Church reform and church schism. Church reform Nikon. schism in the Russian church. What did the reform lead to?

In the 17th century Russian Orthodox Church experienced a schism caused by reforms of rituals and correction of liturgical books.

was a massive religious and social movement that gave birth to its own ideology and culture. Simultaneously with the schism, an acute conflict occurred between the secular and spiritual authorities, which ended with the assertion of the primacy of the power of the king over the power of the patriarch. Church orders of the mid-17th century. caused discontent among ordinary believers and among the clergy. For example, polyphony, when to reduce time church service in the temple they simultaneously read the Gospel, sang and prayed. A circle of “zealots of piety” opposed this form of worship. Among the members of this circle were archpriest Habakkuk (1620-1682) and archbishop Nikon

(1606-1681).

In 1652, the Church Council elected Nikon as the new patriarch. It was not enough for Nikon to be elected to the patriarchal throne. He refused this honor and only after Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich fell on his knees before him did he agree to become patriarch.

Church reform 1653 The first step of Patriarch Nikon was to hold

church reform. Nikon sent instructions to all churches to change the traditional norms of worship for Russian Orthodoxy. The two-finger sign of the cross was replaced by a three-finger one. Prostrations were replaced by belt ones. Processions of the Cross

it was prescribed to be carried out against the sun, and not along the sun, as was the case before. The exclamation “Hallelujah” during worship was required to be pronounced not twice, but three times. At the same time, a check of Russian liturgical books began. The Greek originals were taken as a basis. The previous liturgical books were ordered to be destroyed. The situation was complicated by the fact that Nikon, regardless of Russian traditions, emphasized his commitment Greek rites

. The Patriarch banned icons painted not according to Greek models. He ordered his servants to gouge out the eyes of the collected icons and carry them around the city in this form. Those who refused to accept the innovations were called schismatics . The schismatics themselves considered themselves followers true Orthodoxy in the temple they simultaneously read the Gospel, sang and prayed. A circle of “zealots of piety” opposed this form of worship. Among the members of this circle were archpriest, who was arrested in 1653 and exiled to Siberia . The persecution of Habakkuk's supporters began.

In July 1658 Mr. Nikon was given the king's order to behave more modestly. Nikon decided to take a desperate step - he wrote a letter to the Tsar renouncing his patriarchal rank. In order to stop the attempts of the former patriarch to return to power, it was decided to deprive him of power. For this purpose, a church council was convened, which condemned and deposed Nikon, the main initiator of church reforms, but at the same time approved the reforms themselves. Nikon was sent to exile to the Ferapontov Monastery on White Lake.

Return and execution of Habakkuk

IN 1666 the main leaders of the schism were brought from different places imprisonment in Moscow. The Church Council anathematized and cursed them. Adherents of old religious traditions were persecuted and punished, including the death penalty. This policy has led to Old Believers(schismatics, Old Believers) entire families fled from the central regions of Russia.

In April 1682, Avvakum and other participants in the schismatic movement were burned at the stake . However, the execution of the leaders of the schism led to the fact that many opponents of religious innovations began to voluntarily self-immolate. In 1652, the Church Council elected Nikon as the new patriarch. It was not enough for Nikon to be elected to the patriarchal throne. He refused this honor and only after Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich fell on his knees before him did he agree to become patriarch. Patriarch Nikon split the country into two camps - supporters official religion and adherents of old traditions.

Removing anathemas from old rituals

In 1800, for some of the Old Believers-priests who sought rapprochement with the Moscow Patriarchate, a special single-faith structure was created: while maintaining the pre-reform ritual, they came under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, thereby recognizing that ritual differences do not affect the general dogmatic teaching.

In 1905, Nicholas II, by decree on religious tolerance, removed all restrictions on the rights of Old Believers, and in 1971 Local Council The Russian Orthodox Church adopted a resolution on removing oaths and anathemas from old rituals .

For a modern person, immersed in information flows, the need to edit texts intended for wide circulation is beyond doubt, and the role of the editor seems to him self-evident. It is now impossible to imagine that corrections in books could lead to confrontation in society. Meanwhile, in the Russian medieval consciousness, the view of editing, or, as sources of that time called it, “book right,” was fundamentally different. Disputes about book law became the cause of one of the most significant catastrophes in Russian culture that had long-term consequences -.

The reason for this is in relation to the text and the language of the text: the book did not carry information, it allowed to earthly man come into contact with the heavenly world. Like the icon, it was on the border of the ideal and the material, creating the opportunity to comprehend divine revelation. Therefore, everything that was connected with the book was considered sacred.

