of Russian society, and the lines of division that formed then are noticeable even today.
Image source: https://www.pinterest.se/
4. Church reform of Patriarch Nikon and its consequences
4.1. Church reform.
By the middle of the seventeenth century, differences with modern Greek church practice had accumulated and became apparent, and questions arose about the rites of the Russian Orthodox Church. At the Stoglavy Council of 1551, held to introduce uniformity in the churches, it was decided to correct the books, comparing them with "good translations", but the lack of a unified approach led to even greater distortions of the text. One of the attempts to introduce uniformity in liturgical books was also the opening of a printing house in Moscow, but along with the number of published books, the number of errors also increased.
The morals of the clergy began to cause the greatest indignation. From the numerous complaints received by the then Patriarch Joseph, a very gloomy picture developed.
Discrepancies appeared in the liturgical books, accumulated due to the mistakes of the scribes, and differences in the performance of church rites. The ubiquity of printing made it possible to introduce uniformity in liturgical books. However, it was not clear what originals to correct the texts. For some, these were ancient Russian handwritten books, for others - ancient Greek originals. But both sources turned out to be faulty: there were no two identical texts in Russian books (due to the mistakes of scribe monks), and Greek texts were changed after the fall of Byzantium and the conclusion of a union between the Byzantine and Catholic churches.
Everything that came from the Greeks seemed false. This view prevailed in the seventeenth century. Realizing the danger of a careless intrusion into the realm of faith, the tsar at the same time considered it useful for the state by all means, including by personal example, to strengthen the religiosity of his subjects.
The government understood that the rejection of traditions would not be painless, but at the same time was inclined to think about the need to revise all church rites and bring them into line with Greek liturgical practice.
In 1652, Nikon, having become patriarch, with his characteristic passion, began to carry out a reform in the ceremonial field, completely without affecting the canonical one.
In February 1653, he ordered in all Moscow churches to forbid the believers to "bow" on their knees, only bows were allowed. The sign of the cross was allowed only with three fingers. Later, the patriarch resolutely replaced with new ones those ancient rites that did not coincide with the Greek ones: it was ordered to sing "Hallelujah" not two, but three times; during the procession, move not according to the sun, but against it; the name of Christ began to be written differently - "Jesus" instead of the traditional "Jesus". Separate words of the liturgy were replaced with new ones, all liturgical books were copied according to Greek patterns, and the faulty ones were to be corrected.
In the summer of 1654, Nikon began fixing icons. By his order, icons were taken away from the population, which were distinguished by some realism. He ordered the eyes of the saints depicted on such icons to be gouged out, or the faces to be scraped off and rewritten. It so happened that at that time a severe plague epidemic broke out in Moscow. And the solar eclipse on August 2 gave even more food for talk.
Trying to prevent Nikon, the "zealots" filed a petition to the king, in which they proved the illegality of innovations. In response to the petition, Nikon gave way to the accusations and complaints of the parishioners against the members of the circle. The forces were unequal. Soon, many "zealots of ancient piety" were arrested and exiled. And some are defrocked. Imprisoned, humiliated, they only strengthened in their "feat", fell into religious ecstasy, prophesied.
Convinced that by his power alone he would not be able to put the cause of reform on a solid foundation, Nikon in the spring of 1654 convened an all-Russian church council in Moscow, which was attended by more than twenty prominent figures of the Russian church. The Patriarch, in the presence of the tsar, addressing the Council, listed many inaccuracies and deviations from the Greek church orders that were in the practice of the Russian Church. However, the prudent patriarch did not bring up the most "slippery" moments for discussion, questions - first of all, about "three-fingeredness". As a result of a long discussion, it was decided "to worthily and righteously correct the books against the old charatees (that is, written on parchment) and Greek." And in order to avoid new mistakes, consult with Patriarch Paisios of Constantinople. A positive answer was delivered to Moscow in 1665 in the form of a very important and later famous letter. At the same time, two Eastern patriarchs arrived in Moscow - Macarius of Antioch and Gabriel of Serbia. In this regard, in 1656 a new Council was convened. It dealt with such Russian church rites as litiya, liturgy. Proskomedia and others. The Russian translation of the Greek Church Missal and the Three Fingers was also approved. As a result, the goal pursued by Nikon was achieved - he enlisted the support of prominent hierarchs.
4.3. Consequence of Nikon's church reform
But gradually Nikon's reformist ardor began to cool. Court intrigues and excessive autocracy led to the fact that the conceited Alexei Mikhailovich began to be weary of the patriarch. The conflict occurred in 1658, after which the offended Nikon refused to be a patriarch in Moscow and left for the New Jerusalem Monastery, which was being built according to his project.
The old faith was supported by the broad masses of the people, part of the clergy. Influential Moscow families (such as the Morozovs, Urusovs). The churches remained empty. Therefore, the priests were forced to return to the service according to the old books. But Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was an ardent supporter of the reform and did not want everything to return to the old customs.
In 1666, the tsar convened a Council to judge the opponents of the reform. With its decisions, this Council almost completely supported the actions of the king. The patriarch was convicted and exiled to a remote monastery. At the same time, all book corrections were approved. The Council reaffirmed the previous decrees: to say “Hallelujah” three times, to make the sign of the cross with the first three fingers of the right hand, to print prosphora with a four-pointed cross, to conduct religious processions against the sun. All those who did not recognize these codes were called schismatics and heretics by the church council, were anathematized and excommunicated. All adherents of the old faith were later brought to a secular court. And according to the civil law then in force, the death penalty was due for a crime against faith.
The decisions of the Council of 1666 met with serious opposition from the clergy and laity. Believers could not understand the logic of accusations of the old rite and old books. It turned out that for seven centuries after the Baptism of Rus', “evil heresies” flourished in the Russian church, the adherents of which turned out to be generally accepted saints.
All events - the conclusion about the "malfunction" of books, the excommunication of supporters of the double-fingered sign, the appearance of a large number of newly corrected books and the withdrawal of previous editions in connection with this - caused bewilderment among the people. People often could not distinguish between what is permissible and what really violates church dogmas. The priests themselves were often unable to explain the essence of what was happening, many of whom did not understand the rapid progress of the reforms and often found themselves among the strong opponents of the changes. In Rus', where literacy, and even more so book learning, was the achievement of a few, the main source of teaching the faith was worship. Certain gestures accompanied a person from the first days of life to the last, merging in consciousness with his feelings and experiences. Replacing some symbols that expressed a person's connection with the high and sacred is never painless. And in this case, this replacement was carried out also very rudely.
Popular confusion was also intensified because of the terrible disasters that suddenly fell on the country - hunger, pestilence. The reason for them began to be seen in the correction of sacred books, and Patriarch Nikon was considered the culprit.
