Reasons for the content and results of Nikon's reforms. Reform of Patriarch Nikon and its changes. Church schism - causes, consequences

The 17th century was marked for the Russian people by another difficult and treacherous reform. This is a well-known church reform carried out by Patriarch Nikon.

Many modern historians admit that this reform, apart from strife and disasters, brought nothing to Russia. Nikon is scolded not only by historians, but also by some churchmen because, allegedly at the behest of Patriarch Nikon, the church split, and in its place two arose: the first - a church renewed by reforms, the brainchild of Nikon (the prototype of the modern Russian Orthodox Church), and the second - that old church , which existed before Nikon, which later received the name of the Old Believer Church.

Yes, Patriarch Nikon was far from being the “lamb” of God, but the way this reform is presented in history suggests that the same church is hiding the true reasons for this reform and the true orderers and executors. There is another silencing of information about the past of Rus'.

The great scam of Patriarch Nikon

Nikon, in the world Nikita Minin (1605-1681), is the sixth Moscow Patriarch, born into an ordinary peasant family, by 1652 he had risen to the rank of patriarch and somewhere from that time he began “his” transformations. Moreover, upon assuming his patriarchal duties, he secured the tsar’s support not to interfere in the affairs of the Church. The king and the people pledged to fulfill this will, and it was fulfilled. Only the people weren’t actually asked; the people’s opinion was expressed by the tsar (Alexey Mikhailovich Romanov) and the court boyars. Almost everyone knows what the notorious church reform of the 1650s - 1660s resulted in, but the version of the reforms that is presented to the masses does not reflect its entire essence. The true goals of the reform are hidden from the unenlightened minds of the Russian people. A people who have been robbed of the true memory of their great past and trampled upon all their heritage have no choice but to believe in what is handed to them on a silver platter. It’s just time to remove the rotten apples from this platter and open people’s eyes to what really happened.

The official version of Nikon’s church reforms not only does not reflect its true goals, but also presents Patriarch Nikon as the instigator and executor, although Nikon was just a “pawn” in the skillful hands of the puppeteers who stood not only behind him, but also behind Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself .

And what’s also interesting is that despite the fact that some churchmen blaspheme Nikon as a reformer, the changes that he made continue to operate to this day in the same church! That's double standards!

Let's now see what kind of reform this was.

The main reform innovations according to the official version of historians:

• The so-called “book right”, which consisted of rewriting liturgical books. Many textual changes were made to the liturgical books, for example, the word “Iesus” was replaced with “Jesus.”
• The two-finger sign of the cross has been replaced by the three-finger one.
• Prostrations have been cancelled.
• Religious processions began to be carried out in the opposite direction (not salting, but counter-salting, i.e. against the sun).
• I tried to introduce a 4-pointed cross and succeeded for a short period of time.

Researchers cite many reform changes, but the above are especially highlighted by everyone who studies the topic of reforms and transformations during the reign of Patriarch Nikon.

As for the “book right”. During the baptism of Rus' at the end of the 10th century. The Greeks had two charters: Studite and Jerusalem. In Constantinople, the Charter of the Studios was first widespread, which was passed on to Rus'. But the Jerusalem Charter, which by the beginning of the 14th century began to become increasingly widespread in Byzantium. ubiquitous there. In this regard, over the course of three centuries, the liturgical books there also changed imperceptibly. This was one of the reasons for the difference in the liturgical practices of Russians and Greeks. In the 14th century, the difference between Russian and Greek church rites was already very noticeable, although Russian liturgical books were quite consistent with the Greek books of the 10th-11th centuries. Those. There was no need to rewrite the books at all! In addition, Nikon decided to rewrite books from Greek and ancient Russian charateans. How did it really turn out?

But in fact, the cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Arseny Sukhanov, is sent by Nikon to the East specifically for sources for the “right”, and instead of these sources he brings mainly manuscripts “not related to the correction of liturgical books” (books for home reading, for example , words and conversations of John Chrysostom, conversations of Macarius of Egypt, ascetic words of Basil the Great, works of John Climacus, patericon, etc.). Among these 498 manuscripts there were also about 50 manuscripts even of non-church writing, for example, the works of Hellenic philosophers - Troy, Afilistrate, Phocley “on sea animals”, Stavron the philosopher “on earthquakes, etc.). Doesn't this mean that Arseny Sukhanov was sent by Nikon to look for “sources” to divert attention? Sukhanov traveled from October 1653 to February 22, 1655, that is, almost a year and a half, and brought only seven manuscripts for editing church books - a serious expedition with frivolous results. “Systematic Description of Greek Manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” fully confirms the information about only seven manuscripts brought by Arseny Sukhanov. Finally, Sukhanov, of course, could not, at his own peril and risk, obtain works of pagan philosophers, manuscripts about earthquakes and sea animals far away, instead of the necessary sources for correcting liturgical books. Consequently, he had the appropriate instructions from Nikon for this...

But in the end it turned out even more “interesting” - the books were copied from new Greek books, which were printed in Jesuit Parisian and Venetian printing houses. The question of why Nikon needed the books of “pagans” (although it would be more correct to say Slavic Vedic books, not pagan ones) and ancient Russian charatean books remains open. But it was with the church reform of Patriarch Nikon that the Great Book Burn in Rus' began, when entire carts of books were dumped into huge bonfires, doused with resin and set on fire. And those who resisted the “book law” and reform in general were sent there! The Inquisition, carried out in Rus' by Nikon, did not spare anyone: boyars, peasants, and church dignitaries were sent to the fires. Well, during the time of Peter I, the impostor, the Great Book Garb gained such power that at the moment the Russian people do not have almost a single original document, chronicle, manuscript, or book left. Peter I continued Nikon's work in erasing the memory of the Russian people on a wide scale. Siberian Old Believers have a legend that under Peter I, so many old printed books were burned simultaneously that after that 40 pounds (equivalent to 655 kg!) of melted copper fasteners were raked out of the fire pits.

During Nikon’s reforms, not only books, but also people burned. The Inquisition marched not only across the expanses of Europe, and, unfortunately, it affected Rus' no less. Russian people were subjected to cruel persecution and execution, whose conscience could not agree with church innovations and distortions. Many preferred to die rather than betray the faith of their fathers and grandfathers. The faith is Orthodox, not Christian. The word Orthodox has nothing to do with the church! Orthodoxy means Glory and Rule. Rule - the world of the Gods, or the worldview taught by the Gods (Gods used to be called people who had achieved certain abilities and reached the level of creation. In other words, they were simply highly developed people). The Russian Orthodox Church received its name after the reforms of Nikon, who realized that it was not possible to defeat the native faith of the Rus, all that remained was to try to assimilate it with Christianity. The correct name of the Russian Orthodox Church MP in the outside world is “Orthodox Autocephalous Church of the Byzantine sense.”

Until the 16th century, even in Russian Christian chronicles you will not find the term “Orthodoxy” in relation to the Christian religion. In relation to the concept of “faith”, such epithets are used as “God’s”, “true”, “Christian”, “right” and “immaculate”. And even now you will never come across this name in foreign texts, since the Byzantine Christian church is called - orthodox, and is translated into Russian - correct teaching (in defiance of all the other “wrong” ones).

Orthodoxy - (from the Greek orthos - straight, correct and doxa - opinion), a “correct” system of views, fixed by the authoritative authorities of a religious community and mandatory for all members of this community; orthodoxy, agreement with the teachings preached by the church. Orthodox refers primarily to the church in Middle Eastern countries (for example, the Greek Orthodox Church, Orthodox Islam, or Orthodox Judaism). Unconditional adherence to some teaching, firm consistency in views. The opposite of orthodoxy is heterodoxy and heresies. Never and nowhere in other languages ​​will you be able to find the term “Orthodoxy” in relation to the Greek (Byzantine) religious form. The substitution of imagery terms for an external aggressive form was necessary because THEIR images did not work on our Russian soil, so we had to mimic existing familiar images.

The term “paganism” means “other languages.” This term previously served the Russians simply to identify people speaking other languages.

Changing the two-finger sign of the cross to the three-finger one. Why did Nikon decide to make such an “important” change in the ritual? For even the Greek clergy admitted that nowhere, in any source, is it written about baptism with three fingers!

Regarding the fact that the Greeks previously had two fingers, the historian N. Kapterev provides undeniable historical evidence in his book “Patriarch Nikon and his opponents in the matter of correcting church books.” For this book and other materials on the topic of reform, they even tried to expel Nikon Kapterev from the academy and tried in every possible way to impose a ban on the publication of his materials. Now modern historians say that Kapterev was right that double-fingered fingers have always existed among the Slavs. But despite this, the rite of three-fingered baptism has not yet been abolished in the church.

