Church schism of the 17th century.

Introduction

Church schism of the 17th century

Nikon's personality

Reasons for the split

Reform

. "Solovetsky sitting"

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The reign of Alexei Mikhailovich was marked by the emergence and development of the Old Believers, which became a special phenomenon in national history. Having arisen as a result of opposition to church reform, the Old Believer movement was not fundamentally limited to exclusively religious issues. The events of the Time of Troubles and the new dynasty on the Russian throne raised with particular urgency the question of the fate of the state and society, which is closely connected with the personality of the sovereign. The highest power in the popular imagination acted as a guarantor of stability and social justice. Doubts about the legitimacy of the tsarist government, taking into account the Russian mentality, always posed a danger to the state and public life of Russia and could easily lead to a social tragedy.

Transformations of Russian liturgical practice in the 17th century. were perceived as a betrayal of the foundations of Orthodox doctrine and the established image of an ideal Orthodox sovereign and served as one of the most important reasons conflict that led to a church schism in the second half of the 17th century. Studying the political course of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in the context of the general development of the Russian autocracy makes it possible to identify the peculiarities of government policy in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church and, at the same time, to more deeply reveal the reasons that led to the church schism in the second half of the 17th century, and after it, the religious schism society. In this regard, an important role is played by the question of the attitude of subjects to the head of state, endowed with the rights of supreme power, to his personal qualities, to his government activities.

The study of the main aspects of the ideology of autocracy, on the one hand, and the ideology of schism, on the other, is of significant interest for studying the relationship between Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Archpriest Avvakum as bearers of different ideological tendencies. Because of this, the development of the problem is important for a better understanding of the complex religious and socio-political processes that took place in Russia in the second half of the 17th century. In the scientific literature (as well as in the mass consciousness) there is a stable practice of personifying complex historical processes, linking them with the activities of a particular historical figure.

A similar practice was widely applied to Russian conflicts in the third quarter of the 17th century. The growing autocratic principle, eliminating the features of the class-representative monarchy, relying on the ever-expanding state sector in the economy and actively changing the relationship of the sovereign with society and public institutions through reforms, is personified in Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The implementation of liturgical reforms in the Russian Orthodox Church, the desire of its head to maintain political influence both on the sovereign and on state policy, up to the recognition of the priority of church power over secular power, is linked to the personality of Patriarch Picon. The defense of an alternative version of reforms of the church service and the state system was assigned to the recognized leader of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum. Studying the complex set of their interactions will allow us to better and more fully understand the changes taking place in Russia, taken in the context of the evolution of autocracy in the era of Alexei Mikhailovich.

The relevance of the topic remains in socio-political terms. For modern Russia Following the path of transformation, the experience of the historical past is of not only scientific, but also practical interest. First of all, historical experience is necessary to select the optimal methods government controlled, to ensure stability of the political course, as well as to find the most effective methods when carrying out unpopular or not supported by the entire society reforms, to find compromise options in resolving social contradictions.

The purpose of the work is to study the church schism of the 17th century.

The set goal involves solving the following tasks:

) consider the institution of royal power during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, paying special attention to the church policy of the sovereign and the implementation of church reforms, as well as Alexei Mikhailovich’s attitude to the schism.

) explore the ideological foundations of autocratic power in Russia in the context of Orthodox ideas about the essence of tsarist power and their evolution in the works of the ideologists of the schism;

) to identify the features of the ideas of the ideologists of the Old Believers on the status, nature and essence of royal power, and thereby the features of their ideology as a whole, which changed in the process of church reform.

1. Church schism of the 17th century

During the Church schism XVII century, the following key events can be distinguished: 1652 - Nikon’s church reform 1654, 1656 - church councils, excommunication and exile of opponents of the reform in 1658 - the gap 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.

And the following key figures who influenced directly or indirectly the developments of events and the denouement: Alexei Mikhailovich, Patriarch Nikon, Archpriest Avvakum, noblewoman Morozova We will begin our review of the events of those distant times with the personality of Patriarch Nikon himself, the main “culprit” of the Church schism.

Nikon's personality

Nikon's fate is unusual and incomparable. He quickly ascended from the very bottom of the social ladder to its top. Nikita Minov (that was the name of the future patriarch in the world) was born in 1605 in the village of Veldemanovo not far from Nizhny Novgorod"from simple but pious parents, a father named Mina and mother Mariama." His father was a peasant, according to some sources, a Mordvin by nationality. Nikita's childhood was not easy, his own mother died, and his stepmother was angry and cruel. The boy was distinguished by his abilities, quickly learned to read and write, and this opened the way for him to the clergy. He was ordained a priest, got married, and had children. It would seem that the life of the poor rural priest was forever predetermined and destined. But suddenly three of his children die from illness, and this tragedy caused such emotional shock among the couple that they decided to separate and take monastic vows. Nikita's wife went to the Alekseevsky convent, and he himself went to the Solovetsky Islands to the Anzersky monastery and was tonsured a monk under the name Nikon. He became a monk in the prime of his life. He was tall, powerfully built, and had incredible endurance. He had a quick-tempered character and did not tolerate objections. There was not a drop of monastic humility in him. Three years later, having quarreled with the founder of the monastery and all the brethren, Nikon fled from the island in a storm on a fishing boat. By the way, many years later it was the Solovetsky Monastery that became a stronghold of resistance to Nikonian innovations. Nikon went to the Novgorod diocese, he was accepted into the Kozheozersk Hermitage, taking instead of a contribution the books he had copied. Nikon spent some time in a secluded cell, but after a few years the brethren chose him as their abbot.

In 1646, on business at the monastery, he went to Moscow. There, the abbot of a run-down monastery attracted the attention of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. By his nature, Alexey Mikhailovich was generally subject to outside influence, and at the age of seventeen, while reigning less than a year, he needed spiritual guidance. Nikon had such an impact on the young Tsar strong impression, that he made him archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery, the family tomb of the Romanovs. Here every Friday they served matins in the presence of Alexei Mikhailovich, and after matins the archimandrite conducted long moralizing conversations with the sovereign. Nikon witnessed the “salt riot” in Moscow and participated in the Zemsky Sobor, which adopted the Council Code. His signature was under this set of laws, but later Nikon called the Code " damn book", expressing dissatisfaction with the restrictions on the privileges of monasteries. In March 1649, Nikon became Metropolitan of Novgorod and Velikolutsk.

This happened at the insistence of the tsar, and Nikon was ordained metropolitan while Metropolitan Avphonius of Novgorod was still alive. Nikon proved himself to be an energetic ruler. By royal command, he presided over criminal cases at the Sophia court. In 1650, Novgorod was gripped by popular unrest; power in the city passed from the governor to the elected government, which met in the zemstvo hut. Nikon cursed the new rulers by name, but the Novgorodians did not want to listen to him. He himself wrote about this: “I went out and began to persuade them, but they grabbed me with all sorts of outrage, hit me in the chest and bruised my chest, beat me on the sides with fists and stones, holding them in their hands...” When the unrest was suppressed, Nikon took an active part in the search for the rebellious Novgorodians.