In ancient Russian culture, a clear hierarchy of texts developed. The book meant the Holy Scripture, its interpretation by the Fathers of the Church (Holy Tradition). Through a book, like an icon, a person, on an irrational level, conducted a dialogue with God. The teachings of the 14th-century Byzantine theologian Saint Gregory Palamas developed the thought of the late antique philosopher Plotinus about the identity of form and content, the unity of word and essence. This determined the symbolic perception of any sign in the book. The written word and letter possessed holiness, through the graphics of which there was an approach to the incomprehensible divine wisdom. The sacralization of the word and letter of Scripture extended to the language. Church Slavonic language used in Old Russian writing, was specially created to express divinely revealed truth. Its sacredness was initially opposed to the secular, colloquial Russian language, and its use belonged exclusively to the church sphere. It was impossible to speak Church Slavonic in everyday life.

Accordingly, there should have been rules governing the use of books. The creation of new lists was not mechanical copying. The rewriting was intended to restore the integrity of the form of Revelation. It was a search for the correct text, where every word accurately recorded the truth given by God. But the scribes could distort it, so the texts had to be corrected by eliminating formal errors, such as accidental typos and sometimes incorrect translations. Books on the right in Russia were exclusively the prerogative of the church and state. The correctness of the books was a guarantee of the correctness of the entire church rite and the very essence of the doctrine. At the Council of the Stoglavy in 1551, the requirement for mandatory comparison of the manuscript created by the scribe according to the correct ori-gi-na-lama was approved: “... and which holy books in every church you will find are incorrect and descriptive, and you would books from good translations were corrected at the council, before sacred rules They forbid and do not command that uncorrected books should be brought into the church, and that they should not be sung about them.” Detected faulty books had to be removed from churches.

However, a logical question arises: what was meant by the “correct” text? Of course, the main criterion was linguistic and dogmatic-canonical accuracy. It was possible to achieve this in two ways: by editing books based on grammar (formal approach) or by reproducing texts recognized as the most authoritative (textual approach).

Grammarians Church Slavonic language appeared relatively late. Initially, the textual principle of book justice dominated. The scribe's task was to turn to “good translations,” that is, to ancient texts. During the medieval period, truth was in the past. It was given to the prophets Old Testament, but is fully embodied by the appearance of Christ into the world. The goal and meaning of the work of the scribes was fidelity to the primary source - the Bible. It is no coincidence that they emphasized: “We do not create new things, but we renew old things.” But under antiquity in different periods both Russian and Greek traditions were understood. The vagueness of the criteria gave rise to theological disputes about book law.

There were several stages of book justice, and each time these major stages ended dramatically. Most famous example became the case of Maximus the Greek, a Greek learned monk accused of three church councils(in 1525, 1531 and 1549) in the deliberate damage to Russian books. Most likely, he can be compared with a person about whom information from sources in Italy has been preserved. This is a native of the city of Arta, coming from an aristocratic family, in the world Michael Trivolis (Μιχαήλ Τριβώλης). He studied on the island of Corfu, where he graduated from school. Then he went to improve his education in Italy, where Greek learning was highly valued. The previous migration from the former provoked the interest of Italian intellectuals in the Greek tradition, especially the ancient one. Maxim Grek studied at the University of Padua, then visited Milan, Venice, and Florence. He was a member of the circles of leading humanists, among whom the study and systematization took place Greek language. The young man was associated with the Venetian printer Aldus Manutius, who began printing books, including biblical ones, in Greek and in Greek script. Another center of attraction for Maxim the Greek was Florence, where he met an ascetic who shocked him with the purity of his thoughts and ardent criticism of the shortcomings of society - Girolamo Savonarola. This abbot called for following early Christian ideals. The personality of Savonarola made a colossal impression on Maxim the Greek, and became a powerful blow. The Greek left Italy and decided to return to his roots. His choice fell on Athos - the center of the isi-hasm teachings, whose monastic practices and mysticism were perceived by him as the point of contact between the two faiths. The aristocrat took monastic vows under the name Maxim.

An educated monk enjoyed the authority of the brethren. And when I addressed them Grand Duke Vladimir and Moscow Vasily III with a request to send a scribe to translate church books, the choice fell on Maxim the Greek. Vasily III, the son of Ivan III and Sophia Paleologus, who received a humanistic education in Rome in his youth, realized the need to turn to the Greek originals, so Maxim the Greek was received favorably in Moscow. The learned monk, who arrived from Athos in 1518, began translating the Explanatory Psalter (1519), interpretations of the Acts of the Apostles and checking with the Greek text of the Colored Triodion (1525).