The fact that two fingers have existed in Rus' for a long time can be seen at least from the message of the Moscow Patriarch Job to the Georgian Metropolitan Nicholas: “Those who pray, it is appropriate to be baptized with two fingers...”.

But double-finger baptism is an ancient Slavic rite, which the Christian Church initially borrowed from the Slavs, modifying it somewhat.

It is quite clear and indicative: for every Slavic holiday there is a Christian one, for every Slavic God there is a saint. It is impossible to forgive Nikon for such a forgery, as well as the churches in general, who can safely be called criminals. This is a real crime against the Russian people and their culture. And they erect monuments to such traitors and continue to honor them. In 2006 In Saransk, a monument to Nikon, the patriarch who trampled on the memory of the Russian people, was erected and consecrated.

The “church” reform of Patriarch Nikon, as we already see, did not affect the church; it was clearly carried out against the traditions and foundations of the Russian people, against Slavic rituals, and not church ones.

In general, the “reform” marks the milestone from which a sharp decline in faith, spirituality and morality begins in Russian society. Everything new in rituals, architecture, icon painting, and singing is of Western origin, which is also noted by civilian researchers.

The “church” reforms of the mid-17th century were directly related to religious construction. The order to strictly follow the Byzantine canons put forward the requirement to build churches “with five peaks, and not with a tent.”

Tent-roofed buildings (with a pyramidal top) were known in Rus' even before the adoption of Christianity. This type of building is considered originally Russian. That is why Nikon, with his reforms, took care of such “trifles”, because this was a real “pagan” trace among the people. Under the threat of the death penalty, craftsmen and architects managed to preserve the shape of the tent in temple buildings and secular ones. Despite the fact that it was necessary to build domes with onion-shaped domes, the general shape of the structure was made pyramidal. But not everywhere it was possible to deceive the reformers. These were mainly the northern and remote areas of the country.

Since then, churches have been built with domes; now, thanks to the efforts of Nikon, the tented form of buildings has been completely forgotten. But our distant ancestors perfectly understood the laws of physics and the influence of the shape of objects on space, and it was not without reason that they built with a tent top.

This is how Nikon cut off the people’s memory.

Also in wooden churches the role of the refectory is changing, turning from a room that is secular in its own way into a purely cultic one. She finally loses her independence and becomes part of the church premises. The primary purpose of the refectory is reflected in its very name: public meals, feasts, and “brotherhood gatherings” dedicated to certain solemn events were held here. This is an echo of the traditions of our ancestors. The refectory was a waiting area for those arriving from neighboring villages. Thus, in terms of its functionality, the refectory contained precisely the worldly essence. Patriarch Nikon turned the refectory into a church child. This transformation was intended, first of all, for that part of the aristocracy that still remembered ancient traditions and roots, the purpose of the refectory and the holidays that were celebrated in it.

But not only the refectory was taken over by the church, but also the bell towers with bells, which have nothing to do with Christian churches at all.

Christian clergy called worshipers by striking a metal plate or wooden board - a beater, which existed in Rus' at least until the 19th century. Bells for monasteries were too expensive and were only used in rich monasteries. Sergius of Radonezh, when he called the brethren to a prayer service, beat the beater.

Nowadays, free-standing wooden bell towers have survived only in the north of Russia, and even then in very small numbers. In its central regions they were long ago replaced by stone ones.

“Nowhere, however, in pre-Petrine Rus' were bell towers built in connection with churches, as was the case in the West, but were constantly erected as separate buildings, only sometimes attached to one side or another of the temple... Bell towers, which are in close connection with the church and are included in its general plan, appeared in Russia only in the 17th century!” writes A.V. Opolovnikov, a Russian scientist and restorer of monuments of Russian wooden architecture.

It turns out that bell towers at monasteries and churches became widespread thanks to Nikon only in the 17th century!

Initially, bell towers were built wooden and served a city purpose. They were built in the central parts of the settlement and served as a way to notify the population about a particular event. Each event had its own chime, by which residents could determine what happened in the city. For example, a fire or a public meeting. And on holidays, the bells shimmered with many joyful and cheerful motifs. Bell towers were always built wooden with a hipped top, which provided certain acoustic features to the ringing.

The church privatized its bell towers, bells and bell ringers. And with them our past. And Nikon played a major role in this.

Replacing Slavic traditions with alien Greek ones, Nikon did not ignore such an element of Russian culture as buffoonery. The appearance of puppet theater in Rus' is associated with buffoon games. The first chronicle information about buffoons coincides with the appearance of frescoes depicting buffoon performances on the walls of the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral. The chronicler monk calls the buffoons servants of devils, and the artist who painted the walls of the cathedral considered it possible to include their image in church decorations along with icons. Buffoons were associated with the masses, and one of their types of art was “glum,” that is, satire. Skomorokhs are called “mockers,” that is, scoffers. Mockery, mockery, satire will continue to be firmly associated with buffoons. The buffoons ridiculed primarily the Christian clergy, and when the Romanov dynasty came to power and supported church persecution of the buffoons, they began to mock government officials. The worldly art of buffoons was hostile to the church and clerical ideology. Episodes of the fight against buffoonery are described in detail by Avvakum in his “Life”. The hatred that the clergy had for the art of buffoons is evidenced by the records of chroniclers (“The Tale of Bygone Years”). When the Amusing Closet (1571) and the Amusing Chamber (1613) were set up at the Moscow court, the buffoons found themselves in the position of court jesters. But it was during the time of Nikon that the persecution of buffoons reached its apogee. They tried to impose on the Russian people that buffoons are servants of the devil. But for the people, the buffoon always remained a “good fellow,” a daredevil. Attempts to present the buffoons as jesters and servants of the devil failed, and the buffoons were imprisoned en masse, and were subsequently subjected to torture and execution. In 1648 and 1657, Nikon sought from the tsar the adoption of decrees banning buffoons. The persecution of buffoons was so widespread that by the end of the 17th century they disappeared from the central regions. And by the time of the reign of Peter I they finally disappeared as a phenomenon of the Russian people.

Nikon did everything possible and impossible to ensure that the true Slavic heritage disappeared from the vastness of Rus', and with it the Great Russian People.

Now it becomes obvious that there were no grounds at all for carrying out church reform. The reasons were completely different and had nothing to do with the church. This is, first of all, the destruction of the spirit of the Russian people! Culture, heritage, the great past of our people. And this was done by Nikon with great cunning and meanness. Nikon simply “planted a pig” on the people, so much so that we, the Russians, still have to remember in parts, literally bit by bit, who we are and our Great Past.

Materials used:

• B.P.Kutuzov. “The Secret Mission of Patriarch Nikon”, publishing house “Algorithm”, 2007.
• S. Levashova, “Revelation”, vol. 2, ed. "Mitrakov", 2011

  
  

  The product is a set consisting of the Luch-Nik Software, with the help of which the technology of influencing “subtle bodies” (psi generator) and a tablet computer are controlled.

Introduction

Church schism

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The true faith of Christ in Rus' could not be shaken by any attacks by enemies who more than once attempted to subjugate or split the Russian Church: the terrible Tatar yoke, which weighed on the Russian land for more than two hundred years, could not destroy or distort Orthodoxy. More than once the popes sought to subordinate the Russian Church to their throne, but always unsuccessfully.

Equally unsuccessful were attempts to introduce heretical distortions of the purity of Christian teaching. The most significant of them were the heresies of the “Strigolniks” and “Judaizers” that arose in the 14th-15th centuries. in Novgorod.

In 1439, a church council was convened in Florence (Italy) on the issue of uniting the churches - Western and Eastern. At the Council of Florence, a union was adopted, according to which the pope was recognized as the head of both churches: Catholic and Orthodox, and the latter had to recognize Catholic dogmas.

Moscow Metropolitan Isidore, a Greek sent shortly before the council by the Patriarch of Constantinople, also arrived in Florence for the council. He openly joined the union. Upon the return of Metropolitan Isidore to Moscow, a council of the Russian clergy was held, which found the actions of the metropolitan to be incorrect, and he was deposed from the metropolitan see. After which, a council of Russian bishops elected Archbishop Jonah of Ryazan as metropolitan, who was installed in 1448 without the approval of the Patriarch of Constantinople. From that time on, Russian metropolitans began to be elected by the council of the Russian clergy independently, without approval or consecration by the Byzantine patriarch. Thus, the Russian Church acquired independence from the Greek Church.

