S.D. Miloradovich. “The Trial of Patriarch Nikon”. 1885, oil on canvas
...Let's look for details of Nikon's removal. The essence of the TI interpretation is very contradictory. Allegedly, at the end of the solemn service in the Assumption Cathedral (July 10, 1658), Nikon suddenly announced that he was leaving the patriarchate.
He leaves the patriarchal palace in the Kremlin and goes to the Resurrection Monastery. The frightened tsar sends the boyars after him with a request to return, but the stubborn Nikon refuses. Nikon remains self-absorbed and at the same time an active patriarch.
The king begins to assemble cathedral after cathedral. For some reason, they are trying to remove Nikon himself, who was removed in 1658. And in 1660, and in 1662, and in 1664. They even prepared the verdict, but did not announce it... And then, finally, 1666 broke out! We honor Kartashev:
- “Accelerating the denouement, the tsar, taking advantage of the presence of random guests and hierarchs of the East in Moscow, in February 1666 at the next council, raised the question of Nikon’s uncertain position and, as it were, experimented with the final judgment of him.”
The paradox is that Nikon has already withdrawn himself, and there is not the slightest point in calling on the “hierarchs of the East.” In such cases, Russian metropolitans independently choose their patriarch, who is subsequently approved by the tsar. Without any conciliar decisions or calls from ecumenical patriarchs.
The Council and the call of the Eastern Patriarchs are needed only if the forcible removal of the Patriarch is planned. Bypassing his will. That is, if an independent church court is needed. If we accept the TI version with Nikon's self-removal, none of this is required.
There is one more unclear point. Eight years passed between Nikon's resignation in 1658 and the appointment of the next patriarch in 1667. That is, for eight years the country actually lived without a patriarch.
How can this be? This is basically impossible. All church ceremonies, including Orthodox holidays and the baptism of royal children must be carried out exclusively by the patriarch. Without his blessing, these important events become illegitimate.
Therefore, according to the church canon of that time, the patriarch was elected no later than six months later after the departure of the previous pontiff. Usually right away.
So Why did Nikon resign? There are several conflicting versions of this act, the main one of which comes down to the conflict between the king and the patriarch. They say that the patriarch decided to call himself a sovereign, almost higher than the tsar himself. Tsar Alexei could not stand this.…
But this motive does not withstand elementary criticism. Tsar Alexei revered and bowed to Nikon, consulting with him on all the most important issues. Throughout his life, Alexey Mikhailovich regularly corresponded with Nikon, calling him his “son’s friend,” “his beloved and comrade.” Until his tragic death.
According to the testimony of foreigners, the relationship between the High Hierarch and the Tsar was extremely close; Nikon responded to Alexei with fatherly love. There is nothing surprising in the fact that Alexey Mikhailovich called Nikon “Great Sovereign” in his letters. All patriarchs, including the previous Patriarch Filaret, were called “Great Sovereign.”
Therefore, in principle, there can be no reason for envy or quarrel. There is secular power headed by the tsar, and there is church power headed by the patriarch. These are two components of a single imperial power. The main support secular power The church headed by the patriarch appeared to the king.
At all councils and church festivities, Russian tsars sat just below the throne of the patriarch and slavishly emphasized their subordination to the church. Before the abolition of the patriarchate by Peter the Great, on Palm Sunday in Rus', since ancient times, the rite of the Procession to the Oslyati was performed. The Patriarch, in full regalia, sat on a horse, and the Tsar, in a simple shirt, led the Patriarch’s horse through the city.
These were centuries-old traditions. Tsar Alexei was a man of exceptional piety. There was not the slightest reason to change the canons for the sake of far-fetched infringements on one’s dignity, and there was not the slightest reason to judge the patriarch for this.
During the western campaigns of Tsar Alexei in 1654-1656, Nikon remained the chief manager in Moscow. The most important state affairs were submitted to him for approval, and in the formula of sentences Nikon’s name was put in place of the tsar’s: “The Holy Patriarch indicated and the boyars sentenced.”
On behalf of the sovereign and on his own behalf, he announced orders to orders and sent letters to the governors on matters of civil and even military administration. If the patriarch remained faithful during the war, then what kind of misunderstandings can we talk about in peacetime? Patriarch Nikon NEVER aspired to power.
Moreover, he avoided her and often left the capital for the New Jerusalem Monastery. The TI legend about Nikon's quarrel with the Tsar over power is a stupid, unsubstantiated invention.
Sometimes historians claim that the quarrel occurred because of Nikon’s desire to elevate the church, because of the construction of the New Jerusalem, because of the development of the Moscow-Third Rome theory. But this policy was carried out on the initiative and approval of the king himself. It was for these purposes that Alexei raised the monastic order to unprecedented heights.
To implement the grandiose idea of Rus'-New Israel, the church needed colossal funds. Money for these needs was collected by the monastery order, which in 1651 became the main order after the Ambassadorial Order. By the way, the closure of the Monastic Order took place in 1676.
Immediately after the death of the king. It is obvious that when the monastic order under the patronage of Nikon was abolished, then the patriarch was removed. Everything else is naive insinuation.
As we see, There were no reasons for the deposition or self-deposition of Nikon. Nikon remained patriarch until 1676. And this is easily proven from the correspondence between the king and the patriarch. For example, in a surviving letter from 1669 there is a signature: “Humble Nikon, patriarch by the grace of God, testified with the fear of God and signed with his own hand”
And the king does not find anything seditious in this. He answers him as a humble son of the church and a “companion” of the patriarch. Considering that Nikon had long been deposed by the will of the Tsar himself, then all this is incredible. Moreover, another person, Joasaph, has already been appointed patriarch. According to TI, he assumed the patriarchate in 1667, as a figure approved by the tsar. Why does the king continue to be nice to the deposed patriarch and at the same time does not write a single message to the two subsequent patriarchs?
There are other documents. For example, the blessing from Patriarch Nikon to the Tsar for Easter 1668. But the most interesting document is dated January 29, 1676. In this letter, Tsar Alexei asks Nikon for forgiveness.
Historians slyly attribute this letter to the king’s sudden insight before his death, nothing more. Like, the king, lying on his deathbed, decided to write a letter to his former comrade, to apologize for his disgrace...
But all this is complete nonsense. Before their deaths, the kings confessed and asked for blessings. Blessings from the current patriarch. How else? Here we go it turns out that at the time of the death of Alexei Mikhailovich Nikon was the acting patriarch. Everything else is from the evil one.
*****
Having removed Nikon in 1666, the Romanov Borzopists had to invent two phantom patriarchs. These are the most unknown patriarchs from the entire list; all their activities are shrouded in darkness.
- “In the field of foreign church policy, perhaps the only significant act of Patriarch Joasaph was a request to the Turks to restore to the thrones the former judges of Patriarch Nikon - Patriarchs Macarius of Antioch and Paisius of Jerusalem...
- A number of works published on behalf of the patriarch were written by Simeon of Polotsk...In his place on July 3, 1672, Novgorod Metropolitan Pitirim was erected.
- The primacy of Patriarch Pitirim, a very old man, unable to bear the burden of patriarchal power, passed, according to church historians, without a trace for the Russian Church... The actual ruler of patriarchal affairs under him was his future successor, Metropolitan Joachim of Novgorod.”
Therefore, after numerous documents about Nikon’s activities, the archives contain only documents signed by Joachim. The two far-fetched patriarchs left NOTHING about themselves except an acquittal petition for “ecumenical patriarchs.” There were no other things to do in Rus', just to legalize two false apostate patriarchs? I think you can guess why only this document has been preserved.
Here the historians of the Schlozer school reached unprecedented heights of writing “correct” history. First they came up with a council, or rather a whole string of councils to remove Nikon, then unknown “ecumenical patriarchs” (to legalize the necessary council decisions), then they pulled out two phantom Moscow patriarchs, whose petitions justified the existence of the “ecumenical patriarchs” themselves.
Fraud on forgery and lies drives. They came up with a giant trial of a defenseless holy elder who had been out of work for a long time. Why judge a person and remove him from power if he himself abandoned this power eight years ago? And in general, what does the court have to do with it, when initially we are talking about the election of a new patriarch? The term COURT itself absolutely does not fit into the outline of the events described.
Nevertheless, the documents speak specifically about a certain COURT. Either over Nikon, or over the schismatics. Let's try to make sense of this confusing trial. So who judged whom and for what?
First, let's look for sources.
- “A contemporary record, compiled by the royal clerks, has been preserved about the cathedral trial of Nikon; only a brief one about the first sessions of the Council, and a brief and rather detailed one about the subsequent ones.
- Additions to this record and, as it were, explanations of it can serve, on the one hand, the legends of one of those present at the council, namely Paisius Ligaridas, although, unfortunately, he speaks about two of the first meetings in a mixed manner, without observing chronology, and on the other - legends clerk Shusherin, who, although he was not present at the Council, wrote about it only from rumors about fifteen years later.”
Who is this Paisius Ligarit?
- “Despite his European education, Paisius was not respected in the Orthodox world, since he converted to Catholicism and corresponded with Cardinal Barberini. Paisius Ligarid did not hide his conflicts with the Jerusalem Patriarch Dosifei and other major church figures... Paisius did not know Russian..."
I wonder how Ligarit, who does not know Russian, led the court? And how can we even allow a Catholic to organize a trial of an Orthodox patriarch? Why does a Catholic rule the court in Orthodox Moscow? He was generally barred from entering Muscovy.
No, the Romanov writers did not like history and often wrote obvious hack work. The papal novice Ligarit could end up in Moscow only if the world converged like a wedge... But this is exactly what happened in 1676. As a result of the assassination of Tsar Alexei and the Latin coup. So our comrades, led by Paisius Ligarit, arrived in Moscow. Arrived straight from Rome. Profits to destroy the spiritual stronghold of the Orthodox Empire and introduce Catholicism in Rus'.
The main role at the cathedral is played by the Westerner Paisius Ligarit. But, if the eastern patriarchs arrived, then why so much attention to a certain Paisius? A logical assumption arises that the hitherto unknown “ecumenical patriarch” Paisius and Paisius Ligarit are one and the same person.
Therefore, Paisius Ligarit, in the role of the false Patriarch Paisius of Alexandria, brings charges against Nikon. Until now, the Orthodox Church looks at the figure of Paisius of Alexandria with great skepticism, declaring him a “false patriarch.” In plain language, the church does not know any “ecumenical patriarch” Paisius. Modern historians write in this regard that by the time of the council these “patriarchs” had been deposed in their homeland. But Tsar Alexei did not know about this (!).
It turns out that it was not patriarchs who arrived in Russia, but rogues, unknown in their homeland and officially condemned by the church. Tsar Alexei “accidentally” discovered them in the vicinity of Moscow and, out of the simplicity of his soul, invited them “to the light”... And in the meantime, they decided to judge the Patriarch of Moscow. For your hospitality.