The Council of 1682, convened by Patriarch Joachim, outlined a whole system of repressions against the Old Believers, almost in the spirit of the Western Inquisition. And in 1685, Princess Sophia issued twelve decrees ordering to confiscate the property of the "Old Believers", beat them with a whip and exile them, and execute those who rebaptized into the old faith.
Many thousands of people began to leave for remote places, where they arranged new settlements. What made the Old Believers leave their homes? Of course, first of all, firmness in faith, confidence that "Nikonianism" is blasphemous.
But where does such confidence in one's right to argue about faith with the patriarch and the higher clergy come from? To answer this survey, it is necessary to understand who were the people who went into schism.
Often church ministers were at the head of the schism. They had long been irritated by Nikon's lust for power, offended by his contemptuous, arrogant attitude towards ordinary clergy. In addition, many clergymen were simply illiterate and completely unprepared to learn new texts of liturgical books, and therefore they treated innovations as a burdensome duty.
There were many townspeople among the schismatics. The relations of the settlement with the church authorities became complicated due to the hostility of Patriarch Nikon to the liquidation of the "white" settlements. The merchants were dissatisfied with the fact that the church and monasteries interfered in trade and fishing activities. Also among the schismatics were representatives of the ruling class. The names of the noblewoman Morozova and the princess Urusova are especially famous.
The bulk of the schismatics were peasants. Hiding from the lordly and monastic extortions, the arbitrariness of the authorities, who were looking for there not only old times, but also freedom. The persecution of the Old Believers continued for more than two hundred years. Under Peter I, the Old Believers were allowed to live in cities and villages, but they imposed a mass of additional taxes and fines. Under Catherine II, persecution subsided, but in the twenties of the nineteenth century they began to gain strength again.
They achieved particular cruelty during the reign of Nicholas I. Only after 1905, the Old Believers received the right to organize communities, organize religious processions, and have bell ringing. In 1971, at the local council of the Russian Orthodox Church, it was recognized that the old rites were “equivalent” to the post-reform ones, that is, they were also canonical (lawful).
Conclusion
Three periods are clearly distinguished in the development of the Moscow Time of Troubles. The first can be called dynastic, the second - social and the third - national. The first embraces the time of the struggle for the Moscow throne between various applicants up to and including Tsar Vasily Shuisky. The second period is characterized by the internecine struggle of social classes and the intervention in this struggle of foreign governments, to whose share the success in the struggle goes. Finally, the third period of the Troubles embraces the time of the struggle of Moscow people with foreign domination before the creation of a national government with M.F. Romanov at the head.
The struggle for power and for the royal throne, begun by the Moscow boyars, subsequently led to the complete collapse of the state order, to the internecine "struggle of all against" and to terrible demoralization, which found especially vivid expression in the Tushino "flights" and in those wild and senseless atrocities and violence against the civilian population, which were committed by gangs of "thieves' people".
During the period of the so-called interregnum (1610-1613), the position of the Muscovite state seemed completely hopeless. The Poles occupied Moscow and Smolensk, the Swedes - Veliky Novgorod; gangs of foreign adventurers and their "thieves" ravaged the unfortunate country, killed and robbed the civilian population. When the land became "stateless", political ties between individual regions broke, but still the society did not disintegrate: it was saved by national and religious ties. Urban societies of the central and northern regions, headed by their elected authorities, become carriers and preachers of national consciousness and social solidarity.
It is impossible to call the Time of Troubles a revolution, but it was the same severe shock to the life of the Muscovite state. The first, immediate and most difficult consequence of it was the terrible ruin and desolation of the country; in the descriptions of rural areas under Tsar Michael, many empty villages are mentioned, from which the peasants "fled" or "descended to unknown places", or were beaten by "Lithuanian people" and "thieves' people". In the social composition of society, the Time of Troubles further weakened the strength and influence of the old well-born boyars, which, in the storms of the Time of Troubles, partly died or were ruined, and partly morally degraded and discredited themselves with their intrigues, "pranks" and their alliance with the enemies of the state.
As for the political, the time of troubles - when the Earth, having gathered its strength, itself restored the destroyed state - showed with its own eyes that the Moscow state was not the creation and "patrimony" of its "owner" - the sovereign, but was a common cause and common creation of "all cities and all the ranks of the people of the whole great Russian Tsardom".
Usually, assessing these events, historians note that the peasant wars dealt a blow to the feudal system and hastened the triumph of new capitalist relations. At the same time, it is often forgotten that the wars that engulfed the vast expanses of Russia led to the destruction of the masses of the population (and many peasants, a significant number of nobles), disrupted economic life in many regions and seriously affected the development of productive forces.
In Russia in the 17th century, the need for church reform was objectively felt, but its implementation was fraught with many difficulties. The king was aware of its necessity.
The church reform of Patriarch Nikon had a huge impact on the internal life of the country and laid the foundation for such an original socio-religious movement of the 17th century. like a split. But one cannot also deny its certain role in the foreign policy of the Russian state. The church reform was designed to strengthen relations with some countries, opening up opportunities for new, stronger alliances in politics. And the support of the Orthodox churches of other states was also very important for Russia.
Nikon defended the principle of the independence of the church from state power. He tried to achieve complete non-interference of the tsar and the boyars in internal church affairs, and himself to have power equal to that of the tsar. This, of course, could not go unnoticed. The real reason for Nikon's quarrel with the tsar was his excessively increased influence and constant interference in the domestic and foreign policy of the state. The long-term struggle of the autocracy for the complete subordination of the church to the state began.
Literature.
1. Valishevsky K. "Time of Troubles". - M. 1993. p.432
2. Illustrated encyclopedic dictionary. - M., scientific publishing house "Big Russian Encyclopedia", 1995, p.1256.
3. History of the Fatherland. Schoolchildren's Handbook./Ed. S. V. Novikova, -M., Philological Society "Slovo", 1996, p. 452.
4. History of the Russian Church. Edition of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1991. p. 289.
5. Nikolsky N. M. History of the Russian Church. - M., 2001. p. 389.
6. Platonov S. F. Textbook of Russian history. - St. Petersburg, "Nauka", 2002. p.385
7. Handbook on the history of the Fatherland for applicants to universities. / Edited by A. S. Orlov, A. Yu. Polunov and Yu. A. Shchetinov, - M., Prostor Publishing House, 1994. p. 623.
8. Preobrazhensky A.A. Rybakov B.A. "The history of homeland". - M. 2000. p. 412.
9. Preobrazhensky A.A., Morozova L.E., Demidova N.F. The first Romanovs on the Russian throne. - M.: LLC TID Russian word - RS, 2000. p. 285.
10. Sakharov A. N., Buganov V. I. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. - M., 1990. p. 687.
11. Shakhmagonov F. "Times of Troubles". M. 1992. p. 321.
12. Encyclopedia "Avanta +". T. 5. From the first Slavs to Peter the Great, - M., 2000.
Valishevsky K. "Time of Troubles". M. 1993. S. 17.