Maxim the Greek saw his task as bringing Church Slavonic as close as possible to the Greek language, the structures of which replaced (in his understanding) the missing grammar. By analogy with the Greek language, he established uniformity verb forms second person singular past tense. He replaced the aorist, which recorded the existence of the heavenly world, with a perfect, reflecting the variability of the earthly world. As a result, the phrase of the Creed, “Christ ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father” (or “sat at the right hand of the Father”) began to look like “sat at the right hand of the Father” (or “sat at the right hand of the Father,” or even “sat at the right hand of the Father”). Maxim the Greek was seen to be guilty in the fact that with such a choice of verb tenses, he spoke of Christ as transitory, temporary, passing, and not eternal. In addition, Maxim the Greek was accused of espionage for the Ottoman Empire. Traditionally in Russia, accusations of heresy were supported by accusations of treason. Treason to faith was identical to betrayal of the fatherland. The courts ordered imprisonment. Initially, the Holy Mountain resident was deprived of any opportunity to write; in despair, he scratched phrases on the walls of the dungeon.

Subsequently, the conditions of detention softened, and Maxim the Greek gained the opportunity to create. The learned elder substantiated his practice of book law in special essays (“The Word is Disciplinary on the Correction of Russian Books”), which were supposed to prove that he was right. In captivity, Maxim the Greek continued to work and created a whole corpus of theological works. He turned out to be the leading theologian of the entire Russian Middle Ages, and his linguistic views were transformed during his stay in Russia. In addition to the Greek language, he began to increasingly focus on the Russian spoken language. At the same time, in translations from Greek, he followed the principles of hesychasm, which was characterized by literalism and linguistic calculation of the text. The ideas of Maxim the Greek were embodied in a variety of directions, and his attempts to apply a formal approach to sacred language were continued.

The next stage of the book movement was associated with the advent of book printing in Russia. The initiator was Ivan IV the Terrible and Metropolitan Macarius. By the time of the repose of Maxim the Greek in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the new ruler of the country turned to the idea of creating a printing house. Its very establishment was justified by the need to convey absolutely identical texts to the flock. Of course, theological, canonical and liturgical works had to be uniform for the entire state. There could be no discrepancies. It is impossible to conduct worship, theological polemics or church court, relying on editions of works that differ from each other. Accordingly, the printing house should be one for the whole country, and all its publications were published only with the blessing of the Tsar and the Metropolitan, and subsequently the Patriarch. Reference books (editors) and quotation books appeared—proof copies with corrections made. Ivan Fedorov, when preparing the first dated book, “The Apostle” of 1564, did the work of verifying the texts. He drew on ancient copies in Church Slavonic, as well as Greek, Latin and Czech editions of the Bible. Ivan Fedorov eliminated archaisms and outdated expressions, the Church Slavonic language in some cases came closer to the colloquial language, in other cases more accurate Greek analogues were found: “hypostasis” (instead of “construction”), “elements” (instead of “composition”) and etc. In the afterword to the Apostle, Ivan Fedorov substantiated the need to correct handwritten texts. He spoke about their distortion by scribes.

But not only editing, but also the very principle of replacing a handwritten book with a printed one aroused opposition in Russian society. After all, before this, the process of creating a book was an individual contact between the scribe and God. Now it has been delivered as a technological process. The corrections of the Apostle and the Book of Hours were also criticized, and the new metropolitan, Athanasius, was unable to protect the printers from attacks and accusations. The printing house was destroyed, and Ivan Fedorov and Pyotr Mstislavets had to flee. The pioneer printers found shelter in the East Slavic lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where they were able to continue publishing Church Slavonic books in Zabludov, Lvov, and Ostrog. Their work on checking the texts gave impetus to further philological searches.

Russian pioneers found themselves in a country in which Western and Eastern Christianity coexisted. The complex confessional situation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and then in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) gave rise to new forms of book justice. Polemics with Catholics (and then Uniates) about the essence of language, about the possibility of reflecting Revelation using the Church Slavonic language led to the creation of numerous Orthodox works in its defense. Along with polemical texts, grammars also appeared. The most famous were “Grammar” by Lavrenty Zizaniy (Vilno, 1596) and “Gram-ma-tika” by Melety Smotrytsky (Evye, 1619). They were built according to the Western model, which presupposed the presence of a universal system in the languages of Divine revelation. Lavrenty Zizaniy and Melety Smotritsky codified the Church Slavonic language by analogy with Greek and Latin. Innovative was the analytical way of understanding the language, creating its uniform rules, applicable to both church and secular texts. The approval of the formal principle of book law, based on grammar, could not but influence the Russian tradition - especially after the Time of Troubles, which marked new stage book reference in Russia.

