The beginning of the Old Believer schism in the Russian Church 1653. Church schism of the 17th century

The church schism became one of the main events in Russia in the 17th century. This process seriously influenced the subsequent formation of the worldview of the Russian people. Scientists cite the political situation that emerged in the 17th century as the main reason for the church schism. And church disagreements are attributed to a number of secondary reasons.

Tsar Michael, the founder of the Romanov dynasty, and his son Alexei were engaged in restoring the country's economy, which had been devastated during the Time of Troubles. State power was strengthened, the first manufactories appeared, and foreign trade was restored. During the same period, the legalization of serfdom took place.

Despite the fact that at the beginning the Romanovs pursued a rather cautious policy, the plans of Alexei, nicknamed the Quietest, included the unification of the Orthodox peoples living in the Balkans and the territory of Eastern Europe. This is what led the patriarch and the tsar to a rather difficult ideological problem. According to tradition in Russia, people were baptized with two fingers. And the vast majority of Orthodox peoples, in accordance with Greek innovations, are three. There were only two possible options: obey the canon or impose your own traditions on others. Alexey and Patriarch Nikon began to act on the second option. A unified ideology was necessary due to the centralization of power and the concept of the “Third Rome” going on at that time. All this became a prerequisite for a reform that split Russian society for a very long time. A large number of discrepancies in church books, different interpretations of rituals - all this had to be brought to uniformity. It is worth noting that the need to correct church books was spoken of along with ecclesiastical and secular authorities.

The name of Patriarch Nikon and the church schism are closely connected. Nikon had not only intelligence, but also a love of luxury and power. He became the head of the church only after a personal request from the Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

The church reform of 1652 marked the beginning of a schism in the church. All proposed changes were approved at the church council in 1654 (for example, triplets). However, too abrupt a transition to new customs led to the emergence of a considerable number of opponents of innovation. An opposition also formed at court. The patriarch, who overestimated his influence on the tsar, fell into disgrace in 1658. Nikon's departure was demonstrative.

Having retained his wealth and honors, Nikon was nevertheless deprived of all power. In 1666, at the Council, with the participation of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, Nikon’s hood was removed. After this, the former patriarch was exiled to White Lake, to the Ferapontov Monastery. It must be said that Nikon led a far from poor life there. The deposition of Nikon was an important stage in the church schism of the 17th century.

The same council in 1666 once again approved all the changes introduced, declaring them the work of the church. All those who did not comply were declared heretics. During the church schism in Russia, another significant event took place - the Solovetsky Uprising of 1667-76. All the rebels were eventually either exiled or executed. In conclusion, it should be noted that after Nikon, not a single patriarch laid claim to the highest power in the country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A terrible consequence of the split was burning - mass self-immolations. The earliest report of them dates back to 1672, when 2,700 people self-immolated in the Paleostrovsky monastery. From 1676 to 1685, according to documented information, about 20,000 people died. Self-immolations continued into the 18th century, and isolated cases at the end of the 19th century.

The main result of the schism was church division with the formation of a special branch of Orthodoxy - the Old Believers. 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.

The Old Believers were allowed to serve according to the old books and observe the old rituals, among which the greatest importance was attached to double-fingering, but the services and services were performed by Orthodox clergy.

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

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

In 1929, the Patriarchal Holy Synod formulated three decrees:

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

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

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

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

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

The material was prepared based on information from open sources V

Church ritual reform (in particular, the correction of accumulated errors in liturgical books), undertaken with the aim of strengthening the church organization. The reform caused a split in the church.

NIKON

After the end of the Time of Troubles, under Mikhail and Alexei Romanov, foreign innovations began to penetrate into all external spheres of Russian life: blades were cast from Swedish metal, the Dutch set up iron factories, brave German soldiers marched near the Kremlin, a Scots officer taught Russian recruits the European system, the fryags performed performances. Some Russians (even the Tsar's children), looking in Venetian mirrors, tried on foreign costumes, someone created an atmosphere like in the German Settlement...