By the way, both Paisius Ligarite and Paisius of Alexandria were deposed and excommunicated from the Orthodox Church. The thing itself is unique. Therefore, the identification of Paisius Ligarite and Paisius of Alexandria is quite justified. It is unlikely that two such outstanding rogues lived at the same time, with the same name and participating in the same events.
All words of Paisius of Alexandria at the Council were voiced by Paisius Ligarite. Allegedly, as a translator... But this is nonsense - Ligarit did not know Russian and was not suitable for the role of a translator.
Apparently Paisius Ligarit is the “ecumenical patriarch Paisius”, who arrived in Russia in 1676 to depose Nikon. This is where Kartashev provides information about the first appearance of the patriarchs in February. It was in February 1676, immediately after the death of Tsar Alexei, that they arrived.
How did Nikon’s deposition go? It turns out that Nikon’s verdict was known in advance. Nikon categorically refused to go to this cathedral, declaring it a deceitful gathering of crooks. He was brought by force and on November 5 in the hut's dining room he was deposed and taken under arrest. Kostomarov writes: “On December 5 the council met again. This time Nikon was taken away from the cross that had previously been carried in front of him..."
Why take away an Orthodox cross from a priest? Who was bothered by the holy symbol of Orthodoxy?! But it was this symbol that the conspirators got rid of first. Until the official decision! And who needed this decision now, if the head of the Russian church had already been defrocked in the dark dining room of the hut? No matter how you legalize this shameful act with a false “ecumenical council,” horseradish is no sweeter than a radish.
Nevertheless, the trial took place. But, let me ask, why? Is it really to judge the already deposed and arrested elder? No, the court was convened for a completely different purpose cherished by the Vatican. Nikon's presence at it was supposed to ALREADY be in the role of a prisoner.
- “On December 12, the ecumenical patriarchs and all the spiritual members of the cathedral gathered in the small Church of the Annunciation, in the Chudov Monastery. ... The king did not come; of the boyars were only sent by the tsar: princes Nikita Odoevsky, Yuri Dolgoruky, Vorotynsky and others. They brought Nikon. ...
- The verdict accused the former Moscow patriarch, mainly because he uttered blasphemies: against the sovereign, calling him a Latin wise man, a tormentor, an offender; on all boyars; to the entire Russian Church - saying that it has fallen into Latin dogmas..."
At the beginning of 1676 Tsar Feodor still a young man of 13 years old, he fell under the influence of the conspiratorial boyars: Odoevsky, Dolgoruky and Vorotynsky. As we wrote earlier, it was these boyars who accepted active participation in the murder of Tsar Alexei. And it was these boyars who were active participants in the trial, allegedly in 1666. But in 1666 they had not yet played any significant role at court. Their rise came precisely in 1676. About them in detail in the next chapter, but for now let's see what charges were brought against Nikon?
One of the main accusations was based on Nikon’s alleged illegal identification of the Moscow and Roman ecclesiastical thrones. Today historians do not remember this. But Nikon directly stated that the Moscow Patriarchate gained its authority as the heir to the vanished Roman diocese.
But this is exactly how things were at that time. Moscow is the heir of Rome-Constantinograd. In Nikon's time this was well known. This was the whole point of removing Nikon and depriving Moscow of the prerogative to be the ecclesiastical capital of the Empire.
In the retellings of historians, Nikon’s reaction to these “accusations” is known:
- “If I am worthy of condemnation,” said Nikon, “then why did you, like thieves, bring me secretly to this church; Why aren’t His Royal Majesty and all his boyars here? Why is there not a nationwide multitude of people on Russian soil?
- Have I accepted the shepherd's staff in this church? No, I accepted the patriarchate in the cathedral church in front of a nationwide multitude, not at my desire and diligence, but at the diligent and tearful prayers of the tsar. Take me there and do with me whatever you want!”
Please note at the time of the beginning of the cathedral, Nikon considers himself the only legitimate patriarch vested with power. And they tell us that he renounced long ago... Some kind of endless series of paradoxes - everything happens contrary to common sense and the elementary canons of that time.
That's why We are forced to recognize the TI version of the Council of 1666 as obviously false. Nikon opposed Latin trends, and it was FOR THIS that he was deposed. They deposed completely illegally.
The point is not about the Old Believers, but about the clash between West and East, Latinism and Orthodoxy. In 1676, the Latin party temporarily gained the upper hand.
Describing the Councils of 1666-1667, all historians note the dominance of Western Russian and foreign churchmen. In fact, Russian priests were in an overwhelming minority at the council.
- “In total, twelve foreign bishops were now present at the Council, which has never happened among us before.”
- "What the poison of the “Latin heresy” flowed into Russia from Ukraine, that all Kyiv scientists since the time of Peter Mohyla were heretics, and Moscow supporters of enlightenment, starting with Polotsk and Medvedev, were declared only agents of the Kievites who had shaken in their faith and the evil Jesuits.”
In addition to Ligaritus, a certain Dionysius actively spoke out from the Latinists. His revelations at this council were preserved. After studying them, Kartashev came to a disconcerting discovery. It turns out that what was discussed at the council was not Nikon or the election of a new patriarch, but the Russian Church itself. The Council of 1666-1667 can be called a trial of the Russian Church:
- “Therefore Dionysius, behind him the patriarchs, and behind them - alas! - and all the Russian fathers of the council of 1667 put the entire Russian Moscow church history in the dock, conciliarly condemned and abolished it. This is how I was rejected the main milestone of Russian ritual antiquity, i.e., the Stoglavy Cathedral»
But could the “quiet” Alexei allow such a Latin coven in Moscow? Here the TI historians will groan in unison: of course, he’s the Quietest... Let’s stop and brainwash our historians. Please forgive me for this harshness, but I can’t say otherwise.
Tsar Alexei strictly observed the rules of all Russian church councils, including the most important Council of the Hundred Heads. And here he personally invites the “Greeks” with Latin filling to testify to the fallacy of the entire Russian Church. All councils are declared invalid, and the naive tsar blindly follows the instructions of visiting crooks.
Next in the dock is the Tsar’s closest comrade-in-arms, Patriarch Nikon, and his Orthodox cross is taken away from him…. No matter how quiet the king was, all this, excuse me, is complete and naive nonsense. Therefore, these events could only occur after the death of the king, in emergency, critical conditions.
Neither 1666 nor 1667 were marked by such signs. Not a single foreign source writes about this Council. How could such radical changes in government policy go unnoticed?
All sources of the 17th century claim that Alexei Mikhailovich remained faithful to the ancient Orthodox rite until his death, was attached to Patriarch Nikon and hated Latinists. Tsar Alexei's hostility to everything Latin was so strong that he forbade praying in Latin even in the German settlement. This is what B. Coyette writes in his notes:
- “... because at that time Catholics were prohibited from holding public worship in the German Settlement, and they did not even have a Priest; and as Divine services were celebrated in our house on Sundays and holidays, the Catholics, who for several years had not had the opportunity to fulfill Christian duties, all flocked to us...”
Could they really judge Patriarch Nikon and the Russian Church itself in front of the Tsar? Could Alexei allow all this if he did not allow a SINGLE PRIEST into Russia, even into the German Settlement? The answers are so obvious that we will ignore the mooing of our historians.
But so that you can more clearly imagine the absurdity of what is happening, we will make a small digression and tell you what views Tsar Alexei adhered to. This is how Paul of Aleppo describes the king during one of the church ceremonies:
- “We could hardly believe that we had arrived at our monastery, for we were dying from fatigue, standing and cold. But what was the position of the king, who remained on his feet continuously for about four hours with his head uncovered, until he distributed four circular bowls to everyone present!
- May God prolong his days and raise his banners with glory and victory! This was not enough for him: at the moment of our arrival at the monastery the bells were rung and the Tsar and his boyars and the Patriarch went to the cathedral, where they served Vespers and Matins and left only at dawn, for a great vigil had been held.
- What hardness and what endurance! Our minds were struck with amazement at the sight of such orders, from which even babies would turn grey... what a blessed day it was on which we saw this most holy king, surpassing the ascetics with his way of life and humility!
- O prosperous king! What have you done today and what do you always do? Are you a monk or an ascetic?... To you, who surpassed hermits and hermits with your way of life and constant constancy in vigils.”
the most representative in terms of the number of participants in the entire previous history of the Russian Orthodox Church; took place in 2 stages: meetings, at which only Russians were present. clergy (29 April - September 1666), and a Council with the participation of both Russian and Greek. clergy (28 Nov. 1666 - Feb. 1667).
Until now In time, a complex set of documents has survived, reflecting the period of preparation for the Council, its holding and accompanying events. Official processing of the materials of the Council is the Book of Conciliar Acts, certified by the signatures of the Greek. and Russian participants (GIM. Sin. No. 314) and published immediately after the end of the cathedral meetings (Sluzhebnik. M., 1668). This document was created during the Council or immediately after its completion, but it cannot be considered the minutes of the meetings. The Book of Acts includes grouped partly by topic, partly by chronology, decisions of the Council (they are presented as separate meetings, but this is hardly an accurate reproduction of the real chronology), questions of the East. To the patriarchs and their answers, some additional texts, for example. op. Athanasius Patellaria on the rite of the liturgy. The Book of Acts does not contain a presentation of the meetings dedicated to the trial of Patriarch Nikon, and a description of the election of Patriarch Joasaph II; there is no mention of the question of the relationship between royal and high-hierarchal power, which caused heated discussions at the Council, etc.
The 1st meeting of the Council, held in the royal dining chamber, was opened by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the response speech was made by the Novgorod Metropolitan. Pitirim. Subsequent meetings took place in the Patriarchal Cross Chamber; the Tsar was not present at them. A separate meeting of the Council was dedicated to the Bishop of Vyatka. Alexander, the only bishop who doubted the correctness of the reforms. Alexander repented, and the decision to remove him from office was canceled. During the Council, most of the Old Believers agreed to accept the reforms; almost all of them were sent “under the leadership” to various monasteries. Apparently, the repentance of many of them at the Council was feigned; in particular, Nikanor, after returning to the Solovetsky Monastery, immediately renounced his renunciation of the Old Believers, pronounced at the Council. Only 4 people. (Archpriest Avvakum, Deacon Fyodor, Priest Lazarus and Patriarchal Subdeacon Fyodor) refused to submit to the cathedral court, to recognize the legitimacy of the reforms, the authority of the judges and the purity of the Greek. Orthodoxy. They were subjected to conciliar condemnation: the clergy were defrocked, then all were anathematized. The Council approved the reforms begun by Patriarch Nikon, but did not condemn the old books and rituals approved by the Stoglavy Council of 1551 and other decrees of the Russian Church. Official the position was that they were condemned for their persistence in disobedience to the Council and the bishops of the Russian Church.
