A consequence of the schism in the Russian Orthodox Church. Church schism and reforms of Patriarch Nikon

Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action

Nothing strikes like a miracle, except for the naivete with which it is taken for granted.
Mark Twain

The church schism in Russia is associated with the name of Patriarch Nikon, who in the 50s and 60s of the 17th century staged a grandiose reform of the Russian church. The changes affected literally all church structures. The need for such changes was due to the religious backwardness of Russia, as well as significant misprints in religious texts. The implementation of the reform led to a split not only in the church, but also in society. People openly opposed new trends in religion, actively expressing their position with uprisings and popular unrest and. In today's article, we will talk about the reform of Patriarch Nikon, as one of the most important events of the 17th century, which had a huge impact not only for the church, but for the whole of Russia.

Prerequisites for the reform

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

Books that have been hand-copied for centuries have had typographical errors 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 rites were conducted according to the principle of "polyphony", which was expressed in the fact that at the same time the service was conducted by the priest, and the clerk, and the singers, and the parishioners. As a result, polyphony was formed, in which it was difficult to make out something.

The Russian tsar was one of the first to point out these problems, proposing to take measures to restore order in religion.

Patriarch Nikon

Tsar Alexei Romanov, who wanted to reform the Russian church, decided to appoint Nikon to the post of Patriarch of the country. It was this man who was instructed to carry out reform in Russia. The choice was, to put it mildly, rather strange, since the new patriarch had no experience in holding such events, and also did not enjoy respect among other priests.

Patriarch Nikon was known to the world under the name Nikita Minov. He was born and raised in a simple peasant family. From an early age, he paid great attention to his religious education, studying prayers, stories and rituals. At the age of 19, Nikita became a priest in his native village. At the age of thirty, the future patriarch moved to the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow. It was here that he met the young Russian Tsar Alexei Romanov. The views of the two people were quite similar, which determined the fate of Nikita Minov.

Patriarch Nikon, as many historians note, was distinguished not so much by his knowledge, but by cruelty and dominance. He literally raved about the idea of obtaining unlimited power, which was, for example, Patriarch Filaret. Trying to prove his importance for the state and for the Russian tsar, Nikon manifests himself in every possible way, including not only in the religious field. For example, in 1650 he actively participated in the suppression of the uprising, being the main initiator of the brutal reprisal against all the rebels.

Lust for power, cruelty, literacy - all this was combined into a patriarchy. These were exactly the qualities that were needed for the reform of the Russian church.

Implementation of the reform

The reform of Patriarch Nikon began to be implemented in 1653-1655. This reform carried in itself fundamental changes in religion, which were expressed in the following:

Baptism with three fingers instead of two.
Bows should be made to the waist, and not to the ground, as it was before.
Religious books and icons have been changed.
The concept of "Orthodoxy" was introduced.
Changed the name of God, in accordance with the global spelling. Now instead of "Jesus" it was written "Jesus".
Replacement of the Christian cross. Patriarch Nikon proposed replacing it with a four-pointed cross.
Changing the rites of the church service. Now the procession took place not clockwise, as it was before, but counterclockwise.

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

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

The Scriptures Predetermined the Church Schism in Russia

Patriarch Nikon, arguing for his reform, said that church texts in Russia have many typos that should be eliminated. It was said that one should turn to Greek sources in order to understand the original meaning of religion. In fact, it was not implemented quite like that...

In the 10th century, when Russia adopted Christianity, there were 2 statutes in Greece:

Studio. The main charter of the Christian church. For many years it was considered the main one in the Greek Church, therefore it was the Studium charter that came to Russia. For 7 centuries, the Russian Church in all religious matters was guided by this charter.
Jerusalem. It is more modern, aimed at the unity of all religions and the commonality of their interests. The charter, starting from the 12th century, becomes the main one in Greece, it also becomes the main one in other Christian countries.