But was the soul affected by these innovations? No, for the most part, Russian people remained the same zealots of Moscow antiquity, “faith and piety,” as their great-grandfathers were. Moreover, these were very self-confident zealots, who said that “Old Rome fell from heresies. The Second Rome was captured by the godless Turks, Rus' - the Third Rome, which alone remained the custodian of the true faith of Christ!

To Moscow in the 17th century. The authorities increasingly called for “spiritual teachers” - the Greeks, but part of society looked down on them: weren’t it the Greeks who cowardly concluded a union with the Pope in Florence in 1439? No, there is no other pure Orthodoxy other than Russian, and there never will be.

Due to these ideas, the Russians did not feel an “inferiority complex” in front of a more learned, skilled and comfortable foreigner, but they were afraid that these German water-cocking machines, Polish books, together with the “flattering Greeks and Kyivians” would not touch the very foundations of life and faith .

In 1648, before the Tsar’s wedding, they were worried: Alexei had been “learned German” and now he would force him to shave his beard in German, force him to pray in a German church - the end of piety and antiquity, the end of the world was coming.

The king got married. The salt riot of 1648 ended. Not everyone kept their heads, but everyone had beards. However, the tension did not subside. A war broke out with Poland over the Orthodox Little Russian and Belarusian brothers. The victories inspired, the hardships of the war irritated and ruined, the common people grumbled and fled. Tension, suspicion, and expectation of something inevitable grew.

And at such a time, Alexei Mikhailovich’s “son’s friend” Nikon, whom the tsar called “the chosen and strong-standing shepherd, the mentor of souls and bodies, the beloved favorite and comrade, the sun shining throughout the entire universe...”, who became patriarch in 1652, conceived church reforms.

UNIVERSAL CHURCH

Nikon was completely absorbed in the idea of ​​the superiority of spiritual power over secular power, which was embodied in the idea of ​​the Universal Church.

1. The Patriarch was convinced that the world is divided into two spheres: universal (general), eternal, and private, temporary.

2. The universal, the eternal, is more important than everything private and temporary.

3. The Moscow state, like any state, is private.

4. The unification of all Orthodox churches - the Universal Church - is what is closest to God, what personifies the eternal on earth.

5. Everything that does not agree with the eternal, universal must be abolished.

6. Who is higher - the patriarch or the secular ruler? For Nikon this question did not exist. The Patriarch of Moscow is one of the patriarchs of the Ecumenical Church, therefore, his power is higher than the royal one.

When Nikon was reproached for papism, he replied: “Why not honor the pope for good?” Alexei Mikhailovich was apparently partly captivated by the reasoning of his powerful “friend.” The Tsar granted the Patriarch the title of “Great Sovereign.” This was a royal title, and among the patriarchs only Alexei’s own grandfather, Filaret Romanov, bore it.

The Patriarch was a zealot of true Orthodoxy. Considering Greek and Old Slavonic books to be the primary sources of Orthodox truths (for from there Rus' took the faith), Nikon decided to compare the rituals and liturgical customs of the Moscow church with the Greek ones.

And what? Novelty in the rituals and customs of the Moscow Church, which considered itself the only true church of Christ, was everywhere. The Muscovites wrote “Isus”, not “Jesus”, served the liturgy on seven, and not on five, like the Greeks, prosphoras, were baptized with 2 fingers, personifying God the Father and God the Son, and all other Eastern Christians made the sign of the cross with 3 fingers (“pinch”), personifying God the father, son and Holy Spirit. On Mount Athos, one Russian pilgrim monk, by the way, was almost killed as a heretic for two-fingered baptism. And the patriarch found many more discrepancies. In various areas, local service characteristics have developed. The Holy Council of 1551 recognized some of the local differences as all-Russian. With the beginning of printing in the second half of the 16th century. they have become widespread.

