The beginning of the schism in the Orthodox Church in the 17th century. Church schism of the 17th century. Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action

Religious and political movement of the 17th century, which resulted in separation from the Russian Orthodox Church part of the believers who did not accept the reforms of Patriarch Nikon was called a schism.

Also at the service, instead of singing “Hallelujah” twice, it was ordered to sing three times. Instead of circling the temple during baptism and weddings in the direction of the sun, circling against the sun was introduced. Instead of seven prosphoras, the liturgy began to be served with five. Instead of the eight-pointed cross, they began to use four-pointed and six-pointed ones. By analogy with Greek texts, instead of the name of Christ Jesus in newly printed books, the patriarch ordered to write Jesus. In the eighth member of the Creed (“In the Holy Spirit of the true Lord”), the word “true” was removed.

The innovations were approved by church councils of 1654-1655. During 1653-1656, corrected or newly translated liturgical books were published at the Printing Yard.

The discontent of the population was caused by the violent measures with which Patriarch Nikon introduced new books and rituals into use. Some members of the Circle of Zealots of Piety were the first to speak out for the “old faith” and against the reforms and actions of the patriarch. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel submitted a note to the king in defense of double-fingering and about bowing during services and prayers. Then they began to argue that introducing corrections according to Greek models desecrates the true faith, since the Greek Church apostatized from the “ancient piety”, and its books are printed in Catholic printing houses. Ivan Neronov opposed the strengthening of the power of the patriarch and for the democratization of church government. The clash between Nikon and the defenders of the “old faith” took on drastic forms. Avvakum, Ivan Neronov and other opponents of reforms were subjected to severe persecution. The speeches of the defenders of the “old faith” received support in various layers of Russian society, ranging from individual representatives the highest secular nobility and ending with the peasants. The sermons of the dissenters about the advent of the “end times”, about the accession of the Antichrist, to whom the tsar, the patriarch and all the authorities supposedly had already bowed down and were carrying out his will, found a lively response among the masses.

The Great Moscow Council of 1667 anathematized (excommunicated) those who, after repeated admonitions, refused to accept new rituals and newly printed books, and also continued to scold the church, accusing it of heresy. The council also stripped Nikon of his patriarchal rank. The deposed patriarch was sent to prison - first to Ferapontov, and then to the Kirillo Belozersky monastery.

Carried away by the preaching of the dissenters, many townspeople, especially peasants, fled to the dense forests of the Volga region and the North, to the southern outskirts of the Russian state and abroad, and founded their own communities there.

From 1667 to 1676, the country was engulfed in riots in the capital and in the outskirts. Then, in 1682, the Streltsy riots began, in which schismatics played an important role. The schismatics attacked monasteries, robbed monks, and seized churches.

A terrible consequence of the split was burning - mass self-immolations. The earliest report of them dates back to 1672, when 2,700 people self-immolated in the Paleostrovsky monastery. From 1676 to 1685, according to documented information, about 20,000 people died. Self-immolations continued into the 18th century, and isolated cases late XIX century.

The main result of the schism was church division with the formation of a special branch of Orthodoxy - the Old Believers. By the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century, there were various movements of the Old Believers, which were called “talks” and “concords”. The Old Believers were divided into priestly and non-priestly. The priests recognized the need for the clergy and all church sacraments; they were settled in the Kerzhensky forests (now the territory of the Nizhny Novgorod region), the areas of Starodubye (now the Chernigov region, Ukraine), Kuban (Krasnodar region), and the Don River.

Bespopovtsy lived in the north of the state. After the death of the priests of the pre-schism ordination, they rejected the priests of the new ordination, and therefore began to be called non-priests. The sacraments of baptism and penance and all church services, except the liturgy, were performed by selected laymen.

Patriarch Nikon no longer had anything to do with the persecution of Old Believers - from 1658 until his death in 1681, he was first in voluntary and then in forced exile.

At the end of the 18th century, the schismatics themselves began to make attempts to get closer to the church. On October 27, 1800, in Russia, by decree of Emperor Paul, Edinoverie was established as a form of reunification of the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church.

Old Believers were allowed to serve according to old books and observe old rituals, including highest value was given to double-fingered, but the services and services were performed by Orthodox clergy.

In July 1856, by order of Emperor Alexander II, the police sealed the altars of the Intercession and Nativity Cathedrals of the Old Believer Rogozhskoe cemetery in Moscow. The reason was denunciations that liturgies were solemnly celebrated in churches, “seducing” the believers of the Synodal Church. Divine services were held in private prayer houses, in the houses of the capital's merchants and manufacturers.

On April 16, 1905, on the eve of Easter, a telegram from Nicholas II arrived in Moscow, allowing “to unseal the altars of the Old Believer chapels of the Rogozhsky cemetery.” The next day, April 17, the imperial “Decree on Tolerance” was promulgated, guaranteeing freedom of religion to the Old Believers.

In 1929, the Patriarchal Holy Synod formulated three decrees:

— “On the recognition of old Russian rituals as salutary, like new rituals, and equal to them”;

— “On the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals, and especially to double-fingeredness”;

— “On the abolition of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667, which they imposed on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christians who adhere to them, and to consider these oaths as if they had not been.”

The Local Council of 1971 approved three resolutions of the Synod of 1929.

On January 12, 2013, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, the first liturgy after the schism according to the ancient rite was celebrated.

The material was prepared based on information from open sources V

Topic 8. Church schism of the 17th century
Plan:

Introduction

Causes and essence of the Schism
Nikon's reforms and the Old Believers
Consequences and significance of church schism

Conclusion

Bibliography
Introduction
The history of the Russian Church is inextricably linked with the history of Russia. Any time of crisis, one way or another, affected the position of the Church. One of the most difficult times in the history of Russia - the Time of Troubles - naturally also could not but affect its position. The ferment in the minds caused by the Time of Troubles led to a split in society, which ended in a split in the Church.
It is well known that the schism of the Russian Church in the middle of the 17th century, which divided the Great Russian population into two antagonistic groups, Old Believers and New Believers, was perhaps one of the most tragic events in Russian history, and undoubtedly the most tragic event in the history of the Russian Church - was caused not by dogmatic differences, but by semiotic and philological differences. It can be said that the basis of the schism is a cultural conflict, but it is necessary to make a reservation that cultural - in particular, semiotic and philological - disagreements were perceived, in essence, as theological disagreements.
Events related to Nikon's church reform are traditionally given great importance in historiography.

At turning points in Russian history, it is customary to look for the roots of what is happening in its distant past. Therefore, turning to such periods as the period of church schism seems especially important and relevant.

Causes and essence of the Schism

In the middle of the 17th century, a reorientation began in the relationship between church and state. Researchers assess its causes differently. IN historical literature The prevailing point of view is that the process of 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 place spiritual power above secular power. Church historians deny this position of the patriarch, considering Nikon 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.
The Orthodox schism became one of the leading events in Russian history. The schism of the 17th century was caused by the difficult times of the time and imperfect views. The great turmoil that covered the state at that time became one of the reasons for the church schism.
The church schism of the 17th century influenced both the worldview and cultural values of the people.