Nikon proposed moving the coffin of Patriarch Hermogenes from the Chudov Monastery, the coffin of Patriarch Job from Staritsa and the relics of Metropolitan Philip from Solovki to the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. Nikon went personally to collect Philip’s relics. CM. Soloviev emphasized that this was a far-reaching political action: “This triumph had more than one religious significance: Philip died as a result of a clash between secular and ecclesiastical authorities; he was overthrown by Tsar John for his bold admonitions and killed by the guardsman Malyuta Skuratov. God glorified the martyr with holiness, but the secular authorities had not yet brought solemn repentance for their sin, and with this repentance they did not refuse the opportunity to ever repeat a similar act regarding the church authorities. Nikon, taking advantage of the religiosity and gentleness of the young tsar, forced the secular authorities to bring this solemn repentance." While Nikon was in Solovki, Patriarch Joseph, famous for his exorbitant covetousness, died in Moscow. The tsar wrote in a letter to the metropolitan that he had to come to rewrite the silver treasury of the deceased - " and if I had not gone myself, then I think that there would be nothing to find even half of,” however, the tsar himself admitted: “I didn’t encroach on other vessels for a bit, but by the grace of God I refrained from praying to your saints; to her, to her, holy lord, I didn’t touch anything...”

Alexei Mikhailovich called on the Metropolitan to return as soon as possible for the election of the Patriarch: “and without you we will not begin at all.” The Metropolitan of Novgorod was the main contender for the patriarchal throne, but he had serious opponents. The boyars were frightened by the imperious manners of the peasant son, who humbled the noblest princes. In the palace they whispered: “There has never been such dishonor, the tsar handed us over to the metropolitans.” Nikon’s relationship with his former friends in the circle of zealots of piety was not easy.

They submitted a petition to the Tsar and Tsarina, proposing the Tsar’s confessor Stefan Vonifatiev as patriarch. Explaining their action, church historian Metropolitan Macarius (M.P. Bulgakov) noted: “These people, especially Bonifatiev and Neronov, who were accustomed under the weak Patriarch Joseph to manage affairs in church administration and court, now wanted to retain all power over the Church and It was not without reason that they feared Nikon, having become sufficiently familiar with his character.” However, the king's favor decided the matter. On July 22, 1652, the church council informed the tsar, who was waiting in the Golden Chamber, that out of twelve candidates, one “reverent and reverend man” named Nikon had been chosen. It was not enough for the imperious Nikon to be elected to the patriarchal throne. He refused this honor for a long time, and only after Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich fell prostrate before him in the Assumption Cathedral, he relented and put forward the following condition: “If you promise to obey me as your chief archpastor and father in everything that I will proclaim to you about the dogmas of God and about the rules, in this case, at your request and request, I will no longer renounce the great bishopric.” Then the Tsar, the boyars and the entire consecrated Council made a vow before the Gospel to fulfill everything that Nikon proposed. Thus, at the age of forty-seven, Nikon became the seventh Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

Reasons for the split

IN early XVII V. - “rebellious age” - after the Time of Troubles, in February 1613, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov took the throne of the Russian state, marking the beginning of the 300-year reign of the House of Romanov. In 1645, Mikhail Fedorovich was succeeded by his son, Alexei Mikhailovich, who received the nickname “The Quietest” in history. By the middle of the 17th century. the restoration of the economy destroyed by the Time of Troubles led to positive results (although at a slow pace) - domestic production is gradually reviving, the first manufactories are appearing, and there is an increase in the growth of foreign trade turnover. At the same time, state power and autocracy were being strengthened, serfdom was being formalized into law, which caused strong discontent among the peasantry and became the cause of many unrest in the future.

Suffice it to name the largest explosion of popular discontent - the uprising of Stepan Razin in 1670-1671. Foreign policy The rulers of Rus' under Mikhail Fedorovich and his father Filaret behaved cautiously, which is not surprising - the consequences of the Time of Troubles made themselves felt. Thus, in 1634, Russia stopped the war for the return of Smolensk; they took practically no part in the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), which broke out in Europe. Bright and truly historical event in the 50s In the 17th century, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, the son and successor of Mikhail Fedorovich, Left Bank Ukraine, which fought, led by B. Khmelnitsky, against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, became part of Russia. In 1653, the Zemsky Sobor decided to accept Ukraine under its protection, and on January 8, 1654, the Ukrainian Rada in Pereyaslav approved this decision and took the oath of allegiance to the tsar.

In the future, Alexey Mikhailovich saw the unification of the Orthodox peoples of Eastern Europe and the Balkans. But, as mentioned above, in Ukraine they were baptized with three fingers, in the Moscow state - with two. Consequently, the king was faced with an ideological problem - to impose his own rituals on the entire Orthodox world (which had long ago accepted the innovations of the Greeks) or to submit to the dominant three-fingered sign. The Tsar and Nikon took the second route. As a result of the root cause of Nikon's church reform, which split Russian society, was political - the power-hungry desire of Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich about the idea of ​​a world Orthodox kingdom based on the theory of “Moscow is the third Rome,” which received a rebirth in this era. In addition, the Eastern hierarchs (i.e., representatives of the highest clergy), who often visited Moscow, constantly cultivated in the minds of the Tsar, the Patriarch and their entourage the idea of ​​​​the future supremacy of Rus' over the entire Orthodox world. The seeds fell on fertile soil. As a result, the “church” reasons for the reform (bringing the practice of religious worship into uniformity) occupied a secondary position. The reasons for the reform were undoubtedly objective. The process of centralization of the Russian state - as one of the centralizing processes in History - inevitably required the development of a unified ideology capable of rallying the broad masses of the population around the center.

Religious forerunners of Nikon's church reform. Nikon's reforms did not start out of nowhere. During the era of feudal fragmentation, the political unity of the Russian lands was lost, while the church remained the last all-Russian organization, and sought to mitigate the anarchy within the disintegrating state. 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. The need for a census of sacred books caused big problems in the Russian state. As is known, book printing did not exist in Rus' almost until late XVI V. (appeared in the West a century earlier), so the sacred books were copied by hand. Of course, during rewriting, mistakes were inevitably made, the original meaning of the sacred books was distorted, and therefore, discrepancies arose in the interpretation of rituals and the meaning of their performance.

At the beginning of the 16th century. Not only spiritual authorities, but also secular ones spoke about the need to correct books. Maxim the Greek (in the world - Mikhail Trivolis), a learned monk from the Athos monastery, who arrived in Rus' in 1518, was chosen as an authoritative translator. Having familiarized himself with Russian Orthodox books, Maxim said that they needed to be brought into uniformity, radically correcting them in Greek and ancient Slavic originals. Otherwise, Orthodoxy in Rus' may not even be considered such. Thus, it was said about Jesus Christ: “two know Me.” Or: it was said about God the Father that He is “co-motherless with the Son.”