Shakhmagonov F. "Times of Troubles". M. 1992. S. 48-52.
Valishevsky K. "Time of Troubles". M. 1993. S. 21.
Valishevsky K. "Time of Troubles". M. 1993. S. 22.
Platonov S.F. "Textbook of Russian history". SPb. 1994 p. 199
Valishevsky K. "Time of Troubles". M. 1993. S. 32.
Valishevsky K. "Time of Troubles". M. 1993. S. 34.
Platonov S. F. Textbook of Russian history. - St. Petersburg, "Nauka", 2002. S.202.
Preobrazhensky A.A. Rybakov B.A. "The history of homeland". - M. 2000. S. 186.
Preobrazhensky A.A. Rybakov B.A. "The history of homeland". - M. 2000. P. 189.
Preobrazhensky A.A. Rybakov B.A. "The history of homeland". - M. 2000. S. 255
Sakharov A. N., Buganov V. I. "History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century." - M., 1990. S. 385.
Platonov S. F. Textbook of Russian history. - St.Petersburg, "Nauka", 2002. P.245.
Sakharov A. N., Buganov V. I. "History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century." - M., 1990. S.394.
Platonov S. F. Textbook of Russian history. - St. Petersburg, "Nauka", 2002. P.250.
History of the Russian Church. Edition of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1991. S. 89.
Nikolsky N. M. History of the Russian Church. - M., 2001. P.98
Editorial work. The Solovetsky scribes also created their own writings touching upon topical themes of church life. Of course, they could not remain indifferent to the church reform of Patriarch Nikon, which began in 1652. The spiritual level of the monastery, the degree of theological and statutory education of the brethren, the habit of vigorous activity - all this presupposed the absence of blind obedience among ...
The latter would be easy for him, if only he would give up his struggle for church independence and become an obedient instrument of the tsar and the boyars. Church reform. The personalities of the participants. Patriarch Nikon. 1. Convinced Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to agree to the request of Bohdan Khmelnitsky for the reunification of Ukraine with Russia. 2. He was the organizer of 3 large monasteries (Iversky in Valdai, the Cross in ...
Introduction. The essence of the problem and analysis of the literature used
There are many religions on planet Earth. One of them - Christianity - appeared in the 1st century AD. e. In 1054, Christianity was already divided into Catholic (centered in Rome) and Orthodox (centered in Constantinople). After the conclusion of the Florentine Union in 1438, according to which the Byzantine Orthodox Church was subordinate to the Catholic Church, the center of Orthodoxy was transferred to Moscow, which did not recognize the union - this is how the myth of Moscow appeared as the “Third Rome”.
In the middle of the 17th century, in connection with the church reform of Patriarch Nikon, Russian Orthodoxy was divided into two currents: "Old Believers" and "Nikonians". This division subsequently caused even finer fragmentation, especially among the Old Believers - down to sects.
The reason for this “disintegration” of Christianity is banal: disagreements between people who carry this faith, on some of its individual points that do not concern its essence, disagreements that only cover the desire of these people for power. As for the history of Russia, it is precisely the first stage from which the fragmentation of the Russian Orthodox Church began, that is, the times associated with the name of Patriarch Nikon, that is of interest. And since in Russia until 1917 church affairs were always in a certain way connected with state affairs, then during this period it will be possible to see some features of the existence of the then state power, as well as the socio-cultural prerequisites and consequences of the split of Russian Orthodoxy.
So after choosing "Patriarch Nikon and the Church Schism" as the topic of the work, began the selection of literature on this issue. The work is predominantly historical, therefore, first of all, the works of the “whales” of historical science dealing with this problem were found: V. O. Klyuchevsky, S. M. Solovyov, S. F. Platonov. In their works, which are courses in Russian history, a lot of necessary material was found, considered, of course, from different points of view. Among the works of Klyuchevsky even managed to find a book "Historical portraits", where various historical figures are presented in a documentary form, it also made it possible to note the role of the individual in a particular historical event.
To reveal the problematics of the issue under consideration helped "Russian civilization" I. N. Ionova - a problematic book on Russian history. Taking into account the fact that the topic of the work is specific, affecting one of the key aspects of human life - religion, it was decided to also involve special literature, which became "History of the Christian Orthodox Church" Archpriest Peter Smirnov This is a fairly detailed history of the Church, in which it was possible to find such facts as specific disagreements between the Old Believers and the Nikonians and the further fragmentation of the schism. IN Readers on the history of the USSR from ancient times to the end of the 18th century Epifanovs were found fragments "The Lives of Archpriest Avvakum" which made it possible to judge the cruelty of punishments against the opponents of the reform of Patriarch Nikon. To trace the further fate of the patriarch helped "History of Russia XVI-XVIII centuries" L. A. Katsva and A. L. Yurganova.
1. About how the son of a peasant became a patriarch
Nikon, in the world Nikita Minov, was born in 1605 in the village of Veldemanovo (within the current Makaryevsky district of the Nizhny Novgorod region), into a peasant family. Having lost his mother early, he suffered a lot of grief from the evil stepmother. However, he managed to learn to read and write, and already as a teenager he was very fond of reading.
In 1617, at the age of twelve, Nikita left his family for the Makariev-Zheltovodsky monastery on the Volga, which at that time had a large library. By nature, very capable, Nikita managed to acquire a lot of knowledge in the monastery, without taking the monastic rank - his father convinced him to return home.
After the death of his father, Nikita married. Well able to read and understand church books, he first found himself a position as a clerk, and then, having been ordained, a priest of one of the rural churches.
Nikita the priest soon gained such fame that he was invited to Moscow, where he subsequently had his parish for ten years. Having lost three children, he convinced his wife to take the veil as a nun, and he himself retired to the Anzersky skete on the White Sea (near the Solovetsky Monastery), where he took the vows, receiving the monastic name Nikon. In 1642, he moved to the Kozheozerskaya desert (near the Onega River), where he became hegumen the very next year.
In 1645, Nikon had to be in Moscow on business of his monastery and personally appear before Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The king, a religious man, was struck by "the majestic appearance of a stern monk and his strong speech." In 1646, Nikon became even closer to the tsar, and he insisted that Nikon transfer to Moscow - so in the same year Nikon became archimandrite of the Novo-Spassky Monastery (in Moscow), which belonged to the Romanov family. Since then, Nikon began to often visit the king for "soul-saving conversations." In 1648, the tsar insisted on consecrating him as a metropolitan and appointing him to Novgorod the Great. In Novgorod, Nikon showed great administrative abilities and extraordinary courage in putting down a rebellion against the tsar's governor in 1649. But Nikon was Metropolitan of Novgorod for only four years.