In conclusion, the fathers of the Council adopted the “Spiritual Instruction” addressed to all clergy, in which they expressed their general definition regarding the split. The “Instruction” begins with a listing of the “wines” of the Old Believers, followed by an order to perform divine services only according to newly corrected books, and speaks of the need to receive communion and confession (against the leaders of the Old Believers, who taught that one should not accept sacraments from “Nikonian” priests). The “Instructions” contain a “decree on the celebration of the liturgy,” instructions on the celebration of marriage, funeral services, and a number of disciplinary orders. At the end it is said that all clergy must have the “Manual” and act in accordance with it, otherwise they will be subject to severe punishment. The cathedral adopted a number of resolutions on deanery: against drunkenness of clergy, on maintaining order in churches, on not giving communion to unworthy people, against the transfer of monks without special permission from monastery to monastery, etc., etc.
2nd stage B.M.S.
2 Nov In 1666, the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were solemnly greeted in Moscow. Bells rang throughout the city, 3 meetings were organized: at the Intercession Gate, at Execution Place on Red Square, at the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral. 4 Nov A ceremonial reception took place at the Tsar's, the next day Alexei Mikhailovich talked privately with the Patriarchs for 4 hours. 7 Nov in the presence of Russian clergy and senior government. officials Alexey Mikhailovich addressed the Patriarchs with a solemn speech and handed over for review the documents prepared for the Council. 20 days were allotted for reading, Paisius Ligarid was the translator.
12 foreign bishops took part in the work of this stage of the B.M.S.: Patriarchs Paisios of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch; representatives of the K-Polish Patriarch - Metropolitans Gregory of Nicea, Cosmas of Amasia, Athanasius of Iconium, Philotheus of Trebizond, Daniel of Varna and Archbishop. Daniil Pogoniansky; from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and Palestine - Archbishop. Mount Sinai Ananias and Paisius Ligarid; from Georgia - Met. Epiphanius; from Serbia - bishop. Joachim (Djakovic); from Little Russia - Chernigov bishop. Lazar (Baranovich) and Bishop of Mstislav. Methodius (locum tenens of the Kyiv Metropolis). Rus. participants of the Council: Metropolitans Pitirim of Novgorod, Lavrenty of Kazan, Jonah of Rostov, Pavel Krutitsky, Theodosius, Metropolitan. at the Moscow Archangel Cathedral; Archbishops Simon of Vologda, Filaret of Smolensk, Hilarion of Ryazan, Joasaph of Tver, Arseny of Pskov, and later they were joined by the newly installed bishop of Kolomna. Misail. By the end of the meetings of the Council, a new Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', Joasaph II, was elected. Thus, the documents of the Council were signed by 17 Russians. bishops. A large number of Russian and foreign archimandrites, abbots, monks and priests also took part in the Council.
The cathedral was opened on November 28. in the sovereign's dining room. The first question to be raised was the fate of Patriarch Nikon and the Russian Patriarchal Throne. Summoned to the Council, Nikon November 29 declared that he was not placed on the Patriarchal throne by these Patriarchs and they themselves do not live in their capital cities, so they cannot judge him. Previously, Nikon especially insisted that only the K-Polish Patriarch could judge him, since it was he who installed him (in fact, Nikon’s installation as Patriarch was carried out by Russian bishops). However, the trial has already begun. Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) has 8 meetings dedicated to the “Nikon case”: 3 preliminary (November 7, 18 and 28), 4 judicial (November 30, December 1, 3 and 5) and the final one in the Miracle Monastery, when The verdict was announced (Dec. 12). At the Council, Nikon was charged with: 1) slandering the Tsar, who, according to the Patriarch, violated church canons and interfered in the affairs of the Church, as well as slandering other persons; 2) in willful and illegal abandonment of the Patriarchal throne and flock; 3) in the illegal dethronement of the Kolomna bishop. Paul; 4) following the Catholic. custom, which was expressed in Nikon’s command to carry a cross in front of him; 5) in the illegal establishment of a mon-rei outside the Patriarchal region on lands taken from the mon-rei of other dioceses. By decision of the Council, Nikon was deprived of the Patriarchal and holy ranks and exiled to Ferapontov Monastery. The mon-ri founded by him came under the control of the diocesan bishops.
14 Jan In 1667, the participants of the Council had to sign a conciliar act prepared by the Greeks on the deposition of Nikon. Metropolitan of Krutitsky Pavel and Ryazan Archbishop. Hilarion refused to sign the conciliar verdict, disagreeing with the provision it contained about the priority of secular power over ecclesiastical power. During the ensuing dispute, Paul and Hilarion received support from many. rus. hierarchs who presented extracts from the writings of the Fathers of the Church on the superiority of the priesthood over the kingdom and disputed the arguments of the opposing side, which were put forward by Paisius Ligarid. After lengthy debates, a formula was developed expressing the principle of the symphony of the priesthood and the kingdom: “The Tsar has priority in civil affairs, and the Patriarch in church affairs, so that in this way the order of the church institution can be preserved intact and unshakable forever.” This provision was included in the verdict, which was signed by all members of the Council. Russian insubordination hierarchs of the east The latter caused extreme irritation to the patriarchs. 24 Jan a decision was made to impose penance on Paul and Hilarion, while it was noted: if the 4 Ecumenical Patriarchs make a common decision, it is not subject to revision.
Despite the punishment of Metropolitan. Paul and Archbishop Hilarion, precisely with the position of the Russian that emerged during this dispute. episcopacy should be bound by that part of the decisions of the Council, which treats the question of church court. The Council decided to abolish the Monastic Order and abolish the jurisdiction of the clergy over secular officials. The exclusive jurisdiction of clergy in all cases was established to ecclesiastical judges; in case of committing serious crimes (for example, participation in robbery), the clergy was to be punished with strict church punishment and, after defrocking, was subjected to secular court. The previously existing practice in Russia of secular trials of clergy in matters of a strictly ecclesiastical nature contradicted the norms of canon law. The struggle for its abolition began at the Stoglavy Council; the decisions of the Council of 1667 in this part were the restoration and development of the resolutions of the Council of 1551. In 1668, to organize such a court in the Patriarchal region, the Patriarchal Spiritual Order was created, and corresponding bodies appeared in others. dioceses. In general, however, after B.M.S. only the first steps were taken for final approval accepted standards and their implementation required the convening of a Council in 1675.
Subsequent meetings of the B.M.S. were held in the Patriarchal Cross Chamber without the participation of the tsar. The election of a new All-Russian Patriarch took place. 31 Jan the fathers of the Council submitted to the king the names of 3 candidates: Joasaph, Archimandrite. Trinity-Sergius Monastery, Philaret, archim. Vladimir Monastery, Savva, cellarer of the Chudov Monastery. The king gave preference to Joasaph, who was “even then in extreme old age and in everyday illness.” This choice indicated that Alexei Mikhailovich did not want to see an active and independent person at the head of the Russian Church.
The most important issue discussed at the B.M.S. was the problem associated with the activities of opponents of the reform. The unrepentant leaders of the Old Believers (Habakkuk, Lazar and two Fyodors) were again brought to the Council, who again refused to submit to the Council. The regulations on the Old Believers were drawn up on the basis of texts proposed by Dionysius the Greek, who considered the peculiarities of Russian. church life is a consequence of lack of enlightenment and ignorance. The Council commanded all children of the Russian Church to adhere to the corrected books and rituals, the old Russian ones. the rituals were called unorthodox, about the fathers of the Stoglavy Council, which codified the original Russian. liturgical tradition, in the decree of B.M.S. it was written that they “wisdomed their ignorance foolishly, as if they wanted it themselves.” The fathers of B.M.S. condemned everyone who did not obey the conciliar command (meaning the Old Believers) to “anathema and damnation... as heretics and disobedients.” (The anathema towards the Old Believers was abolished at the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971.) Despite the extremely harsh nature of the resolution of 1667, in its essence and direction it was a continuation of the actions of the 1st (“Russian”) stage of the Council. “Spiritual Instruction”, adopted in 1666 Russian. hierarchs in the absence of eastern ones, although it did not contain criticism of the old rituals, nevertheless provided for severe “executions” against opponents of the reforms. This is not surprising, since at all stages of its work the Council saw one of its most important tasks in the fight against schism.
In addition to affirming the correctness of the liturgical reform begun by Nikon, B.M.S. adopted a number of resolutions aimed at further bringing Russians closer together. church life from Greek Even allowing in some cases deviations from the rituals accepted in the East. Orthodox Churches, the Patriarchs did not hide the fact that it was Greek. procedures should serve as a model to follow. In this regard, the text is very characteristic, in which it is proposed to excommunicate from the Church those who begin to reproach those who speak Greek. clothes. In accordance with this, the decisions of the Russian Federation were canceled. Church Councils that went beyond the Greek. traditions. Thus, the decisions of the Council of 1503, which prohibited widowed priests and deacons from serving (by the decision of the B.M.S., widowed priests and deacons could be prohibited from serving only if they led an unworthy life), the decisions of the Council of 1620 were canceled. about the rebaptism of Catholics when they join the Orthodox Church. Church (in accordance with the resolution of the K-Polish Council of 1484, B.M.S. established the rite of joining Catholics to Orthodoxy through Confirmation), a number of resolutions of the Stoglavy Council, “The Tale of the White Cowl” was condemned. Undoubtedly, some of these kinds of decisions restored those violated in Russian. based on the norms of canon law, but this was done in a harsh, often offensive form for Russians.
In the acts of the Council it was repeatedly emphasized that the schism is a consequence of the ignorance of both lay people and the parish clergy. Therefore, the Council developed a number of measures to combat this evil. The clergy had to teach their children to read and write, so that when they took holy orders they would not be “rural ignoramuses.” The priests were to be guided in their activities by the “Spiritual Instruction”, compiled in 1666, and a number of detailed instructions in the acts of the Council of 1667. At Christmas 1668, in the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral, on behalf of the Patriarchs, the word “On the seeking of Divine wisdom” was read, which contained proposals for the creation of schools in Rus', in which Greek would be studied. language. Tsar and Russian The bishops supported this project. To refute the opinions of the Old Believers, Simeon of Polotsk, on behalf of the Council, wrote an extensive work, “The Rod of Government,” which was immediately published and recommended by the Council for reading and enlightenment of Christians. However, several years later the book was condemned for its Catholic content. doctrines (“bread-worshipping heresy”, the doctrine of immaculate conception Virgin Mary). The Old Believers immediately reacted sharply negatively to this work, calling it “The Rod of Contortion.”