The process of rewriting Russian texts is also indicative. It was planned to take Greek sources and, on their basis, bring religious scriptures into line. For this, in 1653 Arseny Sukhanov was sent to Greece. The expedition lasted almost two years. He arrived in Moscow on February 22, 1655. He brought with him as many as 7 manuscripts. In fact, this violated the church council of 1653-55. Most of the priests then spoke in favor of the idea of supporting Nikon's reform only on the grounds that the rewriting of texts had to come exclusively from Greek manuscript sources.

Arseniy Sukhanov brought only seven sources, thus making it impossible to rewrite texts based on primary sources. Patriarch Nikon's next step was so cynical that it led to mass uprisings. The Moscow Patriarch stated that if there are no handwritten sources, then the rewriting of Russian texts will be carried out according to modern Greek and Roman books. At that time, all these books were printed in Paris (Catholic state).

ancient religion

For a very long time, the reforms of Patriarch Nikon were justified by the fact that he made the Orthodox Church enlightened. As a rule, there is nothing behind such formulations, since the vast majority of people can hardly imagine what is the fundamental difference between orthodox and enlightened beliefs. What's the real difference? To begin with, let's deal with the terminology and define the meaning of the concept of "orthodox".

Orthodox (orthodox) came from the Greek language and means: orthos - correct, doha - opinion. It turns out that an orthodox person, in the true sense of the word, is a person with a correct opinion.
Historical guide

Here, the correct opinion does not mean the modern sense (when people who do everything for the sake of the state are called so). So they called people who for centuries carried ancient science and ancient knowledge. A striking example is the Jewish school. Everyone knows perfectly well that today there are Jews, and there are Orthodox Jews. They believe in the same thing, they have a common religion, common views, beliefs. The difference is that Orthodox Jews brought their true faith in its ancient, true meaning. And everyone admits it.

From this point of view, it is much easier to evaluate the actions of Patriarch Nikon. His attempts to destroy the orthodox church, which is what he planned to do and successfully did, lie in the destruction of the ancient religion. And for the most part, this has been done:

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

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

The reaction of the people to the church schism

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

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

Another situation. Suppose that the Moscow Patriarch today will oblige everyone to be baptized with four fingers, use nods instead of bows, wear a Catholic cross instead of an Orthodox one, hand over all the books of the icon so that they can be rewritten and redrawn, the name of God will now be, for example, "Jesus", and the procession will go for example an arc. This nature of the reform will certainly lead to an uprising of religious people. Everything changes, crosses out the whole age-old religious history. This is exactly what Nikon's reform did. Therefore, a church schism occurred in the 17th century, since the contradictions between the Old Believers and Nikon were insoluble.

What did the reform lead to?

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

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

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

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

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

Church reform of Patriarch Nikon

The church reform of Patriarch Nikon in the Russian state of the 17th century is a whole complex of measures, which consisted of both canonical and administrative acts. They were simultaneously undertaken by the Russian Orthodox Church and the Muscovite state. The essence of the church reform was to change the liturgical tradition, which has been invariably observed since the adoption of Christianity. When attending the services of the Russian Orthodox Church, learned Greek theologians have repeatedly pointed out the discrepancy between the church canons of the Moscow Church and Greek customs.

The most obvious differences were in the tradition of making the sign of the cross, saying alleluia during prayer and the order of the procession. The Russian Orthodox Church adhered to the tradition of overshadowing itself with two fingers - the Greeks were baptized with three fingers. The procession of the Russian priests was carried out by the sun, and the Greek - on the contrary. Greek theologians found many mistakes in Russian liturgical books. All these mistakes and disagreements were to be corrected as a result of the reform. They were corrected, only it did not happen painlessly and simply.

Schism in the Russian Orthodox Church

In 1652, the Stoglavy Cathedral was held, which approved the new church rites. From the moment the council was held, the priests had to create a church service according to new books and applying new rites. The old sacred books, according to which the entire Orthodox Russian people prayed for several centuries, had to be removed. The usual icons depicting Christ and the Mother of God were also subject to confiscation, read destruction, since their hands were folded in two-fingered baptism. For a simple Orthodox people, and not only, it was wild and blasphemous! How could one throw away an icon that had been prayed for by several generations! What was it like to feel like atheists and heretics for those who considered themselves a true Orthodox believer and lived all their lives according to the usual and necessary laws of God!