The establishment of the Romanov dynasty determined the confessional policy of the new government. Among the first activities in this direction was book correction. In 1614, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich restored the Printing House in Moscow, and in 1615 the question of collating books intended for publication was raised. During the Time of Troubles, Russian churches were filled with books printed in Orthodox printing houses of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The use of so-called books of the Lithuanian press for worship aroused fears of the Russian spiritual and secular authorities. It was necessary to replace them with Russian publications, but they were completely absent.

Existing Russian publications were also assessed critically. Doubts arose about the inerrancy of Russian liturgical books, and it was necessary to clear them of typos and discrepancies. The work was led by the hero of the Troubles, arch-mandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, Dionysius Zobninovsky. The principles of editing in the circle of Dionysius Zobninovsky gravitated towards the textual tradition, the reference workers turned to the most ancient Russian copies. If necessary, Greek samples were used. In addition, they also referred to “grammatical regulations,” that is, they were ready to operate with elements of a formal approach. They were also very familiar with the works of Maxim the Greek. The archimandrite and his companions - Elder Arseny Glukhoy and the white priest Ivan Nasedka - did a colossal amount of work in three years. They edited the missal, the Colored Triode, the Octoechos, the general and monthly menaions, the Psalter, and the canon. At the same time, the main dispute revolved around one phrase - “and with fire” in the prayer for the consecration of water on the feast of the Epiphany: “You yourself and now, Master, sanctify this water with your holy Spirit and fire.” Corresponding to this text was the ritual of immersing lighted candles in water. The investigators of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, not finding the phrase “and with fire” in ancient Russian manuscripts and Greek books, excluded it from the prayer. Emphasizing the heretical nature of the phrase, the editors argued that water is sanctified by the Holy Spirit, but not by fire. But there were opponents. A secular employee of the order of the Money Table, Antony Podolsky, who had previously taken part in the work of the Moscow Printing House, proved the validity of the phrase. In his interpretation, the phrase “and with fire” meant the possibility of the visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the form of the fire of Epiphany candles. Specifically to clarify this issue, the Council of 1618 was convened, which was led by the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Jonah. He recognized the true position of Anthony Podolsky. Dionysius Zobninovsky and his assistants appeared at the Council on charges of damaging liturgical books and, consequently, heresy. Book correction was thought to be capable of disrupting Russian Orthodoxy and make visible changes in church practice - a symbolic embodiment of religious teachings. The inspectors were sent to prison as heretics and excommunicated from communion. They were saved by the father of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, Filaret, who returned from Polish captivity in 1619 and was ordained patriarch. The primate categorically disagreed with the opinion of the locum tenens. He convened his Council in 1619 against Metropolitan Jonah, at which the point of view of Dionysius Zobninovsky triumphed. Anthony Podolsky was now sent into exile. Patriarch Filaret confirmed his views with the Greek hierarchs. In 1625 four Orthodox Patriarch(Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria) recognized the non-canonical nature of the phrase “and by fire.” Subsequently, Patriarch Nikon abolished the ritual of immersing lighted candles on the day of Epiphany.

Under Patriarch Filaret, disputes about book rights continued. In 1626, the issue of the admissibility of publishing Orthodox works of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Russia was again discussed. The occasion was the visit to Russia of the famous Ukrainian theologian and linguist Lavrentiy Zizaniy. He brought a text new to the Russian tradition - a catechism he compiled. Patriarch Filaret initially blessed the publication, but with the condition of translation and corrections. The text was prepared for printing and published. But the initiator (Patriarch Philaret himself), seeing the finished publication, decided to abandon his idea. He organized conciliar hearings in 1627 on the admissibility of the text for distribution. The hearings revealed ideological and linguistic differences between the scribes of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Kyiv Metropolis. Russian reference workers refused to use Greek publications in book reference. They were well aware that Greek schools and printing houses, banned by the Ottoman authorities, had moved to Italy, primarily to Venice. Therefore, the modern Greek tradition in their presentation bore the “stamp of Latinity.” In the “Debate” it was stated: “We have the rules for all the old Greek translations. But we do not accept new translations of the Greek language and any books. For the Greeks now live in great straits among the infidels and, by their own will, do not have their books to print for them. And for this purpose they introduce other faiths into the translations of the Greek language, whatever they want. And we do not need such new translations of the Greek language, although there is something in them from the new custom printed and we do not accept that new input.” We were talking about publications that were previously so important for Maxim the Greek. But the paradox was that during the cathedral hearings, Lavrentiy Zizanius only repeated all the comments made earlier when working on the text. IN printed edition all of them have already been fixed. Nevertheless, the book was recognized as heretical, and its circulation was destroyed (although it was actively distributed in the manuscript tradition).