In 1652, after the death of Patriarch Joseph, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich wished Nikon to be elected patriarch. Nikon, summoned to Moscow on this occasion, for a long time refused the patriarchate, knowing the envy and enmity of the boyars (as the royal favorite). But after the tsar with tears asked him to become a patriarch, and Nikon, asking: “Will they honor him as an archpastor and father, and will they let him organize the Church?” - received an affirmative answer, he accepted the patriarchate (July 25, 1652).
So, a native of peasants became a patriarch. It should be noted that Nikon's rapid ascent up the church hierarchical ladder from clerk to patriarch was the result not so much of his relationship with the tsar (after all, Nikon's rapprochement with Alexei Mikhailovich (since 1646) gave a significant acceleration to Nikon's career growth), but rather the result of the personal qualities of the patriarch, from which should be noted education, directness, willpower and a true desire to "equip the Church." With the advent of Nikon, a new, critical period begins in the history of the Russian Church.
2. On the relationship of Patriarch Nikon with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich
As mentioned above, the history of the relationship between Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich began as early as 1645, when Nikon, being the hegumen of the Kozheoozerskaya desert, was in Moscow on business of the monastery and appeared to the tsar - even then Nikon felt favored by the sovereign. Subsequently, when Nikon was archimandrite of the Novo-Spassky Monastery and Metropolitan of Novgorod (which, by the way, the tsar contributed to), their friendship became even stronger. But she was not quite ordinary: the young, by nature soft and impressionable king was completely subordinate to the energetic and power-hungry patriarch. In Nikon, the tsar saw not only a friend, but also a teacher (being a very religious person). In other words, the young sovereign did not have a soul in him, he was ready to do a lot for him, and not to say that Nikon did not use this.
Nikon had a great influence on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, just as Filaret once had on his son Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. As in the time of Filaret, not a single state matter was decided without a patriarch. Nikon began to feel his importance more and more. The king still trusted him. In 1653, he bestowed on Nikon the title of “great sovereign” (which before Nikon was held by only one patriarch, Filaret, and even then, as the father of the king), a title that directly indicates dual power: the power of the patriarch was equated with the royal. Not only that, in 1654 the tsar, having gone to war with the Commonwealth, completely left the state to Nikon. But military campaigns contributed to the maturation of the king, he acquired some "independence of mind and character." Therefore, upon his return, he began to behave more independently in relation to Nikon, began to pay attention to the behavior of the patriarch, who was more and more fond of power. True, Tsar Alexei did not immediately change his friendly attitude towards Patriarch Nikon, but short disagreements began to occur between them, which intensified over time.
So, over time, relations between the patriarch and the tsar cooled due to the fact that the tsar became more independent, and the patriarch more willing to power. A question of power arose between the two once friendly people.
3. Church reform of Patriarch Nikon. The emergence of a schism in the Russian Church and in Russian society
Even before accepting the patriarchate, Nikon drew attention to the mistakes made in the liturgical books. And even before him, they tried to correct these mistakes; but the corrections were made according to the same Slavic books, however, more ancient, but also with errors made when rewriting the Greek (Byzantine) originals. They did not undertake to correct Greek books simply because of ignorance of the Greek language. But, nevertheless, "corrected" books were printed and put into circulation, and the printed word was already considered "inviolable."
In 1654, two years after assuming the patriarchal throne, Nikon called the Russian archpastors to a council, and they recognized the need to correct liturgical books and rites, which was enshrined in the corresponding council act.
Meanwhile, the monk Arseniy Sukhanov returned from the East, sent there even earlier to collect the most ancient Greek manuscripts, and brought with him over six hundred ancient books (some of them were written more than five hundred years ago). Having received these allowances for correcting books, Nikon began to organize such an important matter. Learned monks were invited from Kyiv, Epiphany Slavenitsky, an expert in the Greek language, was appointed their head, and the learned Greek Arseniy became his assistant. The former correctors of liturgical books stood aside, which is why they were offended; and later it was they who became the main opponents of Patriarch Nikon in the matter of church reforms.
Undoubtedly, the imperious patriarch influenced the correction of church books, based on his own views on worship. It should also be noted that the work of correcting church books under Nikon was also characterized by some haste, probably caused by the desire of the patriarch to quickly establish himself in his rightness. But, despite all this, the work of correcting the liturgical books under Patriarch Nikon was carried out very carefully and thoroughly, as never before.
... When the necessary books were corrected, for their consideration and approval, Nikon in 1656 convened a new council, which, along with the Russian archpastors, was also attended by two Eastern patriarchs, as "bearers of the true Orthodox faith." The council approved the corrected books and decided to introduce them in all churches, and to select and burn the old books. Thus, Nikon managed to enlist the support of the Greek (Byzantine) Church, which was considered the "Mother of the Russian Church". From that moment, in fact, the split of the Russian Orthodox Church began.
"Innovations" were not accepted in many places. Russian people are frightened by any novelty - they were so frightened by such a decisive introduction of new church orders into everyday life. So at first the rejection of "Nikon's" books was purely psychological and therefore not very pronounced. But some people with a theological education did not immediately accept the corrected books for reasons of the so-called "church ideology": in those Greek church books that were corrected, they saw a reflection of the union of the Orthodox and Catholic churches - the Union of Florence. Among such people, those who, before Nikon, corrected (with grief in half) church books, immediately moved forward, and under him, as already mentioned, they were out of work. It was they who went to enlighten the people: they say, Nikon started a bad deed - he contacted the Greeks (the Greeks were the main consultants in correcting liturgical books under Nikon), who fell under the "pernicious influence of Catholicism." Thus, a whole trend appeared in the Russian Church, which separated itself from the official ("Nikonian") church, which did not recognize the church reform of Patriarch Nikon.
The “schismatics”, or, as they called themselves, “Old Believers” (“Old Believers”), for the most part, were ignorant, but no less stubborn in that they considered themselves the only bearers of the “true faith”, which differed from the “Nikonian” literally as follows:
| № | Old Russian Church | Official Russian Orthodox Church |
| 1 | Divine services should be performed only according to old (mainly Joseph's) books. | Divine services should be performed only according to the corrected ("Nikon") books. |
| 2 | To be baptized and bless with only two fingers (index and middle) folded together. | To be baptized and bless with only three fingers (thumb, index and middle), folded into a pinch. |
| 3 | Cross to read only eight-pointed. | Cross to read only four-pointed. |
| 4 | With the procession around the temple, go from east to west. | With the procession around the temple, go from west to east. |
| 5 | Write the name of the Savior: "Jesus". | Write the name of the Savior: "Jesus." |
| 6 | "Hallelujah" sing twice. | "Hallelujah" sing three times. |
| 7 | Icons worship only old or deducted from the old. | Icons should be worshiped only copied from ancient Greek originals. |
| 8 | Serve the liturgy on seven prosphora. | Serve the liturgy on five prosphora. |
| 9 | In the eighth article of the Creed, one should read: "And in the Holy Spirit of the Lord, true and life-giving." | No information. |
As can be seen from the above, the disagreements did not affect the foundations of the Orthodox faith, but only concerned certain aspects of it. So the decisive role of religious motives in the schism of the Russian Church can still be disputed. For most Old Believers, these subtleties were simply unknown. The split for them was an attempt to preserve the spiritual structure of the country, which, with the annexation of Ukraine (1654), began to establish contacts with Europe, as one of the alternatives for its development. Church reform coincided with the cultural expansion of the West, which is why it was so painfully received.