In 1653-1656, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and the patriarchate of Nikon, a church reform was carried out aimed at unifying religious rituals and 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 Left Bank Ukraine (and Kiev) with Russia in 1654. Before 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 rituals and establish uniformity in church services. Greek rules and rituals were taken as a model.
Church reform, in fact, had a very limited character. However, these minor changes produced a shock in the public consciousness and were received extremely hostilely by a significant part of the peasants, artisans, merchants, Cossacks, archers, lower and middle clergy, as well as some aristocrats.
All these events became the causes of the church schism. The Church split into Nikonians (church hierarchy and most of believers accustomed to obey) and Old Believers, who initially called themselves Old Lovers; supporters of the reform called them schismatics.
The Old Believers did not disagree with the Orthodox Church in any dogma (the main tenet of the doctrine), but only in some rituals that Nikon abolished, therefore they were not heretics, but schismatics. Having met resistance, the government began repressing the “old lovers.”

The Holy Council of 1666-1667, having approved the results of 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 excommunicated them. In 1674, the Old Believers decided to stop praying for the Tsar’s health. This meant a complete break between the Old Believers and 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 in the Orthodox Church was a consequence of the difficult times that the great power was going through. The Time of Troubles could not but affect the situation in Russia and the history of the schism of the church.
At first glance, it may seem that the reasons for the split lie only at the basis of Nikon’s reform, but this is not so. Thus, just emerging from the time of troubles, before the beginning of the history of the split, Russia was still experiencing rebellious sentiments, which was one of the reasons for the split. There were other reasons for Nikon’s church schism that led to protests: the Roman Empire ceased to be united, and the current political situation also influenced the emergence of an Orthodox schism in the future.
The reform, which became one of the causes of the church schism of the 17th century, had the following principles:
1. The reasons for the church schism arose, in particular, due to the ban on Old Believer books and the introduction of new ones. So, in the latter, instead of the word “Jesus” they began to write “Jesus”. Of course, these innovations did not become the main help for the emergence of Nikon’s church schism, but together with other factors they became provocateurs of the church schism of the 17th century.
2. The reason for the schism was the replacement of the 2-finger cross with the 3-finger cross. The reasons for the split were also provoked by the replacement of knee bows with waist bows.
3. The history of the schism had another help: for example, religious processions began to be held in the opposite direction. This little thing, along with others, pushed the beginning of the Orthodox schism.
Thus, the prerequisite for the emergence of Nikon’s church schism was not only reform, but also unrest and the political situation. The history of the split had serious consequences for people.

Nikon's reforms and the Old Believers

The essence of the official reform was to establish uniformity in liturgical rites. Until July 1652, that is, before Nikon was elected to the patriarchal throne (Patriarch Joseph died on April 15, 1652), the situation in the church and ritual sphere remained uncertain. Archpriests and priests from the zealots of piety and Metropolitan Nikon in Novgorod, regardless of the decision of the church council of 1649 on moderate “multiharmony,” sought to perform a “unanimous” service. On the contrary, the parish clergy, reflecting the sentiments of the parishioners, did not comply with the decision of the church council of 1651 on “unanimity”, and therefore “multivocal” 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 rituals, bowing and making the sign of the cross. In the memory of March 14, 1653, sent to churches, it was said that from now on believers “it is not appropriate to do throwing on the knee in church, but bow to the waist, and cross yourself with three fingers naturally” (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 bowing and signing caused bewilderment and dissatisfaction among believers. This dissatisfaction was openly expressed by 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 institutions of the Russian Church and, to substantiate their case, cited in it “extracts from books about folding fingers and bowing.” They submitted the petition to Tsar Alexei, but the Tsar handed it over to Nikon. The patriarch's order was also condemned by archpriests Ivan Neronov, Lazar and Loggin and deacon Fyodor Ivanov. Nikon decisively 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 were supported by the “universal” Orthodox Church. This was the nature of, in particular, the decisions on the procedure for corrections in church rites and rituals, approved by the church council in the spring of 1654.

Changes in rituals were carried out on the basis of Greek books contemporary to Nikon and the practice of the Church of Constantinople, information about which the reformer received mainly from the Antiochian Patriarch Macarius. Decisions on changes of a ritual nature were approved by church councils convened in March 1655 and April 1656.

In 1653 - 1656 The liturgical books were also corrected. For this purpose it was collected a large number of Greek and Slavic books, including ancient manuscripts. Due to the presence of discrepancies in the texts of the collected books, the printers of the Printing House (with the knowledge of Nikon) took as a basis the text, which was a translation into Church Slavonic of a Greek service book of the 17th century, which, in turn, went back to the text of liturgical books of the 12th - 15th centuries. and largely repeated it. 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), some psalms became shorter, others became fuller, new words and expressions appeared; triple “hallelujah” (instead of double), writing the name of Christ Jesus (instead of Jesus), etc.

The new missal was approved by the church council in 1656 and was soon published. But the correction of its text in the indicated way continued after 1656, and therefore the text of the service books published in 1658 and 1665 did not completely 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. The listed measures determined the content of the church reform of Patriarch Nikon.

Consequences and significance of church schism

Split and clearance Old Believer Church were 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 cities, the growth of religious indifference continued, due to socio-economic development, the increasing importance in people's lives of worldly needs and interests at the expense of church-religious ones. Misses from church services and violations of other duties established by the church for believers (refusal of fasting, 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 various social circles relied on the principle of the inviolability of orders and customs that were bequeathed by 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 sacred!” 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 innovation was not the results of further progress of human culture, which went beyond the culture of the Middle Ages, but the same transformable elements of medieval “antiques”.

The new could only be established as a result of the rejection of the intolerance instilled by the church towards “changes in customs”, towards innovations, especially towards the borrowing of cultural values created by other peoples.”

Signs of something 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 relate to the general ideological foundations of medieval thinking, which was based on theology, then in the development of specific problems public life they were going far ahead. The foundations have been laid political ideology absolutism, the need for broad reforms was realized, and a program for these reforms was outlined.

In the spotlight of thinkers of the 17th century. questions of economic life came to the fore more and more. The growth of cities, the merchant class, and the development of commodity-money relations brought forward new problems that were discussed by a number of public figures that time. In the very measures of government policy, carried out by such figures as B.I. Morozov or A.S. Matveev, an understanding of the growing role of monetary circulation in the country’s economy is clearly visible (14, p. 44).

One of the most interesting monuments socio-political thought of the second half of the 17th century. are the works of Yuri Krizanich, a Croatian by origin, who worked in Russia on correcting liturgical books. On suspicion of activities in favor of 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 reforms in Russia as a necessary condition for its further development and prosperity. Krizanich considered it necessary to develop trade and industry and change the order of government. Being a supporter of wise autocracy, Krizanich condemned despotic methods of government. Plans for reforms in Russia were developed by Krizhanich in inextricable connection with his ardent interest in the destinies of the Slavic peoples. He saw their way out of their difficult situation in their unification under the leadership of Russia, but a necessary condition the unity of the Slavs, Krizhanich considered the elimination of religious differences by converting them, including Russia, to Catholicism (7).