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

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

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

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

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

In 1652, Metropolitan Nikon was elected patriarch. He entered into the administration of the Russian Church with the determination to restore its full harmony with the Greek Church, destroying all the ritual features that distinguished the former from the latter. The first step taken by Patriarch Nikon on the path of liturgical reform, taken immediately after joining the Patriarchate, was to compare the text of the Creed in the edition of printed Moscow liturgical books with the text of the Symbol inscribed on the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius. Finding discrepancies between them (as well as between the Missal and other books), Patriarch Nikon decided to start correcting the books and rites. Conscious of his "duty" to abolish all liturgical and ritual differences with the Greek Church, Patriarch Nikon set about correcting Russian liturgical books and church rites according to Greek models.

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

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

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

At the divine service, instead of singing “Alleluia” twice (an ominous hallelujah), it was ordered to sing three times (a treble one). Instead of circumambulating the temple during baptism and weddings in the sun, circumambulation against the sun was introduced, and not salting. Instead of seven prosphora, five prosphora were served at the liturgy. Instead of an eight-pointed cross, they began to use four-pointed and six-pointed.

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

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

From the point of view of Patriarch Nikon, corrections and liturgical reforms, bringing the rites of the Russian Church closer to Greek liturgical practice, were absolutely necessary. But this is a very controversial issue: there was no urgent need for them, it was possible to confine ourselves to eliminating inaccuracies in liturgical books. Some differences with the Greeks did not prevent us from being fully Orthodox. Undoubtedly, the too hasty and abrupt breakup of the Russian church rite and liturgical traditions was not forced by any real, urgent need and necessity of the then church life.

The dissatisfaction of the population was caused by violent measures, with the help of which Patriarch Nikon introduced new books and rituals into use. Some members of the Circle of Zealots of Piety were the first to speak out for the "old faith", against the reforms and actions of the patriarch. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniil submitted a note to the tsar in defense of double-fingering and about prostrations during divine services and prayers. Then they began to argue that the introduction of corrections according to Greek models defiles the true faith, since the Greek Church has departed from the "ancient piety", and its books are printed in Catholic printing houses. Archimandrite Ivan Neronov spoke out against the strengthening of the power of the patriarch and for the democratization of church administration. The clash between Nikon and the defenders of the "old faith" took on sharp forms. Avvakum, Ivan Neronov and other opponents of the reforms were severely persecuted. The speeches of the defenders of the "old faith" received support in various strata of Russian society, ranging from individual representatives of the highest secular nobility to the peasants. Among the masses of the people, there was a lively response to the sermons of the schismatics about the onset of the “end time”, about the accession of the Antichrist, to whom the tsar, the patriarch and all authorities allegedly already bowed down and carry out his will.

The Great Moscow Cathedral of 1667 anathematized (excommunicated) those who, after repeated exhortations, refused to accept new rites and newly printed books, and also continued to scold the Church, accusing her of heresy. The cathedral also deprived Nikon himself of the patriarchal rank. The deposed patriarch was sent to prison - first to Ferapontov, and then to Kirillo Belozersky Monastery.

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

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

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

The main result of the schism was a church division with the formation of a special branch of Orthodoxy - old believers. By the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries, there were various currents of the Old Believers, which received the names of "talks" and "consent". The Old Believers were divided into priesthood and priestlessness. Popovtsy recognized the need for the clergy and all church sacraments, they were settled in the Kerzhensky forests (now the territory of the Nizhny Novgorod region), the regions of Starodubye (now the Chernigov region, Ukraine), the Kuban (Krasnodar Territory), the Don River.

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

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

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

Patriarch Nikon had nothing to do with the persecution of the Old Believers - from 1658 until his death in 1681, he was first in voluntary, and then in forced exile.