B.M.S. ordered each of the bishops to convene diocesan councils of the clergy twice a year - the deeds stated that the lack of practice of regularly convening such councils led to the loss of pastoral care by the bishops for their flock and gave rise to a schism. A resolution was adopted to increase the number of episcopal departments. In 1666, the Russian Church consisted of 14 very large and therefore difficult to manage dioceses; the bishops did not have the opportunity to personally monitor the spiritual state of their flock. The Council demanded the opening of at least 10 new dioceses and indicated that in the future a consistent increase in their number would be required. Under Alexei Mikhailovich, this resolution was not implemented in full; B.M.S. decided to create only 2 dioceses: the Kolomna See, closed by Nikon, was restored and the Belgorod See was created. Active work on reforming the church structure of Rus' began only under Tsar Theodore Alekseevich, but it proceeded with great difficulty, in particular because the increase in the number of departments implied the loss of part of the income of the “old” bishops. The acts of the Council also spoke about dividing the territory of the Russian Church into a number of metropolitan districts according to the Greek model, but this project was not implemented. B.M.S. adopted a determination on the need to gather a Council in Moscow 2 or, at most, once a year to discuss and resolve current church affairs. However, due to the remoteness of many dioceses from the center and bad roads, this was almost impossible to accomplish. In subsequent years, the practice developed of “successive” bishops participating in the Councils staying in Moscow for six months, sometimes for a year.
B.M.S. adopted a number of definitions on deanery: he ordered the maintenance of order in churches, prohibited the transfer of monks from one monastery to another and unauthorized life in the world, established a fairly long period of novitiate, after which tonsure was allowed, condemned atrocities during weddings, etc. Important decisions were made regarding icon painting: the Council forbade depicting the Lord of Hosts, since God the Father is invisible and does not have a specific physical appearance. The Holy Spirit in the form of a dove was allowed to be painted only when depicting Baptism. In general, it was noted that it is possible to depict God on icons only “in the phenomena” described in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and church tradition. B.M.S. again considered the actively debated in 1618-1625. the question of “enlightening fire” - immersing lighted candles in water in the rite of blessing the water. The command of the Councils of the beginning was repeated. 17th century: candles should not be immersed in water either in the rite of Baptism or in the rite of the Epiphany.
Certain decisions of the B.M.S. reflected the strengthening of the system of serfdom. The Council ordered the deprivation of dignity and monasticism and the return to their owners of those serfs who accepted ordination or monastic tonsure without the permission of the owner (runaway serfs and peasants). A serf peasant, ordained with the permission of the owner, became free, but had to serve on the estate of his owner; his children born before his ordination remained serfs. It was separately stipulated that persons who tonsured serfs who did not have a certificate of release into monasticism could be defrocked.
B.M.S. was an important milestone in the development of the Russian Church. On the one hand, the codification of liturgical reforms and the determination declared at all stages of the Council to continue the fight against the Old Believers made the problem of the existence of a schism one of the most painful for both the Church and the Russian Federation. government for several centuries ahead. On the other hand, the insufficiency of the spiritual education that existed in Russia, revealed in connection with the schism, prompted church and secular authorities after some time to take measures to create a system of spiritual and higher secular education; pl. The definitions of the Council, having restored canonical norms, effectively served to correct the shortcomings of Russian. church life.
Publisher: ZORSA. 1861. T. 2; MDIR. 1876. T. 2: (Acts relating to the council of 1666-1667); DAI. T. 5. P. 439-510; SGGD. T. 4; The case of Patriarch Nikon: according to the documents Moscow. Synod. (formerly Patriarchal) library / Ed. Archaeogr. commission St. Petersburg, 1897; Acts of the Moscow Councils of 1666 and 1667. M., 19053.
Lit.: Subbotin N. AND . The Case of Patriarch Nikon: East. research regarding the XI volume of “History of Russia” by prof. Solovyova. M., 1862; Gibbenett N. East. research affairs of Patr. Nikon. St. Petersburg, 1882-1884. 2 t.; Macarius. IRC. Book 7; Kapterev N. F. About the essay against the schism of the Iveron archimandrite Greek Dionysius, written before the Council of 1667 // PO. 1888. No. 7. P. 1-32; No. 12. P. 33-70; aka. Judgments of the Great Moscow Council of 1667 on the power of the royal and patriarchal // BV. 1892. Oct. pp. 46-74; aka. Tsar and Church Councils XVI-XVII centuries. M., 1906 (same in BV. 1906. No. 10, 11, 12); aka. Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Serg. P., 1912. T. 2 (department of publication of the same materials, see BV. 1910. No. 12. 1911. No. 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10); Sharov P. Great Moscow Cathedral of 1666-1667 // TKDA. 1895. Jan. pp. 23-85; Feb. pp. 177-222; Apr. pp. 517-553; June. pp. 171-222; Poloznev D. F. To the chronicle of Moscow Councils of the 2nd half. XVII century // Readings on the history and culture of ancient and new Russia: Materials of the conference. Yaroslavl, 1998. pp. 103-106; Stefanovich P. WITH . Parish and parish clergy in Russia in the 16th - 17th centuries. M., 2002.
O. V. Chumicheva
The year 1666 in Europe was awaited with trepidation - too many prophecies were associated with this date, but the Russians, according to historians, perceived its onset more calmly. However, it was this year that one of the most important events for the history of the Russian state took place - the schism of the Orthodox Church.
In general, the 17th century entered the history of the Russian Church under the name “The Age of Patriarchate.” Established by church councils at the end of the 16th century (1589-1593), it existed for a little over 100 years and was actually abolished with the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700. In 1721, Emperor Peter I introduced the “Spiritual Regulations” - a legislative act on the reform of church governance. According to the “Spiritual Regulations,” the Church was subordinate to the state, and instead of the patriarchate, a specially created Holy Synod was established. The Church remained without a Patriarch for more than two hundred years, being called "dowager". This time in the history of the Church is called the “synodal period.”
Moscow Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) wrote: “The Russian Metropolitan, in terms of power and importance in his Church, was completely equal to the Patriarchs and even surpassed them; he lacked only the Patriarchal name.” The Patriarchate practically did not change the system of church power that existed in Rus' and its relationship with secular power, but gave it a new, higher sound. The patriarchal rank of Primate of the Russian Church raised the international authority of both the Russian Church and the Russian Orthodox state.
So, in 1666, two Councils were convened to deal with the differences of the church. As a result, Patriarch Nikon was accused of blasphemy against the Tsar and the Russian Church, arbitrariness, cruelty towards subordinates, was deprived of his rank and sent into exile. Archpriest Avvakum was stripped of his hair and anathematized, like other schismatics. It happened on May 26, 340 years ago.
The condemnation of Nikon did not end the activities of the Moscow Council. The Council of 1667 confirmed the definitions of the Council of 1666, approved Nikon's book corrections, and pronounced an anathema on the schismatics for their blasphemy and censure of the Orthodox Church and the newly corrected rituals. Stoglav's oath of three fingers and triple hallelujah was canceled. The Council completely agreed with the view of the deposed patriarch on the Monastic Order. All church matters were removed from the civil jurisdiction of the Monastery Prikaz; church persons, on the previous basis, were subordinated in civil suits to the court of diocesan bishops. Clergymen were not ordered to be “involved in worldly courts” not only in civil cases, but (before defrocking) even in criminal cases; laymen serving in the church and church administration were also subject to the court of their diocesan bishops. As a result of this order, instead of the Monastic Order, spiritual courts, the so-called Spiritual Prikas (from judges of clergy), were organized at the bishop's departments.
The council insisted on strengthening education in the clergy, because, the fathers of the council reasoned, ignoramuses are appointed to the priesthood who “are less able to herd cattle than people.” It was ordered that candidates for church seats be more strictly selected, and that clergy be more attentive to the education of their children, so that the latter would be more worthy heirs to their father's places.
The Council noted that parishes were passed down in ecclesiastical families by inheritance; it got to the point that one of the members who did not have a clergy to inherit the arrival of children sold his place to strangers. The Council rebelled against this illegal practice. To strengthen the authority of the clergy, the cathedral ordered him to wear decent attire, not to participate in drunken wedding trips, and so on. The Council abolished the ancient prohibition of serving widowed clergy, as a result of which there were fewer unplaced clergy. Regarding monasticism, the council took measures against the excessive increase in the number of monks; It was not ordered to tonsure without the permission of the authorities and due testing, husbands without the consent of their wives, and wives without the consent of their husbands, serfs without their liberation, it was forbidden to tonsure outside the monastery in worldly houses, even those who were sick before death. Strict rules were laid down against the vagrancy of monks and nuns, their living in secular houses, etc. Several sharp denunciations were expressed against holy fools and empty saints who wandered with their hair loose and naked.
The patriarch's decree on the acceptance of Latins into Orthodoxy through rebaptism was cancelled. And anathemas were pronounced against the old ritual!!! What marked the beginning of the final split.
In relation to the old Russian rite, the Greek organizers and participants of the cathedral showed some kind of malicious intransigence. They not only insisted on imposing oaths and anathema on all those who used two fingers and the old charter, but decided to ban all elements of the old Russian church tradition and remove from Russia that aura of unshakable loyalty to Orthodoxy, which she was proud of after the Council of Florence and the birth of the theory about the Third Rome.
The initiative to debunk the ancient Russian church glory apparently belonged to Archimandrite Dionysius, and perhaps partially to Ligarid. Such a thought, of course, could not have occurred to the Russian hierarchs, and the Greek patriarchs knew too little Russian church history to condemn ancient Russian traditions and conciliar decrees. Ligarid conducted almost all the negotiations with the patriarchs, and the Greek Dionysius, during the Russian Council of 1666, composed a treatise condemning the Russian sign of the cross and old books. As N.F. Kapterev showed, the text of Dionysius’s work formed the basis of those parts of the conciliar acts of 1666 that condemned Russian liturgical and ritual features. According to Dionysius, the Russians introduced liturgical heresies ever since they broke their dependence on Constantinople. Until then, “piety and Orthodoxy will shine forth more here in Russia,” wrote this Greek, illiterate in the history of worship. After the Russian Church broke with Constantinople, “these delights [heresies] began here: about the folding of fingers, and the preposition in the symbol, and hallelujah, and so on,” and the entire Russian land “was darkened with a dark cloud.”
Dionysius showed contempt for the Russian rite not only in words, but also in deeds. When on Great Saturday 1667, during a solemn patriarchal service in the presence of the Tsar, the Russian clergy walked with the shroud “along the solon” (according to the movement of the sun), Dionysius completely unexpectedly drew the Greek patriarchs and the rest of the Greek clergy in the opposite direction, towards the Russian procession. There was confusion and a rather sharp dispute between the Russian and Greek bishops. Finally, the tsar himself intervened in the conflict between the Russians and the Greeks, proposing that the Russians also follow the guests, abandoning the ancient Russian custom of walking with salt, which, by the way, the Russians, of course, inherited from the early Byzantine rite.
