Reasons for church reform in the 17th century. Split of the Russian Orthodox Church

separation from Russian Orthodox Church part of the believers who did not recognize church reform Patriarch Nikon (1653 – 1656); religious and social movement that arose in Russia in the 17th century. (See diagram " Church schism»)

In 1653, wanting to strengthen the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Nikon began implementing church reform designed to eliminate discrepancies in books and rituals that had accumulated over many centuries, and to unify the theological system throughout Russia. Some of the clergy, led by archpriests Avvakum and Daniel, proposed to rely on ancient Russian theological books when carrying out the reform. Nikon decided to use Greek models, which, in his opinion, would facilitate the unification under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate of all Orthodox churches in Europe and Asia and thereby strengthen his influence on the tsar. The Patriarch was supported by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and Nikon began reform. The Printing Yard began publishing revised and newly translated books. Instead of the Old Russian one, Greek rituals were introduced: two fingers were replaced by three fingers, a four-pointed cross was declared a symbol of faith instead of an eight-pointed one, etc. The innovations were consolidated by the Council of the Russian Clergy in 1654, and in 1655 approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople on behalf of all Eastern Orthodox churches.

However, the reform, carried out hastily and forcefully, without preparing Russian society for it, caused strong confrontation among the Russian clergy and believers. In 1656, the defenders of the old rites, whose recognized leader was Archpriest Avvakum, were excommunicated from the church. But this measure did not help. A movement of Old Believers arose, creating their own church organizations. The schism acquired a massive character after the decision of the Church Council of 1666-1667. about the executions and exiles of ideologists and opponents of the reform. Old Believers, fleeing persecution, went to the distant forests of the Volga region, the European north, and Siberia, where they founded schismatic communities - monasteries. The response to persecution was also mass self-immolation and starvation.

The Old Believers movement acquired and social character. The old faith became a sign in the fight against the strengthening of serfdom.

The most powerful protest against church reform manifested itself in the Solovetsky uprising. The rich and famous Solovetsky Monastery openly refused to recognize all the innovations introduced by Nikon and to obey the decisions of the Council. An army was sent to Solovki, but the monks secluded themselves in the monastery and put up armed resistance. The siege of the monastery began, which lasted about eight years (1668 - 1676). The monks' stand for the old faith served as an example for many.

After suppression Solovetsky uprising persecution of schismatics intensified. In 1682, Habakkuk and many of his supporters were burned. In 1684, a decree followed, according to which the Old Believers were to be tortured, and if they did not conquer, they were to be burned. However, these repressive measures did not eliminate the movement of supporters of the old faith, their number in the 17th century. constantly grew, many of them left Russia. In the 18th century There has been a weakening of the persecution of schismatics by the government and the official church. At the same time, several independent movements emerged in the Old Believers.

In the middle of the 17th century, events occurred that caused deep upheavals in the spiritual and public life Moscow Rus'. Echoes of that long-standing historical drama have survived to this day in the form of the existence of two branches of the Orthodox Church: Nikonian and Old Believer. The schism was caused by church reform, which is inextricably linked with the personality of Patriarch Nikon.

According to V. O. Klyuchevsky, among historical figures In the 17th century it is difficult to find a larger and more unique person than Nikon. He was a tall hero with big head framed by black hair. In the world, the future patriarch was called Nikita. He was born in 1605 into a peasant family. His mother soon died, and his father brought his stepmother into the house, who disliked her stepson. She beat, starved and humiliated Nikita. Therefore, the boy tried to spend as much time as possible outside the home. He became friends with the daughter of a priest from the neighboring village of Kolychevo, thanks to whom he learned to read and write. Nikita's passion for books led him to the monastery of Macarius of Zheltovodsk. Here he read church books and studied monastic services. But at the age of 17, at the request of his father, he was forced to return home, as he was the heir to a peasant farm. However, Nikita chose a different path in life. In 1625, after the death of his father, he married the daughter of a village priest, Nastasya, whom he had known since childhood, and over time headed the parish in Kolychev.