In society, especially among the metropolitan nobility and townspeople of large cities, interest in secular knowledge and freedom of thought increased noticeably, 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 layer of society, though narrow at that time, was no longer satisfied with reading religious literature alone, in which the main ones were the Holy Scriptures (the Bible) and liturgical books. In this circle, handwritten literature of secular content, translated and original Russian, is becoming widespread. Entertaining artistic narratives, satirical works, including criticism of church orders, and works of historical content were in great demand.

Various works appeared that sharply criticized the church and clergy. It became widespread in the first half of the 17th century. “The Tale of the Hen and the Fox,” which depicted the hypocrisy and money-grubbing of the clergy. Wanting to catch a chicken, the fox denounces the chicken’s “sins” with the words of “sacred scripture”, and having caught it, sheds the guise of piety and declares: “And now I myself am hungry, I want to eat you, so that I can be healthy from you.” “And thus the belly of the chickens died,” concludes “The Legend” (3, p. 161).

Never before have attacks on the church reached such distribution as in the literature of the 17th century, and this circumstance is very indicative of the beginning 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 so far limited to exposing the unseemly behavior of the clergy that outraged the people. But this satire debunked the aura of “holiness” of the church itself.

In court circles there was increased interest in Polish language, literature in this language, Polish customs and fashion. The spread of the latter is evidenced, in particular, by the decree of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1675, which ordered that the nobles of the capital’s ranks (stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles and tenants) “not adopt foreign German and other customs, and do not cut the hair on their heads , and they also didn’t wear dresses, caftans and hats from foreign samples, and that’s why they didn’t tell their people to wear them.”

The tsarist government actively supported the church in the fight against schism and heterodoxy and used the full power of the state apparatus. She also initiated new measures aimed at improving the church organization and its further centralization. But the attitude of the royal authorities to secular knowledge, rapprochement with the West and foreigners was different from that of the clergy. This discrepancy gave rise to new conflicts, which also revealed the desire of the church leadership to impose its decisions secular power.

Thus, the events that followed the reform of church government in the second half of the 17th century showed that, while defending its political interests, church power turned into a serious obstacle to progress. It hindered Russia's rapprochement with Western countries, the assimilation of their experience and the implementation of necessary changes. Under the slogan of protecting Orthodoxy and its strength, 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 in the bureaucratic system of an absolute monarchy was put on the agenda.

Conclusion

The schism of the last third of the seventeenth century was a major social and religious movement. But the hostility of the schismatics to the official church and the state was by no means determined by differences of a religious and ritual nature.
It was determined by the progressive aspects of this movement, its social composition and character.

The ideology of the split reflected the aspirations of the peasantry and partly the townspeople, and it had both conservative and progressive features.

Conservative features include: idealization and protection of antiquity; preaching national isolation; hostile attitude towards the dissemination of secular knowledge; propaganda of accepting the crown of martyrdom in the name of the “old faith” as the only way to save the soul;

The progressive sides of the ideological split include: sanctification, that is, religious justification and justification various forms resistance to the authority of the official church; exposure repressive policies royal and church authorities in relation to Old Believers and other believers who did not recognize the official church; assessment of these repressive policies as actions contrary to Christian doctrine.

These features of the movement’s ideology and the predominance of peasants and townspeople who suffered from feudal-serf oppression among its participants gave the split the character of a social, essentially anti-serfdom movement, which was revealed by popular uprisings in 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 Russia's rapprochement with Western countries. Learning from their experience and making the necessary changes. Under the slogan of protecting Orthodoxy, the 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 issue of complete subordination of church authority and its transformation into one of the links in the bureaucratic system of an absolute monarchy was put on the agenda.

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 16th century. a uniform all-Russian code of saints was established. However, significant discrepancies remained in the liturgical books, often caused by copyist errors. Eliminating these differences became one of the goals of the system created in the 40s. XVII century in Moscow, a circle of “zealots of ancient piety”, consisting of prominent representatives of the clergy. He also sought to correct the morals of the clergy.

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

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

Patriarch Nikon

Nikon comes from the family of the Mordovian peasant Mina, in the world - Nikita Minin. He became Patriarch in 1652. Nikon, distinguished by his unyielding, decisive character, had a colossal influence on Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his “sobi (special) friend.”

The most important ritual changes were: baptism not with two, but with three fingers, replacement of prostrations with waist ones, singing “Hallelujah” three times instead of twice, the movement of believers in the church past the altar not with the sun, but against it. The name of Christ began to be written differently - “Jesus” instead of “Iesus”. Some changes were made to the rules of worship and icon painting. All books and icons written according to old models were subject to destruction.

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

The emergence of a schism

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

The most prominent supporter of the schism was Archpriest Avvakum, a talented publicist and preacher. A former court priest, a member of the circle of “zealots of ancient piety,” he experienced severe exile, suffering, and the death of children, but did not give up his fanatical opposition to “Nikonianism” and its defender, the tsar. After 14 years of imprisonment in an “earth prison,” Avvakum was burned alive for “blasphemy against the royal house.” The most famous work of historical ritual literature was the “Life” of Avvakum, written by himself.

Old Believers

The Church Council of 1666/1667 cursed the Old Believers. Brutal persecution of schismatics began. Supporters of the split hid in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, Trans-Volga region, and the Urals. Here they created hermitages, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, when the tsarist punitive detachments approached, they staged a “burn” - self-immolation.

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

Among the schismatics there were many clergy. For an ordinary priest, innovations meant that he had lived his entire life incorrectly. In addition, many clergy were illiterate and unprepared to master new books and customs. The townspeople and merchants also widely participated in the schism. Nikon had long been in conflict with the settlements, objecting to the liquidation of the “white settlements” belonging to the church. The monasteries and the patriarchal see were engaged in trade and crafts, which irritated the merchants, who believed that the clergy was illegally invading their sphere of activity. Therefore, the posad readily perceived everything that came from the patriarch as evil.

Naturally, subjectively, each Old Believer saw the reasons for his departure into schism solely in his rejection of the “Nikon heresy.”

There were no bishops among the schismatics. There was no one to ordain new priests. In this situation, some of the Old Believers resorted to “rebaptizing” the Nikonian priests who had gone into schism, while others abandoned the clergy altogether. The community of such schismatics - “non-priests” - was led by “mentors” or “readers” - the most knowledgeable believers in the Scriptures. Outwardly, the “non-priest” trend in the schism resembled Protestantism. However, this similarity is illusory. Protestants rejected the priesthood on principle, believing that a person does not need an intermediary in communication with God. The schismatics rejected the priesthood and the church hierarchy forcibly, in a random situation.

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

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

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 renounce the rank of patriarch, and did not want to be patriarch only “in Moscow.”

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

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

The question of the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities was one of the most important in political life Russian state XV-XVII centuries. In the 16th century The dominant Josephite trend in the Russian church abandoned the thesis of the superiority of church power over secular power. After Ivan the Terrible's reprisal against Metropolitan Philip, the subordination of the church to the state seemed final. However, the situation changed during the Time of Troubles. The authority of the royal power was shaken due to the abundance of impostors and a series of perjuries. The authority of the church, thanks to Patriarch Hermogenes, who led the spiritual resistance to the Poles and suffered martyrdom from them, becoming the most important unifying force, increased. The political role of the church increased even more under Patriarch Filaret, the father of Tsar Michael.