By resolutions of the council the following Russian church works were prohibited:
1) The Tale of the White Klobuk, which wrote that after the betrayal of Orthodoxy by the Greeks at the Council of Florence and the fall of Constantinople, the defense of the church became the responsibility of the Russian people and which spoke of the historical role of Rus', the Third Rome, where “the glory of the Holy Spirit has risen” .
2) Resolutions of the Stoglavy Council of 1551, which officially confirmed the correctness of those features that separated the Russian rite from the modern Greek one. This condemnation of the Council of the Hundred Heads apparently seemed especially important to the Greeks, since it is repeated several times in the Acts.
3) Life of St. Euphrosyne, in which the now prohibited double singing of hallelujah was justified.
The pettiness of the Greeks reached such an extreme that the cathedral even forbade painting the faces of the Russian metropolitans Peter and Alexei in white hoods on icons.
These resolutions were a kind of historical and philosophical revenge for the Greeks. They took revenge on the Russian Church for reproaches regarding the Council of Florence and destroyed with these decrees the entire justification for the theory of the Third Rome. Rus' turned out to be the guardian not of Orthodoxy, but of gross liturgical errors. Russia's mission to protect Orthodoxy was declared an untenable claim. The entire understanding of Russian history was changed by the resolutions of the council. The Orthodox Russian kingdom, a harbinger of the coming kingdom of the Holy Spirit on earth, was turning into simply one of many monarchies - a simple state, although with new imperial claims, but without a special path in history sanctified by God.
Reading these acts of the council, the historian cannot get rid of the unpleasant feeling that both the persons who compiled the text of the resolutions of this half-Greek and half-Russian assembly, and the Greek patriarchs who adopted them, formulated these decisions with the deliberate intention of insulting the past of the Russian Church. So, for example, the paragraph relating to the condemnation of the Stoglavy Council says that the decision to consolidate in Russia the two-fingered sign of the cross and the special hallelujah was “written irrationally by simplicity and ignorance.” Metropolitan Macarius himself, who was the soul of the council of 1551, was also accused of ignorance, since he did not take the Greeks into account: “Besides that Metropolitan Macarius, and those like him, wisely, with their ignorance, as if they wanted it on their own, not agreeing with the Greek and with ancient Haratej Slovenian books. Below, the patriarchs consulted with the ecumenical [that is, Greek] saints about this and asked questions with them.”
With this absurd statement, the Greek patriarchs and their advisers, Dionysius and Lygarides, themselves signed their complete ignorance in matters of historical liturgics. They were completely unaware that the sign of two fingers and other ritual differences between the Russian Church and the Greek Church of the 17th century were much older than the modern Greek ones and went back to early Byzantine models introduced in Rus' by the Greeks themselves back in the 11th century. The very conclusions of the council have now become evidence not of Russian backwardness, but a sad monument to Greek arrogance and their oblivion of their own old tradition. The constant mention that the actions of the council were the work of the Greeks - “we, the two patriarchs [the Russian Patriarch Joasaph, apparently did not take them into account] interpret this rule” - fortunately, at least partially relieves responsibility from the Russian episcopate for all the absurdity and malice these resolutions.
The condemnation of the supporters of the old rite was formulated in no less offensive and canonically illogical phrases, which hit not only Russian traditionalists, but also the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisius and the council he convened in Constantinople. After all, Patriarch Paisiy, regarding the unification of the ritual, clearly wrote back in 1655: “Even now we should not think that our Orthodox faith is being distorted if someone has a slightly different rite in points that do not belong to the essential members of the faith, only he would agree with the Catholic Church on important and important things.”
Instead of following these wise words of the Constantinople decision of 1654, Patriarchs Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch showed even more narrowness and partiality to ritual differences than the Russian defenders of the old charter. They not only came out in defense of Nikon’s “reforms,” but at a meeting on May 13, 1667, they condemned the supporters of the old rite so strictly that they themselves raised ritual details to dogmatic heights. They called Russian traditionalists who rejected these innovations rebellious and even heretics and excommunicated them from the church with cruel and gloomy decrees:
At the second stage of the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667, the cases of representatives of the church rebellion were examined. The persuasion of the schismatics lasted for weeks and months. Only on June 17 did they appear before the cathedral: Avvakum, deacon Theodore, monk Epiphanius, a Solovetsky monk who had already left the Solovetsky monastery in 1658 and now presented the tsar with a book of denunciations of the new rite; Nicephorus, Lazarus. Lazarus had already appeared before the court of the patriarchs once in December 1666, but then he stunned them with a proposal to determine the correctness of the old and new rites by God's judgment at the stake. On August 26, their fate was sealed: all four were sentenced to exile in the far north of Russia, in Pustozersk. In addition, two of them were to undergo the additional “execution” of having their tongues cut out. These were Epiphanius and Lazarus. The king spared Avvakum out of old friendship and at the insistence of the queen. Nikifor escaped this punishment due to his advanced age. The next day, August 2, the punishment was carried out. On the same day, four were taken from Moscow to Pustozersk. In Pustozersk, Avvakum did not stop corresponding with his followers, including the noblewoman Morozova. But to suppress relations between the Pustozersk center and Moscow, the Streltsy half-head Elagin was sent to Pustozersk. After another refusal of the schismatics to accept triplicity, Archpriest Avvakum, Priest Lazar, Deacon Fyodor and Epiphanius were taken and taken to the place of execution, to the scaffold. But Habakkuk was again spared, and the half-head ordered Epiphanius, Lazarus and Theodore “to cut their tongues for their speeches, and to flog their hands for the cross.”
After this “Pustozero execution” the regime of all four was completely changed. Before that, they lived in the huts of local residents, constantly communicated with each other and met with local residents and travelers. Now they were each placed separately in dugout log houses buried in the ground, the exit from which was blocked and covered so that the prisoners could not leave them and communicate. In 1682 Habakkuk was burned.
"Solovetsky seat".
Church Council 1666-1667 became a turning point in the history of the schism. But the majority of schismatics did not accept his ruling. Some of the monasteries took the side of the Old Believers, in particular the Solovetsky Monastery. When newly printed books were sent to the monastery, they were hidden, unbound, in the treasury chamber, and then at the general meeting they decided not to accept the current service books. At the church council of 1666-1667. one of the leaders of the Solovetsky schismatics, Nikandr, chose a different line of behavior than Avvakum. He feigned agreement with the resolutions of the council and received permission to return to the monastery, but upon his return he threw off his Greek hood, put on the Russian one again and became the head of the monastery brethren. The famous “Solovetsky Petition” was sent to the Tsar, setting out the credo of the old faith. In another petition, the monks posed a direct challenge to the secular authorities: “Order, sir, to send your royal sword against us and to transfer us from this rebellious life to a serene and eternal life.” In 1668, Ignatius Volokhov appeared under the walls of the monastery with a hundred archers, and instead of submissively bowing his head to the sword, he was met with gunfire. It was impossible for such an insignificant detachment as Volokhov’s to defeat the besieged, who had strong walls, plenty of supplies, and 90 cannons. “The siege - “Solovetsky Sitting” dragged on for eight years from 1668 to 1676. At first, the authorities could not send large forces to the White Sea due to the movement of Stenka Razin. After the suppression of the riot, a large rifle detachment appeared under the walls of the Solovetsky Monastery, and shelling began In the besieged monastery, disagreements began between the moderates and supporters of decisive action. The majority of the monks hoped for reconciliation with the royal government, and the lay people, the “Balians” led by the centurions Voronin and Samko, demanded “to leave the prayer for the great sovereign.” and about the tsar himself they said such words that “it’s scary not only to write, but also to think.” In the monastery they stopped confessing, receiving communion, and refused to recognize the priests. These disagreements predetermined the fall of the Solovetsky Monastery. showed them a hole in the wall blocked with stones. On the night of January 22, 1676, in a strong snowstorm, the archers dismantled the stones and entered the monastery. Some of the instigators of the uprising were executed, others were sent into exile.
Morozova and the Moscow opposition.
After the Great Moscow Council and the expulsion of Avvakum to Pustozersk, in Moscow the center of criticism of the editing of books and the new ritual became the house of the rich and influential noblewoman Feodosia Prokopyevna Morozova, the widow of Gleb Ivanovich Morozov, brother of Boris Morozov, a former temporary worker and educator of the Tsar. Thanks to her family and connections, Morozova could afford to occupy an independent position for many years, and her house became a haven for supporters of the old faith. Avvakum, who returned from Siberian exile at the beginning of 1664, also settled here, and Morozova herself immediately became his spiritual daughter. For a long time after the Great Moscow Council, Morozova was not touched; she even became a nun at the end of 1670. !671, Morozova began to be exhorted to accept corrections and triplicate. On November 14, 1671, Chudovsky Archimandrite Joachim and his employees came to Morozova’s house. In response to their questions, Morozova, now Elder Theodora, showed the sign of two fingers and simply said: “I believe.” Feodora (that was Morozova’s name now) and her sister were put under house arrest. After lengthy persuasion, Theodora was transferred in chains to Pechersky Monastery, and her sister Princess Evdokia to the Alekseevsky Monastery, where they were both kept under strict guard. From his prison in Pustozersk, Archpriest Avvakum wrote messages to them. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in the fall of 1674 ordered Morozova, Urusova and Danilova to be transported to a particularly strict prison in the Nativity Monastery in Borovsk, where they died of exhaustion.
"Forest Elders"
Monk Kapiton Danilovsky is the founder of the sect of Kapitons or forest elders, a schismatic teacher, the forerunner of the priestless Old Believers. The Kapitons believed in the imminent end of the world and the coming of the Antichrist; they did not recognize priests, church sacraments and icons of the new writing. According to the teachings of the Capitonians, only extreme asceticism can save a person’s soul: daily hard work, constant bows and prayers, strict fasting (vegetarianism, exclusion of food on Wednesday, Friday, Saturday), short sleep while sitting, standing or in a suspended state, wearing chains of iron or stone. All this should suppress the flesh and cleanse the soul. The religious movement of the forest elders spread widely in the 1630-1640s in the Vologda, Kostroma and Yaroslavl provinces (even before Nikon’s reforms). Capiton's popularity was so great that after the split of the Russian Church in 1666, supporters of the old faith were even called Capiton. After the death of Kapito, the sect was headed by his disciple Prokhor; he was old and died in 1666. Soon the sect disintegrated.
Popovtsy and non-popovtsy.
