What is the Church Reform of Peter 1? This is a whole series of events that have fundamentally changed the management of the Russian Orthodox Church. In the course of the church reform of Peter 1, the system of "Caesaropapism" was introduced - this is when the head of state was at the same time the head of the church. The term "Caesaropapism" denotes the right of the head of state to ecclesiastical supreme power.Church reform of Peter 1 reasons:
The Russian Church at the end of the 17th century had great amount and internal and external problems that were associated, first of all, with the position of the church in the state. At that time, the system was practically not developed religious education and education. And in the second half of the 17th century, the reform of Patriarch Nikon led to a split.The Cathedral of 1654 began the procedure for unifying Moscow books in accordance with the Greek ones printed in Western printing houses. By order of Patriarch Nikon, from 1653 to perform sign of the cross it was necessary "three fingers", although since 1551 two fingers were fixed. The Moscow Council of 1656 decreed that everyone who is baptized "with two fingers" is considered heretics. As a result, there was a church schism - the Old Believers, there were "Nikonians" (supporters of Patriarch Nikon) and Old Believers (opponents of reforms - the common people, the main part of the Church). Patriarch Nikon was a rather ambitious person, he tried in every possible way to strengthen his influence in the state. The Russian tsars saw this and clearly feared the growing position of the Church as a counterbalance to the development of autocracy in Russia. On the part of the head of state, there was a need for changes in the management of the church. But the government did not go to drastic measures. There were huge land holdings of the church and the fact that the population of these lands and monastic enterprises were exempted by the church from paying all taxes to the state. As a result, prices for the products of church industrial enterprises were lower, and this, in turn, hindered the development of the merchant business. But in order to seize church property, funds were needed, and under the same Peter the Great, Russia fought almost non-stop.
But in the 17th century, more and more lands continued to become the property of the clergy. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich issued the Monastic Order, trying to administer trials over the clergy outside the church. But the strength and protest of the clergy was so significant that the Monastic order had to be canceled.
The essence of the church reform of Peter 1
Peter the Great is called a "Westerner". At that time, pro-Western sentiments were already "audible" in Moscow. In turn, the clergy were clearly dissatisfied with the reforms that had begun in Russia, aimed at modernizing the country. Peter I did not like the clergy, also because in his midst there were many opponents of what Peter was striving for, namely, to create a state according to the Western European model. Visiting Protestant European countries... The clergy, however, had high hopes for Tsarevich Alexy, the eldest son of Peter I. After fleeing abroad, Alexei kept in touch with the metropolitans and bishops. The Tsarevich was found and returned to Russia. The charges imputed to him included unnecessary "conversations with priests." And the representatives of the clergy, caught in communion with the Tsarevich, suffered punishment: they were all deprived of dignity and life. It is noteworthy that while preparing to reform the church administration, Peter I was in close contact with the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Dositheus) and the Ecumenical Patriarch (Cosmas). In particular, both for himself and for the Russian soldiers who are on military campaigns, Peter asked them for permission to "eat meat" during Lent.The reforms of Peter I were aimed at:
in order not to allow the Russian patriarch to be raised as a second sovereign.
on the subordination of the church to the monarch. The clergy is not another state, but, on an equal basis with all, must obey the general laws.The patriarch at that time was Adrian, who was very disposed to antiquity and was not disposed to the reforms of Peter I. In 1700, Patriarch Adrian died, and not long before that, Peter had already independently prohibited the construction of new monasteries in Siberia. And in 1701 the Monastic Order was restored. The bishops' houses, the Patriarchal Court, and the monastic households went to him. The secular boyar Musin-Pushkin became the head of the Monastyrsky Prikaz. Then a series of decrees were issued one after another, which significantly reduced the independence of the clergy from secular authorities. The monasteries underwent "purges": all the "uncut" were expelled, tonsured in convents women were allowed only after forty years, and the monastery property and economy were given to the Monastic order. A ban was introduced on the ownership of land by monks.
Of the exemptions, it is worth noting the softening of the harsh persecution of schismatics and the permission of free religion to Catholics and Protestants. Peter spoke about this in such a way that "the Lord gave power to the king, but only Christ has power over the human conscience." Everything significant events both in the life of the country and in the life of the tsar personally, they were accompanied by church services in a solemn atmosphere. The bishops were instructed not to "invent miracles": not to mistake unknown remains for holy relics and not to attribute miraculous powers to icons, not to encourage the holy fools. People of different ranks were forbidden to give alms to the poor. It was possible to donate in the almshouse.