Maxim the Greek began an enormous task, acting as a translator and philologist, highlighting different ways of interpreting the Holy Scriptures - literal, allegorical and spiritual (sacred). Principles philological science, which Maxim used, were the most advanced for that era. In the person of Maxim the Greek, Russia for the first time encountered an encyclopedist scientist who had deep knowledge in the field of theology and secular sciences. Therefore, perhaps his further fate turned out to be somewhat natural. Similar attitude Maxim’s approach to Orthodox books aroused distrust in himself (and in the Greeks in general), since the Russian people considered themselves the guardians and pillars of Orthodoxy, and he - quite rightly - made them doubt their own messiahship. Moreover, after the conclusion of the Union of Florence, the Greeks, in the eyes of Russian society, lost their former authority in matters of faith. Only a few clergy and secular persons admitted that Maxim was right: “We came to know God through Maxim; according to the old books, we only blasphemed God, not glorified him.” Unfortunately, Maxim allowed himself to be drawn into feuds at the grand ducal court and was put on trial, eventually finding himself imprisoned in a monastery, where he died. However, the problem with the revision of books remained unresolved, and “surfaced” during the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible.

In February 1551, on the initiative of Metropolitan Macarius, a council was convened, which began the “church dispensation”, the development of a single pantheon of Russian saints, the introduction of uniformity in church life, which received the name Stoglavogo. Metropolitan Macarius, having previously headed the Novgorod church (Novgorod was a more ancient religious center than Moscow), quite definitely adhered to the Jerusalem Charter, i.e. was baptized with three fingers (as in Pskov and Kyiv). However, when he became the Moscow Metropolitan, Macarius accepted the sign of the cross with two fingers. At the Stoglav Cathedral, the supporters of antiquity gained the upper hand, and under pain of a curse, Stoglav banned the “traditional [i.e. hallelujah pronounced three times” and the sign of three fingers, recognized shaving a beard and mustache as a crime against the dogmas of faith. If Macarius had begun to introduce the three-fingered sign as furiously as Nikon would later do, the schism would certainly have occurred earlier.

However, the council decided to rewrite the holy books. All scribes were recommended to write books “from good translations”, then carefully edit them to prevent distortions and errors when copying sacred texts. However, due to further political events- the struggle for Kazan, the Livonian War (especially the Time of Troubles) - the matter of rewriting books died out. Although Macarius showed a fair amount of indifference to the external side of ritual, the problem remained. The Greeks who lived in Moscow and the monks from the Kyiv Theological Academy were of the opinion of bringing the rituals performed in the churches of the Russian state to a “single denominator.” The Moscow “guardians of antiquity” responded that the Greeks and Kyivans should not be listened to, since they live and study “in Latin” under the Mohammedan yoke, and “whoever learned Latin has turned aside from the right path.”

During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Joseph, after many years of the Troubles and the beginning of the restoration of the Russian state, the problem with the introduction of triplets and the rewriting of books again became the “topic of the day.” A commission of “inquirers” was organized from the most famous archpriests and priests, both from Moscow and from other cities. They got down to business zealously, but... not everyone spoke Greek; many were ardent opponents of the “Modern Greek” rituals. Therefore, the main focus was on ancient Slavic translations, which suffered from errors, with Greek books.

Thus, when publishing the book of John Climacus in 1647, the afterword said that the book printers had many copies of this book at their disposal, “but all, by disagreement of each other, largely agree: both in this in advance, then in friends back, in the delivery of words and not according to the series and not exactly this, but in actual speeches and interpreters they do not agree much.” The “researchers” were smart people and could quote chapters of the holy books, but could not judge the paramount importance of the Gospel, the Lives of the Saints, the book Old Testament, the teachings of the church fathers and the laws of the Greek emperors. Moreover, the “inquirers” left the performance of church rites intact, since this was beyond the scope of their powers - something like this could only happen by decision of a council of church hierarchs.

Naturally, special attention in church reform is occupied by the dilemma - how reasonable is it to be baptized with three (two) fingers? This question is very complex and partly contradictory - Nikonians and Old Believers interpret it differently, of course, defending their own point of view. Let's look at some details. Firstly, Rus' accepted Orthodoxy when the Byzantine church followed the Studite Rule, which became the basis of the Russian one (Vladimir the Red Sun, who baptized Rus', introduced the sign of the cross with two fingers).

However, in the XII-XIII centuries. in Byzantium, another, more perfect, Jerusalem Rule became widespread, which was a step forward in theology (since in the Studio Rule theological issues were given insufficient space), in which the three-fingered sign, “three-fingered hallelujah” was proclaimed, bowing on the knees was abolished when those praying beat forehead on the ground, etc. Secondly, it is not strictly established anywhere in the ancient Eastern Church how one should be baptized - with two or three fingers. Therefore, they were baptized with two, three, and even one finger (for example, during the time of the Patriarch of Constantinople John Chrysostom at the end of the 4th century AD). From the 11th century in Byzantium they were baptized with two fingers, after the 12th century. - three; Both options were considered correct (in Catholicism, for example, the sign of the cross is performed with the whole hand).

Reform

The Troubles shook the authority of the church, and disputes about faith and rituals became the prologue to a church schism. On the one hand, Moscow’s high opinion of its own purity of Orthodoxy, on the other hand, the Greeks, as representatives of ancient Orthodoxy, did not understand the rituals of the Russian Church and their adherence to Moscow handwritten books, which could not be the primary source of Orthodoxy (Orthodoxy came to Rus' from Byzantium, and not vice versa). Nikon (who became the sixth Russian patriarch in 1652), in accordance with the firm but stubborn character of a man who does not have a broad outlook, decided to take the direct path - by force. Initially, he commanded to be baptized with three fingers (“with these three fingers it is appropriate for every Orthodox Christian to depict the sign of the cross on his face; and whoever is baptized with two fingers is cursed!”), to repeat the exclamation “Hallelujah” three times, to serve the liturgy on five prosphoras, to write the name Jesus, not Jesus, etc. The Council of 1654 (after the adoption of Ukraine under the rule of Alexei Mikhailovich) turned out to be a “radical revolution” in Russian Orthodox life - it approved innovations and made changes to worship.

The Patriarch of Constantinople and other Eastern Orthodox patriarchs (Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch) blessed Nikon's undertakings. Having the support of the tsar, who gave him the title of “great sovereign,” Nikon conducted the matter hastily, autocratically and abruptly, demanding the immediate abandonment of old rituals and the exact fulfillment of new ones. Old Russian rituals were ridiculed with inappropriate vehemence and harshness; Nikon's Grecophilism knew no bounds. But it was based not on admiration for Hellenistic culture and the Byzantine heritage, but on the provincialism of the patriarch, who emerged from the common people and claimed the role of head of the universal Greek Church. Moreover, Nikon rejected scientific knowledge and hated “Hellenic wisdom.” Thus, the patriarch writes to the king: “Christ did not teach us dialectics or eloquence, because a rhetorician and philosopher cannot be a Christian. Unless someone from Christians drains from his own thoughts all external wisdom and all the memory of Hellenic philosophers, he cannot be saved. Hellenic wisdom is the mother of all evil dogmas.” The broad masses did not accept such a sharp transition to new customs. The books that their fathers and grandfathers lived by were always considered sacred, but now they are cursed?!