Gradually, most of the Old Believer agreements, especially priesthood, lost their oppositional character in relation to the official Russian Church, and the Old Believer priests themselves began to make attempts to get closer to the Church. Having retained their ritualism, they submitted to the local diocesan bishops. This is how the common faith arose: on October 27, 1800, in Russia, by decree of Emperor Paul, the common faith was established as a form of reunification of the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church. The Old Believers, who wished to return to the synodal Church, were allowed to serve according to the old books and observe the old rites, among which the greatest importance was attached to double-fingeredness, but Orthodox clergy performed divine services and trebs.

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

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

In July 1856, by decree of Emperor Alexander II, the police sealed the altars of the Pokrovsky and Nativity Cathedrals of the Old Believer Rogozhsky cemetery in Moscow. The reason was denunciations that liturgies were solemnly celebrated in churches, "tempting" the faithful of the Synodal Church. Divine services were held in private prayer houses, in the houses of the capital's merchants and manufacturers.

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

The revolutionary events of the early 20th century gave rise to considerable concessions in the church milieu to the spirit of the times, which at that time penetrated into many church heads, who did not notice the replacement of Orthodox catholicity by Protestant democratization. The ideas that many Old Believers of the early 20th century were obsessed with were of a pronounced liberal-revolutionary nature: “equalization of status”, “cancellation” of Council decisions, “the principle of electiveness of all clerical and clergy positions”, etc. - Stamps of the emancipated time, in a more radical form, reflected in the "widest democratization" and "the widest access to the bosom of the Heavenly Father" of the Renovationist schism. It is not surprising that these imaginary opposites (Old Believers and Renovationism), according to the law of dialectical development, soon converged in the synthesis of new Old Believer sects with Renovationist false hierarchs at the head.

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

In 1929, the Patriarchal Holy Synod formulated three resolutions:

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

- “On the rejection and imputation, as if not the former, of reprehensible expressions relating to the old rites, and especially to the two-fingered”;

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

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1971 approved three resolutions of the Synod of 1929. The acts of the Council of 1971 end with the following words: “The Consecrated Local Council lovingly embraces all those who keep sacred the ancient Russian rites, both members of our Holy Church and those who call themselves Old Believers, but those who profess the salvific Orthodox faith."

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

The split occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church. Three Udmurt priests today announced that they no longer recognize the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church over themselves, however, they remain clergymen of the Moscow Patriarchate.

This scandalous story began back in April with an open appeal by Archpriest Sergius Kondakov, Archpriest Mikhail Karpeev and Priest Alexander Malykh to His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia.

In a 20-minute video, which is available on YouTube, the priests criticized the Russian Orthodox Church "for the inclination of some of the clergy to luxury, for flirting with moneybags, for the blind conciliation of the Russian Orthodox Church with the authorities." Almost immediately, they were relieved of their positions, formally for refusing to mention Patriarch Kirill in divine services.

Today they announced that they not only refuse to mention Kirill, but also no longer recognize any authority of the head of the RCP. "We have reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, headed by the outstanding Archpastor Metropolitan Agafangel." This refers to the former bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, who did not recognize the unification of the ROC and ROCOR that took place in 2008. He calls himself "Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America, and also Archbishop of Tauride and Odessa".

We are discussing the split in the Russian Orthodox Church with the head of the press service of the Moscow Patriarchate, Vladimir Vigilyansky, and the chief priest of the Airborne Forces, Priest Mikhail Vasiliev.

Pispanen: Before leaving for a structure independent of the Russian Orthodox Church, the priests reproached the Russian Orthodox Church for being prone to luxury and flirting with the authorities. Do you agree with such accusations?

Vigilyansky: Partly agree. In general, many of the questions that they raise, sharpening them publicistically, are openly discussed here, without resorting to going into schism or violating church canons, as the unfortunate ones did, it seems to me, I sincerely feel sorry for them, these Izhevsk priests . In general, the document that was published on Youtube and to which you refer is such a mixture of theological problems with politics, canon law with newspaper journalism, you gave some examples, these issues are freely discussed in our bishops' councils and in the information space of the church . For this, it was absolutely not necessary, as it seems to me, to go to such an extreme measure, to violate the apostolic rules, when not remembering their primate before the church court, they announced that they did not remember him, thereby putting themselves, of course, outside any right to discuss with them. It is surprising that these clergymen studied at the seminary, but not a single document ... we have a charter of the church, where absolutely everything is written - the functions of the patriarch, what clerics should do when they disagree with someone or something - such the impression that this, God forgive me, is some kind of homegrown catacomb idea of ecclesiastical and other law.