Under the next patriarch, Joseph I (1634-1640), disputes about book correction were not renewed. The Printing Yard consistently published liturgical and canonical books. The printing house fulfilled the task set after the Time of Troubles by Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich - to publish a complete cycle of Russian liturgical books. Only the next patriarch, Joseph (1642-1652), was able to complete this order. But he saw the goal much broader. Under Patriarch Joseph, the themes of the Printing House's publications began to change. In addition to liturgical documents, codes of patristic writings, codes of Byzantine church law (Helmsman's Books), treatises in defense of icon veneration, and anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant works were selected for publication. In the 40s of the 17th century, a significant number of texts were published at the Moscow Printing Yard, designed to expose the heterodox and protect the Orthodox from communicating with them. Most non-liturgical publications dated back to Orthodox texts, who came to Russia from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Balkans. In addition, there was a need to publish the full text of the Bible, which was previously absent in Russia. For this, investigators were needed who were familiar with Greek and Latin languages. This time they decided to invite them from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 1649, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich turned to the Kyiv Metropolitan Sylvester Kossov with a request to send learned monks who were “knowledgeable in the Divine Scriptures and familiar with the Hellenic language.” After a repeated invitation, Arseny Satanovsky and Epifaniy Slavinetsky came to Moscow.

During the reigns of Patriarchs Joasaph I and Joseph, the inspectors demonstrated familiarity with the bookish and linguistic principles of Maximus the Greek and knowledge of grammatical works. In the Russian manuscript tradition, new treatises on grammar appear, in which borrowings from the works of Lavrenty Zizaniy and Melety Smotritsky appeared. In 1648, the work of Meletius Smotritsky, containing the codification of the Church Slavonic language, was republished in Moscow. Moreover, the author’s name was removed, and instead of the preface, an essay by Maxim the Greek was added, which made him the author of the entire publication.

But, turning to grammar, the reference books under Patriarchs Joasaph I and Joseph remained supporters of the textual approach, and continued to be chosen as exemplary ancient lists, by which only Russians were understood. Only the Moscow tradition was recognized as true as the only one that preserved religious purity. The reference books managed, although not always consistently, to combine two opposing principles of book reference.

The break between textual and grammatical approaches occurred under Patriarch Nikon (1652-1666), who proclaimed the need for book editing solely on the basis of grammar. The main thing is that Nikon insisted on the piety of Greek books. Russian reference workers who disagreed with the innovations were removed from the Printing Yard. They were replaced by Epiphany Slavinetsky and Arseny the Greek.

The book on the right became one of the main components of the church and ritual reform of Patriarch Nikon. The main role model was the Greek ancient manuscripts: at the Council of 1654 it was decided to “correct the old and Greek books in a dignified and righteous manner.”

The unification of rituals according to the Greek model changed ideas about the correctness of Russian liturgical books. The guidelines changed, the Russian tradition was declared completely distorted, which led to an acute conflict in Russian society, which grew into a schism within the Church. The conflict was aggravated by the methods of activity of the new inspectors. In fact, the Moscow Printing Yard reproduced editions of the 16th and 17th centuries by Greek printing houses in Italy, as well as Orthodox editions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In addition, adherence to the formal principle of book legality was openly proclaimed, that is, strict adherence to the norms of “Grammar” by Meletius Smotrytsky. In the formula “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” the referees excluded the first conjunction, resulting in “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This was perceived as a violation of the equality of the three hypostases of God. The application of a formal approach to book law, which now came exclusively from grammatical rules, caused a schism in the Church. And although the Old Believers, like their opponents, started from the same texts, primarily the works of Maximus the Greek and the book rules of the era of Patriarchs Joasaph I and Joseph, innovations radically changed the entire previous worldview. They destroyed the idea of the relationship between the form and content of the sacred text.

The trend took hold under Patriarch Joachim, when the investigators focused exclusively on Greek sources, which was approved at the Council of 1674. The main attitude of the reference workers was to liken the Church-Slavic language to Greek; they sought to write “in Slavonic,” as the Holy Fathers wrote in the “Hellenic dialect.” At the same time, the correctness of the changes made could be argued by references not only to the grammar of the Church Slavonic language, but also to the grammar of the Greek language. The formal approach became dominant.

In 1682, Patriarch Joachim, in a debate with the Old Believers, stated that the book on the right was conducted “according to grammar.” In a similar situation, Old Believer bookishness in the 17th century moved into the field of handwritten tradition. Deprived of the opportunity to publish their works in the only printing house in the country - the Moscow Printing House - the Old Believers defended their views on the nature of book legality in handwritten works.