Nikon came from peasants, and with peasant straightforwardness he declared war on the differences between the Moscow Church and the Greek.

1. In 1653, Nikon sent out a decree ordering one to be baptized “with a pinch,” and also informing how many prostrations it is correct to make before reading the famous prayer of St. Ephraim.

2. Then the patriarch attacked the icon painters who began to use Western European painting techniques.

3. It was ordered to print “Jesus” in new books, and Greek liturgical rites and chants according to the “Kievan canons” were introduced.

4. Following the example of the Eastern clergy, priests began to read sermons of their own composition, and the patriarch himself set the tone here.

5. Russian handwritten and printed books on divine services were ordered to be taken to Moscow for viewing. If discrepancies with the Greek ones were found, the books were destroyed and new ones were sent out in return.

The Holy Council of 1654, with the participation of the Tsar and the Boyar Duma, approved all of Nikon’s undertakings. The patriarch “blowed away” everyone who tried to argue. Thus, Bishop Pavel of Kolomna, who objected at the Council of 1654, was defrocked, severely beaten, and exiled without a council trial. He went crazy from humiliation and soon died.

Nikon was furious. In 1654, in the absence of the tsar, the patriarch's people forcibly broke into the houses of Moscow residents - townspeople, merchants, nobles and even boyars. They took icons of “heretical writing” from the “red corners,” gouged out the eyes of the images and carried their mutilated faces through the streets, reading a decree that threatened with excommunication for everyone who painted and kept such icons. “Faulty” icons were burned.

SPLIT

Nikon fought against innovations, thinking that they could cause discord among the people. However, it was his reforms that caused a split, since part of the Moscow people perceived them as innovations that encroached on faith. The church split into “Nikonians” (the church hierarchy and the majority of believers accustomed to obey) and “Old Believers.”

The Old Believers hid books. Secular and spiritual authorities persecuted them. From persecution, zealots of the old faith fled to the forests, united into communities, and founded monasteries in the wilderness. The Solovetsky Monastery, which did not recognize Nikonianism, was under siege for seven years (1668-1676), until the governor Meshcherikov took it and hanged all the rebels.

The leaders of the Old Believers, Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel, wrote petitions to the Tsar, but, seeing that Alexei did not defend the “old times,” they announced the imminent arrival of the end of the world, because the Antichrist had appeared in Russia. The king and the patriarch are “his two horns.” Only the martyrs of the old faith will be saved. The preaching of “purification by fire” was born. The schismatics locked themselves in churches with their entire families and burned themselves so as not to serve the Antichrist. The Old Believers captured all segments of the population - from peasants to boyars.

Boyarina Morozova (Sokovina) Fedosia Prokopyevna (1632-1675) gathered schismatics around her, corresponded with Archpriest Avvakum, and sent him money. In 1671 she was arrested, but neither torture nor persuasion forced her to renounce her beliefs. In the same year, the noblewoman, shackled in iron, was taken to captivity in Borovsk (this moment is captured in the painting “Boyaryna Morozova” by V. Surikov).

The Old Believers considered themselves Orthodox and did not disagree with the Orthodox Church in any dogma of faith. Therefore, the patriarch did not call them heretics, but only schismatics.

Church Council 1666-1667 He cursed the schismatics for their disobedience. The zealots of the old faith ceased to recognize the church that excommunicated them. The split has not been overcome to this day.

Did Nikon regret what he did? May be. At the end of his patriarchate, in a conversation with Ivan Neronov, the former leader of the schismatics, Nikon said: “both old and new books are good; no matter what you want, that’s how you serve...”

But the church could no longer give in to the rebellious rebels, and they could no longer forgive the church, which had encroached on the “holy faith and antiquity.”

OPALA

What was the fate of Nikon himself?