Under Metropolitan Jonah, the separation of the southwestern Russian Church from the northeastern one also occurred:

This is how two Russian metropolises were formed: one governed the northeastern part of Russia, the other governed the southwestern region. The southwestern church soon fell under the influence of Catholicism. The Russian Orthodox Church in the north-east of Russia with its center in Moscow, the church of an independent, strong, growing state, has preserved the purity of Orthodoxy.

In 1551, under Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, a famous church council was held in Moscow, which was called Stoglav, since its collection of decrees consisted of one hundred chapters. This council confirmed the correctness of the old church books, pointed out only minor errors in punctuation marks and some typos, and also led to the unity of the statutes and imposed strict church punishments on those who violate the rules of the holy apostles, resist performing services according to the church statutes and violate rites and traditions of St. Churches. In difficult times of troubles (the time of impostor 1605-1613), the Moscow patriarchs Job and Hermogen saved Russia from destruction, and the Russian Church from heresies and schisms. But precisely at the time when the Russian Church reached its greatest greatness and prosperity, a schism occurred in it, dividing the Russian people.

The purpose of this work is to study the reforms of Patriarch Nikon and the Church Schism in Russia in the 17th century.

Based on the purpose of the study, it is necessary to solve the following problems:

.Analyze the meaning of the reforms of Patriarch Nikon.

2.To explore the essence of disagreements between Patriarch Nikon and his former associates.

.Study the essence and consequences of the Church Schism.

The methodological basis for the study was the work of domestic historians: L.N. Gumeleva, A.N. Markova, E.M. Skvortsova, I.A. Andreeva.

Reforms of Patriarch Nikon and their consequences

A typical person of the Akmatic phase, the future Patriarch of Moscow Nikon was an extremely vain and power-hungry person. He came from Mordovian peasants and in the world bore the name Nikita Minich. Having made a dizzying career, Nikon became famous for his strong character and severity, characteristic not so much of a church hierarch as of a secular ruler. The issue of electing Nikon to the patriarchal throne was decided in advance, since many boyars supported the desire of the tsar and the Orthodox patriarchs of the East spoke in favor of Nikon’s candidacy in their messages. - Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. Nikon, of course, knew about this, but, wanting to have absolute power, he resorted to pressure. During the procedure for becoming a patriarch, in the presence of the tsar, he demonstratively refused to accept the signs of patriarchal dignity. Everyone was shocked, Alexei Mikhailovich himself knelt down and with tears in his eyes begged Nikon not to renounce his rank. And then Nikon sternly asked whether, if elected, he would be honored as an archpastor and whether he would be allowed to organize the Church in accordance with his desires. Only after receiving the royal word and the consent of all those present, Nikon agreed to take the symbol of patriarchal power - the staff of the first Russian Metropolitan Peter who lived in Moscow. Nikon received enormous power and the title of “Great Sovereign,” similar to the royal one.

Patriarch Nikon, who was elected to the position, personally went to the patriarchal library and, as far as he could, compared the books of the Moscow press there with ancient Greek manuscripts and became convinced of the existence of disagreements. He convened a Local Council. And at this council the necessary changes were made to the liturgical books and liturgical practice. The changes and innovations were as follows:

Instead of the two-fingered sign of the cross, which was adopted at

Rus', from the Greek Orthodox Church, together with Christianity and which is part of the Holy Apostolic tradition, triplicate was introduced.

In old books, in accordance with the spirit of the Slavic language, the name of the Savior Jesus was always written and pronounced; in new books this name was changed to the Greekized “Jesus”.

In old books, it is established during baptism, wedding and consecration of the temple to walk around the sun as a sign that we are following the Sun-Christ. In the new books, walking against the sun has been introduced.

In the old books, in the Creed (VIII clause), it reads:

“And in the spirit of the Holy Lord, true and life-giving,” after the corrections, the word “true” was excluded.

Instead of the special, that is, double alleluia that the Russian Church has created since ancient times, a “triple” (triple) alleluia was introduced.

The Divine Liturgy in ancient Rus' was celebrated on seven prosphoras; new “spravshchiki” introduced five prosphoras, i.e. two prosphoras were excluded.

Bows to the ground are replaced by bows, etc.

Thus, having analyzed Nikon’s innovations, we can conclude: these changes were insignificant for Orthodox dogma and cult, since they did not affect the foundations of Orthodoxy, its dogma and sacraments, but concerned some grammatical and cult innovations, but due to growing, unresolved Previously, there were contradictions between the objective (for example, the struggle between the Josephites and the non-covetous) and subjective (the character of Nikon is the character of a man of the Akmatic phase) plan, these changes caused enormous consequences. The entire Russian society split into adherents of the old and new faiths.

Disagreements between Patriarch Nikon and his former associates

“The zealots of piety” (the so-called archpriest Ivan Neronov, the confessor of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Stefan Vonifatiev, the famous Avvakum.) at first were not at all afraid of the newly elected patriarch, for they were briefly acquainted with him and belonged to the number of his like-minded people. Just like them, Nikon was a supporter of the introduction of unanimity and at the beginning of his patriarchate he himself was baptized with two fingers. But Epiphany Slavinetsky (Kiev monk) did not waste time: after some time he managed to convince Nikon that his friends were wrong and it was still necessary to correct church books. In Lent 1653, Nikon, in a special “memory” (memorandum), ordered his flock to adopt triplicate, at the same time an ardent admirer (and then an equally ardent opponent) of Nikon, the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius, arrived in Moscow, and the introduction of three-fingered, and those who continued to use two-fingered when praying were given over to the church curse. Later (1656) a church council confirmed this order.

An interesting question: why did Nikon rely not on his friends, but on visiting Ukrainian monks? And most importantly, why was Nikon’s policy supported by the majority of parishioners, the cathedral and Tsar Alexei? From an ethnological point of view, the answer is very simple. Avvakum's supporters defended the superiority of the local version of Orthodoxy, which developed in North-Eastern Rus' in the 14th century, over the tradition of universal (Greek) Orthodoxy. “Ancient piety” could be a platform for narrow Muscovite nationalism and corresponded to the ideal of the “Third Rome”, “Holy Rus'”. From the point of view of Avvakum, the Orthodoxy of Ukrainians, Serbs, and Greeks was inferior. Otherwise, why did God punish them by placing them under the rule of the Gentiles? The Orthodoxy of Habakkuk, therefore, could not be the connecting basis of a superethnos as an accumulation of close but different peoples. Representatives of these peoples were considered by the Old Believers only as victims of error, in need of re-education. Of course, such a prospect would not arouse sincere sympathy or desire in anyone to unite with Moscow. Both the king and the patriarch perfectly understood this subtlety. Therefore, striving for the growth and expansion of their power, they were guided by universal (Greek) Orthodoxy, in relation to which the Orthodoxy of the Russians, the Orthodoxy of the Ukrainians, and the Orthodoxy of the Serbs were no more than permissible variations.

Nikon's reform activities met strong resistance from prominent spiritual figures of that time: Bishop Pavel Kolomensky, archpriests Avvakum, John Neronov, from Kostroma, Loggin from Murom and others. These persons enjoyed great respect among the people for their pastoral activities. Archpriests John Neronov and Avvakum had a great gift of speech. They knew how to speak simply and clearly, passionately and with inspiration. They did not hesitate to speak the truth to the eyes of the powerful of this world, exposed the vices and crimes of the authorities, and were straightforward and honest. But their oral sermons, letters denouncing church innovations.

Faithful and persistent champions of church antiquity were soon subjected to cruel torture and execution on the orders of Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The first martyrs for the right faith were archpriests John Neronov, Loggin, Daniel, Avvakum and Bishop Pavel Kolomensky. They were expelled from Moscow in the first year of Nikon's reform activities (1653-1654).

At the council of 1654, convened on the issue of book correction, Bishop Pavel Kolomensky courageously declared to Nikon: “We will not accept the new faith,” for which he was deprived of his see without a council trial. Right at the cathedral, Patriarch Nikon personally beat Bishop Paul, tore off his robe and ordered him to be immediately sent into exile in a monastery. In the monastery, Bishop Pavel suffered severe torture and was finally burned in the log house.

The people said that the patriarch-tormentor and murderer sat on the high priestly throne. Nikon began his reforms not with God’s blessing, but with curses and anathemas, not with church prayer, but with bloodshed and murder. Everyone was in awe of him, and none of the bishops dared to speak with a courageous word of reproof. Timidly and silently they agreed to his demands and orders.