The family life of the young priest was tragic. Suddenly, one after another, his three young sons died. Shocked by grief, Nikita and Nastasya decided to leave the world. He went to the White Sea, where he took monastic vows and took the name Nikon. At that time, the future patriarch was a little over 30 years old. Soon Nikon became abbot of the Kozheezersky monastery. While in Moscow on monastic business, he, as was the custom of that time, came to bow to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. This meeting, which took place in 1646, made the 17-year-old pious king very strong impression. He brought Nikon closer to himself, entrusting him with “false and responsible posts in church hierarchy. In 1652 he was elevated to the rank of patriarch with unprecedented honors and powers. In the spring of 1654, the sovereign and the patriarch convened a church council, in which 5 metropolitans, 5 bishops and archbishops, archimandrites and abbots, and 13 archpriests took part. The council began with a speech by Nikon, who pointed out the malfunction of church books and the need to correct them. It was decided to correct them by consulting ancient and Greek books.

To an unbeliever, the changes associated with church reform may seem insignificant. But many people of the 17th century considered them blasphemy. Defending their traditions and rituals, adherents of the old faith were ready to go to the stake, accepting martyrdom. What were these changes?

It is revered as a magical symbol of Christian doctrine. sign of the cross. In the Old Russian finger formation, two overshadowing fingers denoted the dual unity of Christ as God and man. Nikonianism adopted the symbol of the Trinity for the sign of the cross - the three-fingered formation. In accordance with the same principle, the special hallelujah - the twice-pronounced doxology in honor of Christ the God-man "hallelujah, hallelujah" - was changed to a three-lipped hallelujah. The spelling of Christ's name has changed. Instead of writing “Isus”, the spelling “Jesus” was introduced. Since ancient times, in Rus', the eight-pointed shape of the cross was adopted, symbolizing the “passion of the Lord” (the four ends of the cross of the crucifixion itself, plus the ends of the crossbars: the top with the title of Christ and the bottom with the foot). Nikon, without prohibiting the eight-pointed cross, introduced the basic form of a four-pointed cross.

In addition, there were a number of other innovations. Previously, in some sacred rites (for example, carrying a baptized child around the font, a wedding around a lectern), the walk was “along the salt,” that is, along the sun, from north to east, now - from south to east. The service at seven prosphoras was replaced by five. It was forbidden to make prostrations; they were replaced by bows from the waist. Soon it was ordered to remove icons of Old Russian writing from use. Antique church singing in unison began to be replaced by polyphony. The construction of original tented temples stopped.

And yet the ritual side was of a secondary nature. The real reasons Church reform should be sought deeper. It was primarily caused by the strengthening of autocracy. This process was closely related to the unification of all aspects of public life. The introduction of uniformity in church rituals was one of the manifestations of this trend. It was symbolic that the Council, which laid the foundation for church reform, took place in the same year as the Pereyaslavl Rada. The inclusion of Ukraine into the Russian state required the elimination of differences between Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox Christians in church affairs. Finally, great importance had the ideology “Moscow-Third Rome”. Moscow's claims to the role of successor Byzantine Empire obliged to adhere to the Greek tradition. But by the middle of the 17th century, the differences with it were very noticeable. This was indicated by the highest hierarchs of the Eastern Empire who were in Moscow at that time. christian church. And in 1652, news arrived that the elders on Mount Athos had declared Moscow church books heretical and burned them. Thus, Nikon's reform was caused not only by religious, but also by political reasons.

For his part, Nikon pursued his own goals when carrying out the reform. Being an extremely powerful and ambitious person, he sought to establish the idea of ​​​​the superiority of church power over secular power. During his patriarchate, Nikon wielded enormous power. He not only ruled the church single-handedly, but also actively intervened in government affairs. The young tsar allowed the patriarch to be titled “Great Sovereign” and trusted him with the governance of the country during his absence in Moscow. The rise of the patriarch caused discontent among the boyar elite, which intensified due to Nikon's arrogant behavior. The Patriarch imposed his will and dared to contradict the Tsar himself. In the current situation, all that was needed was an excuse to eliminate the Tsar’s recent favorite. Soon such a reason was found. In 1658, a conflict arose between Alexei Mikhailovich and Nikon, which led to a breakdown in relations. In 1666, the Church Council deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank, after which he was exiled to the Ferapontov Monastery. The once powerful head of the church died in 1681, returning from exile, and, at the direction of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, was buried as befits a patriarch.