The schism in the Russian Orthodox Church occurred for the following reasons:

The need for church reform in the middle of the 17th century. from the point of view of establishing uniformity of worship.

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

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

· Conservative nature of the ideology of schism.

The confrontation between Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich is the last open conflict between the church and state authorities, after which we are talking only about the degree of subordination of the church to secular authorities.

Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action

Nothing amazes as much as a miracle, except the naivety 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 organized 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 errors 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 through 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 all of Russia.

Prerequisites for reform

According to the assurances of many historians who study the 17th century, a unique situation arose in Russia at that time, when religious rites in the country were very different from those around the world, including from Greek rites, from where Christianity came to Rus'. In addition, it is often said that religious texts, as well as icons, have been distorted. Therefore, the following phenomena can be identified as the main reasons for the church schism in Russia:

Books that were copied by hand over centuries had typos 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 rituals 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, the clerk, the singers, and the parishioners. As a result, a polyphony was formed, in which it was difficult to make out anything.

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 entrusted with carrying out reform in Russia. The choice was, to put it mildly, quite 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 in the world under the name Nikita Minov. He was born and raised in a simple peasant family. From the very early years 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 future fate of Nikita Minov.

Patriarch Nikon, as many historians note, was distinguished not so much by his knowledge as by his cruelty and authority. He was literally delirious with 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 shows 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 patriarchy. These were precisely the qualities that were needed to carry out 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 with it fundamental changes in religion, which were expressed in the following:

Baptism with three fingers instead of two.
Bows should have been made to the waist, and not to the ground, as was the case before.
Changes have been made to religious books and icons.
The concept of "Orthodoxy" was introduced.
The name of God has been changed in accordance with the global spelling.
Church schism (17th century)

Now instead of "Isus" it was written "Jesus".
Replacement of the Christian cross. Patriarch Nikon proposed replacing it with a four-pointed cross.
Changes in church service rituals. Now the procession of the Cross was performed not clockwise, as 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 undertake any cardinal reform activities, but this was not the case... The reforms were cardinal. They crossed out everything that came before. It is no coincidence that these reforms are also called the church schism of the Russian church. The very word “schism” indicates dramatic changes.

Let's look at individual provisions of the reform in more detail. This will allow us 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 charters in Greece:

Studio. Main Charter christian church. For many years it was considered the main one in the Greek church, which is why it was the Studite charter that came to Rus'. For 7 centuries, the Russian Church in all religious matters was guided by precisely 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, became the main one in Greece, and it also became the main one in other Christian countries.

The process of rewriting Russian texts is also indicative. The plan was to take Greek sources and harmonize religious scriptures on their basis. For this purpose, Arseny Sukhanov was sent to Greece in 1653. 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 priests then spoke out in favor of the idea of supporting Nikon's reform only on the grounds that the rewriting of texts should have occurred exclusively from Greek handwritten sources.

Arseny Sukhanov brought only seven sources, thereby 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 using modern Greek and Roman books. At that time, all these books were published in Paris (a 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 have difficulty understanding what the fundamental difference is between orthodox beliefs and enlightened ones. What's the difference really? First, let's understand the terminology and define the meaning of the concept “orthodox.”

Orthodox (orthodox) came from 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 reference book

Here, the correct opinion does not mean the modern sense (when this is what people are called who do everything to please the state). This was the name given to people who carried ancient science and ancient knowledge for centuries. A striking example is the Jewish school. Everyone knows very 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 conveyed their true faith in its ancient, true meaning. And everyone admits this.

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 exactly what he planned to do and successfully did, lie in the destruction of the ancient religion. And by and large it was done:

All ancient religious texts were rewritten. Old books were not treated on ceremony; 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 the burning, more than 650 kg of copper fasteners were recovered from the fires!
The icons were rewritten 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 great discontent as people began to consider the new religion to be a religion of darkness.
Replacement of concepts. The term “Orthodoxy” appeared for the first time. Until the 17th century, this term was not used, but concepts such as “true believer”, “true faith”, “immaculate faith”, “Christian faith”, “God’s faith” were used. Various terms, but not “Orthodoxy”.

Therefore, we can say that orthodox religion is as close as possible to the ancient postulates. That is why any attempts to radically change these views leads to mass indignation, as well as to what today is commonly called heresy. It was heresy that many people called the reforms of Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century. That is why a split in the church occurred, since “orthodox” priests and religious people called what was happening heresy, and saw how fundamental the difference was between the old and new religions.

People's reaction to church schism

The reaction to Nikon's reform is extremely revealing, emphasizing that the changes were much deeper than is commonly said. It is known for certain that after the implementation of the reform began, massive popular uprisings took place throughout the country, directed against changes in the church structure. 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 this happened many times. The reaction of the state, which actually organized the Inquisition, is indicative. Not only books burned, but also people. Nikon, who was particularly cruel, personally welcomed all reprisals against the rebels. Thousands of people died opposing the reform ideas of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The reaction of the people and the state to the reform is indicative. We can say that mass unrest has begun. Now answer a simple question: are such uprisings and reprisals possible in the event 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 you need to cross yourself, for example, with four fingers, bows should be made with a nod of the head, and books should be changed in accordance with the ancient scriptures. How will people perceive this? Most likely, neutral, and with certain propaganda even positive.

Another situation. Suppose that the Moscow Patriarch today obliges everyone to make the sign of the cross with four fingers, to use nods instead of bows, to wear a Catholic cross instead of an Orthodox one, to hand over all the icon books so that they can be rewritten and redrawn, the name of God will now be, for example, “Jesus,” and the religious procession will continue for example an arc. This type of reform will certainly lead to an uprising of religious people. Everything changes, the whole century is crossed out religious history. This is exactly what the Nikon reform did. This is why 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 ancient religion Rus', but he did what the tsar wanted - bringing the Russian church into line with international religion. And there were both pros and cons:

Pros. Russian religion ceased to be isolated, and began to be more like Greek and Roman. This made it possible to create greater religious ties with other states.
Minuses. Religion in Russia at the time of the 17th century was most oriented towards primitive 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 exactly what most authors are doing, including the principle “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 reasons for the schism

RUSSIAN SCHISM IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. CHURCH AND STATE IN THE 17TH CENTURY

1. Reasons for church reform

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

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

2. Patriarch Nikon

Nikon comes from the family of the Mordovian peasant Mina, in the world - Nikita Minin. He became Patriarch in 1652. Nikon, distinguished by his unyielding, decisive character, had enormous influence on Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his “sobin (special) friend.”

4. Reaction to reform

5. The emergence of a schism

6. Old Believers

The Church Council of 1666/1667 cursed the Old Believers. Brutal persecution of schismatics began. Supporters of the split hid in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, Trans-Volga region, and the Urals. Here they created hermitages, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, when the royal punitive detachments approached, they staged a “burn” - self-immolation.

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

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

The bulk of the schismatics were peasants, who went to monasteries not only for the right faith, but also for freedom, from lordly and monastic exactions.