Nikon did not remain on the patriarchal throne for long, only seven years. With his lust for power and pride, he managed to alienate everyone from himself. He also had a break with the king. Nikon interfered in the affairs of the state, even dreamed of becoming higher than the king and completely subordinating him to his will. Alexey Mikhailovich began to feel burdened by Nikon, lost interest in him and deprived him of his former attention and friendship. Then Nikon decided to influence the king with a threat, which he had previously succeeded in doing. He decided to publicly renounce the patriarchate, counting on this; that the king would be touched by his renunciation and would beg him not to leave the high priestly throne. Nikon wanted to take advantage of this and demand from the king that he obey him in everything, setting the condition for the king that only in this case would he remain on the patriarchal throne. However, Nikon was severely mistaken in his calculations. At the solemn liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin on July 10, 1658, he announced from the pulpit, addressing the clergy and people: “Out of laziness, I have grown cold, and you have grown cold from me. From now on I will not be your patriarch; but if I think of being a patriarch, then I will be anathema." Immediately on the pulpit, Nikon took off his bishop's vestments, put on a black robe and a monastic hood, took a simple stick and left the cathedral. The Tsar, having learned about the patriarch's departure from the throne, did not stop him. Nikon went to the Resurrection Monastery, nicknamed by him “New Jerusalem”, and began to live here.

Based on the above, the conclusion follows: subjective reasons played a significant role in the Church schism. Nikon carried out reforms not for the sake of searching for truth; it was important for him that everyone recognized his power and no one dared to argue with him.

Nikon styled himself, like the Roman popes, “extreme saint” and “father of fathers.” He was even titled “Great Sovereign”: he sought to seize state power into his own hands. Nikon loved wealth and luxury - after the Tsar, he was the first rich man in Russia: annually he collected more than 700,000 rubles in income."

Church schism

The Council approved the books of the new press, approved new rituals and rites, and imposed terrible curses and anathemas on the old books and rituals. The council declared two-fingeredness to be heretical, and approved three-fingeredness for eternity as a great dogma. He cursed those who, in the creed, confess the Holy Spirit to be true. He also cursed those who would perform services using old books. In conclusion, the council said: “If anyone does not listen to us or begins to contradict and resist us, then we reject such an opponent, if he is a clergyman, and deprive him of all sacred rites and grace and consign him to damnation; if he is a layman, then we excommunicate him.” from the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and we are cursed and anathematized as a heretic and rebellious and cut off like a rotten oud. If anyone remains disobedient until death, then even after death let him be excommunicated, and his soul will remain with Judas the traitor, with the heretic Arius and with other damned heretics. Rather, iron, stones, wood will be destroyed, and let him not be allowed forever and ever. Amen."

In order to force the Russian pious people to accept a new faith, new books, the cathedral blessed to subject those who disobeyed the conciliar definitions to the most severe executions: imprison them, exile them, beat them with beef sinews, cut off their ears, noses, cut out their tongues, cut off their hands.

All these acts and decisions of the council brought even greater confusion into the minds of the Russian people and aggravated the church schism.

This is how the split in Russian Orthodoxy took place: supporters of “ancient piety” found themselves in opposition to official politics, and the work of church reform was entrusted to the Ukrainian Epiphany Slavinetsky and the Greek Arseny.

Supporters of the “old faith”, “old rite” defended the idea of ​​​​the originality of Russian Orthodoxy, its superiority over other Orthodox churches, including over their ancestor - the Constantinople, which, in their opinion, having concluded the Union of Florence with the Roman Catholic Church, fell into heresy . Moreover, the fact of signing the Union of Florence allegedly indicates the weakness of the faith of Constantinople. This means true, i.e. He didn’t even have the Orthodox faith. Therefore, given the difference in church forms and rituals, all preferences should belong to national Russian forms. Only they should be considered truly Orthodox.

Opponents of the reform were subjected to a church curse - anathema at the Local Council of 1666-1667. From that time on they were subjected to severe repression. Fleeing from persecution, the defenders of the “old faith” fled to the remote places of the North, the Volga region, Siberia, and the south of Russia. As a sign of protest, they burned themselves alive. In 1675-1695. 37 collective self-immolations were registered, during which at least 20 thousand people died. The ideological leader of the Old Believers was Archpriest Avvakum.

“Bright Rus'” with its relative unity in the worldview and behavior of people was becoming a thing of the past.

Thus, the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, recognized by the Council, became the cause not only of the Church Schism, but also divided the people into two warring camps, i.e. There was a split in society that lasted for centuries.

Patriarch Nikon church schism

Conclusion

Based on the purpose of the study, the following tasks were solved:

.The meaning of the reforms of Patriarch Nikon is analyzed.

2.The essence of disagreements between Patriarch Nikon and his former like-minded people is explored.

.The essence and consequences of the Church schism have been studied.

Thus, we can draw the following conclusion:

Nikon’s innovations for Orthodox doctrine and cult were insignificant, since they did not affect the foundations of Orthodoxy, its dogma and sacraments, but concerned some grammatical and cult innovations, but due to the growing, previously unresolved contradictions of the objective and subjective plane, these changes caused enormous consequences . The entire Russian society split into adherents of the old and new faiths.

Subjective reasons played a significant role in the Church Schism. Nikon carried out reforms not for the sake of searching for truth; it was important for him that everyone recognized his power and no one dared to argue with him.

The methods of implementing reforms by Patriarch Nikon were far from humanism, which was a significant reason for the Church schism.

The third most important movement of the century was the schism - a religious-social movement with a wide social composition of participants, which arose as a result of the holding in 1653-J655. church and ritual reform under the leadership of Patriarch Nikon. The change in habitual rituals, the appearance of new liturgical books and their forced implementation gave rise to discontent among the defenders of the “old faith.” The schism acquired a massive character after the church council of 1666-1667, which decided on repressions against the Old Believers. The schismatics fled to the forests of the Volga region, to the Russian North, to Siberia. The Solovetsky Monastery remained their stronghold for a long time. Despite the repressions, the movement grew and acquired an anti-feudal character.

The reforms of Patriarch Nikon, recognized by the Council, caused not only a Church schism, but also divided the people into two warring camps, i.e. There was a split in society that lasted for centuries.

Nikon's reforms had the significance that they removed the Russian people from direct participation in church affairs, and the religious knowledge accumulated over many centuries was put aside somewhere. Along with this, the uncontrolled will and power of the hierarchy acquired paramount importance, and instead of the people's understanding of religion, a different understanding, brought from foreign countries, came to the fore.

Bibliography

1.Markova A.N., Skvortsova E.M., Andreeva I.A. History of Russia / Textbook. manual for universities. - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2002. - 408 p.

2.Gumilev L.N. From Rus' to Russia: essays on ethnic history / Lev Gumilyov; [afterword S.B. Lavrov] - M.: Iris-press, 2007. - 320 p. Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of receiving a consultation.

In July 1652, with the approval of the Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus' Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, Nikon (known in the world as Nikita Minin) became Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. He took the place of Patriarch Joseph, who died on April 15 of the same year.

During the dedication ceremony, held in the Assumption Cathedral, Nikon forced the tsar to promise non-interference in the affairs of the church. By this act, as soon as he ascended the church throne, he significantly increased his authority in the eyes of the authorities and ordinary people.

Union of secular and ecclesiastical authorities

The king’s compliance on this issue is explained by certain goals:

carry out church reform, making the church more like the Greek one: introduce new rituals, ranks, books (even before Nikon was elevated to the rank of patriarch, the tsar became close to him on the basis of this idea, and the patriarch was supposed to be its supporter);

solution of foreign policy problems (war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and reunification with Ukraine).

The Tsar accepted Nikon's conditions and also allowed the patriarch's participation in resolving important state issues.

Moreover, Alexei Mikhailovich granted Nikon the title of “great sovereign,” which had previously been awarded only to Filaret Romanov. Thus, Alexei Mikhailovich and the patriarch entered into a close alliance, finding their own interests and advantages in this.

The beginning of change

Having become patriarch, Nikon began to actively suppress all attempts to interfere in church affairs. As a result of his energetic activity and agreement with the tsar, by the end of the 1650s it was possible to implement a number of measures that determined the main features of Nikon’s reform.

The transformation began in 1653, when Ukraine was included in the Russian state. This was no coincidence. The sole order of the religious leader provided for changes in two main rituals. The church reform of Patriarch Nikon, the essence of which was to change the position of the finger and kneel, was expressed as follows:

bows to the ground were replaced by bows;

the two-fingered system, adopted in Rus' along with Christianity and which was part of the Holy Apostolic tradition, was replaced by the three-fingered one.

First persecutions

The first steps in reforming the church were not supported by the authority of the church council. In addition, they radically changed the foundations and customary traditions, which were considered indicators of true faith, and caused a wave of indignation and discontent among the clergy and parishioners.