The consciousness of the Russian people was not prepared for such changes, and did not understand the essence and root causes of the ongoing church reform, and, of course, no one bothered to explain anything to them. And was any explanation possible when the priests in the villages did not have much literacy, being flesh and blood and blood of the same peasants (remember the words of the Novgorod Metropolitan Gennady, spoken to him back in the 15th century), and the deliberate propaganda of new no ideas? Therefore, the lower classes met the innovations with hostility. Old books were often not given back, they were hidden, or the peasants fled with their families, hiding in the forests from Nikon’s “new books”. Sometimes local parishioners did not give away old books, so in some places they used force, fights broke out, ending not only in injuries or bruises, but also in murders. The aggravation of the situation was facilitated by learned “inquirers”, who sometimes knew the Greek language perfectly, but did not speak Russian to an insufficient extent. Instead of grammatically correcting the old text, they gave new translations from Greek, slightly different from the old ones, increasing the already strong irritation among the peasant masses. Opposition to Nikon also formed at court, among the “fierce people” (but very insignificant, since more than the overwhelming majority of the Old Believers were “recruited” from the common people). Thus, to some extent, the noblewoman F.P. became the personification of the Old Believers. Morozova (largely thanks to the famous painting by V.I. Surikov), one of the richest and most noble women in the Russian nobility, and her sister Princess E.P. Urusova.

They said about Tsarina Maria Miloslavskaya that she saved the archpriest Avvakum (in the apt expression of the Russian historian S.M. Solovyov, “heroic archpriest”) - one of the most “ideological oppositionists” to Nikon. Even when almost everyone came “to confess” to Nikon, Avvakum remained true to himself and resolutely defended the old days, for which he paid with his life - in 1682, he and his “allies” were burned alive in a log house (June 5, 1991 in his native village Archpriest, in Grigorovo, the opening of the monument to Avvakum took place). Patriarch Paisius of Constantinople addressed Nikon with a special message, where, approving the reform being carried out in Rus', he called on the Moscow Patriarch to soften measures in relation to people who do not want to accept “new things” now. Paisius agreed to the existence of local peculiarities in some areas and regions: “But if it happens that one church differs from another in ways that are unimportant and insignificant for the faith; or those that do not concern the main members of the faith, but only minor details, for example, the time of the liturgy or: with what fingers should the priest bless, etc.

This should not produce any division, if only the same faith remains unchanged." However, in Constantinople they did not understand one of the characteristic features Russian person: if you prohibit (or allow) - everything and everyone is obligatory; the principle of the “golden mean”, the rulers of destinies in the history of our country found very, very rarely. The organizer of the reform, Nikon, did not remain on the patriarchal throne for long - in December 1666 he was deprived of the highest spiritual rank (in his place they installed the “quiet and insignificant” Joasaph II, who was under the control of the king, i.e. secular power). The reason for this was Nikon’s extreme ambition: “You see, sir,” those dissatisfied with the autocracy of the patriarch turned to Alexei Mikhailovich, “that he loved to stand high and ride widely. This patriarch rules instead of the Gospel with reeds, instead of a cross with hatchets.” Secular power triumphed over spiritual power. The Old Believers thought that their time was returning, but they were deeply mistaken - since the reform fully met the interests of the state, it began to be carried out further, under the leadership of the tsar. Cathedral 1666-1667 completed the triumph of the Nikonians and Grecophiles. The Council overturned the decisions of the Stoglavy Council, admitting that Macarius and other Moscow hierarchs “wisdomed their ignorance recklessly.” It was the cathedral of 1666-1667. marked the beginning of the Russian schism. From now on, all those who disagreed with the introduction of new details in the performance of rituals were subject to excommunication. The anathematized zealots of the old Moscow piety were called schismatics, or Old Believers, and were subjected to severe repression by the authorities.

.“Solovetsky seat”

Church Cathedral 1666-1667 became a turning point in the history of the schism. As a result of the decisions of the council, the gap between the dominant church and the schismatics became final and irreversible. After the council, the schism movement became widespread. It is no coincidence that this stage coincided with mass popular uprisings in the Don, Volga region and the North. The question of whether the split had an anti-feudal orientation is difficult to resolve unambiguously. Those who took the side of the split were mainly people from the lower clergy, tax-paying townspeople and peasants. For these segments of the population, the official church was the embodiment of an unjust social order, and “ancient piety” was the banner of struggle. It is no coincidence that the leaders of the schism gradually moved to the position of justifying actions against the tsarist government. Raskolnikov could also be found in the army of Stepan Razin in 1670-71. and among the rebellious archers in 1682. At the same time, the element of conservatism and inertia was strong in the Old Believers. “It’s up to us: lie there like this forever and ever!” taught Archpriest Avvakum, “God bless: suffer for putting your finger together, don’t talk too much!” Part of the conservative nobility also joined the schism.

The spiritual daughters of Archpriest Avvakum were the boyars Feodosya Morozova and Princess Evdokia Urusova. They were sisters. Feodosya Morozova, having become a widow, became the owner of the richest estates. Feodosya Morozova was close to the court and performed the duties of a “visiting noblewoman” for the queen. But her house became a shelter for Old Believers. After Theodosya took secret tonsure and became the nun Theodora, she openly began to profess the old faith. She pointedly refused to come to the wedding of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with Natalya Naryshkina, despite the fact that the Tsar sent his carriage for her. Morozova and Urusova were taken into custody.

N.M. Nikolsky, the author of “The History of the Russian Church,” believed that the reluctance to accept new service books was explained by the fact that the majority of the clergy simply could not relearn: “The rural clergy, illiterate, learning services by ear, had to either refuse new books or give way to new ones priests, for it was unthinkable for him to relearn. The majority of the city clergy and even the monasteries were in the same position. The monks of the Solovetsky Monastery expressed this in their verdict directly, without any reservations: “We have become accustomed to serving divine liturgies according to the old service books, according to which we first learned and we got used to it, but now we, the old priests, won’t be able to keep up our weekly queues using those service books, and we won’t be able to study according to the new service books for our old age...” And again and again the refrain repeated in this sentence the words: “we are priests and the deacons are weak and unaccustomed to reading and writing, and are inert in teaching,” according to the new books, “we monks are inert and incapable of learning, no matter how much they teach...” At the church council of 1666-1667. one of the leaders of the Solovetsky schismatics, Nikandr, chose a different line of behavior than Avvakum. He feigned agreement with the resolutions of the council and received permission to return to the monastery, but upon his return he threw off his Greek hood, put on the Russian one again and became the head of the monastery brethren. The famous “Solovetsky Petition” was sent to the Tsar, setting out the credo of the old faith.

In another petition, the monks posed a direct challenge to the secular authorities: “Order, sir, to send your royal sword against us and to transfer us from this rebellious life to a serene and eternal life.” CM. Solovyov wrote: “The monks challenged the worldly authorities to a difficult struggle, presenting themselves as defenseless victims, bowing their heads under the royal sword without resistance. But when in 1668, the solicitor Ignatius Volokhov appeared under the walls of the monastery with a hundred archers, instead of submissively bowing his heads under the sword, he was met shots. It was impossible for such an insignificant detachment as Volokhov's to defeat the besieged, who had strong walls, plenty of reserves, and 90 cannons. The siege - the "Solovetsky Sitting" - dragged on for eight years from 1668 to 1676. At first, the authorities could not send large forces to the White Sea because of the movement of Stenka Razin. After the suppression of the riot, a large rifle detachment appeared under the walls of the Solovetsky Monastery, and shelling of the monastery began.