Naturally, subjectively, each Old Believer saw the reasons for his departure into schism solely in his rejection of the “Nikon heresy.”

There were no bishops among the schismatics. There was no one to ordain new priests. In this situation, some of the Old Believers resorted to “rebaptizing” the Nikonian priests who had gone into schism, while others abandoned the clergy altogether. The community of such schismatic “non-priests” was led by “mentors” or “readers” - the most knowledgeable believers in the Scriptures. Outwardly, the “non-priest” trend in the schism resembled Protestantism. However, this similarity is illusory. Protestants rejected the priesthood on principle, believing that a person does not need an intermediary in communication with God. The schismatics rejected the priesthood and the church hierarchy forcibly, in a random situation.

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

7. Conflict between the church and secular authorities. Fall of Nikon

The question of the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities was one of the most important in the political life of the Russian state in the 15th-17th centuries. The struggle between the Josephites and non-covetous people was closely connected with it. In the 16th century The dominant Josephite trend in the Russian church abandoned the thesis of the superiority of church power over secular power. After Ivan the Terrible's reprisal against Metropolitan Philip, the subordination of the church to the state seemed final. However, the situation changed during the Time of Troubles. The authority of the royal power was shaken due to the abundance of impostors and a series of perjuries. The authority of the church, thanks to Patriarch Hermogenes, who led the spiritual resistance to the Poles and suffered martyrdom from them, becoming the most important unifying force, increased. The political role of the church increased even more under Patriarch Filaret, the father of Tsar Michael.

Gradually, Alexey Mikhailovich began to feel burdened by the power of the patriarch. In 1658 there was a break between them. The Tsar demanded that Nikon should no longer be called the Great Sovereign. Then Nikon declared that he did not want to be a patriarch “in Moscow” and left for the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery on the river. Istra. He hoped that the king would yield, but he was mistaken. On the contrary, the patriarch was required to resign so that a new head of the church could be elected. Nikon replied that he did not renounce the rank of patriarch, and did not want to be patriarch only “in Moscow.”

Neither the tsar nor the church council could remove the patriarch.

Church schism in Russia in the 17th century. We wanted the best...

Only in 1666 a church council was held in Moscow with the participation of two ecumenical patriarchs - Antioch and Alexandria. The council supported the tsar and deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank. Nikon was imprisoned in a monastery prison, where he died in 1681.

Download abstract

Mysteries of history

Split of the Russian Orthodox Church

The 17th century was a turning point for Russia. It is noteworthy not only for its political, but also for its church reforms. As a result of this, “Bright Rus'” became a thing of the past, and it was replaced by a completely different power, in which there was no longer a unity of people’s worldview and behavior.

The spiritual basis of the state was the church. Back in the 15th and 16th centuries there were conflicts between the non-covetous people and the Josephites. In the 17th century, intellectual disagreements continued and resulted in a split in the Russian Orthodox Church. This was due to a number of reasons.

Origins of the schism

During the Time of Troubles, the church was unable to fulfill the role of “spiritual doctor” and guardian of the moral health of the Russian people. Therefore, after the end of the Time of Troubles, church reform became a pressing issue. The priests took charge of carrying it out. This is Archpriest Ivan Neronov, Stefan Vonifatiev, the confessor of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and Archpriest Avvakum.

These people acted in two directions. The first is oral preaching and work among the flock, that is, closing taverns, organizing orphanages and creating almshouses. The second is the correction of rituals and liturgical books.

There was a very pressing question about polyphony. In church churches, in order to save time, simultaneous services to various holidays and saints were practiced. For centuries, no one criticized this. But after troubled times, they began to look at polyphony differently. It was named among the main reasons for the spiritual degradation of society. This negative thing needed to be corrected, and it was corrected. triumphed in all the temples unanimity.

But the conflict situation did not disappear after that, but only worsened. The essence of the problem was the difference between the Moscow and Greek rites. And this concerned, first of all, digitized. The Greeks were baptized with three fingers, and the Great Russians - with two. This difference resulted in a dispute about historical correctness.

The question was raised about the legality of the Russian church rite. It included: two fingers, worship on seven prosphoras, an eight-pointed cross, walking in the sun (in the sun), a special “hallelujah,” etc. Some clergy began to argue that the liturgical books were distorted as a result of ignorant copyists.

Subsequently, the most authoritative historian of the Russian Orthodox Church, Evgeniy Evsigneevich Golubinsky (1834-1912), proved that the Russians did not distort the ritual at all. Under Prince Vladimir in Kyiv they were baptized with two fingers. That is, exactly the same as in Moscow until the middle of the 17th century.

The point was that when Rus' adopted Christianity, there were two charters in Byzantium: Jerusalem And Studio. In terms of ritual, they differed. East Slavs accepted and observed the Jerusalem Rule. As for the Greeks and other Orthodox peoples, as well as the Little Russians, they observed the Studite Charter.

However, it should be noted here that rituals are not dogmas at all. Those are holy and indestructible, but rituals can change. And in Rus' this happened several times, and there were no shocks. For example, in 1551, under Metropolitan Cyprian, the Council of the Hundred Heads obliged the residents of Pskov, who practiced three-fingered, to return to two-fingered. This did not lead to any conflicts.

But you need to understand that the middle of the 17th century was radically different from the middle of the 16th century. People who went through the oprichnina and the Time of Troubles became different. The country faced three choices. The path of Habakkuk is isolationism. Nikon's path is the creation of a theocratic Orthodox empire. Peter's path was to join the European powers with the subordination of the church to the state.

The problem was aggravated by the annexation of Ukraine to Russia. Now we had to think about the uniformity of church rites. Kyiv monks appeared in Moscow. The most notable of them was Epiphany Slavinetsky. Ukrainian guests began to insist on correcting church books and services in accordance with their ideas.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon
The schism of the Russian Orthodox Church is inextricably linked with these two people

Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

The fundamental role in the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church was played by Patriarch Nikon (1605-1681) and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1629-1676). As for Nikon, he was an extremely vain and power-hungry person. He came from Mordovian peasants, and in the world he bore the name Nikita Minich. He made a dizzying career, and became famous for his strong character and excessive severity. It was more characteristic of a secular ruler than a church hierarch.

Nikon was not satisfied with his enormous influence on the Tsar and the boyars. He was guided by the principle that "God's things are higher than the king's." Therefore, he aimed at undivided dominance and power equal to that of the king. The situation was favorable to him. Patriarch Joseph died in 1652. The question of electing a new patriarch arose urgently, because without the patriarchal blessing it was impossible to hold any state or church event in Moscow.

Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich was an extremely pious and pious man, so he was primarily interested in the speedy election of a new patriarch. He precisely wanted to see Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod in this position, since he valued and respected him extremely.

The king's desire was supported by many boyars, as well as the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch. All this was well known to Nikon, but he strived for absolute power, and therefore resorted to pressure.

The day of the procedure for becoming a patriarch has arrived. The Tsar was also present. But at the very last moment Nikon announced that he refused to accept signs of patriarchal dignity. This caused a commotion among everyone present. The tsar himself knelt down and with tears in his eyes began to ask the wayward clergyman not to renounce his rank.