The main directions of the church reform of Patriarch Nikon were the result of the fact that several petitions were placed on the tsar’s table, in particular from his former like-minded people and colleagues in church service - Lazar, Ivan Neronov, deacon Fyodor Ivanov, archpriests Daniel, Avvakum and Loggin. However, Alexey Mikhailovich, being on good terms with the patriarch, did not take the complaints into account, and the head of the church himself hastened to put an end to the protests: Avvakum was exiled to Siberia, Ivan Neronov was imprisoned in the Spasokamenny Monastery, and Archpriest Daniel was sent to Astrakhan (before that he was deprived of his rank clergyman).

Such an unsuccessful start to the reform forced Nikon to reconsider his methods and act more thoughtfully.

The patriarch's subsequent steps were supported by the authority of the hierarchs and the church council. This created the appearance that the decisions were made and supported by the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, which significantly strengthened their influence on society.

Reaction to transformation

The main directions of church reform of Patriarch Nikon became the cause of a split in the church. Believers who supported the introduction of new liturgical books and rites began to be called Nikonians (New Believers); the opposing side, which defended familiar customs and church foundations, called themselves Old Believers, Old Believers, or Old Orthodox. However, the Nikonians, taking advantage of the patronage of the patriarch and the tsar, proclaimed the opponents of the reform schismatics, shifting the blame for the split in the church onto them. They considered their own church to be dominant, Orthodox.

The Patriarch's entourage

Vladyka Nikon, not having a decent education, surrounded himself with scientists, a prominent role among whom was played by Arseny the Greek, raised by Jesuits. Having moved to the East, he adopted the Mohammedan religion, after some time - Orthodoxy, and after that - Catholicism. He was exiled as a dangerous heretic. However, Nikon, having become the head of the church, immediately made Arseny the Greek his main assistant, which caused a murmur among the Orthodox population of Rus'. Since ordinary people could not contradict the patriarch, he boldly accomplished his plans, relying on the support of the king.

The main directions of church reform of Patriarch Nikon

The head of the church responded to the dissatisfaction of the population of Rus' with his actions. He confidently walked towards his goal, rigorously introducing innovations in the religious sphere.

The directions of church reform of Patriarch Nikon were expressed in the following changes:

during the rites of baptism, wedding, and consecration of a temple, the circumambulation is done against the sun (whereas in the old tradition it was done according to the sun as a sign of following Christ);

in the new books the name of the Son of God was written in the Greek manner - Jesus, while in the old books - Jesus;

the double (extraordinary) hallelujah was replaced by a triple (tregubaya);

instead of semiprosphoria (the Divine Liturgy was celebrated precisely on seven prosphoras), five prosphoras were introduced;

liturgical books were now printed in Jesuit printing houses in Paris and Venice, and were not copied by hand; in addition, these books were considered distorted, and even the Greeks called them sinful;

the text in the edition of Moscow printed liturgical books was compared with the text of the Symbol written on the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius; discrepancies found in these texts, as well as in other books, led Nikon to decide to correct them and model them on the Greek liturgical books.

This is how the church reform of Patriarch Nikon looked in general. The traditions of the Old Believers were increasingly altered. Nikon and his supporters encroached on changing the ancient church foundations and rituals adopted since the time of the Baptism of Rus'. The drastic changes did not contribute to the growth of the authority of the patriarch. The persecution to which people devoted to the old traditions were subjected led to the fact that the main directions of church reform of Patriarch Nikon, like himself, became hated by the common people.

Church reformPatriarch Nikon- a set of liturgical and canonical measures taken in the 1650s - 1660s in the Russian Church and the Moscow State, aimed at changing the ritual tradition that then existed in Moscow (the northeastern part of the Russian Church) in order to unify it with the modern Greek one. It caused a split in the Russian Church and led to the emergence of numerous Old Believer movements.

Cultural, historical and geopolitical context of the reform

Professor N. F. Kapterev, discussing the reasons that led to “the change in the Russian view of the relative merits of Greek and Russian piety,” noted:

The influence of Byzantium in the Orthodox world was based precisely on the fact that it was for all the Orthodox peoples of the East a cultural center, from where science, education, the highest and most perfect forms of church and social life, etc. came to them. It did not represent anything similar to the old Byzantium in this regard Moscow. She did not know what science and scientific education were; she did not even have a school or people who had received a proper scientific education; its entire educational capital consisted in that, from a scientific point of view, not particularly rich and varied inheritance, which at different times the Russians received mediocre or directly from the Greeks, without adding almost exactly anything to it on their part. It is natural, therefore, that the primacy and supremacy of Moscow in the Orthodox world could only be purely external and very conditional.

In the late 1640s, Arseny (Sukhanov) from the courtyard of the Zografsky Athos monastery in Moldova reported to the Tsar and the Moscow Patriarch about the burning of books from the Moscow press (and some other Slavic books) that took place at the Burning of Athos as heretical. Moreover, the Alexandrian Patriarch Paisius, having conducted an inquiry into the incident and not approving of the act of the Athonites, nevertheless spoke out in the sense that it was the Moscow books that erred in their rites and rituals.

“In the 17th century. Relations with the East become especially lively. Grecophilia is gradually finding more and more supporters in society, and in the government itself it is becoming more and more sincere. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself was a convinced Greekophile. In his extensive correspondence with the Eastern patriarchs, Alexei Mikhailovich’s goal is quite clearly stated - to bring the Russian Church into complete unity with the Greek. The political views of Tsar Alexei, his view of himself as the heir of Byzantium, the vicegerent of God on earth, the defender of all Orthodoxy, who, perhaps, would liberate Christians from the Turks and become king in Constantinople, also forced him to strive for such an identity of the Russian and Greek faiths. From the East they supported the king's plans. Thus, in 1649, Patriarch Paisiy, on his visit to Moscow, at a reception with the tsar, directly expressed his wish that Alexei Mikhailovich become king in Constantinople: “may there be a New Moses, and free us from captivity.” The reform was placed on a fundamentally new and broader basis: the idea arose by Greek forces to bring Russian church practice into full agreement with Greek.” Similar ideas were instilled in the Tsar and the Patriarch by the former Ecumenical Patriarch Athanasius III Patellarius, who was in Moscow in 1653 and took direct part in the justice.

Another significant geopolitical factor that pushed the Moscow government to carry out reforms was the annexation of Little Russia, then under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the throne of Constantinople, to the Moscow state:

The similarity of Little Russian liturgical practice with Greek was due to the reform of the liturgical charter carried out shortly before by Metropolitan Peter Mogila.

Speaking about the peculiarities of the religiosity of Patriarch Nikon and his contemporaries, Nikolai Kostomarov noted: “Having been a parish priest for ten years, Nikon, involuntarily, internalized all the rudeness of the environment around him and carried it with him even to the patriarchal throne. In this respect, he was a completely Russian man of his time, and if he was truly pious, then in the old Russian sense. The piety of the Russian person consisted in the most accurate execution of external techniques, to which symbolic power was attributed, bestowing God's grace; and Nikon’s piety did not go far beyond ritual. The letter of worship leads to salvation; therefore, it is necessary that this letter be expressed as correctly as possible.”

Characteristic is the answer received by Nikon in 1655 to his 27 questions, which he addressed immediately after the Council of 1654 to Patriarch Paisius. The latter “expresses the view of the Greek church on ritual as an insignificant part of religion, which can and has had different forms. As for the answer to the question of three-fingeredness, Paisius avoided a definite answer, limiting himself to only explaining the meaning that the Greeks put into three-fingeredness. Nikon understood Paisius’ answer in the sense he desired, since he could not rise to the Greek understanding of the ritual. Paisius did not know the situation in which the reform was carried out and the urgency with which the question of rituals was raised. The Greek theologian and the Russian scribe could not understand each other.”

Background: Greek and Russian liturgical customs

The evolution of the rite of Christian worship in ancient times, especially those elements of it that are determined not by book tradition, but by oral church tradition (and these include such essential customs as, for example, the sign of the cross), is known on the basis of the information available in the scriptures Holy Fathers. In the works of the early holy fathers, until the 8th century, one finger is most often mentioned as the formation for the sign of the cross, very rarely many fingers, and never two fingers (the dual and plural are written differently in Greek). By the 9th century, and by the time of the Baptism of Rus', in the Byzantine Empire, in Constantinople there was a two-fingered sign of the cross; Golubinsky has detailed scientific studies of Christian texts about this. Later, around the middle of the 13th century, the Greeks began to switch to triplicate. As for the number of prosphoras at the proskomedia, the special or three-fold hallelujah, and the direction of the procession, there was no uniformity. Among the Russians, a set of some customs (two-fingered, especially hallelujah, salting, etc.), which would later be called the old rite, gained a dominant position, and among the Greeks later (especially after the fall of Constantinople), a set of other customs gradually became established, which would later be called the new rite.