The great sovereign Patriarch Nikon sincerely believed that his power was higher than the royal one. Relationships with the soft and compliant - but to a certain limit! - Alexei Mikhailovich became tense, until, finally, grievances and mutual claims ended in a quarrel. Nikon retired to New Jerusalem (Resurrection Monastery), hoping that Alexei would beg him to return. Time passed... The king was silent. The Patriarch sent him an irritated letter, in which he reported how bad everything was in the Muscovite kingdom. The patience of the Quiet King was not unlimited, and no one could subordinate him to their influence to the end.

Did the patriarch expect that they would beg him to return? But Nikon is not and is not the sovereign of Moscow. Cathedral 1666-1667 with the participation of two eastern patriarchs, he anathematized (cursed) the Old Believers and at the same time deprived Nikon of his rank for his unauthorized departure from the patriarchate. Nikon was exiled north to the Ferapontov Monastery.

In the Ferapontov Monastery, Nikon treated the sick and sent the king a list of those cured. But in general, he was bored in the northern monastery, as all strong and enterprising people who are deprived of an active field are bored. The resourcefulness and wit that distinguished Nikon in a good mood were often replaced by a feeling of offended irritation. Then Nikon could no longer distinguish real grievances from those invented by him. Klyuchevsky related the following incident. The tsar sent warm letters and gifts to the former patriarch. One day, from the royal bounty, a whole convoy of expensive fish arrived at the monastery - sturgeon, salmon, sturgeon, etc. “Nikon responded with a reproach to Alexei: why didn’t he send apples, grapes in molasses and vegetables?”

Nikon's health was undermined. “Now I am sick, naked and barefoot,” the former patriarch wrote to the king. “For every need... I got tired, my arms are sore, my left one can’t rise, my eyes are an eyesore from fumes and smoke, my teeth are bleeding stinking... My legs are swollen...” Alexei Mikhailovich several times ordered Nikon to be made easier. The king died before Nikon and before his death he unsuccessfully asked Nikon for forgiveness.

After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich (1676), the persecution of Nikon intensified, he was transferred to the Kirillov Monastery. But then the son of Alexei Mikhailovich, Tsar Fedor, decided to soften the fate of the disgraced man and ordered him to be taken to New Jerusalem. Nikon could not stand this last trip and died on the way on August 17, 1681.

KLUCHEVSKY ON NIKON REFORM

“Nikon did not rebuild the church order in any new spirit and direction, but only replaced one church form with another. He understood the very idea of ​​the universal church, in the name of which this noisy undertaking was undertaken, too narrowly, in a schismatic way, from the external ritual side, and was unable either to introduce a broader view of the universal church into the consciousness of Russian church society, or to consolidate it in any way. or by an ecumenical council resolution and ended the whole matter by swearing to the faces of the eastern patriarchs who judged him as Sultan slaves, vagabonds and thieves: jealous of the unity of the universal church, he split his local one. The main string of mood of the Russian church society, the inertia of religious feeling, pulled too tightly by Nikon, broke, painfully whipped both himself and the ruling Russian hierarchy, which approved his cause.<…>The church storm raised by Nikon far from captured the entire Russian church society. A split began among the Russian clergy, and the struggle at first was between the Russian ruling hierarchy and that part of church society that was carried away by the opposition against Nikon’s ritual innovations, led by agitators from the subordinate white and black clergy.<…>A suspicious attitude towards the West was widespread throughout Russian society, and even in its leading circles, which were especially easy to succumb to Western influence, the native antiquity had not yet lost its charm. This slowed down the transformational movement and weakened the energy of innovators. The schism lowered the authority of antiquity, raising a rebellion in its name against the church, and in connection with it, against the state. Most of Russian church society has now seen what bad feelings and inclinations this antiquity can foster and what dangers a blind attachment to it threatens. The leaders of the reform movement, who were still hesitating between their native antiquity and the West, now, with a lighter conscience, went their own way more decisively and boldly.”