The monastery stopped confessing, receiving communion, and refused to recognize priests. These disagreements predetermined the fall of the Solovetsky Monastery. The archers were unable to take it by storm, but the defector monk Theoktist showed them a hole in the wall blocked with stones. On the night of January 22, 1676, during a heavy snowstorm, the archers dismantled the stones and entered the monastery. The defenders of the monastery died in an unequal battle. Some of the instigators of the uprising were executed, others were sent into exile.

Conclusion

politics autocracy schism church

The era of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich is a time of transformation in all spheres of state life in Moscow Rus'. During this period, when the memory of the Time of Troubles, the break in the reigning dynasty, and the refusal of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich from autocracy was still preserved, the second Romanov faced the need for decisive steps to legitimize tsarist power and stabilize the very institution of tsarist power.

Alexei Mikhailovich fully accepted the idea of ​​​​the divine origin of royal power and the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe succession of the Romanovs from the Rurikovichs. Alexey Mikhailovich repeatedly spoke about this in his speeches and wrote in letters. The same postulates were propagated in journalism, legal acts, etc. His political ideal is based on the desire for autocracy, identical to the autocracy of Ivan the Terrible. The limits of the king's power are set in heaven, not on earth, and are limited only by Orthodox dogmas. The nature of the power of the two kings remains unchanged, but the methods of carrying out state policy change, and the two sovereigns have different socially significant qualities. Therefore, one is the Terrible, the other is the Quiet. By and large abstaining from political terror and mass repression, Alexey Mikhailovich was able to strengthen his power much more effectively and efficiently than Grozny. The strengthening of the institution of tsarist power found its expression in various areas of state policy of the second Romanov, including its legislative field. In the process of reorganizing the state apparatus, Alexei Mikhailovich managed to concentrate in his hands the main threads of governing the country, not formally, but actually. During reform activities Alexey

Mikhailovich, church reform was carried out. However, its implementation aroused such strong opposition that it ultimately led to a split in Orthodox society.

The change in the status of royal power during the reign of the second Romanov was manifested, in particular, in the change in the title of the sovereign. The title of Alexei Mikhailovich “autocrat” from June 1, 1654 reflected the change in the status of the second Romanov in Russia and in the international arena, and was fully consistent with the reform activities of the sovereign. He thus became both king and autocrat. His father, Mikhail Fedorovich, as is known, had the title “tsar”, but did not have the title “autocrat”. Under Mikhail, finally, there were two “great sovereigns” in Russia: himself and Patriarch Filaret. As a result of the activities of Alexei Mikhailovich, this became impossible.

An analysis of Alexei Mikhailovich’s church policy allows us to draw the following conclusions. The church played a special role in strengthening royal power. With its help, monarchs substantiated the idea of ​​​​divine right. Alexey Mikhailovich was no exception. However, as the autocratic power of the second Romanov strengthened its position, Alexei Mikhailovich needed this support less and less. The Council Code of 1649 legislatively regulated the position of the Church in the state, securing for the secular authorities the right to interfere in church affairs, which could not but cause discontent on the part of the Church. After Nikon left the patriarchate, Alexey Mikhailovich became the de facto ruler of the Church. The large role that the second Romanov played in carrying out church reform serves as evidence of the increased interference of secular authorities in the affairs of the Church. This is clearly shown by the analysis of Alexei Mikhailovich’s interaction with church councils, in the work of which the second Romanov took an active part, often influencing the decisions made.

The question of the relationship between secular and spiritual authorities, which acquired particular urgency during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, was resolved in favor of the former. Nikon, trying to defend the independence of the Church, sought to strengthen patriarchal power through the centralization of church government. However, the patriarch's attempts ran into the strengthening of the autocratic power of Alexei Mikhailovich. As a result, the symphony of powers, Byzantine in nature, was disrupted in favor of secular power. The beginning of the process of absolutization of royal power subsequently led to a weakening of the position of the Church, and ultimately, subordination to the state. G.V. Vernadsky expressed a brilliant idea: as a result of church reforms carried out by Peter I, Russian autocrats freed themselves not only from the “teachings” of church and clergy, but also sought to free themselves from the entire system of Orthodox values. The supreme power in Russia since the time of Peter Alekseevich was subordinate only to God, but not to the Church.

The study of the relationship between Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Archpriest Avvakum during the church reform made it possible to identify two planes in which they developed. One of them is the relationship between the head of state and the leader of the Old Believers, the other is the personal relationship between Alexei Mikhailovich and Avvakum. Avvakum's ideas about Alexei Mikhailovich were in line with the general Old Believer ideas about the true king. In accordance with them, Avvakum assessed the activities of Alexei Mikhailovich during the church reform. Initially, as befits a loyal subject, Avvakum treated Tsar Alexei with great favor.

A study of the archpriest’s work shows that Avvakum had great hopes that Alexei Mikhailovich would take measures to abolish the innovations introduced during the reform, considering this the tsar’s primary duty. Moreover, Avvakum associated changes in church life, first of all, with Nikon, believing that the king was deceived by the patriarch. However, further developments of events demonstrated to Avvakum the illusory nature of his views and hopes. The turning point in Avvakum’s attitude towards Alexei Mikhailovich occurred in Pustozersk exile, when the orotopian finally realized that the sovereign was not an outside observer of church reform, but its direct initiator and main guide. The most important conclusion that Avvakum came to was that Alexei Mikhailovich does not meet the ideal ideas of an ideal king and is not a true Orthodox sovereign due to his failure to fulfill his main duty - to preserve the integrity of Orthodox faith. For a long time the sovereign and the disgraced archpriest did not lose mutual hope for a compromise. Alexey Mikhailovich, despite Avvakum’s intransigence, tried to convince the archpriest to accept the reform. There was no personal hostility in the persecution of Avvakum by Alexei Mikhailovich. Unlike his Pustozersky convicts, Avvakum twice escaped civil execution. In turn, Avvakum hoped that the king would cancel the ongoing reforms.

Thus, in the process of the evolution of the institution of royal power in the middle - third quarter of the 17th century, accompanied by the strengthening of royal power and a change in the status of the sovereign, there was also a transformation of Old Believer ideas about the personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Church reform, like component church policy of the second Romanov, caused an ideological dispute that led to a church schism. The confrontation between the champions of the reform, which included Alexei Mikhailovich, and the adherents of the “old faith”, led by Avvakum, did not reveal any winners. The parties defined and defended their positions, considering them the only correct ones. A compromise between them, and above all on the ideological plane, became impossible.

The fact that the leaders and ideologists of the split, forming a special social type, were able to rise to the development of a fairly coherent theory, from which they drew guidance for practical actions, meant a sharp break with antiquity, with the positions of Russian scribes of the 15th-16th centuries.

Bibliography

1.Andreev V.V. The schism and its significance in Russian folk history. St. Petersburg, 2000.

2.Andreev B.B. Historical fate of the schism // World Work. St. Petersburg, 2000. - No. 2-4.