Pispanen: If you yourself confirm that yes, it is, yes, we are discussing it at the council, and now if some priests, realizing that nothing is being done and nothing is changing, although you are discussing it, they still understand that it is easier to leave, than to fight and treat the ROC. Why is nothing being done?

Vigilyansky: Who claims this? I think it's being done. There is something to be said for each of those 12 counts. Now on the air to delve into each of these points is rather strange. I'm ready, you're just not ready. As for the fact that we are not fighting poverty, nothing of the kind. It was the cathedral that in February just adopted a resolution regarding the fight against poverty in the parishes and the creation of special commissions for clergy who are undergoing material hardships.

Pispanen: In fact, we were not talking about poverty, but about luxury on the contrary.

Vigilyansky: I speak as an example. As for luxury, I would like examples - at least one example could be given by critics in order to further reason. The clergy are very poor.

Fishman: Let's continue this conversation. In part, Father Vladimir admitted the very fact of the claims. It's probably not so much about luxury, but about excessive secularism and, probably, if I understand correctly, liberalism. In fact, those schismatics, I will call them that, these priests accuse the church under the rule of Patriarch Kirill of excessive liberalism. Am I right or not?

Vasiliev: I did not understand the question.

Fishman: Am I right or not, that in fact these are reproaches in liberalism?

Vasiliev: The truth is that there is a stain on the sun. The truth is that the Russian Orthodox Church and its clergy are not taken from Mars in a hermetic package - you are absolutely right in this, they are taken from the same society, and a person very often brings his work, his business, his own personal characteristics. One has more decency by dad and mom, habitat, traditions of ancestors, and he behaves with dignity - he is not sold for money, he does not cheat on his wife and homeland. For another, these traditions are brought up to a lesser extent, of course, what kind of pop is such a parish. Obviously, very often we are faced with the fact that our politicians and athletes are not quite the same as we would like. Unfortunately, this applies equally to priests - they have nowhere to come up with ideal ones. And we really do not just recognize these phenomena - we are annually defrocked for disciplinary crimes, from the point of view of church canons, I emphasize, not criminal law. Our requirements for a pastor are much stricter than the criminal code. For example, if a priest smokes, he is defrocked.

Pispanen: Then it is not clear if the priest smokes, he has some very strict codes and canons, and nevertheless, he allows himself to really lavish when his flock is malnourished.

Vasiliev: What priest are we talking about now?

Pispanen: Let's not call them by their names now, shall we?

Vasiliev: We can call them by name, and it seems to me that this will be correct and interesting for viewers. Everything else, if we are talking about the abstract collective image of a journalist - Dorenko, Kiselev are included in this collective image, the priests - the priest Gapon, let's take the tale of the priest and his worker Balda.

Pispanen: We are talking about modern Russia.

Vasiliev: In modern Russia, we will see people who, in reality, like some kind of Mikhail Ardov or, respectively, Gleb Yakunin, went into political activity and were defrocked, who refused to leave their warm place in the State Duma, as was the case with Yakunin, and, accordingly, preferred to leave their coming. In this case, we are talking about a very specific position of specific priests. I personally know one of them, the eldest, Father Sergius, who fed the military. I can say about his personal decency, I know it, and at the same time, I can say that his performance, in my opinion, is a completely eclectic mixture of unfulfilled ambitions, personal problems and a wide variety of claims, which, in my opinion, just typed from the internet.

Fishman: Everyone has their own problems, all people are different, and all priests are also different. It is clear that everyone remains human at the same time, but we are talking about how this performance reflects something, whether you see some kind of trend in it. The question is whether it can be argued that under Patriarch Kirill the church is more inclined to cooperate with the state than it was before.