At its very beginning, the Old Believers split into two main groups. It is known that the first disseminators of the Old Believers were, except for one bishop, Pavel Kolomensky, only some priests and hieromonks, and for the most part, monks and laymen. But Pavel Kolomensky died back in 1656, when the schism was barely beginning. The Old Believers faced a problem: there was nowhere to get clergy from. It was necessary to decide on one of two things: either to remain without priests (priests) at all and give the right to teach and officiate to uninitiated persons, or to accept priests who were ordained bishops in the Russian Church and then went into schism. This is indeed what happened. Many laymen and monks who did not have holy orders allowed themselves to teach others the faith, perform the sacraments of baptism, repentance and church services in general; and in some places, even the clergy themselves, who led the schism, bequeathed at the time of their death to the laity to continue to perform all these demands and, thus, marked the beginning of the sect of bespopovshchina, or bespopovshchina. Others, after some time, when their priests, ordained before Patriarch Nikon, died, began to turn for the priesthood to that Church, which they considered heretical, or, as they themselves put it, “began to be nourished by the priesthood fleeing from the Great Russian Church.” This is how beglopopovshchina was formed from clericalism. For almost two hundred years, the priests supplemented themselves with such unworthy priests, untruthfully accepting them under the second order or under confirmation. In the priestly sect, apart from the priesthood, all the sacraments are performed. In the priestless sect, apart from baptism and confession performed by laymen, often even women, all other sacraments are not performed at all. Rejecting marriage altogether, allegedly due to the termination of the Orthodox priesthood, they demand that all their fellow believers live a celibate life, but, meanwhile, allow them to indulge in vile debauchery.
Division into rumors and agreements.
1. The priests, who in turn were divided into the powerful Belokrinitsky consent, which in 1846 restored its episcopate and in which before the revolution there were more than half of all Old Believers with six or ten million parishioners; on the Beglopopovites, who continued to accept priests from the “Russian” church; and finally to the so-called chapels, which were the remnants of those priests who, during the Old Believer pogrom undertaken by Nicholas I, found themselves without priests and since then, formally considered priests, were actually left without priests. 2. Pomeranians or New Pomeranians, who from the end of the 18th century again returned to the fundamental recognition of the need for marriage and whose mentors gave their blessing to the “newlyweds”. 3. Staropomorets and Fedoseevites, who do not accept marriage, but have actually restored the family in their communities. Some of them still resisted all attempts to restore the family principle in their communities (two to two and a half million). 4. Filippovites who did not recognize marriage (the total number is insignificant, several tens, maybe a hundred thousand). 5. Self-baptized runners who merged with other small radical movements. (The number of followers could not be counted, but hardly exceeded thousands or a few tens of thousands.) 6. Netovshchina, or Spasovo consent, recognized marriage in the “Great Russian” church as a registration of legal status (from one to two million; due to their religious indifference, Netovites especially difficult to count).
Dedicated to the 350th anniversary of the church schism. On October 10, 2017, in Moscow, at the St. Philaret Orthodox Christian Institute, an event was held that crowned the discussion of this sad anniversary - a scientific conference “ Councils of 1666-1667 and their consequences for Russian church life».
It should be noted that nowhere, except for the St. Philaret Institute, were there any events dedicated to the 350th anniversary of this tragic, truly turning point period in our history. There were none in such educational and scientific centers of the Russian Orthodox Church as the Moscow Theological Academy or St. Tikhon's liberal arts university. And this despite the fact that recently the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly stated the need to overcome the consequences of the church schism of the mid-17th century, which is impossible without understanding its causes.
The main Old Believer consensus did not respond to the tragic anniversary of the Great Moscow Council, although it was this council that led to the final separation of the Old Believers from the official church. Therefore, during the conference, gratitude was repeatedly expressed to its organizers for the opportunity to discuss this still relevant topic. I would also like to thank the historian of Russian literature and Old Believers Mikhail Alexandrovich Dzyubenko, who initiated this important event.
The conference was attended by teachers and students of the St. Philaret Institute, representatives of the Old Believer consensus, priests of the Russian Orthodox Church, specialists in the history of the Russian Church and ancient Russian culture. Presenter of the conference, head of the department of church historical disciplines of the St. Philaret Institute Konstantin Petrovich Obozny, greeted its participants and noted that the consequences of the anti-Christian Councils of 1666-1667 have not yet been overcome and continue to influence our society.
The case of former Patriarch Nikon is still hidden
The first message was made by a candidate of historical sciences, a specialist in the field of Church history and church law. She drew attention to the fact that “ for all its importance for Russian history, the Council of 1666-1667 has still not been truly studied. There is no stable attitude towards him either. The decisions of the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1971 on the recognition of its decisions “as if they were not former” are not a solution, and someday the still unresolved issues related to the Council of 1666-1667 will still be raised" The report was devoted to source study issues that arise when studying the acts of the Council of 1666-1667 and have not yet been the subject of research.
Is it one Cathedral or two Cathedrals? There are different opinions of scientists on this matter. When referring to the acts of the Council of 1666-1667, one has to use printed publications. To what extent were these acts known and used in the Russian Orthodox Church before the appearance of these printed publications? Only two handwritten lists of the acts of the Council are known. One created Simeon of Polotsk, written in Slavic in Latin letters. It has not yet been published, but is now available on the Internet on the website of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. The second list from the Synodal Library is now in the State Historical Museum. There are many gaps left in both lists; both manuscripts do not have the signatures of the participants in the Councils, although the names of the participants are in the text of the manuscripts.
There are two printing editions of the second half of the 19th century: publication in " Materials for the initial history of the split"and a separate publication by the brotherhood of the saint Petra Metropolitan. In both, the text is reprinted quite accurately, including spaces. There is still no scientific publication of the acts of the Council of 1666-1667. A conclusion follows from the analysis of the acts, and for the first time this was noticed in the middle of the 19th century by Metropolitan Macarius(Bulgakov) that they were compiled later than the Council, since they mention later events, for example, whether the persons convicted at it repented or did not repent after the Council. The Acts of the Council end " Instruction on piety"with instructions on the practice of performing the requirements: baptism, wedding, confession and burial. It was compiled in accordance with the Little Russian Breviary Petra Mogila and was probably edited by participants of the Council from among the clergy of the Kyiv Metropolis. The “Instruction” had to be copied by all priests against signature; they were supposed to have it with them for guidance in further pastoral activities. However, neither handwritten lists of it nor individual printed editions are known.
Under this part of the conciliar decisions there are signatures of the participants of the Council; they are published in the publication of the Brotherhood of Metropolitan Peter. Most of the signatures are reproduced, as was common practice at that time (nowadays they would say they were forged), but there are also genuine signatures in Greek and Arabic. The participants of the Council are listed in the text “ Missal", published in 1667-1668. Also in this “Service Book” are given individual decisions of the Council of 1666-1667, in particular, on the abolition of Stoglav, the incorrectness of the life of the saint Efrosina And " Tales of the White Cowl" The publishers of the Service Book assumed that there would soon be an official publication of the decisions of the Council of 1666-1667. At the end of the 19th century, in the publication of the acts of the Council by the Brotherhood of Metropolitan Peter, it was also reported that an official publication was being prepared. However, there is still no official publication of the acts of the Council of 1666-1667, as well as a scientific one.
There are editions of handwritten copies of the Service Book, which are often incorrectly called decisions of the Council. They contain the first 36 points of the Council's decision. It also contains the decision to cancel the Council of 1620, assembled on the initiative of the Patriarch Philareta and prohibiting pouring baptism. Much less is known about this than about the repeal of Stoglav’s decisions. An unprecedented situation arose - Patriarch Filaret was revered as the father of the first tsar of the Romanov dynasty and at the same time the acts of his Council were canceled. Before publications Subbotin of the acts of the Council of 1666-1667 in the second half of the 19th century, only the first 36 points of its decisions, included in the “Service Book,” were known. This was in accordance with the general state policy of classifying laws and decisions on the split. Preparatory materials for the Council, draft handwritten draft decisions, and scrolls of materials for the Council have never been published. court decisions Council, with the exception of the article E. M. Yukhimenko about the matter Efrem Potemkin.
The case of the deposition of the patriarch is a definite mystery Nikon. It was removed from the conciliar documents, although his trial was taking place at the Council, and it was for this purpose that the ecumenical patriarchs, as they were then called, were summoned to Moscow. Nikon's file was transferred to secret storage and was not returned to the Synodal Library, despite numerous requests.
« There is a need to publish a scientific edition of the acts of the Council, indicating the different readings of the lists, publishing additional and preparatory materials “, E.V. emphasized at the end of her speech. Belyakova.
——————
Head of the book depository at the Metropolitanate of the Russian Orthodox Church V.V. Volkov thanked you for the informative report and asked a question: “ Are preparations being made for the publication of the Acts of the Council?? E.V. Belyakova replied that this issue was discussed with E.M. Yukhimenko, since many documents on the Council are stored in the State Historical Museum, but no decision has been made yet.
——————
The priest asked on what basis the publication of the acts of the Council of 1666-1667 was made, carried out in 2014 in St. Petersburg by the publishing house " Quadrivium" E.V. Belyakova replied that this was a reprint of the text published by the Brotherhood of Metropolitan Peter with the aim of making it accessible to the modern reader.
——————
During the discussion of the report the question would be asked: “ Are the acts of the Council of 1666-1667 a canonical source today or have they turned into purely historical documents? E.V. Belyakova replied that when the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918 discussed the issue of canceling the oaths of the Council of 1666-1667 on the old rites and those who adhere to them, the acts of the Council of 1666-1667 were requested from the synodal library. These acts were considered at meetings, and therefore were recognized as canonically valid. " This is the only example I know of official appeal to these acts", said E.V. Belyakova.
——————
After this, the rector of SFI, professor priest, addressed the conference participants with a welcoming speech Georgy Kochetkov. He expressed his conviction that the topic of the conference is very important, relevant, concerns not only the past, but works for the future. According to Fr. George, in the history of the Russian Church there were two interrelated events that had a very negative impact on the subsequent life of the Church and the people. This is a struggle against non-covetous people and the subsequent struggle against the Old Believers. The departure from the gospel principles of love and brotherly love ultimately led to the revolution of 1917, so it is impossible to do without repentance. The same applies to the events of the mid-17th century.
Report Alexander Sergeevich Lavrov(University of Paris - Sorbonne) was devoted to issues of textual criticism of the archpriest’s work “ The story of those who suffered in Russia for ancient church pious traditions" This is an important historical source about the first persecution of Old Believers. The researcher's attention was drawn to a previously unpublished list of the 18th century, which mentions an important and previously unknown circumstance: the son of a noblewoman Feodosia Morozova Ivan Glebovich named godson of the king himself Alexey Mikhailovich. In this list, in connection with the premature and mysterious death of the young courtier Ivan, there is a statement by Archpriest Avvakum that “ the king did not save his godson Ivanushka" Since all the property of the deceased Ivan Glebovich Morozov was inherited by the tsar, this was a very strong and dangerous accusation.
The mentioned list of the 18th century “Tales...” was written by some illiterate scribe who was completely unaware of the historical and even geographical circumstances of the events described. Apparently, he did not understand what " Ivanushka“said Habakkuk, and therefore left such a dangerous statement. In the already published and earlier copies of “The Tale...”, the writers of which were well aware of the realities of that time, Archpriest Avvakum’s accusation against the Tsar in connection with the death of Ivan Glebovich Morozov was apparently omitted. At the end of his report, A. S. Lavrov expressed regret that the texts of Archpriest Avvakum have not yet been collected and published fully enough.