New principles of editing led to the secularization of bookishness. Thanks to borrowings from Greek and Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodox traditions, located on the border with the West, Russia was included in the pan-European processes of secularization of culture. The reform of Patriarch Nikon was a significant step in the desecularization of the book. This caused an active protest from the majority of scribes, who defended the previous textual principles of editing and the sacredness of the book. But the conflict quickly grew beyond the level of theological disputes between learned monks and priests. The broadest social strata became opponents of church reform: boyars, merchants, artisans, peasants. They called themselves Old Believers, and considered the slightest changes in words and rituals to be heresy. Medieval views are a thing of the past, but they are carefully preserved to this day in the Old Believer culture. Protecting the Donikon Russian tradition as the only one that has preserved the purity of the Christian faith, the Old Believers are in perfect agreement with different ways of life. The scale of the movement is enormous, supporters old faith fled to the borders Russian Empire, and then further, exploring new countries and continents. The followers of Avvakum organically fit into the context of any culture - from Moldova and Lithuania to the USA, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, etc. And many returned to the ancient capital, and pre-revolutionary Moscow became one of the important Old Believer centers.

Russian Old Believers became the first collectors of ancient codices in the Church Slavic language. Most of these unique monuments are now in the collections of the largest libraries in Russia. They provide an opportunity to modern man, touching them, you will feel the deification of the book that has gone into oblivion.

IN mid-17th century V. relations between the church and the authorities in the Moscow state became complicated. This happened at a time of strengthening autocracy and growing social tension. Under these conditions, transformations of the Orthodox Church took place, which led to serious changes in political and spiritual life. Russian society and church schism.

Reasons and background

The division of the church occurred in the 1650s - 1660s during the church reform initiated by Patriarch Nikon. The reasons for the schism of the church in Rus' in the 17th century can be divided into several groups:

social crisis,
church crisis,
spiritual crisis,
foreign policy interests of the country.

Social crisis was caused by the desire of the authorities to limit the rights of the church, since it had significant privileges and influence on politics and ideology. The Church was born low level professionalism of the clergy, its licentiousness, differences in rituals, interpretation of content holy books. Spiritual crisis - society was changing, people understood their role and position in society in a new way. They expected the church to meet the demands of the times.

Rice. 1. Dual fingers.

Russia's interests in foreign policy also demanded changes. The Moscow ruler wanted to become the heir of the Byzantine emperors both in matters of faith and in their territorial possessions. To achieve what he wanted, it was necessary to bring the rituals into unity with the Greek models adopted in the territories of the Orthodox lands, which the tsar sought to annex to Russia, or take under its control.

Reform and schism

The split of the church in Rus' in the 17th century began with the election of Nikon as patriarch and church reform. In 1653, a document (circular) about replacing the double finger was sent to all Moscow churches sign of the cross for tripartite. Nikon's haste and repressive methods in carrying out the reform provoked protest from the population and led to a split.

Rice. 2. Patriarch Nikon.

In 1658 Nikon was expelled from Moscow. His disgrace was caused by both his lust for power and the machinations of the boyars. The transformation was continued by the king himself. In accordance with the latest Greek models, church rites and liturgical books were reformed, which did not change for centuries, but were preserved in the form in which they received them from Byzantium.

TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this

Consequences

On the one hand, the reform strengthened the centralization of the church and its hierarchy. On the other hand, the trial of Nikon became the prologue to the liquidation of the patriarchate and the complete subordination of the church institution to the state. In society, the transformations that have taken place have created an atmosphere of perception of the new, which has given rise to criticism of tradition.

Rice. 3. Old Believers.

Those who did not accept the innovations were called Old Believers. The Old Believers became one of the most complex and contradictory consequences of the reform, a split in society and the church.

What have we learned?

We learned about the time of the church reform, its main content and results. One of the main ones was the schism of the church; its flock was divided into Old Believers and Nikonians. .

Evaluation of the report

Average rating: 4.3. Total ratings received: 25.

Great influence on the spirituality of the Russian people and Russian history was influenced by the church reform of Patriarch Nikon. To this day this question is open. Historical literature did not fully reveal the reasons for the schism and the presence of the Old Believers in the Orthodox Church in Rus'.

Church reforms found not only supporters, but also opponents. Each of them gives well-founded arguments that they are right and has their own interpretation of events. Wanderers are of the opinion that the reform led to the disappearance of church differences between Russian and Byzantine Orthodox churches, confusion in rituals and books was eliminated. They also argue about the inevitability of the reform carried out by any patriarch of that time. Opponents believe that Orthodoxy in Rus' took its own path of development, and doubt the veracity of church books and rituals of the Orthodox Church in Byzantium, which were a model for Nikon. They believe that the Greek church should have been the successor to the Russian one. For many, Nikon became the destroyer of Russian Orthodoxy, which was at that time on the rise.