For the people who stood at the origins of the schismatic trend, everything was much more serious. They were either religious fanatics or populists and power-hungry. Unfortunately, there were more of the latter. But there were also those for whom the question of faith was really decisive and fundamental. Among them is Archpriest Avvakum, the same author "The Lives of Archpriest Avvakum, Written by Himself"- "the most important monument of schismatic literature". He was the most ardent opponent of Nikon's reforms, almost the "patriarch" of the Old Believers, and attracted to his side the same zealous "true believers", of which the famous boyar Feodosia Prokopievna Morozova is worth noting. By the way, the famous Solovetsky Monastery also rebelled against Nikon, where on the eve of the reform all its opponents were exiled. The ranks of the schismatics grew every day.
Archpriest Avvakum and Ivan Neronov, at the very first orders from Nikon to correct the books, expressed their protest. “But we thought, having converged among ourselves (said Avvakum); we see how winter wants to be: the heart is frozen and the legs tremble. After consulting, they filed a complaint against Nikon - in their opinion, he did not act like an Orthodox. Nikon was angry with his old friends and exiled them from Moscow (Avvakum to Tobolsk, and Neronov to the Vologda Territory).
Under the influence of this protest, Nikon realized that "it is better to act by a conciliar verdict than by personal power." The cathedral, as you know, approved and approved all Nikon's corrections, only one bishop - Bishop Pavel Kolomensky - did not agree with the council, for which he was defrocked and imprisoned.
His opponents insultingly called Nikon’s followers “Nikonians” and “pinchers”, and Avvakum himself called Patriarch Antichrist and even predicted the year of his reign - 1666 (because of such statements, Avvakum became Nikon’s personal enemy). The official church was also not inactive: it declared the Old Believers as heretics and anathematized them, and executed others (for example, Archpriest Avvakum was burned in 1682).
The burning of Archpriest Avvakum was preceded by his long torments and wanderings in exile - this is evidenced by fragments "Lives...": “... They also took me from the vigil Boris Neledinsky with archers; they took a man with me with sixty; they were taken to prison, and they put me on a chain in the patriarch's court at night. When it dawned on a weekly day, they put me on a cart and grew tall, and drove me from the patriarchal court to the Androniev Monastery, and then they threw me on a chain into a dark tent, went into the ground, and sat for three days, neither ate nor drank ... No one came to me I came, only mice, and cockroaches, and crickets scream, and enough fleas ... In the morning, the Archimaritan and his brother came and took me out: they reproach me that I did not submit to the patriarch, but I scold and bark from the Scriptures. They took off the big chain and put on the small one. They gave the black man under the command; ordered to be dragged to the church. At the church, they pull my hair and push me in the side, and they sell me by the chain and spit in my eyes... They also sent me to Siberia with my wife and children. Before Tobolsk, three thousand versts of thirteen weeks were dragged by carts and water and sledges half the way ... Therefore, the decree came: it was ordered to lead to Daura ... Also, from the Nerchi River, the packs returned back to Rusa. For five weeks they rode sleds across the bare ice. They gave me two nags under shyness and under the rubble, and he and the archpriest wandered on foot, killing themselves on the ice. The country is barbaric, foreigners are non-peaceful, we don’t dare to lag behind the horses, and we won’t keep up with the horses, hungry languid people ... "
From excerpts "Lives..." one can judge how cruelly Nikon's opponents were punished, and punishment was also imposed on their families (even innocent children were exiled).
In 1666, another council of the Russian clergy took place, which finally approved all the changes made to the liturgical books on Nikon's reform. From that time on, the persecution of schismatics intensified even more. But they did not give up, but only became even more bitter - they fled to Siberia (remember the Lykov family, which became famous thanks to the numerous publications of Vasily Peskov in "Komsomolskaya Pravda"), arranged acts of self-immolation.
So, the church schism under Patriarch Nikon had a lot of prerequisites: psychological, socio-cultural, religious, political. And he, perhaps, was inevitable. But after all, it was possible to do without a national tragedy!
4. Breaking up the split into rumors
The split, as it was already possible to notice, was not a one-day phenomenon and hardly noticeable. This is a whole layer of Russian history and culture. Initially, having only a religious significance, it gradually acquired a significant political significance: from the denial of the new church orders, the schism moved on to the denial of the new civil orders, such as recruitment, national censuses, the passport system, etc. The Old Believers were especially zealous against the reforms of Peter I, of whose innovations they condemned: shaving beards and cutting hair (“the image of God is allegedly spoiled”), smoking and sniffing tobacco, short frock coats, tailcoats and ties, theaters, horse races, torchlighters at burial, drinking sugar, coffee, potatoes, medicine (especially anatomy), astronomy, chemistry and other natural sciences.
The split could become a very influential force in the state if it were organized. After all, after the death of its first leaders (who were real monks and priests), who somehow “ruled the church service”, the Old Believers had a question: “who will now rule the church service for them?” Some began to lure priests from the "Nikonian" church, while others decided to do without priests, giving the right to conduct worship to the laity (including women). Thus, two main schismatic currents arose: priesthood and non-priestism. From them began the further disorganization of the movement of the Old Believers (see Fig.).
Priests:
Bespopovtsy:
- Spasovo consent– the followers of this persuasion claimed that there is neither the Church nor all its attributes in the world (the Bible is a fiction, etc.); named after the main conviction of its supporters: "Let the Savior save himself, as he knows."
- Pomeranian consent- named after the place of origin - in Pomorie, near the White Sea:
- Vygovtsy (Danilovtsy)- they believed that since the time of Patriarch Nikon, the Antichrist has ruled in the Russian Church, so everyone who comes from it must be rebaptized (married - divorced, etc.), and they themselves should always be ready for self-immolation; named after the place of foundation - the Vyge River (founder - clerk Danilo Vikulin).
- Filippovtsy- stood out from the Vygovites, led by a certain archer Philip, differing from them in that they did not pray for Orthodox tsars.
- Fedoseevtsy- they believed, like the Vygovtsy, that the Antichrist rules in the Russian Church, therefore everything that is bought (food, clothes) must certainly be cleansed with prayers and bows (since it is "infected with the breath of the Antichrist"); named after the founder - the boyar Theodosius Urusov (deacon Theodosius Vasiliev - according to another version).