Nikon's removal from the patriarchate did not mean the cancellation of his reform. The Council of 1666 recognized the reform as a matter of the king, the state and the church. The adherents of the old faith were anathematized and severely persecuted. It is not surprising that schismatics took part in many anti-government protests in the second half of the 17th-18th centuries. Streltsy riots, peasant wars, etc.

a) Avvakum Petrov, Ivan Neronov, Epiphanius, Deacon Fedor, Spiridon Potemkin (schismatics): exposing the wrongness of the Nikonians (and by the most strong argument in the struggle there was mass martyrdom - “sacrifice” of oneself for the faith).

b) Simeon of Polotsk, Patriarch Joachim, Bishop Pitirim, Metropolitan Macarius (spiritual-academic school): condemnation of schismatics, accusing them of “ignorance”, “inertia”, “stubbornness”, “heresy” in order to prove the Old Believers wrong.

c) V. O. Klyuchevsky: the problem of the schism is the problem of the Third Rome, Holy Rus', Ecumenical Orthodoxy, the schism contributed to the spread of Western influences; highlighted not only the church-historical, but also the folk-psychological side of the schism.

d) S. M. Solovyov: a schism is a conflict that affected only the sphere of ritual.

e) A.I. Herzen, M.A. Bakunin: schism is a manifestation of the freedom of spirit of the Russian people, proof of their ability to stand up for their beliefs.

Key events of the church schism

1652 - Nikon’s church reform;

1654, 1656 - church councils, excommunication and exile of opponents of the reform;

1658 - break between Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich;

1666 - church council with the participation of the ecumenical patriarchs. Nikon's deprivation of the patriarchal rank, a curse on the schismatics;

1667-1676 — Solovetsky uprising.

Key figures: Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Patriarch Nikon, Archpriest Avvakum, noblewoman Morozova.

Reasons for the split:

1) the power-hungry desire of Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich for the world Orthodox kingdom (“Moscow is the Third Rome”);

2) the process of centralization of the Russian state inevitably required the development of a unified ideology capable of rallying the broad masses of the population around the center;

3) political fragmentation led to the collapse of a single church organization, and in different lands the development of religious thought and rituals took its own path;

4) the need for a census of the sacred books (during the rewriting, mistakes were inevitably made, the original meaning of the sacred books was distorted, therefore, discrepancies arose in the interpretation of rituals and the meaning of their performance); Maxim Grek began enormous work, acting as a translator and philologist, highlighting different ways interpretations Holy Scripture- literal, allegorical and spiritual (sacred);

5) in February 1551, on the initiative of Metropolitan Macarius, a council was convened, which began the “church dispensation”, the development of a unified pantheon of Russian saints, the introduction of uniformity in church life, which received the name Stoglavogo;

6) during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Joseph, after for long years Due to the Troubles and the beginning of the restoration of the Russian state, the problem with the introduction of triplets became the “topic of the day”.

In March 1649, Nikon became Metropolitan of Novgorod and Velikolutsk, showing himself to be an energetic ruler. In 1650, Nikon took an active part in the massacre of the rebellious Novgorodians. On July 22, 1652, the church council elected Nikon as patriarch, who defended the principle "the priesthood is higher than the kingdom". Nikon's opponents: boyars, who were frightened by his imperious habits, former friends in the circle of zealots of piety.

The Council of 1654 approved the innovations and made changes to the divine service. Having the support of the tsar, Nikon conducted the matter hastily, autocratically, demanding the immediate abandonment of old rituals and the exact fulfillment of new ones. Russian culture was declared backward, and European standards were adopted. The broad masses did not accept such a sharp transition to new customs and greeted the innovations with hostility. Opposition to Nikon also formed at court (boyar F. P. Morozova, princess E. P. Urusova, etc.).

In December 1666, Nikon was deprived of the highest clergy (in his place was installed the “quiet and insignificant” Joasaph II, who was under the control of the king, i.e., secular power). The reason was Nikon’s extreme ambition and the intensifying conflict with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Nikon's place of exile was the Ferapontov Monastery on White Lake. Secular power triumphed over spiritual power.