FROM THE NAMED HIGH DECREE OF NICHOLAS II

In constant, according to the covenants of our Ancestors, communication with the Holy Orthodox Church, invariably drawing for ourselves joy and renewal of spiritual strength, We have always had a heartfelt desire to provide each of Our subjects with freedom of belief and prayer according to the dictates of his conscience. Concerned with the fulfillment of these intentions, We included among the reforms outlined in the decree of December 12 last the adoption of effective measures to eliminate restrictions in the field of religion.

Now, having examined the provisions drawn up in pursuance of this in the Committee of Ministers and finding them to correspond to Our cherished desire to strengthen the principles of religious tolerance outlined in the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire, We recognized it as good to approve them.

Recognize that apostasy from the Orthodox faith to another Christian confession or creed is not subject to persecution and should not entail any unfavorable consequences in relation to personal or civil rights, and a person who has fallen away from Orthodoxy upon reaching the age of majority is recognized as belonging to that denomination or creed, which it has chosen for itself.<…>

Allow Christians of all confessions to baptize unbaptized foundlings and children of unknown parents who they accept to raise according to the rites of their faith.<…>

Establish in the law a distinction between the religious teachings now encompassed by the name “schism”, dividing them into three groups: a) Old Believer consensus, b) sectarianism and c) followers of fanatical teachings, the very affiliation with which is punishable by criminal law.

Recognize that the provisions of the law, which grant the right to perform public worship services and determine the position of the schism in civil matters, include followers of both Old Believer agreements and sectarian interpretations; committing a violation of the law for religious reasons subjects those responsible to liability established by law.

To assign the name Old Believers, instead of the currently used name of schismatics, to all followers of rumors and agreements who accept the basic dogmas of the Orthodox Church, but do not recognize some of the rituals accepted by it and conduct their worship according to old printed books.

To assign to clergy, elected by communities of Old Believers and sectarians to perform spiritual duties, the title of “abbots and mentors,” and these persons, upon confirmation of their positions by the appropriate government authority, are subject to exclusion from the burghers or rural inhabitants, if they belonged to these states, and exemption from conscription for active military service, and naming, with the permission of the same civil authority, the name adopted at the time of tonsure, as well as allowing the designation in the passports issued to them, in the column indicating the occupation, of the position belonging to them among this clergy, without using, however , Orthodox hierarchical names.

1 Comment

Gorbunova Marina/ honorary education worker

In addition to the creation of the Universal Church and the limitation of “innovations,” there were other reasons that not only caused the reforms, but also united around them (for a while!) significant personalities whose interests temporarily coincided.
Both the Tsar, Nikon, and Avvakum were interested in restoring the moral authority of the church and strengthening its spiritual influence on parishioners. This authority gradually lost its significance both because of polyphony during the service, and because of the gradual “weaning” from the church Old Church Slavonic language in which they were conducted, and because of the persisting “immorality” that Stoglav unsuccessfully tried to fight against under Ivan. Grozny (superstition, drunkenness, divination, foul language, etc.). It was these problems that the priests as part of the circle of “zealots of piety” were going to solve. For Alexei Mikhailovich, it was very important that the reforms contributed to the unity of the church and its uniformity, since this was in the interests of the state during a period of increased centralization. To solve this problem, an effective technical means appeared that previous rulers did not have, namely printing. The corrected printed samples had no discrepancies and could be mass-produced in a short time. And initially nothing foreshadowed a split.
Subsequently, the return to the original source (Byzantine “charatean” lists), according to which corrections were made, played a cruel joke on the reformers: it was the ritual side of church service that underwent the most profound changes since the time of St. Vladimir, and turned out to be “unrecognized” by the population. The fact that many Byzantine books were brought after the fall of Constantinople from the “Latins” strengthened the conviction that true Orthodoxy was being destroyed, the fall of the Third Rome and the onset of the kingdom of the Antichrist were coming. The negative consequences of being carried away primarily by ritualism during the retreat are perfectly reflected in the attached text of V.O. Klyuchevsky’s lecture. It should also be added that in the life of many segments of the population during this period there were unfavorable changes (the abolition of “lesson years”, the elimination of “white settlements”, restrictions on boyar influence and parochial traditions), which were directly associated with the “renunciation of the old faith”. In short, there was something for the common people to be afraid of.
As for the confrontation between the tsar and the patriarch, this fact was not decisive for the implementation of reforms (they continued after Nikon’s imprisonment), but influenced the position of the church in the future. Having lost to secular power, the church paid for forgetting its primary role as a spiritual mentor by subsequently becoming part of the state machine: first, the patriarchate was eliminated and the Spiritual Regulations became the guide to service, and then, in the process of secularization, the economic independence of the church was eliminated.