Antichrist tried to delight Kievan Rus
Representative, teacher of St. Petersburg State pedagogical university them. Herzen, the author of famous books on the history of the church schism, spoke about how the Council of 1666-1667 was perceived by the Old Believers. Long before the tragic events of the mid-17th century, the first voices were heard warning of danger. Western Russian theologian and preacher of the late 16th century Stefan Zizaniy at the request of the prince Konstantin Ostrogsky made a translation from Greek of the 15th catechetical teaching of the saint Cyril of Jerusalem dedicated to the coming of the Antichrist, with comments. Titled " Kirill's book"It was published in Belarusian and Polish in Vilna in 1596.
In his comments, Zizanius warned that in 1492 the eighth millennium from the creation of the world began, and that it was during this period, according to popular opinions at that time, that the Second Coming of Christ should occur. As a sign " recent times“Zizanius considered an encroachment on Orthodoxy on the part of the Roman papal throne, which, in his opinion, is the throne of the Antichrist. Around 1622, an anti-Catholic work appeared in the Kyiv Metropolis Zakhary Kopystensky « Palinodium" The preface outlines the pattern of successive falling away of Christians to the Antichrist.
According to Zechariah Kopystensky, the apostasy has successive stages in time. In 1000 (1054) papal Rome fell away from Orthodoxy, ending “ connection» Satan for 1000 years. Around the same time, in 988, the baptism of Rus' by the prince took place Vladimir, Rus' entered the Church, taking the place of the fallen Rome. Adding the apocalyptic number 666 to this date gave the year 1666. In 1600 (1596), after the Union of Brest-Litovsk, the Antichrist made an attempt to delight Kievan Rus - the legacy of the baptizer of Rus', Prince Vladimir. As a result of these events, the Orthodox Christians of Western Rus' actually lost their three-rank hierarchy. According to the prophecy of Palinodia, further developments of events related to the Antichrist will occur in 1660 and finally in 1666, but what exactly will happen was not indicated.
Another Ukrainian polemicist, Athonite monk John Vishensky, argued that thanks to several apostasies in history, the Antichrist is already triumphant over the world and the end of the world is near. He expressed the idea of the possibility of preserving the Orthodox faith after falling into heresy “ rulers and priests" In Russia, “Kiril’s Book” was published in 1644 in Moscow; the works of Western Russian polemicists were also distributed in manuscripts. The fateful year 1666 arrived. Both supporters of the reforms and opponents were awaiting the council. The rank and file of the clergy was against it, and complete chaos reigned in the services. There were hopes that, along with the condemnation of Nikon, the Council would abolish all his innovations and restore peace and the former glory in the Church. The Tsar agreed to convene the Council on November 2, 1665, only after his death Spiridon Potemkin- a generally recognized authority and one of the leaders of the zealots of piety. After this, all the leaders of the Old Believer opposition who were at large were arrested. In February 1666, all Russian bishops and prominent representatives of the clergy came to Moscow under royal charters. Among the participants of the Council there was not a single bishop of Donikon’s appointment. In fact, it was created pocket» hierarchy, the prominent representative of which was the patriarch Joachim, declaring:
I don’t know either the old faith or the new one, but whatever the bosses tell me, I’m ready to do it and listen to them in everything.
Before the Council, the Tsar demanded that each bishop confirm in writing that they consider the Greek hierarchs and Greek church ranks to be Orthodox and recognize the decisions of the Moscow Council of 1654, which was under Patriarch Nikon and decided to bring Russian liturgical ranks and rituals into conformity with the Greek ones. All the bishops called to the Council confirmed this.
The first part of the Council, which opened on April 29, 1666, took place only with the participation of Russian hierarchs and was distinguished by less radicalism than the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667, which was held later with the participation of the Greeks. After unsuccessful attempts to win over the archpriest Habakkuk and his companion the deacon Theodora they were stripped of their hair and anathematized as heretics. Although the Council of 1666 did not formally curse the old rituals, it completely prohibited their use in the Church and recognized the only correct newly printed books and the rituals introduced during Nikon’s reforms. The second part of the Council of 1666-1667 opened in Moscow on November 28, 1666 with the participation of the Eastern Patriarchs invited by the Tsar to Moscow. Of the 29 bishops present at the Council, 12 were foreigners.
Patriarch Nikon was convicted and defrocked, a new patriarch was elected Joasaph. However, the church unrest did not end, but intensified even more, since, having condemned Nikon, the Council approved his reforms. Therefore, in April 1667, the Council again addressed the problem of “ church rebels"and church ritual. The leaders of the Old Believers were again summoned to the council and condemned. Some repented, many remained with their convictions. After a long conversation with the eastern patriarchs, Archpriest Avvakum was exiled to Pustozersk.
On May 13, 1667, at the Council, the pre-Nikon rites and rituals used in Rus' since its baptism were solemnly cursed. All who used them were cursed and anathema." with Judas the traitor, and with the Jews who crucified Christ, and with Arius, and with other damned heretics" The decrees of the famous Council of the Hundred Heads of 1551 on two fingers and special alleluia, which was attended by many subsequently glorified Russian saints, were canceled and declared written “ irrational, simple and ignorant" The entire centuries-old tradition of Russian holiness was desecrated and cursed. At the end of its work, the Council of 1666-1667 decided to accept Catholic baptism as true, which contradicted not only the Local Council of 1620, which was under Patriarch Philaret, but also all the practice going back to apostolic times ancient Church. A priest who dared to accept a Catholic through baptism was to be defrocked. Catholics, in fact, were declared faithful and Orthodox.
The Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667 led to a final schism in the Russian Church and blessed the genocide of the Russian people unleashed by the secular and spiritual authorities. This was followed by an outflow of the population to the outskirts of Russia and abroad, to neighboring countries. By now, the meaninglessness and far-fetchedness of many of the resolutions of the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667 is obvious. As the historian wrote at the beginning of the 20th century N. F. Kapterev:
A new conciliar review of this entire matter is needed so that the Russian Church remains united, as it was before the patriarchate of Nikon.
After K. Ya. Kozhurin’s speech, the question was asked: “ Was there a historical connection between non-covetous people and the Old Believers?? The speaker replied that the leader of opponents of the reform Grigory Neronov had connections with the places where the Trans-Volga elders labored. Nilova Hermitage adhered to the old rituals for a long time.
——————
Father John Mirolyubov noted that the theory of the gradual conquest of the world by the Antichrist formed the basis of the priestless ideology and arose before the schism. At the same time, in the printed editions of the Book of Cyril, the texts of Cyril of Jerusalem and the comments of Stephen Zizanius are not separated from each other, are not quoted in any way, and the reader of that time considered everything printed in this book, including the opinions of Zizanius, to be patristic teachings belonging to the saint Kirill.
The mutual influence of the Old Believers and the New Believers is an immutable fact
The next speaker was a historian of Russian literature and Old Believers.
Although the clergy of the dominant confession “struggled against the schism,” and the Old Believers fought against the “Nikonian heresy,” there was always grassroots interaction and mutual influence at the family and everyday level, he said. — This issue has been little studied, although it is of great interest.
The speaker then gave a number of examples of such mutual influence. Thus, veneration of the image of the Mother of God “ Unexpected joy" arose in the New Believers Church after the publication of the book " Irrigated fleece» Dmitry Rostovsky, a well-known opponent of the Old Believers. Despite this, it subsequently passed into the circles of the Old Believers. There is a list of the “Unexpected Joy” icon at the Rogozhskoe cemetery. The icon is also revered by Old Believers. Joy to all who mourn", which became famous in the official church in the second half of the 17th century, after the schism. The opposite effect also occurred. Dnieper Icon of the Virgin Mary- this is an Old Believer saying Korsun icon. She was revered in Vetka, Irgiz, Kerzhenets, and her veneration was very widespread in Guslitsy. But this same icon was also revered by adherents of the dominant church.
The ideological exchange between the official church and the Old Believers was very intense at the beginning of the 20th century. Between 1905 and 1917, the Synodal Church was preparing to convene a Local Council, which had not met for more than two hundred years. The issue of reviving the parish community and Orthodox brotherhoods was raised. At the same time, the experience of modern Old Believers, which preserved both conciliarity and a living parish community, was invariably discussed.
The Old Believers, which after 1905 received the opportunity to legally create parochial schools, studied the experience in this area of the dominant confession. However, the mutual influence was not always beneficial. Thus, in 1911, the Old Believer Archbishop (Kartushin), the first hierarch of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, made an attempt to prevent laity from attending the councils of bishops, and one council was held without the participation of the laity. This caused a sharp rebuke from the lay Old Believers in the press, who wrote that the Old Believer Church was beginning to adopt the Nikonian experience, the hierarchy was striving to separate itself from the laity, who were left only with the opportunity to pray in churches. And from the next year, councils again began to be held with the participation of the laity. In conclusion, M.A. Dzyubenko emphasized that the issue of mutual influence of the Old Believers and “ Nikonian"is still little developed and is of great interest.
I couldn't come to the conference Sergey Lvovich Firsov, professor at St. Petersburg State University. Therefore, the conference organizers distributed the text of his report to those interested. It reported on the work of the Department for Edinoverie and Old Believers of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-1918. The Chairman of the Department was Metropolitan Anthony(Khrapovitsky). The main issue was the organization of the life of Edinoverie in new conditions, the issues of Edinoverie episcopate, the organization of Edinoverie dioceses.
One of the most important issues, discussed at the meetings of the Department, there was also the question of the oaths of the Great Moscow Council of 1667, without the official permission of which it turned out to be impossible to find a common language with supporters of “ancient piety” who wanted to be children of the Russian Orthodox Church, while preserving the traditions of church piety of the 17th century. The issue was much and actively discussed, the chairman of the Department, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), supporting a positive solution to the issue, stated that one should not be embarrassed by the abolition of the oaths of the Council: “Although this Council, wanting to bring the Russian Church into complete unity with the Greek, prohibited the “old” oaths "rites and rituals, but since this measure failed and the goal was not achieved, then it must be abolished, leaving the oath only to detractors of the Church<…>.
Some members of the Council, when discussing this issue, argued that the oaths of the Council of 1667 “ They focus only on opponents of the Church and say nothing about the “old” rituals" At one of the last meetings of the Department in September 1918, during an exchange of views, they came to the conclusion that the oaths of the Council of 1656, which condemned double-fingering and cursed those baptized with two fingers, should be immediately removed by the decision of the Council of the Russian Church, and the question of the oaths of the Council of 1667 should be postponed until the Council with presence of the Eastern Patriarchs. It was proposed to appeal to the Old Believers with a statement that by recognizing the common faith “ Orthodox Church equally honors and accepts the old rituals and books of the first five Russian patriarchs" and call on the Old Believers " to peace, unity, mutual love and oblivion of past strife" However, these ideas were put into practice at a different time, at the Council of 1971, which adopted the decision “ On the abolition of oaths to old rites and to those who adhere to them».