The process of political and cultural demarcation between North-Eastern (Vladimir and then Moscow) and South-Western Rus' (which became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), which began in the 13th-14th centuries, led to the penetration of modern Greek liturgical traditions through Lithuania, although, for example, in In Lithuania and even among the Serbs at the beginning of the 17th century, double-digitation was still quite widespread. In this regard, in Muscovite Rus' the question arose of what order of worship should be followed. At the Council of the Stoglavy in 1551, this question was answered: “If anyone does not bless with two fingers, like Christ, or does not imagine the sign of the cross, let him be cursed, the holy fathers rekosha. "(Stoglav 31) is a correct presentation of the text in meaning: "Εἴ τις οὐ σφραγίζει τοῖς δυσὶ δακτύλοις, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χρ ιστός, ἀνάθεμα.” , from the Greek liturgical collections of "Euchologi" of the 10th-12th centuries, translated into Slavic, from the order of rites: "Απόταξις τῶν αιρετικῶν Αρμενιῶν"; “...it is not proper to trumpet the holy alleluia, but to say alleluia twice, and on the third, “Glory to you, O God”…” (Stoglav 42).

The famous linguist and historian of the Russian and Church Slavonic languages ​​Boris Uspensky described the difference between the pre-Nikon and post-Nikon traditions as follows:

Using the example of the sign of the cross, we see that we have to talk about Byzantinization only conditionally: we are talking about orientation towards Byzantium, but since Byzantium no longer existed by this time, modern Greeks were perceived as bearers of the Byzantine cultural tradition. As a result, the acquired forms and norms could differ very significantly from the Byzantine ones, and this is especially noticeable in the field of church culture. Thus, the Russian clergy under Patriarch Nikon dresses up in Greek dress and generally becomes similar in appearance to the Greek clergy (the dressing up of the clergy in Greek dress under Nikon precedes the dressing up of civil Russian society in Western European dress under Peter I). However, the new clothing of the Russian clergy corresponds not to the clothing that Greek clergy wore in Byzantium, but to the one that they began to wear under the Turks, after the fall of the Byzantine Empire: this is how the kamilavka appears, the shape of which goes back to the Turkish fez, and the cassock with wide sleeves, also reflecting the Turkish style of clothing. Following the Greek clergy, Russian clergy and monks begin to wear long hair. However, the Greek clergy in the Ottoman Empire wore long hair not because it was customary in this environment in Byzantium, but for another - the opposite reason. Long hair in Byzantium was a sign of secular, not spiritual power, and Greek clergy began to wear it only after the Turkish conquest - since the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Ottoman Empire was given administrative responsibility and thus the clergy were invested with secular power. As a result, tonsure, which was once accepted in Byzantium, disappears; in Rus', tonsure (“gumentzo”) was adopted before Nikon’s reforms (later it was retained by the Old Believers). - Uspensky B. A. History of the Russian literary language (XI-XVII centuries). - 3rd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Aspect Press, 2002. - P. 417-418. - 558 p. -5000 copies - ISBN 5-7567-0146-X

Chronology of the schism in the Russian Church

• February 1651- After the new church council, it was announced that “unanimity” would be introduced in worship instead of “multiharmony” in all churches. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, without approving the conciliar resolution of 1649 on the admissibility of “multiharmony” supported by the Moscow Patriarch Joseph, turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who resolved this issue in favor of “unanimity.” The Tsar's confessor Stefan Bonifatiev and the bed-keeper Fyodor Mikhailovich Rtishchev stood on the same issue, who begged Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to approve unanimous singing in churches instead of polyvocal singing.
• 11 February 1653- Patriarch Nikon indicated that in the publication of the Followed Psalter the chapters on the number of bows during the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian and on the two-fingered sign of the cross should be omitted.
• February 21, 1653 - 10 days later, at the beginning of Lent 1653, Patriarch Nikon sent out a “Memory” to Moscow churches about replacing part of the prostrations at the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian with waist and about the use of the three-fingered sign of the cross instead of the two-fingered one.
• September 1653 - Archpriest Avvakum was thrown into the basement of the Andronievsky Monastery, where he sat for 3 days and 3 nights “without eating or drinking.” They are exhorted to accept the “new books,” but to no avail. Patriarch Nikon ordered his hair cut. But the tsar interceded, and Avvakum Petrov was exiled to Tobolsk.
• 1654- Patriarch Nikon organizes a church council, at which, as a result of pressure on the participants, he seeks permission to conduct “a book review of ancient Greek and Slavic manuscripts.” However, the comparison was not with old models, but with modern Greek practice. Among the participants of the cathedral was Bishop Pavel of Kolomna and Kashirsky. At the council, he openly spoke out in defense of the “old books,” and under the council resolutions, instead of signing, he wrote: “If anyone takes away from the faithful customs of the holy cathedral church, or adds to them, or corrupts them in any way, let him be anathema.” Nikon beat Paul at the council, tore off his robe, deprived him of his episcopal see without a council trial, and exiled him to the Paleostrovsky monastery.
• 1654 - By order of Patriarch Nikon they begin to burn old icons. This was a shock for the masses of believers, in whose minds the principle of icon veneration is unconditional for Orthodox Christian culture.
• Approx. 1655- Archpriest Avvakum’s exile with his family “to the Daurian land.” Avvakum spent six years there, reaching Nerchinsk, Shilka and Amur. By 1663, after the retirement of Patriarch Nikon, he was returned to Moscow.
• Early 1656- A local council, held in Moscow, and assembled by Patriarch Nikon with the participation of four eastern hierarchs: Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, Patriarch Gabriel of Serbia, Metropolitan Gregory of Nicea and Metropolitan of all Moldavia Gideon, condemned double-fingeredness, and cursed all those who were baptized with double-fingered. All those baptizing with two fingers were declared heretics, excommunicated from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
• In the week of Orthodoxy (on the first Sunday of Lent) in 1656, in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, Patriarch Gabriel of Serbia and Metropolitan Gregory of Nicea solemnly proclaimed an anathema against those who cross themselves with two fingers during worship.
• April 3 (16), 1656 - Bishop Pavel Kolomensky was transferred under stricter supervision to the Novgorod Khutyn Monastery, where he was apparently killed.
• 1664- Archpriest Avvakum was exiled to Mezen, where he continued his preaching and supported his followers scattered throughout Russia with messages in which he called himself “a slave and messenger of Jesus Christ,” “a proto-Singelian of the Russian church.”
• April 29, 1666- Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich delivered a speech before the Great Moscow Church Council in which he said that in Rus' the Orthodox faith was planted by the apostles through Cyril and Methodius, Olga and Vladimir. The king called this faith pure wheat. He further listed the misconceptions of opponents of the reform (“schismatics” or “seed of the devil”), who spoke blasphemy about the church: “for the church is not the church, the divine mysteries are not mysteries, baptism is not baptism, bishops are not bishops, the scriptures are flattering, teachings - unrighteous, and everything is unclean and not pious.” Further, the king said that it was necessary to clear the wheat (church) from the chaff (schismatics), relying on the authority of the four “adamantes”: the Eastern Greek patriarchs. In response, Metropolitan Joachim spoke on behalf of the Russian bishops, who agreed with the tsar, calling the schismatics “enemies and adversaries” of the church, and who asked the tsar to help subdue the enemies of the bishops with the help of royal power.
• May 15, 1666 - Archpriest Avvakum appeared before the Great Moscow Church Council, refused to repent, and was condemned to exile in the Pustozersky prison on Pechora. At the council, priest Lazar also refused to repent, for which he was exiled to the same prison. The deacon of the Annunciation Cathedral, Theodore, was brought to the cathedral, but at the cathedral he did not repent, was anathematized, and was exiled to the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery. Soon he sent his written repentance to the cathedral, was forgiven, but then returned to his previous views, for which in 1667 his tongue would be cut out and sent to the Pustozersky prison, into exile, and then burned alive in a log house along with Archpriest Avvakum.
• At the second stage of the Great Moscow Church Council of 1666 - 1667, Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, together with Paisius, Patriarch of Alexandria, who also participated in the work of the Council, managed to impose extremely harsh definitions in relation to the Russian Old Believers, which actually made the schism in the Russian Church irreversible. The Council approved the books of the new press, approved new rituals and rites, and imposed oaths and anathemas on the old books and rituals. Supporters of the old rituals were declared schismatics and heretics. The country found itself on the brink of a religious war.
• 1667- Due to the refusal of the brethren of the Solovetsky Monastery to accept innovations, the government took strict measures and ordered the confiscation of all estates and property of the monastery.
• From 1667 to 1676 the country was engulfed in riots in the capital and on the outskirts. Old Believers attacked monasteries, robbed Nikonian monks, and captured churches.
• June 22, 1668- The royal regiments arrived in Solovki and began the siege of the monastery (Solovetsky uprising).
• November 1671- The Supreme Palace Noblewoman, a representative of one of the sixteen highest aristocratic families of the Moscow state, Feodosia Morozova, an ardent adherent of the old rite, was transported to the Chudov Monastery in the Kremlin, from where, after interrogations, she was transported in custody to the courtyard of the Pskov-Pechersk Monastery.
• 1672- In the Paleoostrovsky monastery, 2,700 Old Believers committed self-immolation. The first known case of mass self-immolations, the so-called “burnings”.
• Late 1674- Boyarina Morozova, her sister Evdokia Urusova and their associate, the wife of the Streltsy colonel Maria Danilova, were brought to the Yamskaya courtyard, where they tried to convince them of their loyalty to the Old Believers by torture on the rack. By order of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, she and her sister, Princess Urusova, were exiled to Borovsk, where they were imprisoned in an earthen prison in the Borovsky city prison, and 14 of their servants were burned in a log house for belonging to the old faith at the end of June 1675.
• September 11 (21), 1675- Princess Evdokia Urusova died from complete exhaustion.
• November 2 (12), 1675 - Feodosia Morozova was also starved to death in an earthen prison.
• January 22 (February 1), 1676- The Solovetsky Monastery was taken by storm. The riot in the Solovetsky monastery, during which 400 people died, was brutally suppressed.
• In 1677 and 1678 At the Small and Large Church Local Councils of the Russian Church, the blessed princess Anna Kashinskaya (in the schema, nun Sophia) was decanonized, only because the hand of the holy princess, who died in the 14th century, depicted two fingers, and her relics lay open in the cathedral of the city of Kashin for the public worship. She was declared not a saint, her relics were buried, her grave was reduced to nothing and her services were forbidden, and only dirges were ordered to be sung. The church was renamed in honor of the princess. Moreover, at first, a visiting commission of several people in Kashin buried the relics and declared her not a saint, closed the church, took away the icons depicting St. Anna, and then retrospectively held two councils. Anna Kashinskaya was canonized as a saint only in 1649 at a local council of the Russian Church, then solemnly in the presence of the entire royal family and with a large crowd of people they transferred her incorruptible relics to the cathedral (the tsar traveled to Kashin twice in 1649 and in 1650: on opening and for the transfer of the relics), they painted holy icons with her image, which stood in the church for veneration, they wrote a church service to Anna, which they served and prayed to Saint Anna, and newly baptized children were named in honor of Anna.
• From 1676 to 1685, according to documented information, about 20,000 Old Believers died from self-immolation. Self-immolations continued into the 18th century.
• January 6, 1681- An uprising organized by adherents of the Old Believers in Moscow. Its probable organizer was Avvakum Petrov.
• 1681 - The New Church Council recognized the need for a joint struggle between the spiritual and secular authorities against the growing “schism”, asked the tsar to confirm the decisions of the Great Moscow Council of 1667 on sending stubborn schismatics to the city court, decided to select old printed books and issue corrected ones in their place, established supervision over sale of notebooks, which, under the guise of extracts from the Holy Scriptures, contained blasphemy against church books.
• April 14 (24), 1682, Pustozersk - Burning of archpriest Avvakum and his three prison comrades in a log house (see Pustozersk sufferers). Archpriest Avvakum, at the time of the burning, according to legend, predicted the imminent death of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich.
• April 27, 1682 - Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich died at the age of 20, without making orders regarding the succession to the throne. The issue of succession to the throne caused unrest, which was resolved by the decision to crown two tsars at the same time - the young Ivan V and Peter I under the regency of their older sister Sophia Alekseevna.
• July 5, 1682 - Dispute about faith in the Faceted Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. The official church was represented by Patriarch Joachim (the main character on the Orthodox side was not he, but Athanasius, Bishop of Kholmogory and Vazhesky), the Old Believers - Nikita Pustosvyat. The dispute boiled down to mutual accusations of heresy and ignorance and, in the end, to swearing and almost a fight. The Old Believers left the Kremlin with their heads raised and on Red Square publicly announced their complete victory, although in fact the dispute did not come to any result. Blackmailed by Princess Sophia, the archers retreated from the Old Believers, accusing them of unrest and the desire to restore the archers against the kings. I. A. Khovansky barely managed to save the rest of the Old Believers, to whom he had previously guaranteed safety. The next morning, Princess Sophia ordered the schismatics to be captured: Nikita Pustosvyat was executed at the Execution Ground, and his comrades were sent to monasteries, from where some managed to escape.
• In 1685 Under Princess Sophia, a decree was issued on the persecution of detractors of the Church, instigators of self-immolation, and harborers of schismatics, up to the death penalty (some by burning, others by sword). Other Old Believers were ordered to be whipped and, having been deprived of their property, exiled to monasteries. The harborers of the Old Believers were “beaten with batogs and, after their property was confiscated, also exiled to a monastery.” Until 1685, the government suppressed riots and executed several leaders of the schism, but there was no special law on the persecution of schismatics for their faith.