Then Nikon set the conditions. He demanded that they honor him as a father and archpastor and let him organize the Church at his own discretion. The king gave his word and consent. All the boyars supported him. Only then did the newly-crowned patriarch pick up the symbol of patriarchal power - the staff of the Russian Metropolitan Peter, who was the first to live in Moscow.

Alexei Mikhailovich fulfilled all his promises, and Nikon concentrated enormous power in his hands. In 1652 he even received the title of "Great Sovereign". The new patriarch began to rule harshly. This forced the king to ask him in letters to be softer and more tolerant towards people.

Church reform and its main reason

With the coming to power of a new Orthodox ruler in the church rite, at first everything remained as before. Vladyka himself crossed himself with two fingers and was a supporter of unanimity. But he began to often talk with Epiphany Slavinetsky. After a very short time, he managed to convince Nikon that it was still necessary to change the church ritual.

IN Lent In 1653 a special “memory” was published, in which the flock was attributed to adopt triplicate. Supporters of Neronov and Vonifatiev opposed this and were exiled. The rest were warned that if they crossed themselves with two fingers during prayers, they would be subjected to church damnation. In 1556, a church council officially confirmed this order. After this, the paths of the patriarch and his former comrades diverged completely and irrevocably.

This is how a split occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church. Supporters of the “ancient piety” found themselves in opposition to official church policy, while the church reform itself was entrusted to the Ukrainian by nationality Epiphanius Slavinetsky and the Greek Arseniy.

Why did Nikon follow the lead of the Ukrainian monks? But it is much more interesting why the king, the cathedral and many parishioners also supported the innovations? The answers to these questions are relatively simple.

The Old Believers, as the opponents of innovation came to be called, advocated the superiority of local Orthodoxy. It developed and prevailed in North-Eastern Rus' over the traditions of universal Greek Orthodoxy. In essence, “ancient piety” was a platform for narrow Moscow nationalism.

Among the Old Believers, the prevailing opinion was that the Orthodoxy of Serbs, Greeks and Ukrainians was inferior. These peoples were seen as victims of error. And God punished them for this, placing them under the rule of the Gentiles.

But this worldview did not inspire sympathy among anyone and discouraged any desire to unite with Moscow. That is why Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich, seeking to expand their power, sided with the Greek version of Orthodoxy. That is Russian Orthodoxy took on a universal character, which contributed to the expansion of state borders and the strengthening of power.

Decline of the career of Patriarch Nikon

The excessive lust for power of the Orthodox ruler was the reason for his downfall. Nikon had many enemies among the boyars. They tried with all their might to turn the king against him. In the end, they succeeded. And it all started with little things.

In 1658, during one of the holidays, the tsar's guard hit the patriarch's man with a stick, paving the way for the tsar through a crowd of people. The one who received the blow was indignant and called himself “the patriarch’s boyar son.” But then he received another blow to the forehead with a stick.

Nikon was informed about what had happened, and he became indignant. He wrote an angry letter to the king, in which he demanded a thorough investigation of this incident and punishment of the guilty boyar. However, no one started an investigation, and the culprit was never punished. It became clear to everyone that the king’s attitude towards the ruler had changed for the worse.

Then the patriarch decided to resort to a proven method. After mass in the Assumption Cathedral, he took off his patriarchal vestments and announced that he was leaving the patriarchal place and going to live permanently in the Resurrection Monastery. It was located near Moscow and was called New Jerusalem. The people tried to dissuade the bishop, but he was adamant. Then they unharnessed the horses from the carriage, but Nikon did not change his decision and left Moscow on foot.

New Jerusalem Monastery
Patriarch Nikon spent several years there until the patriarchal court, at which he was deposed

The throne of the patriarch remained empty. The Bishop believed that the sovereign would be afraid, but he did not appear in New Jerusalem. On the contrary, Alexey Mikhailovich tried to get the wayward ruler to finally renounce patriarchal power and return all regalia so that a new spiritual leader could be legally elected. And Nikon told everyone that he could return to the patriarchal throne at any moment. This confrontation continued for several years.

The situation was absolutely unacceptable, and Alexey Mikhailovich turned to the ecumenical patriarchs. However, they had to wait a long time for their arrival. Only in 1666 did two of the four patriarchs arrive in the capital. These are Alexandrian and Antiochian, but they had powers from their other two colleagues.

Nikon really did not want to appear before the patriarchal court. But still he was forced to do it. As a result, the wayward ruler was deprived of his high rank.

Church schism of the 17th century in Rus' and the Old Believers. Brief historical background

But the long conflict did not change the situation with the split of the Russian Orthodox Church. The same council of 1666-1667 officially approved all church reforms that were carried out under the leadership of Nikon. True, he himself turned into a simple monk. They exiled him to a distant northern monastery, from where the man of God watched the triumph of his politics.

Mikhail Starikov

The spiritual basis of the state was the church. Even in the 15th and 16th centuries, there were conflicts between non-covetous people and the Josephites. In the 17th century, intellectual disagreements continued and resulted in a split in the Russian Orthodox Church. This was due to a number of reasons.

Black Cathedral. The uprising of the Solovetsky monastery against newly printed books in 1666 (S. Miloradovich, 1885)

Origins of the schism

The point was that when Rus' adopted Christianity, there were two charters in Byzantium: Jerusalem And Studio. In terms of ritual, they differed. The Eastern Slavs accepted and observed the Jerusalem Charter. As for the Greeks and other Orthodox peoples, as well as the Little Russians, they observed the Studite Charter.

Mashkov Igor Gennadievich. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon

The schism of the Russian Orthodox Church is inextricably linked with these two people

Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

Church reform and its main reason

During Lent of 1653 a special “memory” was published, in which the flock was attributed to adopt triplicate. Supporters of Neronov and Vonifatiev opposed this and were exiled. The rest were warned that if they crossed themselves with two fingers during prayers, they would be subjected to church damnation. In 1556, a church council officially confirmed this order. After this, the paths of the patriarch and his former comrades diverged completely and irrevocably.

But this worldview did not inspire sympathy among anyone and discouraged any desire to unite with Moscow. That is why Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich, seeking to expand their power, sided with the Greek version of Orthodoxy. That is, Russian Orthodoxy took on a universal character, which contributed to the expansion of state borders and the strengthening of power.

Decline of the career of Patriarch Nikon

New Jerusalem Monastery
Patriarch Nikon spent several years there until the patriarchal court, at which he was deposed

Nikon really did not want to appear before the patriarchal court. But still he was forced to do it. As a result, the wayward ruler was deprived of his high rank. But the long conflict did not change the situation with the split of the Russian Orthodox Church. The same council of 1666-1667 officially approved all church reforms that were carried out under the leadership of Nikon. True, he himself turned into a simple monk. They exiled him to a distant northern monastery, from where the man of God watched the triumph of his politics.

The religious and political movement of the 17th century, which resulted in the separation from the Russian Orthodox Church of a part of the believers who did not accept the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, was called a schism.