Of course, there are more defenders of Nikon, including the modern Orthodox Church. Most historical books were written by them. To clarify the situation, one should find out the reasons for the church reform of Patriarch Nikon, get acquainted with the personality of the reformer, and find out the circumstances of the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Reasons for the church reform of Patriarch Nikon

At the end of the 17th century, the world became firmly convinced that only the Russian Orthodox Church was the spiritual heir of Orthodoxy. Until the 15th century, Rus' was the successor of Byzantium. But later the Turks began to attack it frequently, and the country's economy deteriorated. The Greek Emperor turned to the Pope for assistance in uniting the two churches with significant concessions to the Pope. In 1439, the Union of Florence was signed, in which Moscow Metropolitan Isidore participated. In Moscow they considered this a betrayal of the Orthodox Church. Education Ottoman Empire In place of the Byzantine state, the state was regarded as God's punishment for treason.

In Russia, the strengthening of autocracy took place, the monarchy sought to subjugate itself church authority. The church has long had a great influence on people's lives: it helped get rid of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, united the Russian lands into single state, was the leader in the fight against the Troubles, and established the Romanovs on the throne. However, Russian Orthodoxy has always been subordinate state power unlike the Roman Catholic. Rus' was baptized by a prince, not a clergyman. Thus, the priority of the authorities was provided for from the very beginning.

Orthodox cathedrals left the lands they had, but in the future they could annex others only with the approval of the tsar. In 1580, a ban was introduced on the acquisition of land by any means by the church.

The Russian Church developed into a patriarchate, which contributed to further prosperity. Moscow began to be called the Third Rome.

By the middle of the 17th century, changes in society and the state required the strengthening of church power, unification with other Orthodox churches of the Balkan peoples and Ukraine, and large-scale reform.

The reason for the reform was church books for worship. The differences in practical matters between the Russian and Byzantine churches were clearly visible. Since the 15th century, there have been debates about the “salt walk” and “hallelujah.” In the 16th century, significant discrepancies in the translated church books were discussed: few of the translators were fluent in both languages, the monastic scribes were illiterate and made many mistakes while copying books.

In 1645, Arseny Sukhanov was sent to the Eastern lands to take a census of the ranks of the Greek Church and inspect holy places.

The Troubles became a threat to the autocracy. The question arose about the unification of Ukraine and Russia. But differences in religion were an obstacle to this. Relations between church and royal authorities began to heat up and required significant reforms in the religious field. It was necessary to improve relations with the church authorities. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich needed a supporter of the reform of the Russian church who could lead them. Bringing the Russian Church closer to the Byzantine Church was only possible through an independent and strong patriarchal government, possessing political authority and capable of organizing centralized management church.

The beginning of the church reform of Patriarch Nikon

A reform to change church rituals and books was being prepared, but it was discussed not by the patriarch, but by those around the tsar. The opponent of church reform was Archpriest Avvakum Petrov, and its supporter was Archimandrite Nikon, the future reformer. Also participating in the discussion were Kremlin archpriest Stefan Vonifatiev, Tsar Alexei, bed guard F.M. Rtishchev with his sister, deacon Felor Ivanov, priests Daniil Lazar, Ivan Neronov, Loggin and others.

Those present sought to eliminate official violations, polyphony, and discrepancies; increasing teaching elements (sermons, teachings, educational religious literature), the moral level of clergy. Many believed that gradually the self-interested shepherds would be replaced by a reformed clergy. All this should happen with the confident support of the king.

In 1648, Nikon was appointed Metropolitan of Pskov and Novgorod, many adherents of piety were transferred to big cities and appointed to the posts of archpriests. However, they did not find their followers among the parish clergy. Coercive measures to increase the piety of parishioners and priests led to outrage among the population.

In the period from 1645 to 1652, the Moscow Printing Yard published a lot of church literature, including books for reading on religious topics.

Provincial zealots of piety believed that the differences between the Russian and Byzantine churches arose as a result of the loss by the Greeks true faith due to the presence of Turks in Byzantium and rapprochement with the Roman Church. A similar situation occurred with the Ukrainian church after the reforms of Peter Mohyla.