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 (“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 reforms. 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.

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.

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 the political life of the Russian state in the 15th-17th 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 his earliest 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 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 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. The main charter of the 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) comes 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 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 entire centuries-old religious history is crossed out. 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 the ancient religion of 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 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.

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.

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

2. Patriarch Nikon

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

The most important ritual changes were: baptism 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.

4. Reaction to reform

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

5. The emergence of a schism

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

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

6. Old Believers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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 claim that the liturgical books were distorted as a result of ignorant copyists.

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

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

However, it should be noted here that rituals are not dogmas at all. Those are holy and indestructible, but rituals can change. And in Rus' this happened several times, and there were no shocks. For example, in 1551, under Metropolitan Cyprian, 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.

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.

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.

From the very beginning of the 17th century, reforms took place in the church environment. At the very beginning of the century, in 1619 - 1633, Patriarch Filaret expanded the monastic landholdings, established the patriarchal court, and transferred judicial power over the clergy and monastic peasants to the patriarch. Patriarch Filaret, with his reforms, tried to increase the authority of the church and make it more independent.

In the 40s of the 17th century, the church begins to lose only what it had, its acquired independence. The clergy is limited in economic and political rights, in the life of the state. The Council Code somewhat reduced the privileges of the church. The new church reforms consisted in the fact that the church was prohibited from acquiring new lands, and the management of church affairs was transferred to a special monastic order.

In 1653, a split occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church. , who wanted to strengthen the rapidly declining authority of the church, began carrying out church reform. The essence of the church reform of Patriarch Nikon came down to the unification of the norms of church life. The church reform of Patriarch Nikon entailed the correction of the rites of worship, thereby breaking the established traditional forms of Russian Orthodox rites.

The church reform of Patriarch Nikon aroused the indignation of part of the clergy and secular nobility. Archpriest Avvakum became an opponent of Nikon's church reforms. The speeches of his supporters marked the beginning of such a phenomenon as the Old Believers.

The conflict between supporters of the reforms of Patriarch Nikon (supporters of the Greek rite) and the Old Believers determined, first of all, differences in the constitution. The Great Russians (Russians) crossed themselves with two fingers, and the Greeks with three. These differences have led to a dispute over historical correctness. The dispute boiled down to the fact that whether the Russian church ritual - two fingers, an eight-pointed cross, worship on seven prosphoras, a special “hallelujah”, walking on the sun, that is, on the sun, when performing rituals, is the result of ignorant distortions in history or not.

There is reliable information that during the baptism of Rus', the prince, the Russians were baptized with two fingers. This was done in Rus', before the church reform of Patriarch Nikon. During the era of Christianization of Rus', two charters were used in Byzantium: Jerusalem and Studite. The fact is that in ritual terms these statutes are contradictory. The Eastern Slavs used the first, while among the Greeks and Little Russians (Ukrainians) the second prevailed.

For a long time, there was conflict in Russian Orthodox society. The split resulted in persecution of Old Believers and great losses for our society. Among the Old Believers there were many worthy people, merchants, cultural figures and philanthropists.