- Vygovtsy (Danilovtsy)- they believed that since the time of Patriarch Nikon, the Antichrist has ruled in the Russian Church, so everyone who comes from it must be rebaptized (married - divorced, etc.), and they themselves should always be ready for self-immolation; named after the place of foundation - the Vyge River (founder - clerk Danilo Vikulin).
- Wanderers- believing that the Antichrist reigns on the Russian land, they denied all church and civil ("anti-Christ") orders and lived a wild, wandering life.
As you can already see, the disagreements between the Old Believers were also not of a fundamental nature, but, nevertheless, they were one of the reasons for the multiple division of the schism (another reason is the desire of people for power), in which sometimes there were rumors of the opposite nature: for example, if the circles were as close as possible to the official Orthodox Church, then the concord of the Savior was close to paganism. Further fragmentation of priestlessness led to the formation of numerous sects, the echoes of which are still heard today.
Thus, the schism weakened significantly over time, breaking up into many parts, while the "Nikonian" church remained united, thanks to the hierarchy existing in it.
5. Deposition of Patriarch Nikon
The attitude of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to Patriarch Nikon and to the Russian Orthodox Church has always favored the implementation of church reform. However, the cooling of relations between the tsar and the patriarch greatly complicated the situation. In this case, the previously mentioned title of “great sovereign”, accepted by Nikon from the tsar as a gift back in 1653, played its fatal role.
In 1658, the tsar, during one of the quarrels with the patriarch, let him know that he was angry with him because Nikon bears the title of "great sovereign" and abuses power. It cannot be said that the tsar was absolutely right, since he himself bestowed this ill-fated title on Nikon, but at the same time this does not justify the patriarch, who was really “carried away” by power. But, one way or another, on June 27, 1658, the patriarch, having served the last liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral, took off his patriarchal vestments and left Moscow for New Jerusalem. But, having left, Nikon nevertheless made it clear that, having left Moscow, he did not leave the patriarchate. This led to some confusion in the Russian Church, which, having been left virtually without a patriarch, could not elect a new one, since the former did not resign. That is, it was possible to solve the problem either by returning Nikon to Moscow (which, of course, depended on him too), or by removing the patriarchate from Nikon. The stubborn unwillingness of both the tsar and the patriarch to reconcile forced the Russian clergy to choose the second, faster path: in 1660 they gathered in Moscow for a council to resolve the issue of the patriarch. The majority decided to deprive Nikon of the patriarchate, but the tsar (whose presence at church councils was mandatory) agreed with the arguments of the minority: the local council does not have such power over the patriarch in his absence - thus, Nikon retained the patriarchate, which further confused the matter.
In 1665, there was an episode that could (but did not become) a successful outcome of the church conflict. We are talking about the sudden arrival of Nikon in Moscow (where he was summoned by a certain boyar Zyuzin, allegedly on behalf of the tsar, he was simply trying to reconcile the tsar with the patriarch) in December 1665, when he sent a letter to the tsar asking him for reconciliation. This letter, of course, came as a complete surprise to the tsar, and he, being confused, did not know what to do, but the boyars who opposed Nikon managed to influence the tsar in their own interests: Nikon was simply expelled from Moscow back to the Resurrection Monastery.
The increasingly protracted issue of the patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church, in the end, could only be resolved by an inter-church council. Consultations of Russian archpastors with Eastern patriarchs led to a joint council of Russian and Eastern archpastors held in 1666-67. First, the council got acquainted with Nikon's case in his absence, and only then the patriarch himself was called in to listen to his explanations and justifications. The main fault of Nikon was the unauthorized abandonment of the patriarchal throne in Moscow for 8 years (from 1658 to 1666). The patriarch denied this, saying that he did not leave the patriarchate, but only left for his own diocese from the royal wrath. Nikon was not admitted to subsequent meetings of the cathedral. Again they called him only to the last, where they announced to him the decision of the conciliar court. The main points of accusation were as follows: unauthorized removal to the Resurrection Monastery, deprivation of bishops of their diocese without a conciliar court, cruel treatment of subordinates. The verdict deprived Nikon of the patriarchal rank and, in the rank of a simple monk, sent him to repentance in a remote monastery. The council also decided that the king should be the head of the state, and the patriarch - only in church affairs. The cathedral once again fully approved the church reform of Nikon.
Nikon was expelled from Moscow to the Ferapontov-Belozersky Monastery, where he spent about 9 years, in fact, he was imprisoned in the monastery prison. They held him very harshly. “In 1672, Nikon wrote to the tsar: “Now I am sick, naked and barefoot. From all the needs of the cell and shortcomings, he got sick with scurvy, his hands are sick, the left one does not rise, in front of his eyes there is an eyesore from the smoke and smoke ... The legs swell. The bailiffs do not sell or buy anything. No one comes to me, and there is no one to ask for alms. And so the king did with his once beloved and friend?! It turns out that the fates of Nikon and Avvakum are similar - both of them suffered from the tsarist autocracy, both were exiled and punished. In response to this complaint, the tsar allowed Nikon to leave the cell and read books. Before his death, the tsar bequeathed to ask for forgiveness from Nikon, to which he replied: “If the sovereign here on earth did not have time to receive forgiveness, then we will sue him at the second coming of the Lord. According to the commandment of Christ, I forgive him, and God will forgive him ... "
In 1676, the disgraced patriarch was transferred to the nearby Kirillov Monastery, where he stayed until 1681, when Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich ordered Nikon to be returned for his merits after a 15-year imprisonment to his beloved New Jerusalem. “This return was, as it were, a triumphal procession of the 75-year-old elder-patriarch, exhausted by labors and sorrows, to a place of rest.” But near Yaroslavl, on the way to his Resurrection Monastery, Nikon died. He was buried in the Resurrection Monastery with honor as a patriarch, and a year later a letter came from the Eastern patriarchs, in which they released Nikon from a conciliar sentence and restored him to the rank of patriarch.
Conclusion. The question of headship in the state. The Significance of Nikon's Reform and the Consequences of the Schism
“Patriarch Nikon and the church schism” - this is probably the name of a whole era in the history of the Russian state. After all, almost all political and church events in the Russian state in the 1650-70s are connected with the name of Patriarch Nikon. The name of Nikon is associated not only with a very important milestone in the history of the Russian Church - church reform to correct liturgical books and rites - but also a milestone in the history of the formation of statehood in Rus' - the solution of the issue of primacy in the state.
Until 1666-67, the church could have a significant influence on Russian tsars and princes. In today's Russia, the church is separated from the state. What lies between? Apparently, the era during which one way or another the question of the relationship between church and state was resolved.