The reason for the schism was the correction of church books. The need for such a correction has been felt for a long time, since many opinions were included in the books that disagreed with the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

The members of the Circle of Zealots of Piety, which was formed in the late 1640s and early 1650s and existed until 1652, advocated for the elimination of discrepancies and correction of liturgical books, as well as the elimination of local differences in church practice. The rector of the Kazan Cathedral, Archpriest Ivan Neronov, Archpriests Avvakum, Loggin, Lazar believed that the Russian Church had preserved ancient piety, and proposed unification based on ancient Russian liturgical books. The confessor of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Stefan Vonifatiev, the nobleman Fyodor Rtishchev, who were later joined by Archimandrite Nikon (later the patriarch), advocated following Greek liturgical models and strengthening their ties with the Eastern Autocephalous Orthodox Churches.

In 1652, Metropolitan Nikon was elected patriarch. He entered into the administration of the Russian Church with the determination to restore its full harmony with the Greek Church, destroying all the ritual features by which the former differed from the latter. The first step of Patriarch Nikon on the path of liturgical reform, taken immediately after assuming 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. Having discovered discrepancies between them (as well as between the Service Book and other books), Patriarch Nikon decided to begin correcting the books and rites. Conscious of his “duty” to abolish all liturgical and ritual differences with the Greek Church, Patriarch Nikon began to correct Russian liturgical books and church rituals according to Greek models.

About six months after his accession to the patriarchal throne, on February 11, 1653, Patriarch Nikon indicated that in the publication of the Followed Psalter the chapters on the number of bows in prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian and on the two-fingered sign of the cross should be omitted. 10 days later, at the beginning of Lent in 1653, the Patriarch sent out a “Memory” to Moscow churches about replacing part of the prostrations at the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian with waist ones and about using the three-fingered sign of the cross instead of the two-fingered one. It was this decree on how many prostrations should be made when reading the Lenten prayer of Ephraim the Syrian (four instead of 16), as well as the order to be baptized with three fingers instead of two, that caused a huge protest among believers against such a liturgical reform, which over time developed into a church schism.

Also during the reform, the liturgical tradition was changed in the following points:

Large-scale “bookishness on the right”, expressed in the editing of the texts of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, which led to changes even in the wording of the Creed - the conjunction-opposition was removed "A" in the words about faith in the Son of God “begotten, not made”, they began to talk about the Kingdom of God in the future ("there will be no end"), and not in the present tense ( "no end"). In the eighth member of the Creed (“In the Holy Spirit of the true Lord”) the word is excluded from the definition of the properties of the Holy Spirit "True". Many other innovations were also introduced into historical liturgical texts, for example, by analogy with Greek texts in the name "Jesus" in newly printed books one more letter was added and it began to be written "Jesus".

At the service, instead of singing “Hallelujah” twice (extreme hallelujah), it was ordered to sing three times (three times). Instead of circling the temple during baptism and weddings in the direction of the sun, circling against the sun was introduced, rather than with salting. Instead of seven prosphoras, the liturgy began to be served with five. Instead of the eight-pointed cross, they began to use four-pointed and six-pointed ones.

In addition, the subject of criticism of Patriarch Nikon was Russian icon painters, who deviated from Greek models in the writing of icons and used the techniques of Catholic painters. Next, the patriarch introduced polyphonic partes singing instead of the ancient monophonic singing, as well as the custom of delivering sermons in church own composition- V ancient Rus' They saw such sermons as a sign of conceit. Nikon himself loved and knew how to pronounce his own teachings.

The reforms of Patriarch Nikon weakened both the Church and the state. Seeing what resistance the attempted correction of church rites and liturgical books encountered from zealots and their like-minded people, Nikon decided to give this correction the authority of the highest spiritual authority, i.e. cathedral Nikon's innovations were approved by the Church Councils of 1654-1655. Only one of the members of the Council, Bishop Pavel of Kolomna, tried to express disagreement with the decree on bowing, the same decree that the zealous archpriests had already objected to. Nikon treated Paul not only harshly, but very cruelly: he forced him to condemn him, took off his bishop's robe, tortured him and sent him to prison. During 1653-1656, corrected or newly translated liturgical books were published at the Printing Yard.

From the point of view of Patriarch Nikon, corrections and liturgical reforms, bringing the rites of the Russian Church closer to Greek liturgical practice, were absolutely necessary. But this is a very controversial issue: there was no urgent need for them; one could limit oneself to eliminating inaccuracies in the liturgical books. Some differences with the Greeks did not prevent us from being completely Orthodox. There is no doubt that the too hasty and abrupt breakdown of the Russian church rite and liturgical traditions was not forced by any real, pressing need and necessity of the then church life.

The discontent of the population was caused by the violent measures with which Patriarch Nikon introduced new books and rituals into use. Some members of the Circle of Zealots of Piety were the first to speak out for the “old faith” and against the reforms and actions of the patriarch. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel submitted a note to the king in defense of double-fingering and about bowing during services and prayers. Then they began to argue that introducing corrections according to Greek models desecrates the true faith, since the Greek Church apostatized from the “ancient piety”, and its books are printed in Catholic printing houses. Archimandrite Ivan Neronov opposed the strengthening of the power of the patriarch and for the democratization of church government. The clash between Nikon and the defenders of the “old faith” took on drastic forms. Avvakum, Ivan Neronov and other opponents of reforms were subjected to severe persecution. The speeches of the defenders of the “old faith” received support in various layers of Russian society, from individual representatives of the highest secular nobility to peasants. The sermons of the dissenters about the advent of the “last time”, about the accession of the Antichrist, to whom the tsar, the patriarch and all the authorities had supposedly already bowed and were carrying out his will, found a lively response among the masses.

The Great Moscow Council of 1667 anathematized (excommunicated from the Church) those who, after repeated admonitions, refused to accept new rituals and newly printed books, and also continued to scold the Church, accusing it of heresy. The council also deprived Nikon himself of the patriarchal rank. The deposed patriarch was sent to prison - first to Ferapontov, and then to the Kirillo Belozersky monastery.

The main result of the schism was church division with the formation of a special branch of Orthodoxy - Old Believers. By the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century, there were various movements of the Old Believers, which were called “talks” and “concords”. The Old Believers were divided into clericalism And lack of priesthood. Popovtsy recognized the need for the clergy and all church sacraments, they were settled in the Kerzhensky forests (now the territory of the Nizhny Novgorod region), the areas of Starodubye (now the Chernigov region, Ukraine), Kuban (Krasnodar region), and the Don River.

Bespopovtsy lived in the north of the state. After the death of the priests of the pre-schism ordination, they rejected the priests of the new ordination, so they began to be called bespopovtsy. The sacraments of baptism and repentance and all church services, except the liturgy, were performed by selected laymen.

Until 1685, the government suppressed riots and executed several leaders of the schism, but there was no special law on the persecution of schismatics for their faith. In 1685, under Princess Sophia, a decree was issued on the persecution of detractors of the Church, instigators of self-immolation, and harborers of schismatics, up to the death penalty (some by burning, others by sword). Other Old Believers were ordered to be whipped and, having been deprived of their property, exiled to monasteries. Those who harbored Old Believers were “beaten with batogs and, after confiscation of property, also exiled to a monastery.”