Volkov M.Ya. Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century // Russian Orthodoxy: milestones in history. - M., 1989.

Vorobiev G.A. Paisiy Ligarid // Russian Archive. 1894. No. 3. Vorobyova N.V. Church reforms in Russia in the middle of the 17th century: ideological and spiritual aspects. - Omsk, 2002.

Vorobyova N.V. Russian Orthodox Church in the middle of the 17th century. - Omsk, 2004.

Kapterev N.F. Patriarch Nikon and his opponents in the matter of correcting church rituals. Sergiev Posad, 2003.

Kapterev N.F. Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich // Three centuries. M., T.2. 2005

Kartashev A.B. Essays on the history of the Russian church. - M., 2002. - T. 2.

Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. T. III. Part 3. M., 2008.

Medovikov P. Historical meaning reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. - M., 2004.

Pavlenko N.I. Church and Old Believers in the second half of the 17th century. // History from ancient times to the present day. - M., 2007. - T. III.

Platonov S.F. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich // Three centuries. T. 1. M., 2001.

Smirnov P.S. Internal issues in the schism in the 17th century. St. Petersburg, 2003

Smirnov P.S. History of the Russian schism of the Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 2005.

Khmyrov. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. // Ancient and new Russia. St. Petersburg, 2005. - No. 12.

Cherepnin JI.B. Zemsky Councils and the establishment of absolutism // Absolutism in Russia (XVII-XVIII centuries). - M., 2004.

Chistyakov M. Historical consideration of the activities of the Orthodox Russian clergy in relation to the schism from its origin to the establishment of the Holy Synod // Orthodox Review. 1887. T. II.

Chumicheva O.V. Solovetsky uprising 1667-1676 - Novosibirsk, 2008.

Shulgin B.S. Movements in opposition to the official church in Russia in the 30-60s of the 17th century: author's abstract. dis. Ph.D. ist. Sci. M., 2007.

Shchapov A.P. Zemstvo and schism. St. Petersburg, 2002.

Shchapov A.P. The Russian schism of the Old Believers, considered in connection with internal state Russian church and citizenship in the 17th century and in the first half of the 18th century. Kazan, 2009.

Yushkov S.B. On the question of the political forms of the Russian feudal state before the 19th century. // Questions of history. 2002. - No. 1.

Yarotskaya E.V. On the history of the text of Avvakum’s “first” petition // Literature of Ancient Rus'. Source study. L., 2008.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

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 Alexey Romanov. The views of the two people were quite similar, which determined future fate 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 exactly the qualities that were needed to carry out the reform 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. Now instead of "Isus" it was written "Jesus".
• Replacement of the Christian cross. Patriarch Nikon proposed replacing it with a four-pointed cross.
• Changes in church service rituals. Now the procession of the Cross was performed not clockwise, as before, but counterclockwise.

All this is described in detail in the Church Catechism. Surprisingly, if we consider Russian history textbooks, especially school textbooks, the reform of Patriarch Nikon comes down to only the first and second points of the above. Rare textbooks say in the third paragraph. The rest is not even mentioned. As a result, one gets the impression that the Russian patriarch did not undertake any cardinal reform activities, but this was not the case... The reforms were cardinal. They crossed out everything that came before. It is no coincidence that these reforms are also called the church schism of the Russian church. The very word “schism” indicates dramatic changes.

Let's look at individual provisions of the reform in more detail. This will allow us to correctly understand the essence of the phenomena of those days.

The Scriptures predetermined the church schism in Russia

Patriarch Nikon, arguing for his reform, said that church texts in Russia have many typos that should be eliminated. It was said that one should turn to Greek sources in order to understand the original meaning of religion. In fact, it wasn't 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. It was planned to take Greek sources and on their basis harmonize religious scriptures. 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 in true sense of this word, is a person with correct opinion.

Historical reference book

Here, correct opinion does not mean modern meaning(when this is what they call people who do everything to please the state). This was the name given to people who carried ancient science and ancient knowledge for centuries. A striking example is the Jewish school. Everyone knows very well that today there are Jews, and there are Orthodox Jews. They believe in the same thing, they have a common religion, common views, beliefs. The difference is that Orthodox Jews conveyed their true faith in its ancient, true meaning. And everyone admits this.

From this point of view, it is much easier to evaluate the actions of Patriarch Nikon. His attempts to destroy the Orthodox Church, which is exactly what he planned to do and successfully did, lie in the destruction of the ancient religion. And by and large it was done:

• All ancient religious texts were rewritten. Old books were not treated on ceremony; as a rule, they were destroyed. This process outlived the patriarch himself for many years. For example, Siberian legends are indicative, which say that under Peter 1 a huge amount of Orthodox literature was burned. After the burning, more than 650 kg of copper fasteners were recovered from the fires!
• The icons were rewritten in accordance with the new religious requirements and in accordance with the reform.
• The principles of religion are changed, sometimes even without the necessary justification. For example, Nikon’s idea that the procession should go counterclockwise, against the movement of the sun, is absolutely incomprehensible. This caused great discontent as people began to consider the new religion to be a religion of darkness.
• Replacement of concepts. The term “Orthodoxy” appeared for the first time. Until the 17th century, this term was not used, but concepts such as “true believer”, “true faith”, “immaculate faith”, “Christian faith”, “God’s faith” were used. Various terms, but not “Orthodoxy”.

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

People's reaction to church schism

The reaction to Nikon's reform is extremely revealing, emphasizing that the changes were much deeper than is commonly said. It is known for certain that after the implementation of the reform began, massive popular uprisings took place throughout the country, directed against changes in the church structure. Some people openly expressed their dissatisfaction, others simply left this country, not wanting to remain in this heresy. People went to the forests, to distant settlements, to other countries. They were caught, brought back, they left again - and this happened many times. The reaction of the state, which actually organized the Inquisition, is indicative. Not only books burned, but also people. Nikon, who was particularly cruel, personally welcomed all reprisals against the rebels. Thousands of people died opposing the reform ideas of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The reaction of the people and the state to the reform is indicative. We can say that mass unrest has begun. Now answer a simple question: are such uprisings and reprisals possible in the event of simple superficial changes? To answer this question, it is necessary to transfer the events of those days to today's reality. Let's imagine that today the Patriarch of Moscow will say that now you need to cross yourself, for example, with four fingers, bows should be made with a nod of the head, and books should be changed in accordance with the ancient scriptures. How will people perceive this? Most likely, neutral, and with certain propaganda even positive.

Another situation. Suppose that the Moscow Patriarch today obliges everyone to make the sign of the cross with four fingers, to use nods instead of bows, to wear a Catholic cross instead of an Orthodox one, to hand over all the icon books so that they can be rewritten and redrawn, the name of God will now be, for example, “Jesus,” and the religious procession will continue for example an arc. This type of reform will certainly lead to an uprising of religious people. Everything changes, the whole century is crossed out religious history. This is exactly what the Nikon reform did. That's why it happened church schism in the 17th century, since the contradictions between the Old Believers and Nikon were insoluble.

What did the reform lead to?