The Church Council (1666-1667) completed the triumph of the Nikonians and Grecophiles, canceled the decisions of the Stoglavy Council, approved the reforms and marked the beginning of the church schism. From now on, all those who disagreed with the introduction of new details in the performance of rituals were subject to excommunication from the church, received the name schismatics (Old Believers) and were subjected to severe repression by the authorities.

The split took the form of extreme confrontation: ideological factors were touched upon, and the polemics between the Old Believers and the Nikonians resulted in a real ideological war. The most influential of the church traditionalists were Ivan Neronov, Avvakum Petrov, Stefan Vonifatiev (who had the opportunity to become patriarch instead of Nikon, but refused to nominate his candidacy), Andrei Denisov, Spiridon Potemkin. The Church Council of 1666 anathematized and cursed as heretics and rebellious all those who did not accept the reform.

Consequences of the split

— By many ordinary people the abandonment of previous rituals was experienced as a national and personal catastrophe.

— The reform was carried out from an elite position.

— The reform was carried out with the help of violence, the essence of the pre-Nikon understanding of Christianity in Rus' was that it was impossible to force people to believe by force.

— Before the split, Rus' was spiritually united. The reform prepared the ground for the spread of disdainful sentiments towards national customs and forms of organization of life.

— The consequence of the split was a certain confusion in the people's worldview. The Old Believers perceived history as “eternity in the present.” In the worldview of the New Believers, more material practicality and a desire to quickly achieve practical results appeared.

— The state persecuted the Old Believers. Repressions against them expanded after the death of Alexei, during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich and Princess Sophia. In 1681, any distribution of ancient books and writings of the Old Believers was prohibited. In 1682, by order of Tsar Fedor, the most prominent leader of the schism, Avvakum, was burned. Under Sophia, a law was passed that finally prohibited any activity of schismatics. The Old Believers showed exceptional spiritual fortitude, responded to repression with acts of mass self-immolation, and burned entire clans and communities.

— The remaining Old Believers introduced a unique current into Russian spiritual and cultural thought and did a lot to preserve antiquity. The reform outlined a substitution of the main goals of education: instead of a person - a bearer of higher spiritual origin began to train a person to perform a narrow range of specific functions.

Split of the Russian Orthodox Church

Church schism - in the 1650s - 1660s. a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church due to the reform of Patriarch Nikon, which consisted of liturgical and ritual innovations that were aimed at introducing changes into liturgical books and rituals in order to unify them with modern Greek ones.

Background

One of the most profound sociocultural upheavals in the state was the church schism. In the early 50s of the 17th century in Moscow, a circle of “zealots of piety” formed among the highest clergy, whose members wanted to eliminate various church disorders and unify worship throughout the vast territory of the state. The first step had already been taken: the Church Council of 1651, under pressure from the sovereign, introduced unanimous church singing. Now it was necessary to make a choice of what to follow in church reforms: our own Russian tradition or someone else’s.

This choice was made in the context of an internal church conflict that had already emerged in the late 1640s, caused by the struggle of Patriarch Joseph with increasing Ukrainian and Greek borrowings initiated by the sovereign’s entourage.

Church schism - causes, consequences

The Church, which strengthened its position after the Time of Troubles, tried to take a dominant position in political system states. The desire of Patriarch Nikon to strengthen his position of power, to concentrate in his hands not only church, but also secular power. But in conditions of strengthening autocracy, this caused a conflict between church and secular authorities. The defeat of the church in this clash paved the way for its transformation into an appendage of state power.

The innovations in church rituals begun in 1652 by Patriarch Nikon and the correction of Orthodox books according to the Greek model led to a split in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Key dates

The main reason for the split was the reforms of Patriarch Nikon (1633–1656).
Nikon (worldly name - Nikita Minov) enjoyed unlimited influence on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
1649 – Appointment of Nikon as Metropolitan of Novgorod
1652 – Nikon elected patriarch
1653 – Church reform
As a result of the reform:
– Correction of church books in accordance with the “Greek” canons;
– Changes in the rituals of the Russian Orthodox Church;
– Introduction of three fingers during the sign of the cross.
1654 – Patriarchal reform was approved at a church council
1656 – Excommunication of opponents of the reform
1658 – Nikon’s abdication of the patriarchate
1666 - Nikon's deposition at a church council
1667–1676 – Revolt of the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery.
Failure to accept the reforms led to a division into supporters of the reforms (Nikonians) and opponents (schismatics or Old Believers), as a result - the emergence of many movements and churches.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon

Election of Metropolitan Nikon to Patriarchate

1652 - after the death of Joseph, the Kremlin clergy and the tsar wanted Novgorod Metropolitan Nikon to take his place: Nikon’s character and views seemed to belong to a man who was capable of leading the church-ritual reform planned by the sovereign and his confessor. But Nikon gave his consent to become patriarch only after much persuasion from Alexei Mikhailovich and on the condition that there were no restrictions on his patriarchal power. And such restrictions were created by the Monastic Order.

Nikon had great influence on the young sovereign, who considered the patriarch his closest friend and assistant. Departing from the capital, the tsar transferred control not to the boyar commission, as was previously customary, but to the care of Nikon. He was allowed to be called not only the patriarch, but also the “sovereign of all Rus'.” Having taken such an extraordinary position in power, Nikon began to abuse it, seize foreign lands for his monasteries, humiliate the boyars, and deal harshly with the clergy. He was not so interested in reform as in establishing strong patriarchal power, for which the power of the Pope served as a model.

Nikon reform

1653 - Nikon began to implement the reform, which he intended to carry out focusing on Greek models as more ancient. In fact, he reproduced contemporary Greek models and copied the Ukrainian reform of Peter Mohyla. The transformations of the Church had foreign policy implications: new role Russia and the Russian Church on the world stage. Counting on the annexation of the Kyiv Metropolis, the Russian authorities thought about creating a single Church. This required similarities in church practice between Kiev and Moscow, while they should have been guided by the Greek tradition. Of course, Patriarch Nikon did not need differences, but uniformity with the Kyiv Metropolis, which should become part of the Moscow Patriarchate. He tried in every possible way to develop the ideas of Orthodox universalism.

Church cathedral. 1654 The beginning of the split. A. Kivshenko

Innovations

But many of Nikon’s supporters, while not against the reform as such, preferred its other development - based on ancient Russian, rather than Greek and Ukrainian church traditions. As a result of the reform, the traditional Russian two-fingered consecration of oneself with a cross was replaced by a three-fingered one, the spelling “Isus” was changed to “Jesus”, the exclamation “Hallelujah!” proclaimed three times, not twice. Other words and figures of speech were introduced in prayers, psalms and Creeds, and some changes were made in the order of worship. The correction of the liturgical books was carried out by inspectors at the Printing Yard using Greek and Ukrainian books. The Church Council of 1656 decided to publish the revised Breviary and Service Book, the most important liturgical books for every priest.

Among different segments of the population there were those who refused to recognize the reform: it could mean that the Russian Orthodox custom, which their ancestors had adhered to since ancient times, was flawed. Given the great commitment of the Orthodox to the ritual side of the faith, it was its change that was perceived very painfully. After all, as contemporaries believed, only precise execution The ritual made it possible to create contact with sacred forces. “I will die for a single Az”! (i.e., for changing even one letter in the sacred texts), exclaimed the ideological leader of adherents of the old order, Old Believers, and a former member of the circle of “zealots of piety.”

Old Believers

The Old Believers initially fiercely resisted the reform. They spoke out in defense of the old faith boyar wives and E. Urusova. The Solovetsky Monastery, which did not recognize the reform, resisted the tsarist troops besieging it for more than 8 years (1668 - 1676) and was taken only as a result of betrayal. Because of the innovations, a schism appeared not only in the Church, but also in society; it was accompanied by infighting, executions and suicides, and intense polemical struggle. The Old Believers formed a special type religious culture with a sacred attitude towards the written word, with loyalty to antiquity and an unfriendly attitude towards everything worldly, with belief in the imminent end of the world and with a hostile attitude towards power - both secular and ecclesiastical.