Main features of the Nikon reform

The first step of Patriarch Nikon on the path of liturgical reform, taken immediately after assuming the Patriarchate, was to compare the text of the Creed in the edition of printed Moscow liturgical books with the text of the Symbol inscribed on the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius. Having discovered discrepancies between them (as well as between the Service Book and other books), Patriarch Nikon decided to begin correcting the books and rites. About six months after his accession to the patriarchal throne, on February 11, 1653, the Patriarch indicated that in the publication of the Followed Psalter the chapters on the number of bows in prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian and on the two-fingered sign of the cross should be omitted. Some of the inspectors expressed their disagreement, as a result, three were dismissed, among them Elder Savvaty and Hieromonk Joseph (in the world Ivan Nasedka). 10 days later, at the beginning of Lent in 1653, the Patriarch sent out a “Memory” to Moscow churches about replacing part of the prostrations at the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian with waist ones and about using the three-fingered sign of the cross instead of the two-fingered one. Thus began the reform, as well as the protest against it - a church schism organized by the Patriarch’s former comrades Archpriest Avvakum Petrov and Archimandrite Ivan Neronov.

During the reform, the liturgical tradition was changed in the following points:

• Large-scale “bookishness on the right”, expressed in the editing of the texts of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, which led to changes even in the wording of the Creed - the conjunction-opposition “a” was removed in the words about faith in the Son of God “begotten, not made”, about the Kingdom They began to speak of God in the future (“there will be no end”), and not in the present tense (“there will be no end”), and the word “True” was excluded from the definition of the properties of the Holy Spirit. Many other innovations were also introduced into historical liturgical texts, for example, another letter was added to the name “Isus” (under the title “Ic”) and it began to be written “Iesus” (under the title “Iis”).
• Replacing the two-finger sign of the cross with the three-finger sign and the abolition of “throwing”, or small prostrations to the ground - in 1653, Nikon sent out a “memory” to all Moscow churches, which said: “it is not appropriate to do throwing in the church on your knee, but you should bow to your waist.” ; I would also naturally cross myself with three fingers.”
• Nikon ordered religious processions to be carried out in the opposite direction (against the sun, not in the direction of salt).
• The exclamation “hallelujah” during the service began to be pronounced not twice (special hallelujah), but three times (three-guba).
• The number of prosphora on the proskomedia and the style of the seal on the prosphora have been changed.

Reaction to the reform

The Patriarch was pointed out that such actions were arbitrary, and then in 1654 he organized a council, at which, as a result of pressure on the participants, he sought permission to conduct a “book inquiry on ancient Greek and Slavic manuscripts.” However, the comparison was not with old models, but with modern Greek practice. In 1656, Patriarch Nikon convened a council in Moscow, at which all those who crossed themselves with two fingers were declared heretics, excommunicated from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and cursed. In the week of Orthodoxy (on the first Sunday of Great Lent) in 1656, an anathema was solemnly proclaimed in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral against those who cross themselves with two fingers during worship.

The harshness and procedural incorrectness (for example, Nikon once publicly beat, tore off his robe, and then, without a conciliar decision, single-handedly deprived him of the chair and exiled the opponent of the liturgical reform, Bishop Pavel Kolomensky) of the implementation of the reforms caused discontent among a significant part of the clergy and laity, who also had a personal hostility towards the distinguished intolerance and ambition to the patriarch. After the exile and death of Pavel Kolomensky, the movement for the “old faith” (Old Believers) was led by several clergy: archpriests Avvakum, Longin of Murom and Daniil of Kostroma, priest Lazar Romanovsky, deacon Fedor, monk Epiphanius, priest Nikita Dobrynin, nicknamed Pustosvyat, etc.