Those close to the king had the opposite opinion. For political reasons, they maintained a refusal to evaluate the Greek Church, which had departed from the true faith. This group called for the elimination of differences in theological systems and church rituals, using the Greek church as a model. This opinion was held by a minority secular power and the clergy, but which had a great influence on the life of the people. Without waiting for unification, the tsar and the capital's zealots of piety began to independently lay the foundation for future reform. The beginning of Nikon's reform began with the arrival of Kyiv scholar-monks with an excellent knowledge of the Greek language to introduce corrections to church books.

The dissatisfied Patriarch Joseph at a church meeting decided to put an end to the intervention. He rejected “unanimity,” explaining that parishioners could not endure such a long service and receive “spiritual food.” Tsar Alexei was dissatisfied with the decision of the council, but could not cancel it. He transferred the solution to the issue to the Patriarch of Constantinople. After 2 years, a new council was assembled, which overturned the decision of the previous one. The Patriarch was dissatisfied with the interference of the royal authorities in church affairs. The king needed support to share power.

Nikon came from peasant family. Nature endowed him with a good memory and intelligence, and the village priest taught him to read and write. IN

He had already been a priest for years. The Tsar liked Nikon with his solidity and confidence. The young king felt confident next to him. Nikon himself openly exploited the suspicious king.

The new Archimandrite Nikon began to actively participate in church affairs. In 1648 he became metropolitan in Novgorod and showed his dominion and energy. Later, the king helped Nikon become patriarch. Here his intolerance, harshness and harshness manifested themselves. Inordinate ambition developed with a rapid church career.

The new patriarch's long-term plans included ridding church power from royal power. He strove for equal governance of Russia together with the Tsar. The implementation of plans began in 1652. He demanded the transfer of Philip’s relics to Moscow and the royal “prayer” letter for Alexei. Now the tsar was atoning for the sins of his ancestor Ivan the Terrible. Nikon significantly increased the authority of the Patriarch of Russia.

The secular authorities agreed with Nikon to carry out church reforms and resolve pressing foreign policy issues. The tsar stopped interfering in the affairs of the patriarch and allowed him to resolve important external and internal political issues. A close alliance between the king and the church was formed.

Nikon eliminated previous interference in the affairs of the church of his colleagues and even stopped communicating with them. Nikon's energy and determination determined the nature of the future church reform.

The essence of church reforms of Patriarch Nikon

First of all, Nikon started correcting books. After his election, he organized a systematic correction not only of errors, but also of rituals. It was based on ancient Greek lists and consultations with the East. Many perceived the change in rituals as an unforgivable attack on faith.

In the church books there were many typos and clerical errors, small discrepancies in the same prayers.

The main differences between the Russian and Greek churches were:

Carrying out proskomedia on 5 prosphora instead of 7;

A special hallelujah replaced a three-fold one;

Walking was with the sun, not against it;

There was no release from the royal doors;

Two fingers were used for baptism, not three.

The reforms were not accepted by the people everywhere, but no one had yet decided to lead the protest.

The church reform of Patriarch Nikon was necessary. But it should have been carried out gradually so that the people could accept and get used to all the changes.

Church schism (briefly)

The church schism was one of the main events for Russia in the seventeenth century. This process quite seriously influenced the future formation of the worldview of Russian society. Researchers cite the political situation that developed in the seventeenth century as the main reason for the church schism. And the disagreements themselves of a church nature are considered secondary.

Tsar Mikhail, who was the founder of the Romanov dynasty, and his son Alexei Mikhailovich sought to restore the state that had been ruined during the so-called Time of Troubles. Thanks to them, state power was strengthened, foreign trade was restored and the first manufactories appeared. During this period, the legislative registration of serfdom also took place.

Despite the fact that at the beginning of the Romanovs’ reign they pursued a rather cautious policy, Tsar Alexei’s plans included the peoples living in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

According to historians, this is what created the barrier between the king and the patriarch. For example, in Russia, according to tradition, it was customary to cross with two fingers, and most others Orthodox peoples baptized in three, according to Greek innovations.

There were only two options: to impose our own traditions on others or to obey the canon. Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich took the first path. A common ideology was needed due to the centralization of power going on at that time, as well as the concept of the Third Rome. This became a prerequisite for the implementation of the reform, which split Russian people on for a long time. A huge number of discrepancies various interpretations rituals - all this had to be brought to uniformity. It should also be noted that secular authorities also spoke about such a need.

The church schism is closely connected with the name of Patriarch Nikon, who possessed great mind and love for wealth and power.

The church reform of 1652 marked the beginning of a schism in the church. All of the above changes were fully approved at the council of 1654, but too abrupt a transition entailed many of his opponents.

Nikon soon falls into disgrace, but retains all honors and wealth. In 1666, his hood was removed, after which he was exiled to White Lake to the monastery.