——————
The teacher delivered the message “ Religious persecution of Old Believers as a factor in the internal colonization of Russia: the view of the populists" In the 70-80s of the 19th century, the Old Believers, especially the Bezpopovtsy, became the object of close attention of the populists.
The revolutionary populists believed that the Old Believers without priests, who radically rejected the Russian state as anti-Christ, could become allies in revolutionary changes. But in general, among the Old Believers, the attitude towards revolutionary practice was negative. Moderate populism believed that the non-priest Old Believer consensus implemented a non-capitalist social model on the principles of popular rule and communalism, as a federation of self-governing communities.
——————
According to Fr. John Mirolyubov, who spoke after the report, the populists, studying the Old Believers, “ understood something, didn’t understand something, and understood something completely wrong».
——————
Employee of the Institute of Russian Language named after. V.V. Vinogradov, read a report on the topic “ Appeal to the Old Believer experience in the discussion of church reforms».
New Believer publicists wrote a lot about the Old Believers during the debate about the church community, the idealized pre-Nikon church life was offered as a model for the revival of which. And the Old Believer communities were perceived as its living fragments. However " the desire to return to antiquity in practice will inevitably lead to reforms in the present, create something new, and this is good“- this is how A.G. Kravetsky formulated the main idea of his report.
Report Ekaterina Alexandrovna Alekseeva, an employee of the St. Philaret Institute and the organizer of the conference, was dedicated to the Old Believer Consecrated Councils and all-Russian congresses of the early 20th century and was based on publications of the Old Believer magazine “ Church».
Edinoverie parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church should receive official status
Archpriest Ioann Mirolyubov, leading Patriarchal center of ancient Russian liturgical tradition, made a message on the current state of . He noted that historically Edinoverie arose from below, as the desire of ordinary Old Believers to find unity with the Russian Church, while preserving their favorite pre-Nikon church rites and rituals. However, the bishops of that time believed that the pre-Nikon rituals were damaged and heretical. Therefore, the Edinoverie of the early 19th century was perceived by the bishops exclusively as a missionary project, the purpose of which was to gradually bring “ schismatics"to the only correct new ritual. Therefore, the activities of Edinoverie parishes were subject to many restrictions.
By the time of the Council of 1917-1918, academic science had proven that the old rite was completely Orthodox. At the Council, decisions were made that for the first time equalized the rights of the parishes of the old and new rites. A decision was made on a single-faith episcopate. At this time it was 600 parishes of the same faith and 20 monasteries. Gradually, 20 bishops of the same faith were installed. However, all of them, except one, were repressed. When the last bishop of the same faith was arrested in 1937, by the decision of the patriarch Sergius(Stragorodsky) Edinoverie parishes were transferred to the management of local bishops, and this situation continues to this day. In 1971, oaths were removed from the old rites. The Old Believers did not react to this, but some kind of psychological wall fell and contacts intensified.
By the anniversary of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus' in 1988, only two parishes of the same faith remained on the territory of the USSR - one in the Nizhny Novgorod region, and one in Ukraine. Currently, there are about 35 parishes of the same faith. It is difficult to say more precisely, since there are no criteria by which a parish can be considered a parish of the same faith. The philosophy and tasks of Edinoverie are changing. Missionary activity, if carried out, is at the individual level.
——————
The main task of Edinoverie today is the rehabilitation of the pre-Nikon church tradition within the Russian Orthodox Church.
——————
In the modern Edinoverie parish, people from the Old Believers constitute a minority. These are mainly believers of the Russian Orthodox Church who gravitate toward the ideals of Holy Rus', the ancient Russian icon, singing, and worship. Among them there are many people with a humanities education who chose the same faith quite deliberately. The attitude towards common faith is also gradually changing at the general church level. In 2000, a conference was held dedicated to the 200th anniversary of common faith. A commission for the affairs of Old Believer parishes was created, and the Patriarchal Center of the Old Russian liturgical tradition was created. Books on the Donikon singing tradition and worship are being published, and regents proficient in Znamenny singing are being trained.
However, there are also unresolved problems. The Commission for Old Believer Parishes does not have any control levers. There are no clear criteria by which one can determine whether a parish is of the same faith or not. Edinoverie parishes are not mentioned in the charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, there is no “Regulation” about them. Due to the absence of a Edinoverie episcopate, the fate of Edinoverie parishes depends entirely on the attitude of the local bishop, which can be very different. The capabilities of the center of ancient Russian tradition are very limited; we were only recently able to get our own premises.
Revision of the acts of the Councils or anathema to them?
Towards the end of the conference, an exchange of views began in the form of a round table.
Historian and publicist Gleb Stanislavovich Chistyakov drew attention to the fact that in the last year a lot of materials have been published about the 100th anniversary of the revolution, but almost nothing has been heard about the 350th anniversary of the church schism, which is also one of the most tragic events in our history. Almost no one knows that at the meeting, held in Moscow on April 23-26, 2015, a document was adopted containing a detailed theological analysis of the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667. It consists of eight denunciations, which show not only the canonical and ritual absurdity of his many decisions, but also the obvious heresies they contain, which have already been condemned by the Church. He then read out some excerpts from this document.
——————
After this, the speaker read out statements from several contemporary famous church figures about the Great Moscow Council. Thus, the representative of the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church, Fr. believes that the Russian Orthodox Church should convene a new Council and reject the erroneous decisions of the Council of 1666-1667, just as it did at the seventh Ecumenical Council Iconoclastic councils were rejected.
——————
Representative of alternative Orthodoxy bishop Gregory(Lurie) (ROAC) does not see why these decisions of 1666-1667. needs to be reviewed and redone. He notes:
In my opinion, they should simply be anathematized, because they entirely represent a completely false view of Orthodoxy. If it is necessary to say officially out loud about the anathematization of this council, then we, the AS ROAC (Bishops' Conference of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church - editor's note), are ready for this.
——————
Thus, Metropolitan of Tulchin and Bratslav Jonathan(Eletskikh) and professor at the Moscow Theological Academy A. Osipov believe that, although the decisions of the Council of 1666-1667 contain shortcomings, it makes no sense to cancel them, since some “ strange and eccentric decisions of this Council“Nobody shares these days.
——————
Philosopher-less-priest M. Shakhov draws attention to the fact that the decisions of the Council, containing oaths to the old rite, were irrevocable for three centuries, and the decisions concerning Patriarch Nikon were canceled fifteen years later by the tsarist authorities.
——————
Famous Old Believer scientist () A. V. Muravyov reminds that, from the point of view of the Old Believers, the Council of 1666-1667, by its decisions, brought itself beyond the boundaries of the true Church into a heretical community.
——————
Domestic publicists spoke harshly about the great Moscow Council. Editor-in-Chief of the portal " Kavpolit» M. Shevchenko noted:
The dense fabric of Russian life, which had been taking shape for centuries through the events of the most difficult history, which until that moment was no different, in fact, from European history, was torn. Alexey Mikhailovich thus caused a terrible insult to the Russian Orthodox people and Russian Orthodox self-awareness.
——————
TV channel presenter Constantinople» Egor Kholmogorov stated:
Society and the Russian Orthodox Church must reassess these events quite resolutely and fundamentally. Here it is necessary not just to talk about reconciliation, but to clearly state that the decisions of the Great Moscow Council were a serious mistake.
——————
The more we learn about the Great Moscow Cathedral, the more questions we have: Is it a Cathedral at all? Or is this the trial of Archpriest Avvakum, interspersed with conferences? There was no secretary, there was no full publication of the decisions.
Will the Russian Orthodox Church officially cancel the decisions of the Great Moscow Council? Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, where there is a procedure for canceling previously accepted canonical documents, in Orthodox tradition they simply cease to be followed without any official cancellation. According to Fr. John, most likely the same will happen with the actions of the Great Moscow Council.
——————
Publicist A. V. Shishkin drew attention to the fact that the so-called cancellation of oaths at the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 is a very late response to requests from co-religionists that have been received since the beginning of the 19th century to cancel the oaths of the great Moscow Council. This is neither a recognition of the rightness of the Old Believers, nor repentance towards them. The wording " consider vows as not having been"is meaningless, since the Great Moscow Cathedral changed the entire subsequent history of Russia. In addition, this is an avoidance of answering the question: “ Were the decisions of the Council correct or incorrect?? If they are recognized as erroneous, then another question will inevitably arise: “ Is the New Believer Church the true Church of Christ, the pillar and affirmation of the truth?(1 Tim. 3:15)?”
——————
ABOUT. Georgy Kochetkov objected:
I believe that in spirit and meaning the decision of the 1971 Council was directed to all Old Believers, and shortly after this Council, Metropolitan Nicodemus(Rotov) met with the leaders of the Old Believer consensus, but after his death everything calmed down. If you cancel the decisions of the Great Moscow Council, then this may shake the faith of ordinary people in their Church; one must be careful. Our unity is in Christ, and not in ritual and not in singing, which changed greatly in different eras. For the sake of love for the Church and the people, we must meet each other halfway.
——————
Hegumen (Sakharov) noted:
The initiative of the Philaret Institute to discuss issues related to the Great Moscow Cathedral is commendable. Such an event is impossible to imagine, for example, in the auditorium of the Moscow Theological Academy. Our clergy has no reverence for this Council, which, of course, became a tragedy for the Russian people and state. What to do? Quick healing of a schism is impossible. Realistic, consistent steps forward are needed to reduce the amount of evil. Untruth and evil must be recognized as such.
The Great Moscow Council should be pushed to the periphery of church law with complete expulsion in the future. An example would be the attitude to the well-known declaration of the Metropolitan Sergius(Stragorodsky), which was not officially condemned, but the patriarch Alexey II stated that we are no longer guided by this document. Repentance for the persecution of Old Believers is necessary, an example is given by Church Abroad, we must follow him. And then as the Lord wills, arrange it.
——————
Father Evgeny Chunin(RPsC) noted:
The assessment of the Great Moscow Cathedral is still ambiguous even among specialists, and it is even more impossible to have a unified attitude towards it among the people. It is necessary to gradually get rid of untruths, first of all, from undoubted and conscious lies in relation to the Old Believers. A bunch of myths about the Old Believers, about the old faith, have been spreading since the time of the Great Moscow Council to the present day. And they have already been introduced into the mass consciousness. We must work painstakingly to correct the situation and set ourselves small, specific tasks.
Father Evgeniy thanked the organizers of the conference, saying in conclusion that its topic is relevant and it is necessary to return to this topic again.
——————