Nikon's reform should be assessed from the point of view of the realities of that day. Of course, the patriarch destroyed ancient religion Rus', but he did what the tsar wanted - bringing the Russian church into line with international religion. And there were both pros and cons:

• Pros. Russian religion ceased to be isolated, and began to be more like Greek and Roman. This made it possible to create greater religious ties with other states.
• Minuses. Religion in Russia at the time of the 17th century was most oriented towards primitive Christianity. It was here that there were ancient icons, ancient books and ancient rituals. All this was destroyed for the sake of integration with other states, in modern terms.

Nikon’s reforms cannot be regarded as the total destruction of everything (although this is exactly what most authors are doing, including the principle “everything is lost”). We can only say with certainty that the Moscow Patriarch made significant changes to the ancient religion and deprived Christians of a significant part of their cultural and religious heritage.

Patriarch Nikon decided to change the ancient church tradition and began to introduce new rituals, liturgical texts and other innovations into the Russian Church without the approval of the council. He ascended the Moscow patriarchal throne in 1652. Even before his elevation to patriarch, he became close to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Together they decided to remake the Russian Church in a new way: to introduce in it such rites, rituals, books that it would be in every way like the contemporary Greek Church, which had long ceased to be completely pious.

Patriarch Nikon introduced into his circle a certain Arseny the Greek, a famous adventurer, a man of very dubious faith. He received his upbringing from the Jesuits, upon arriving in the East he converted to Islam, then again joined Orthodoxy, and then turned to Catholicism. When he appeared in Moscow, he was sent to the Solovetsky Monastery as a dangerous heretic. From there Nikon took him to him and made him his main assistant in church affairs. This caused murmurs among the Russian people. But they were afraid to openly object to Nikon, since the tsar granted him unlimited rights in church affairs.

Relying on friendship and royal power, Nikon embarked on church reform decisively and boldly. He began by strengthening his own power. Nikon had a cruel and stubborn character, behaved proudly and inaccessibly, calling himself, following the example of the Pope, “extreme saint,” was titled “great sovereign” and was one of the richest people in Russia. He treated bishops arrogantly, did not want to call them his brothers, and in every possible way humiliated and persecuted the rest of the clergy. Historian V. O. Klyuchevsky called Nikon a church dictator.

The reform began on the book right. In the old days there were no printing houses; books were copied in monasteries and at episcopal courts special masters. This skill, like icon painting, was considered sacred and was performed diligently and with reverence. The Russian people loved the book and knew how to cherish it as a shrine. The slightest typo in a book, an oversight or a mistake was considered a great sin. The pious people watched carefully to ensure that no mistakes crept in. Scribes usually ended the manuscript with a humble appeal to the reader to identify errors and correct them. And for this, the scribes sincerely thanked the “people's editors” in a Christian manner in advance. That is why the numerous manuscripts of old times that have survived to us are distinguished by the purity and beauty of the writing, the correctness and accuracy of the text. It is difficult to find blots or strikethroughs in ancient manuscripts. They contained fewer typos than modern typo books. Significant errors noticed in previous books were eliminated even before Nikon, when the Printing House began operating in Moscow. The correction of the books was carried out with great care and discretion.

It became different under Patriarch Nikon. At the council of 1654, it was decided to correct liturgical books according to ancient Greek and ancient Slavic, but in fact the correction was made according to new Greek books printed in Jesuit printing houses in Venice and Paris. Even the Greeks themselves spoke of these books as distorted and erroneous.

The change in books was followed by other church innovations. The most notable of these were the following:

— instead of the two-fingered sign of the cross, which was adopted in Rus' from the Byzantine Orthodox Church along with Christianity and which is part of the Holy Apostolic tradition, the three-fingered sign was introduced;
- in old books, in accordance with the spirit of the Slavic language, the name of the Savior “Jesus” was always written and pronounced; in new books this name was changed to the Greekized “Jesus”;
- in old books it is established during baptism, wedding and consecration of the temple to walk around the sun as a sign that we are following the Sun-Christ. In the new books, walking against the sun has been introduced;
- in old books in the creed (8th member) it reads: “And in the Holy Spirit of the True and Life-Giving Lord”; after corrections, the word “True” was deleted;
instead of the special, that is, double alleluia, which the Russian Church has created since ancient times, a three-part (that is, triple) alleluia was introduced;
— The Divine Liturgy in Ancient Rus' was celebrated on seven prosphoras; the new “inspectors” introduced five prosphoras, that is, two prosphoras were excluded.

Nikon and his assistants boldly attempted to change church institutions, customs and even the apostolic traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted at the Baptism of Rus'. These changes in church laws, traditions and rituals could not but cause a sharp rebuff from the Russian people, who sacredly preserved the ancient holy books and traditions. In addition to the very damage to books and church customs, sharp resistance among the people was caused by the violent measures with the help of which Nikon and the tsar who supported him implanted these innovations. Russian people were subjected to cruel persecution and execution, whose conscience could not agree with church innovations. Fearing that they would lose the purity of their faith, some preferred to die rather than betray their fatherly piety, while others left their native places.

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 the worldview and cultural values ​​of the people.

In 1653-1656, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and the patriarchate of Nikon, a church reform was carried out aimed at unifying religious rituals and correcting books according to Greek models. The tasks of centralizing church administration, increasing the collection of taxes levied on the lower clergy, and strengthening the power of the patriarch were also set. The foreign policy goals of the reform were to bring the Russian church closer to the Ukrainian one in connection with the reunification of Left Bank Ukraine (and Kiev) with Russia in 1654. Before this reunification, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, subordinate to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, had already undergone a similar reform. It was Patriarch Nikon who began the reform to unify rituals and establish uniformity in church services. Greek rules and rituals were taken as a model. Church reform, in fact, had a very limited character. However, these minor changes produced a shock in the public consciousness and were received extremely hostilely by a significant part of the peasants, artisans, merchants, Cossacks, archers, lower and middle clergy, as well as some aristocrats.

All these events became the causes of the church schism. The Church split into Nikonians (church hierarchy and most of believers accustomed to obey) and Old Believers, who initially called themselves Old Lovers; supporters of the reform called them schismatics. The Old Believers did not disagree with the Orthodox Church in any dogma (the main tenet of the doctrine), but only in some rituals that Nikon abolished, therefore they were not heretics, but schismatics. Having met resistance, the government began repressing the “old lovers.”

The Holy Council of 1666-1667, having approved the results of church reform, removed Nikon from the post of patriarch, and cursed the schismatics for their disobedience. The zealots of the old faith ceased to recognize the church that excommunicated them. In 1674, the Old Believers decided to stop praying for the Tsar’s health. This meant a complete break between the Old Believers and the existing society, the beginning of the struggle to preserve the ideal of “truth” within their communities. The split has not been overcome to this day. The Russian schism is a significant event in the history of the church. The 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 on Old Believer books and the introduction of new ones. So, in the latter, instead of the word “Jesus” they began to write “Jesus”. Of course, these innovations did not become the main help for the emergence of Nikon’s church schism, but together with other factors they became provocateurs of the church schism of the 17th century. 2. The reason for the schism was the replacement of the 2-finger cross with the 3-finger cross. The reasons for the split were also provoked by the replacement of knee bows with waist bows. 3. The history of the schism had another help: for example, religious processions began to be held in the opposite direction. This little thing, along with others, pushed the beginning of the Orthodox schism. Thus, the prerequisite for the emergence of Nikon’s church schism was not only reform, but also unrest and the political situation. The history of the split had serious consequences for people.