During the persecution of the Old Believers, a riot in the Solovetsky monastery was brutally suppressed, during which 400 people died in 1676. In Borovsk, two sisters died in captivity from hunger in 1675 - noblewoman Feodosia Morozova and princess Evdokia Urusova. The head and ideologist of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum, as well as priest Lazar, deacon Theodore, and monk Epiphanius were exiled to the Far North and imprisoned in an earthen prison in Pustozersk. After 14 years of imprisonment and torture, they were burned alive in a log house in 1682.

Patriarch Nikon no longer had anything to do with the persecution of Old Believers - from 1658 until his death in 1681, he was first in voluntary and then in forced exile.

Gradually, the majority of the Old Believers' consensus, especially the priesthood, lost their oppositional character in relation to the official Russian Church, and the Old Believers themselves began to make attempts to get closer to the Church. Preserving their rituals, they submitted to the local diocesan bishops. This is how Edinoverie arose: on October 27, 1800, in Russia, by decree of Emperor Paul, Edinoverie was established as a form of reunification of Old Believers with the Orthodox Church. The Old Believers, who wished to return to the Synodal Church, were allowed to serve according to the old books and observe the old rituals, among which the greatest importance was attached to double-fingering, but the services and services were performed by Orthodox clergy.

The priests, who did not want to make reconciliation with the official Church, created their own church. In 1846, they recognized as their head the retired Bosnian Archbishop Ambrose, who “dedicated” the first two “bishops” to the Old Believers. From them came the so-called Belokrinitsky hierarchy. The center of this Old Believer organization was the Belokrinitsky monastery in the town of Belaya Krinitsa in the Austrian Empire (now the territory of the Chernivtsi region, Ukraine). In 1853, the Moscow Old Believer Archdiocese was created, which became the second center of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy. Part of the community of priests, who began to be called fugitive popovism(they accepted “fugitive” priests - those who came to them from the Orthodox Church), did not recognize the Belokrinitsky hierarchy.

Soon, 12 dioceses of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy were established in Russia with the administrative center - an Old Believer settlement at the Rogozhskoye cemetery in Moscow. They began to call themselves the “Old Orthodox Church of Christ.”

The revolutionary events of the early twentieth century gave rise in the church environment to considerable concessions to the spirit of the times, which then penetrated into many church heads who did not notice the replacement of Orthodox conciliarity with Protestant democratization. The ideas that many Old Believers were obsessed with at the beginning of the twentieth century had a pronounced liberal-revolutionary character: “equalization of status”, “cancellation” of the decisions of the Councils, “the principle of electing all church and ministerial positions”, etc. - stamps of the emancipated time, reflected in a more radical form in the “widest democratization” and “widest access to the bosom of the Heavenly Father” of the renovationist schism. It is not surprising that these imaginary opposites (Old Believers and Renovationism), according to the law of dialectical development, soon converged in the synthesis of new Old Believer interpretations with renovationist false hierarchs at their head.

Here is one example. When the revolution broke out in Russia, new schismatics appeared in the Church - renovationists. One of them, the renovationist Archbishop of Saratov Nikolai (P.A. Pozdnev, 1853-1934), who was banned, became in 1923 the founder of the hierarchy of the “Old Orthodox Church” among the Beglopopovites who did not recognize the Belokrinitsky hierarchy. Its administrative center moved several times, and since 1963 it has settled in Novozybkov, Bryansk region, which is why they are also called "Novozybkovites"...

In 1929, the Patriarchal Holy Synod formulated three decrees:

- “On the recognition of old Russian rituals as salutary, like new rituals, and equal to them”;

- “On the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals, and especially to double-fingering”;

- “On the abolition of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667, imposed by them on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christians who adhere to them, and to consider these oaths as if they had not been.”

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church MP in 1971 approved three resolutions of the Synod of 1929. The Acts of the Council of 1971 end with the following words: “The Consecrated Local Council lovingly embraces all who sacredly preserve the ancient Russian rites, both members of our Holy Church and those who call themselves Old Believers, but sacredly professing the saving Orthodox faith."

The well-known church historian Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, speaking about the acceptance of this act of the Council of 1971, states: “After the act of the Council, filled with the spirit of Christian love and humility, the Old Believer communities did not take a counter step aimed at healing the schism, and continue to remain out of communion with the Church.” .

The fall of the once powerful Byzantine Empire, the transformation of its capital Constantinople from a pillar of the Christian Orthodox Church into the center of a religion hostile to it, led to the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church had a real chance to lead Orthodox Christianity. Therefore, starting from the 15th century, after the adoption of the Union of Florence, Russia began to call itself the “third Rome”. In order to meet these stated standards, the Russian Orthodox Church was forced to carry out church reform in the 17th century.

Patriarch Nikon is considered to be the author of this church reform, which led to a split among the Orthodox Russian people. But without a doubt, the Russian tsars from the Romanov dynasty contributed to the church schism, which became a disaster for the entire Russian people for almost three centuries, and has not been completely overcome to this day.

Church reform of Patriarch Nikon

Church reform of Patriarch Nikon in Russian state The 17th century is a whole set of measures, which consisted of both canonical and administrative acts. They were simultaneously undertaken by the Russian Orthodox Church and the Moscow State. The essence of the church reform was changes in the liturgical tradition, which had been consistently observed since the adoption of Christianity. Learned Greek theologians, when visiting services of the Russian Orthodox Church, repeatedly pointed out the inconsistency of the church canons of the Moscow Church with Greek customs.

The most obvious disagreements were in the tradition of overshadowing oneself sign of the cross, say hallelujah during prayer and the order of the religious procession. The Russian Orthodox Church adhered to the tradition of making the sign of the cross with two fingers - the Greeks were baptized with three fingers. Russian priests carried out the procession according to the sun, and Greek priests - on the contrary. Greek theologians discovered many errors in Russian liturgical books. All these errors and disagreements were to be corrected as a result of the reform. They were corrected, but it did not happen painlessly and simply.

Schism in the Russian Orthodox Church

In 1652, the Council of the Hundred Heads was held, which approved new church rituals. From the moment the council was held, the priests had to conduct church services according to new books and using new rituals. The old holy books, according to which the entire Orthodox Russian people had prayed for several centuries, had to be confiscated. The usual icons depicting Christ and the Mother of God were also subject to confiscation, or destruction, since their hands were folded in two-fingered baptism. For ordinary Orthodox people, and not only others, this was wild and blasphemous! How could you throw away an icon that several generations had prayed for! What was it like to feel like atheists and heretics for those who considered themselves a truly believing Orthodox person and lived their entire lives according to the customary and necessary laws of God!

But by his special decree he indicated that everyone who does not obey the innovations will be considered heretics, excommunicated and anathematized. The rudeness, harshness, and intolerance of Patriarch Nikon led to the discontent of a significant part of the clergy and laity, who were ready for uprisings, going into the forests and self-immolations, just not to submit to reformist innovations.

In 1667, the Great Moscow Council was held, which condemned and deposed Patriarch Nikon for his unauthorized abandonment of the see in 1658, but approved all the reforms of the church and anathematized those who opposed its implementation. The state supported the church reform of the Russian Church as amended in 1667. All opponents of the reform began to be called Old Believers and schismatics, and were subject to persecution.