IN late XVII centuries, the Old Believers were divided into two main movements - the Bespopovtsy and the Popovtsy. The Bespopovites, not finding the possibility of establishing their own bishopric as a result, could not supply priests. As a result, based on the ancient canonical rules about the permissibility of the laity performing the sacraments in extreme situations, they began to reject the need for priests and the entire church hierarchy and began to choose spiritual mentors from among themselves. Over time, many Old Believer doctrines (trends) were formed. Some of which are pending end soon light subjected themselves to “fiery baptism,” i.e., self-immolation. They realized that if their community was captured by the sovereign's troops, they would be burned at the stake as heretics. In the event of troops approaching, they preferred to burn themselves in advance, without deviating in any way from their faith, and thereby save their souls.

Patriarch Nikon's break with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

Nikon's deprivation of patriarchal rank

1658 - Patriarch Nikon, as a result of a disagreement with the sovereign, announced that he would no longer fulfill the duties of church head, took off his patriarchal vestments and retired to his beloved New Jerusalem Monastery. He believed that requests from the palace for his speedy return would not be long in coming. However, this did not happen: even if the conscientious tsar regretted what had happened, his entourage no longer wanted to put up with such a comprehensive and aggressive patriarchal power, which, as Nikon put it, was higher than the royal one, “like heaven is higher than earth.” Whose power in reality turned out to be more significant was demonstrated by subsequent events.

Alexei Mikhailovich, who accepted the ideas of Orthodox universalism, could no longer deprive the patriarch of his dignity (as was done in the Russian local church constantly). The focus on Greek rules confronted him with the need to convene an ecumenical Church Council. Based on the stable recognition of the falling away from true faith Roman see, the ecumenical council was to consist of Orthodox Patriarchs. All of them took part in the cathedral in one way or another. 1666 - such a council condemned Nikon and deprived him of the patriarchal rank. Nikon was exiled to the Ferapontov Monastery, and later transferred to more harsh conditions in Solovki.

At the same time, the council approved church reform and ordered the persecution of Old Believers. Archpriest Avvakum was deprived of the priesthood, cursed and sent to Siberia, where his tongue was cut off. There he wrote many works, and from here he sent messages throughout the state. 1682 - he was executed.

But Nikon’s aspirations to make the clergy beyond the jurisdiction of secular authorities found sympathy among many hierarchs. At the Church Council of 1667 they managed to achieve the destruction of the Monastery Order.

Topic 8. Church schism of the 17th century

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 Russian history - Time of Troubles- Naturally, it also could not but affect her 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 in rejecting 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 worldview and cultural values 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 a 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 schism of the Orthodox Church was a consequence of the difficult times that the great country. 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 causes of the church schism arose, in particular, due to the ban Old Believer books and introducing 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 also 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. In particular, the decisions on the procedure for corrections in church rites and rituals, approved in the spring of 1654, had this nature. church cathedral.

Changes in rituals were carried out on the basis of modern Nikon Greek books and the practices of the Church of Constantinople, information about which the reformer received mainly from the Patriarch of Antioch 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, a large number of Greek and Slavic books, including ancient handwritten ones. Due to the presence of discrepancies in the texts of the collected books, the reference workers of the Printing House (with the knowledge of Nikon) took as a basis the text, which was a translation into Church Slavonic language 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

The schism and formation of the 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. sprouts new culture opposed 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 holy!” The church reform of Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich testified to the forced recognition by the church of the possibility of some changes, but only those that would be carried out within the framework of the canonized orthodox “old times”, in the name and for the sake of strengthening it. The material for 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 Russians Society XVII V. 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 they went far ahead in the development of specific problems of social life. The foundations of the political ideology of absolutism were laid, the need for broad reforms was 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 of 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 the Catholic Church, Krizhanich was exiled in 1661 to Tobolsk, where he lived for 15 years, after which he returned to Moscow and then went abroad. In the essay “Dumas are political” (“Politics”), Krizhanich came up with a broad program of internal reforms in Russia as necessary condition 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 Krizhanich considered a necessary condition for the unity of the Slavs to be 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. In great demand entertaining artistic narratives, satirical works, including criticism of church orders, and works of historical content were used.

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, interest in the Polish language, literature in this language, Polish customs and fashion increased. 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 royal power 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 on the secular authorities.

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 of various forms of resistance to the authority of the official church; exposing the repressive policies of the royal and church authorities towards 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 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.