Nikon's reforms and the Old Believers

The essence of the official reform was to establish uniformity in liturgical rites. Until July 1652, that is, before Nikon was elected to the patriarchal throne (Patriarch Joseph died on April 15, 1652), the situation in the church and ritual sphere remained uncertain. Archpriests and priests from the zealots of piety and Metropolitan Nikon in Novgorod, regardless of the decision of the church council of 1649 on moderate “multiharmony,” sought to perform a “unanimous” service. On the contrary, the parish clergy, reflecting the sentiments of the parishioners, did not comply with the decision of the church council of 1651 on “unanimity”, and therefore “multivocal” services were preserved in most churches. The results of the correction of liturgical books were not put into practice, since there was no church approval of these corrections (16, p. 173).

The first step of the reform was the sole order of the patriarch, which affected two rituals, bowing and making the sign of the cross. In the memory of March 14, 1653, sent to churches, it was said that from now on believers “it is not appropriate to do throwing on the knee in church, but bow to the waist, and cross yourself with three fingers naturally” (instead of two) . At the same time, the memory did not contain any justification for the need for this change in rituals. Therefore, it is not surprising that the change in bowing and signing caused bewilderment and dissatisfaction among believers. This dissatisfaction was openly expressed by provincial members of the circle of zealots of piety. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel prepared an extensive petition, in which they pointed out the inconsistency of the innovations with the institutions of the Russian Church and, to substantiate their case, cited in it “extracts from books about folding fingers and bowing.” They submitted the petition to Tsar Alexei, but the Tsar handed it over to Nikon. The patriarch's order was also condemned by archpriests Ivan Neronov, Lazar and Loggin and deacon Fyodor Ivanov. Nikon decisively suppressed the protest of his former friends and like-minded people (13, p. 94).

Nikon's subsequent decisions were more deliberate and supported by the authority of the church council and the hierarchs of the Greek church, which gave these undertakings the appearance of decisions of the entire Russian church, which were supported by the “universal” Orthodox Church. This was the nature of, in particular, the decisions on the procedure for corrections in church rites and rituals, approved by the church council in the spring of 1654.

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

In 1653 - 1656 The liturgical books were also corrected. For this purpose, a large number of Greek and Slavic books, including ancient handwritten ones, were collected. 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 that 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. The sprouts of a new culture were opposed by the patriarchal conservative “old times.” The “zealots of antiquity” from various social circles relied on the principle of the inviolability of orders and customs that were bequeathed by generations of their ancestors. However, the church itself taught in the 17th century. a clear example of a violation of the principle she defends: “Everything old is 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 of the royal authorities to secular knowledge, rapprochement with the West and foreigners was different from that of the clergy. This discrepancy gave rise to new conflicts, which also revealed the desire of the church leadership to impose its decisions 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 power 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 the popular movement, hostile to the ruling class of feudal lords and its ideology.

The events of those times showed that, while defending its political interests, church power turned into a serious obstacle to progress. It interfered with Russia's rapprochement with Western countries. Learning from their experience and making the necessary changes. Under the slogan of protecting Orthodoxy, the church authorities sought to isolate Russia. Neither the government of Princess Sophia nor the reign of Peter I agreed to this. As a result, the issue of complete subordination of church authority and its transformation into one of the links in the bureaucratic system of an absolute monarchy was put on the agenda.

1. Reasons for church reform.

2. Reform of Patriarch Nikon.

3. Schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.

4. Nikon's fate.

1. Reasons for the reform churches were rooted in the social crisis of the mid-17th century. Crisis phenomena also struck the church itself. The low level of professional training of the clergy, its vices, as well as discrepancies in the holy books and differences in rituals, distortions of some church services undermined the authority of the church. To restore its influence, it was necessary to restore order, unify rituals and sacred books according to a single model.

The spiritual crisis experienced by Russian society aggravated the problem of the church meeting the requirements of the time. The crisis was expressed in the secularization of consciousness. There was an individualization of the consciousness of the townspeople and part of the upper crust of society. The rationalization of the consciousness of some layers of Russian society began. The country's foreign policy interests also required reform. Russia tried to unite all Orthodox churches and peoples under its auspices. For these purposes, it was necessary to bring the rituals into unity with the Greek models adopted in the Ukrainian, as well as Serbian and other Orthodox churches in the territories that were planned to be annexed.

3 . Split was a religious and psychological phenomenon that contained, to one degree or another, socio-political components. One of the most complex and controversial consequences of the reform and schism was the Old Believers. Nikon's opponents - the Old Believers - refused to recognize the reforms. The most prominent supporter of the split was Archpriest Avvakum, talented publicist and preacher. After 14 years of imprisonment, Habakkuk was burned alive for “blasphemy against the royal house.”

The emergence of the Old Believers was caused not by the religious formalism of the masses, but by the fact that, without separating ritual from dogma, the people saw in the reform an attack on the faith of their fathers. The old faith was identified by the people with the idea of ​​Holy Rus' (the concept of “Moscow is the third Rome”). In the conditions of the social crisis of the second half of the 17th century. expectations of the end of the world intensified, which explained both the behavior of the early Old Believers and the combination in this movement of social groups so different in their interests and worldview.

Without affecting the fundamentals of Christian teaching, innovations Patriarch Nikon split the Russian Church and society. The split reflected fanaticism, totalitarianism, and the stubborn self-confidence of the Russian soul. Changing rituals of the Old Believers led by Archpriest Avvakum assessed as a betrayal by the Church and the authorities of the ideal of Holy Rus'. Nikon's reforms were perceived by them as a betrayal of God and faith, and therefore as the beginning Last Judgment and the end of Rus'. The split intensified the ideological and social contradictions XVII century.

The unity and integrity of the Church was violated, the sacred nature of power was questioned, and the dependence of the Church on the state increased. The split, which included representatives of all (including higher) classes (Old Believers), became one of the reasons for numerous social movements (Solovetsky uprising, Stepan Razin’s war, etc.). An influential movement of Old Believers is being formed, which exists to this day.

Church Council 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 troops approached, they committed self-immolation.

4 . However, the fate of Nikon himself was also tragic. Possessing considerable ambition and ambition, the patriarch encroached on royal power, desired that the power of the patriarch be higher than the temporal power of the king. At first, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who supported Nikon in everything, when he realized what the patriarch was trying to achieve, stopped communicating with him. Displeased, Nikon left Moscow and waited for the Tsar to ask him for forgiveness and call him to Moscow. Instead, Alexei Mikhailovich convened the most influential Church Council of the Ecumenical Patriarchs in Moscow. Cathedral 1666 - 1667 in addition to the curse of the Old Believers, he condemned and deprived Nikon himself of the patriarchal rank. Nikon ended his life in exile in the New Jerusalem Monastery he himself built near Volokolamsk.