Before Patriarch Nikon, as already mentioned, only Patriarch Filaret had such a controversial title of "great sovereign", that is, in one way or another, he combined spiritual power with secular power. But Filaret did not give rise to any questions about the supreme power, because, probably, he was the father of the king. At the time of Patriarch Nikon, who was also gifted with the aforementioned title, a different situation developed. Firstly, although Nikon had significant influence on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (weakening, however, over time), nevertheless, he was not in family ties with him, and this is already an important fact. And secondly, Nikon was a more energetic person than Filaret, and, consequently, striving to achieve more. But with this desire, Nikon somewhat "went too far", since "in Rus', the clergy never put themselves above princes and kings and did not seek worldly power and direct influence on state affairs." Nikon, on the other hand, was carried away by worldly power to the point that he completely began to forget the church as his main vocation (after all, it was in church affairs that he showed true talent). Therefore, at the conciliar court of 1666-67, he did not meet with support from the clergy, who attributed his attempts to elevate his importance to his personal ambitions.
However, it is worth noting that when, in the original version of the sentence to Nikon, the Eastern patriarchs placed the statement that the patriarch must always and in everything be obedient to the tsar, the Russian clergy sharply criticized this provision, which in the final version was written as follows: the tsar must have priority in state affairs, and the patriarch in church affairs. It was precisely in this way and in no other way that the very important question of supremacy in the state was then resolved. But the wording proposed by the eastern patriarchs still remained in the air of all subsequent Russian sovereigns, "forever depriving the church authority in Rus' of the opportunity to equate itself in any way with the royal authority", she "prepared in the future the complete subordination of the church to the state" .
But whatever the significance and role of Nikon in resolving the issue of supremacy in the Russian state, his significance as a church reformer will be incomparably greater. The significance of his reform for the Russian Church is enormous to this day, since the most thorough and grandiose work was carried out to correct Russian Orthodox liturgical books. It also gave a powerful impetus to the development of enlightenment in Rus', the lack of education of which immediately became noticeable during the implementation of church reform. Thanks to the same reform, some international ties were also strengthened, which helped in the future appearance in Russia of progressive attributes of European civilization (especially during the time of Peter I).
Even such a negative consequence of Nikon’s reform as a split had, from the point of view of archeology, history, culture and some other sciences, its “pluses”: the schismatics left behind a huge number of ancient monuments, and also became the main component of the new one that arose in the second half XVII century, estates - merchants. During the time of Peter I, schismatics were also cheap labor in all the projects of the emperor. But we must not forget that the church schism also became a schism in Russian society and divided it. Old Believers have always been persecuted. The split was the national tragedy of the Russian people.
It remains to be noted that the authors of the work express their personal opinion, possibly controversial. It was formed under the influence of the works of I.N. Ionov, V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov, P. Smirnov, S.M. from the authors (to Stanislav).
List of used literature
- Ionov, I. N. Russian civilization. IX - the beginning of the XX century / I. N. Ionov. – M.: Enlightenment, 1995.
- Katsva, L. A., Yurganov, A. L. History of Russia in the 16th-18th centuries: an experimental textbook for the VIII grade of secondary educational institutions / L. A. Katsva, A. L. Yurganov. – M.: Miros, 1994.
- Klyuchevsky, V. O. Historical portraits. Figures of historical thought / V. O. Klyuchevsky. – M.: Pravda, 1990.
- Klyuchevsky, V. O. On Russian history / V. O. Klyuchevsky. – M.: Enlightenment, 1993.
- Platonov, S. F. Textbook of Russian history for secondary school: a systematic course / S. F. Platonov. – M.: Link, 1994.
- Smirnov, P. History of the Christian Orthodox Church / P. Smirnov. - M .: Orthodox conversation, 1994.
- Solovyov, S. M. Readings and stories on the history of Russia / S. M. Solovyov. – M.: Pravda, 1989.
- Reader on the history of the USSR from ancient times to the end of the 18th century: a teacher's guide, 2nd ed., edited. / Comp. P. P. Epifanov, O. P. Epifanova. – M.: Enlightenment, 1989.
The Union of Florence is an agreement concluded between the Catholic and Orthodox churches in 1438, according to which the Orthodox Church was subordinate to the Catholic Church, for which it received the help of the Pope in the fight against the Turkish yoke.
The myth of Moscow as a “third Rome” is an ideological justification for the legitimacy of the transfer of world primacy over the Orthodox from Constantinople to Moscow: “...Two Romes [Rome and Constantinople] fall, and the third [Moscow] is standing, and the fourth cannot be ...”
Discussing the reasons that led to "a change in the Russian outlook on the relative dignity of Greek and Russian piety", he noted:
Influence of Byzantium in the Orthodox world<…>was based precisely on the fact that it was a cultural center for all the Orthodox peoples of the East, from where science, education, the highest and most perfect forms of church and public life, etc., came to them. Moscow did not represent anything like the old Byzantium in this respect. She did not know what science and scientific education were, she did not even have a school at all and people who had received a correct scientific education; its entire educational capital consisted in that, from a scientific point of view, not a particularly rich and varied inheritance, which at different times the Russians received mediocre or directly from the Greeks, adding almost nothing to it on their part. It is natural, therefore, that the primacy and supremacy of Moscow in the Orthodox world could only be purely external and very conditional.
The similarity of the Little Russian liturgical practice with the Greek was due to the reform of the liturgical charter shortly before that by Metropolitan Peter Mogila.
Speaking about the peculiarities of the religiosity of Patriarch Nikon and his contemporaries, Nikolai Kostomarov noted: “Having spent ten years as a parish priest, Nikon, involuntarily, learned 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.”
Characteristic is the answer received by Nikon in 1655 to his 27 questions, with which he addressed immediately after the Council of 1654 to Patriarch Paisios. The latter “expresses the view of the Greek Church on the rite as an insignificant part of religion, which can and has had different forms.<…>As for the answer to the question about the tripartite, Paisius evaded a definite answer, confining himself to explaining the meaning that the Greeks put into the tripartite. Nikon understood Paisius' answer in the sense he desired, since he could not rise to the Greek understanding of the rite. Paisius did not know the situation in which the reform was being carried out and the sharpness with which the question of rituals was raised. The Greek theologian and the Russian scribe could not understand each other.”
Background: Greek and Russian Liturgical Customs
The evolution of the rite of Christian worship in ancient times, especially those of its elements that are determined not by bookish tradition, but by oral church tradition (and these include such essential customs as, for example, the sign of the cross), is known only fragmentarily, on the basis of the information which are found in the writings of the Holy Fathers. In particular, there is an assumption [ specify] that in the 10th century, by the time of the Baptism of Rus', in the Byzantine Empire, two customs competed regarding the sign of the cross, the number of prosphora on the proskomedia, the special or treguba alleluia, the direction of the movement of the procession, etc. The Russians borrowed one, and subsequently from the Greeks (especially after the fall of Constantinople) another was finally established.