The Great Moscow Council of 1667, having condemned and deposed Nikon for unauthorized abandonment of the department in 1658 and confirmed the decision of the Moscow Council of 1656 that all those who cross themselves with two fingers are heretics, banned Russian rites of the 17th century (old rites) and approved only the Greek rites of the 17th century (new rituals) and anathematized all opponents of reforms. Subsequently, due to state support for church reform, the name of the Russian Church was assigned exclusively to those who made the decisions of the Councils of 1666 and 1667, and adherents of liturgical traditions (Old Believers) began to be called schismatics and persecuted.

Views of Old Believers on reform

According to the Old Believers, Nikon’s views on a particular tradition, in this case Greek, as a standard one, were similar to the so-called “trilingual heresy” - the doctrine of the possibility of the existence of Holy Scripture exclusively in the languages ​​in which the inscription on the cross of Christ was made - Hebrew, Greek, Latin. In both cases, it was a question of abandoning the liturgical tradition that naturally developed in Rus' (borrowed, by the way, on the basis of ancient Greek models). Such a refusal was completely alien to the Russian church consciousness, since the historical Russian church was formed on the Cyril and Methodius tradition, the essence of which was the assimilation of Christianity, taking into account the national translation of the Holy Scriptures and the liturgical corps, using the local foundations of the Christian tradition.

In addition, the Old Believers, based on the doctrine of the inextricable connection between the external form and the internal content of sacred rites and sacraments, since the time of “Answers of Alexander the Deacon” and “Pomeranian Answers” ​​have insisted on a more precise symbolic expression of Orthodox dogmas precisely in the old rites. Thus, according to the Old Believers, the two-fingered sign of the cross reveals deeper than the three-fingered sign the mystery of the incarnation and death of Christ on the cross, for it was not the Trinity that was crucified on the cross, but one of Her Persons (the incarnate God the Son, Jesus Christ). Similarly, a special hallelujah with the addition of the Slavic translation of the word “hallelujah” (glory to Thee, God) already contains threefold (according to the number of Persons of the Holy Trinity) glorification of God (in the pre-Nikon texts there is also a three-fold alleluia, but without the application “glory to Thee, God”) , while the three-pronged hallelujah with the appendix “glory to Thee, O God” contains the “fourfold” of the Holy Trinity.

Research by church historians of the 19th-20th centuries (N.F. Kapterev, E.E. Golubinsky, A.A. Dmitrievsky and others) confirmed the opinion of the Old Believers about the inauthenticity of Nikonova’s “right” sources: borrowings, as it turned out, were made from modern Greek and Uniate sources.

Among the Old Believers, the patriarch received the nickname “Nikon the Antichrist” for his actions and the brutal persecution that followed the reform.

The term "Nikonianism"

During the liturgical reform, special terms appeared among the Old Believers: Nikonianism, Nikonian schism, Nikonian heresy, New Believers - terms with a negative evaluative connotation, polemically used by adherents of the Old Believers in relation to supporters of the liturgical reform in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 17th century. The name comes from the name of Patriarch Nikon.

The evolution of the attitude of the local Russian Orthodox Church to the old rites

The condemnation of supporters of the old rites as non-Orthodox and heretical, carried out by the councils of 1656 and 1666, was finally sanctioned by the Great Moscow Council in 1667, which approved the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, and anathematized all those who did not accept the council’s decisions as heretics and disobedient to the Church.

Hierarchs of the Russian Church at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries (the cathedral book “The Rod”, Patriarch Joachim in “Spiritual Uvet”, Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod in “Sling”, Dmitry of Rostov in “Search”, etc.), following the oaths of the Great Moscow Cathedral, especially The following "old rites" were condemned:

• The double-fingered sign of the cross as “the devil’s tradition”, “fig”, “demon-sitting”, Arianism, Nestorianism, Macedonianism, “Armenian and Latin commandment”, etc.;
• pure hallelujah - as “heretical and abominable”
• The eight-pointed cross, especially revered by the Old Believers - as “Bryn and schismatic”

Since 1800, the Holy Synod, to one degree or another, began to allow the use of old rites (union of faith, co-religionists were allowed to pray in the old way while subordinating to the new rite hierarchy).

The highest personal Decree of Nicholas II, given to the Senate, on strengthening the principles of religious tolerance dated April 17, 1905, read in particular:

“In order to heal church divisions due to old rituals and to most calm the conscience of those who use them within the fence of the Russian Orthodox Church,” the synod under the deputy locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who later became the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', on April 23, 1929, recognized the old rituals “saving”, and the oath prohibitions of the councils of 1656 and 1667 “Canceled because they weren’t exes.”

The local council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971, convened to elect a patriarch, specifically considered the issue of “oaths to the old rites and to those who adhere to them” and made the following decision:

To approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929, recognizing the old Russian rites as salutary, like the new rites, and equal to them. To approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929 on the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals and, in particular, to bifinger, wherever they were found and no matter who they were uttered. To approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929 on the abolition of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667, imposed by them on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christians who adhere to them, and consider these oaths as if they had not been. The consecrated local cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church embraces with love all who sacredly preserve the ancient Russian rites, both members of our holy church and those who call themselves Old Believers, but who sacredly profess the saving Orthodox faith. The consecrated local council of the Russian Orthodox Church testifies that the saving significance of rituals does not contradict the diversity of their external expression, which was always inherent in the ancient undivided Church of Christ and which was not a stumbling block and a source of division in it.

In 1974, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad made a similar decision.

Such abolition of oaths, however, did not lead to the resumption of prayerful communication between any major ecclesiastical jurisdiction of New Believers and Old Believers.

Criticism of reform in the Russian Orthodox Church

Church historian and head (regent) of the Spassky Cathedral of the Andronikov Monastery in Moscow, Boris Kutuzov, believes that the main political aspect of the reform was the “Byzantine charm,” that is, the conquest of Constantinople and the revival of the Byzantine Empire with the help and expense of Russia. In this regard, Tsar Alexei wanted to eventually inherit the throne of the Byzantine emperors, and Patriarch Nikon wanted to become the Ecumenical Patriarch. Kutuzov believes that the Vatican had a great interest in the reform, which wanted, using Russia as a weapon against Turkey, to strengthen the influence of Catholicism in the East.

In the 17th century Russian Orthodox Church experienced a schism caused by reforms of rituals and correction of liturgical books. was a massive religious and social movement that gave birth to its own ideology and culture. Simultaneously with the schism, an acute conflict occurred between the secular and spiritual authorities, which ended with the assertion of the primacy of the power of the king over the power of the patriarch.

Church orders of the mid-17th century. caused discontent among ordinary believers and among the clergy. For example, polyphony, when, in order to shorten the time of church services in the temple, they simultaneously read the Gospel, sang and prayed. A circle of “zealots of piety” opposed this form of worship. Among the members of this circle were archpriest Habakkuk(1620-1682) and archbishop Nikon(1606-1681).

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

Church reform

The first step of Patriarch Nikon was to hold 1653 church reform.

Nikon sent instructions to all churches to change the traditional norms of worship for Russian Orthodoxy. The two-finger sign of the cross was replaced by a three-finger one. Bows to the ground were replaced by bows. Processions of the cross were ordered to be held against the sun, and not along the sun, as was the case before. The exclamation “Hallelujah” during worship was required to be pronounced not twice, but three times. At the same time, a check of Russian liturgical books began. The Greek originals were taken as a basis. The previous liturgical books were ordered to be destroyed.

The situation was complicated by the fact that Nikon, regardless of Russian traditions, emphasized his commitment Greek rites . The Patriarch banned icons painted not according to Greek models. He ordered his servants to gouge out the eyes of the collected icons and carry them around the city in this form.

Those who refused to accept the innovations were called schismatics. The schismatics themselves considered themselves followers of true Orthodoxy, and Nikon and his followers were branded with the name of “Antichrist servants.” Nikon's most ardent opponent was the archpriest Habakkuk, who was arrested in 1653 and exiled to Siberia . The persecution of Habakkuk's supporters began.

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

Return and execution of Habakkuk

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

In April 1682, Avvakum and other participants in the schismatic movement were burned at the stake . However, the execution of the leaders of the schism led to the fact that many opponents of religious innovations began to voluntarily self-immolate. Church reform of Patriarch Nikon split the country into two camps - supporters of the official religion and adherents of old traditions.

Removing anathemas from old rituals

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

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