Vasiliev: We can talk about something else - about the fact that from the prone position, in which the church was still relatively historically recent, roughly speaking very much, of course, I exaggerate, we begin to rise. And when you start to rise, then naturally, you are more noticeable, more susceptible to the influence of precipitation, criticism, whatever you want. I may be exaggerating a little - the genre itself suggests, but please understand that even if we remain in the knee-elbow position, we still will not suit everyone to the fullest. Therefore, our task is not to please princes and not people, but to serve God, by worship. We are doing this.

Fishman: Let me add a couple of words that, of course, Patriarch Kirill, when he was first elected patriarch, became extremely active, and active in the purely political sense of the word. This period lasted quite a long time, and then gradually began to fade away. There were considerations that this was somehow connected with his relations with the secular authorities.

Vasiliev: These are your conjectures.

Fishman: Certainly speculation. However, this was discussed. But the most apotheosis in some sense of cooperation with the authorities, which happened this week, is the statement by Patriarch Kirill that draft evasion is a mortal sin.

Vasiliev: Did you read the text? Take the text, take the video, and you will see that the phrase you are referring to is not in it. I specifically looked before coming to you.

Pispanen: What is there?

Vasiliev: There is a very clear definition of betrayal as a mortal sin. In this case, it doesn't matter if it's a betrayal of one's wife or one's homeland. In the same place, His Holiness the Patriarch said that betrayal of the oath is a mortal sin. Church canons, which date back to the tradition of one of the local councils in North Africa in the 4th century, I emphasize, in the Roman, then still pagan state, it was determined that if a Christian, even in peacetime, would not serve in the armed forces when he was called, fulfill his duty to protect the fatherland, such a person commits a sin.

Pispanen: But he hasn't sworn in yet.

Vasiliev: The institution of the oath, which exists in the modern army in different states, did not exist, it was not always there. A man was called, since he is a man, it means that he is a protector. Not everywhere and not always was there an oral or written oath, which was sealed with blood, sealing wax or something else. Therefore, realize that this applies not only to those countries where there is an oath, but in general to any person who fulfills his duty to defend the fatherland.

Pispanen: So you agree that any young man who did not join the army commits a mortal sin?

Vasiliev: I only agree that any person who does not fulfill his military duty, evades it, I emphasize, deliberately, does not do it due to illness or, for example, due to studies or some other objective circumstances, this person really, if he is a Christian - this is projected only on those who call themselves Christians - commits a sin. As for the concept of mortal sin, in the Russian Orthodox Church, in general in Christianity, there is no rigid division of sins into mortal and non-mortal. It's just a beautiful phrase. The meaning is very simple - any wound on the finger can be fatal if it becomes infected and is not treated, and will lead, for example, to sepsis. Also, any sin, if a person is rooted in it, does not repent, is not corrected, can lead to the degradation of the personality and, unfortunately, the death of the soul. But this happens if this sin is not healed, if a person has no desire to correct himself, but has a desire to aggravate this sin.

The split of the Russian Orthodox Church

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

background

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

Such a choice was made in the context of the internal church conflict already emerging in the late 1640s, caused by the struggle of Patriarch Joseph with the growing Ukrainian and Greek borrowings initiated by the sovereign's entourage.

Church schism - causes, consequences

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

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

Main dates

The main reason for the split was the reforms of Patriarch Nikon (1633–1656).
Nikon (worldly name - Nikita Minov) enjoyed unlimited influence on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
1649 - Appointment of Nikon as Metropolitan of Novgorod
1652 - Election of Nikon as patriarch
1653 - Church reform
As a result of the reform:
– Correction of church books in accordance with the "Greek" canons;
– Changing the rites of the Russian Orthodox Church;
- The introduction of triplets during the sign of the cross.
1654 - The reform of the patriarch was approved at the church council
1656 - Excommunication of opponents of the reform
1658 - Nikon's renunciation of the patriarchate
1666 - The deposition of Nikon at the church council
1667–1676 - The uprising of the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery.
The rejection of reforms led to a division into supporters of reforms (Nikonians) and opponents (schismatics or Old Believers), as a result, the emergence of many movements and churches.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon

Election of Metropolitan Nikon as Patriarch

1652 - after the death of Joseph, the Kremlin clergy and the tsar wanted the Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod to take his place: the character and views of Nikon seemed to belong to a man who was able to lead the church-ceremonial reform conceived by the sovereign and his confessor. But Nikon gave his consent to become patriarch only after Alexei Mikhailovich's long persuasion and on the condition that there were no restrictions on his patriarchal power. And such restrictions were created by the Monastic order.

Nikon had a great influence on the young sovereign, who considered the patriarch his closest friend and assistant. Departing from the capital, the tsar transferred control not to the boyar commission, as was customary before, but to the care of Nikon. He was allowed to be called not only the patriarch, but also the "sovereign of all Russia." Having taken such an extraordinary position in power, Nikon began to abuse it, seize foreign lands for his monasteries, humiliate the boyars, and severely crack down on the clergy. He was occupied not so much by reform as by the establishment of a strong patriarchal authority, the model for which was the authority of the Pope.

Nikon reform

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

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

Innovations

But many of Nikon's supporters, being not opposed to the reform as such, preferred its other development - based on ancient Russian, and not on Greek and Ukrainian church traditions. As a result of the reform, the traditional Russian double-fingered consecration of oneself with a cross was replaced by a triple-fingered one, the spelling "Isus" was changed to "Jesus", the exclamation "Hallelujah!" proclaimed three times, not twice. Other words and turns of speech were introduced in prayers, psalms and Creeds, some changes were made in the order of worship. The correction of liturgical books was carried out by reference workers at the Printing Yard on Greek and Ukrainian books. The church council of 1656 decided to publish the corrected Trebnik and the Service Book, the most important liturgical books for every priest.

Among the various segments of the population were those who refused to recognize the reform: it could mean that the Russian Orthodox custom, which their ancestors adhered to from ancient times, was vicious. With the great adherence of the Orthodox to the ritual side of the faith, it was precisely its change that was perceived very painfully. After all, as contemporaries believed, only the exact performance of the rite made it possible to create contact with sacred forces. “I will die for a single “az”!” (i.e., for changing at least one letter in the sacred texts), exclaimed the ideological leader of the adherents of the old order, the Old Believers, and a former member of the "zealots of piety" circle.

Old Believers

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

At the end of the 17th century, the Old Believers were divided into two main currents - the Bespopovtsy and the priests. Bespopovtsy, not finding as a result the possibility of establishing their own bishopric, could not supply priests. As a result, based on the ancient canonical rules on the permissibility of the sacraments in extreme situations by the laity, they began to reject the need for priests and the entire church hierarchy and began to choose spiritual mentors from their midst. Over time, many Old Believer rumors (trends) were formed. Some of which, in anticipation of the imminent end of the world, subjected themselves to "fiery baptism", i.e., self-immolation. They realized that if their community was captured by the sovereign's troops, they would be burned at the stake as heretics. In the event of the approach of troops, they preferred to burn out in advance, without deviating from the faith in anything, and thereby save their souls.

The gap between Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

Deprivation of Nikon's patriarchal rank

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

Alexei Mikhailovich, who accepted the ideas of Orthodox universalism, could no longer defrock the patriarch (as was done all the time in the Russian Local Church). Orientation to the Greek rules put him before the need to convene an ecumenical Church Council. Proceeding from the steady recognition of the falling away from the true faith of the Roman see, the ecumenical council was to consist of Orthodox patriarchs. All of them took part in the meeting in one way or another. 1666 - such a council condemned Nikon and deprived him of his patriarchal rank. Nikon was exiled to the Ferapontov Monastery, and later transferred to more severe conditions on Solovki.

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

But Nikon's aspirations to make the clergy beyond the jurisdiction of secular authorities found sympathy with many hierarchs. At the Church Council of 1667, they managed to achieve the destruction of the Monastic order.