The main features of Nikon's reform
The first step taken by Patriarch Nikon on the path of liturgical reform, taken immediately after joining the Patriarchate, was to compare the text of the Creed in the edition of printed Moscow liturgical books with the text of the Symbol inscribed on the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius. Finding discrepancies between them (as well as between the Missal and other books), Patriarch Nikon decided to start correcting the books and rites. Approximately six months after ascending to the patriarchal throne, on February 11, 1653, the Patriarch ordered that the chapters on the number of bows at the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian and on the sign of the cross with two fingers be omitted from the publication of the Followed Psalter. Some of the referees expressed their disagreement, as a result, three were fired, among them Elder Savvaty and Hieromonk Joseph (in the world Ivan Nasedka). 10 days later, at the beginning of Great Lent in 1653, the Patriarch sent a “Memory” to the Moscow churches about replacing part of the bows to the ground at the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian with waist ones and about using the sign of the cross with three fingers instead of two fingers. Thus began the reform, as well as a protest against it - a church schism organized by the former comrades of the Patriarch, archpriests Avvakum Petrov and Ivan Neronov.
During the reform, the liturgical tradition was changed in the following points:
- Large-scale "book right", expressed in editing the texts of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, which led to changes even in the wording of the Creed - the union was removed - the opposition "a" in the words about faith in the Son of God "begotten, not created", about the Kingdom They began to speak of God in the future (“there will be no end”), and not in the present tense (“there is no end”), the word “True” is excluded from the definition of the properties of the Holy Spirit. Many other innovations were also introduced into historical liturgical texts, for example, another letter was added to the name “Jesus” (under the title “Ic”) and it began to be written “Jesus” (under the title “Іс”).
- Replacing the two-fingered sign of the cross with a three-fingered one and the abolition of “throwing”, or small earthly bows - in 1653, Nikon sent a “memory” to all Moscow churches, which said: “it is not appropriate in the church to do throwing on your knee, but to bow to your belt ; even with three fingers they would be baptized.”
- Nikon ordered the religious processions to be carried out in the opposite direction (against the sun, not salting).
- The exclamation " hallelujah"During the service, they began to pronounce not twice (double hallelujah), but three times (trigus).
- The number of prosphora on proskomedia and the inscription of the seal on prosphora have been changed.
Reaction to reform
The patriarch was pointed out the arbitrariness of such actions, and then in 1654 he arranges a council, at which, as a result of pressure on the participants, he seeks permission to hold a "book right on ancient Greek and Slavic manuscripts." However, the alignment was not on the old models, but on the modern Greek practice. On the week of Orthodoxy in 1656, an anathema was solemnly proclaimed in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral on those who are baptized with two fingers.
The sharpness and procedural incorrectness (for example, Nikon once publicly beat, tore off his mantle, and then, without a conciliar decision, single-handedly deprived the chair and exiled the opponent of the liturgical reform, Bishop Pavel Kolomensky) of the reforms caused dissatisfaction among a significant part of the clergy and laity, which also fed on personal hostility to the distinguished intolerance and ambition to the patriarch. After the exile and death of Pavel Kolomensky, the movement for the "old faith" (Old Believers) was headed by several clerics: archpriests Avvakum, Loggin of Murom and Daniil Kostroma, priest Lazar Romanovsky, deacon Fyodor, monk Epiphanius, priest Nikita Dobrynin, nicknamed Pustosvyat, and others.
The Great Moscow Cathedral of 1667, having condemned and deposed Nikon for leaving the chair without permission, anathematized all opponents of the reforms. Later, due to state support for church reform, the name of the Russian Church was assigned exclusively to those who made decisions of the Councils and, and adherents of liturgical traditions (Old Believers) began to be called schismatics and persecuted.
Views of the Old Believers on the reform
According to the Old Believers, Nikon's views on some separate tradition, in this case Greek, as a reference one, were similar to the so-called "trilingual heresy" - the doctrine of the possibility of the existence of Holy Scripture exclusively in the languages in which the inscription on the cross of Christ was made - Hebrew, Greek and Latin. In both cases, it was about the rejection of the liturgical tradition that had naturally developed in Rus' (borrowed, by the way, on the basis of ancient Greek models). Such a refusal was completely alien to the Russian ecclesiastical consciousness, since the historical Russian ecclesiasticism was formed on the basis of the Cyril and Methodius tradition, in essence, which was the assimilation of Christianity, taking into account the national translation of the Holy Scriptures and the liturgical corpus, using local backlogs of the Christian tradition.
In addition, the Old Believers, based on the doctrine of the inextricable connection between the external form and the internal content of the sacred rites and sacraments, since the time of the “Answers of Alexander the Deacon” and “Pomeranian Answers”, insist on a more accurate symbolic expression of Orthodox dogmas in the old rites. So, according to the Old Believers, the sign of the cross with two fingers deeper than the three-fingered one reveals the mystery of the incarnation and death of Christ on the cross, for it was not the Trinity that was crucified on the cross, but one of Her Persons (the incarnated God the Son, Jesus Christ). Similarly, a special hallelujah with the addition of the Slavic translation of the word “hallelujah” (glory to Thee, God) already contains a threefold (according to the number of Persons of the Holy Trinity) glorification of God (in pre-Nikonian texts there is also a strict hallelujah, but without the appendix “glory to Thee, God”) , while the treble hallelujah with the appendix "glory to Thee, God" contains the "quadruple" of the Holy Trinity.
Studies of church historians of the 19th-20th centuries (N.F. Kapterev, E.E. Golubinsky, A.A. Dmitrievsky and others) confirmed the opinion of the Old Believers about the inauthenticity of the sources of Nikonova’s “right”: borrowing, as it turned out, was made from modern Greek and Uniate sources.
Among the Old Believers, the patriarch received the nickname "Nikon the Antichrist" for his actions and the brutal persecutions that followed the reform.
The term "Nikonianism"
During the time of the liturgical reform, special terms appeared among the Old Believers: Nikonianism, Nikonian schism, Nikonian heresy, New Believers - terms with a negative evaluative connotation, polemically used by adherents of the Old Believers in relation to supporters of liturgical reform in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 17th century. The name comes from the name of Patriarch Nikon.
The evolution of the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC)
The condemnation of the supporters of the old rites as non-Orthodox, carried out by the councils of 1656 and 1666, was finally sanctioned by the Great Moscow Cathedral in 1667, which approved the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, and anathematized all those who did not accept the council's decisions as heretics and disobedient to the Church.
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 new trends in religion, actively expressing their position with uprisings and popular unrest And. 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 Rus'. 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 misprints 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 ceremonies 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. 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 Rus'. 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, mass 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 says 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 Rus', but he did what the tsar wanted from him - bringing the Russian church into line with 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.