The results of the church reform of Peter 1
Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky was appointed guardian of the Patriarchal See, that is, to lead the affairs of the church. He was completely under the rule of the head of state, and his authority was reduced to zero. He was authorized in Moscow to hold meetings with representatives of the clergy, about which he immediately had to report to the sovereign. And in 1711, the Governing Senate began its work (instead of Boyar Duma), all services of the state had to obey the decrees of the Senate: secular and spiritual. The appointment of any clergyman to office has now become possible only with the permission of the Senate, moreover, the Senate now issues permission for the construction of churches.Gradually, all institutions were concentrated in St. Petersburg, and the guardian of the patriarchal throne moved here on the order of the sovereign. And in 1721, Peter I established the Theological College, which was soon renamed the Holy Governing Synod - a new church administration. The synod was obedient to the sovereign, and the system was built in such a way that Peter supervised the activities of the Synod. In the Synod, a chief prosecutor was appointed, whose task was to control ties with the civil authorities and not to coordinate the decisions of the Synod if they differed from the decrees of the tsar. The chief prosecutor was "the sovereign's eye". And the "correct" state of affairs in the Synod was monitored by the inquisitors. The main goal of the Synod, according to Peter's plan, was to correct the vices of church life: to supervise the activities of the clergy, check the texts of the scriptures, fight superstitions, observe services, prevent various false teachings from penetrating into the faith and administer the patriarchal court.
It so happened that in Ancient Rus practically everyone could go to the clergy. Any clergyman could freely walk from one city to another, from one temple to another. Even a landowner or an unfree person could go to the clergy. For many, it was still an opportunity to find a job easier. Parishioners often chose a suitable person "from among their own" for the position of a clergyman. And instead of the deceased priest, his children or relatives were often appointed. And sometimes in a church or parish, instead of one priest, there were several people - priests - relatives. In ancient Russia, the so-called "vagrant clergy" or "sacral" was developed. In ancient Moscow (as in other cities), the crossroads where they crossed big streets... There were always crowds of people here for different reasons. In Moscow, the most famous were the Spassky and the Barbarian sacrum. Representatives of the clergy gathered here, who left their parishes and went to "free bread". Those who needed a priest "one-time" came here - a prayer service at home, to celebrate the forty-day, a blessing.
Peter I, at the very beginning of the 18th century, ordered to limit the availability of entry into the clergy. Moreover, at the same time, the system for leaving the clergy is being simplified. All this leads to a reduction in the number of clergy. Along with this, a kind of quotas are introduced for new churches - strictly according to the number of parishioners.Theological schools were also established to train priests. It was prescribed for each bishop to have a school for children at home or at home.
Peter I did not like monks. It was within the walls of the monasteries, according to Peter, that a hostile force was hidden for him, capable of bringing confusion into the minds of people. All decrees on monasteries were limited to reducing their number, complicating the conditions for admission to monks. Peter tried to adapt the monastic farms for "useful" institutions for the good of Russia: hospitals, schools, almshouses, factories. Peter began to use monasteries as shelters for beggars and disabled soldiers. Monks and nuns were ordered to leave the monasteries for two to three hours special permission, long absences were prohibited.
Peter I remained in the history of our country in the role of a cardinal reformer who abruptly turned the course of life in Russia. In this role, only Vladimir Lenin or Alexander II can compare with him. For 36 years of the autocrat's independent rule, the state not only changed its status from a kingdom to an Empire. All spheres of the country's life have changed. The reforms affected everyone - from the homeless to the nobleman from St. Petersburg under construction.
The Church did not stand aside either. Possessing infinite authority among the population, this organization was distinguished by its conservatism and inability to change and interfered with the growing power of Peter. The inertia and adherence to the traditions of the priests did not prevent the emperor from making changes in religious circles. First of all, it is, of course, the Orthodox Synod. However, it would be a mistake to say that the change ended there.
State of the Church on the Eve of Reforms
The highest ecclesiastical body under Peter I at the beginning of his reign was the patriarchy, which still possessed great power and independence. The crown bearer, of course, did not like this, and he wanted, on the one hand, to subordinate all the higher clergy directly to himself, and on the other, he was disgusted with the prospect of the appearance of his own Pope in Moscow. The guardian of the throne of St. Paul did not at all recognize anyone's authority over himself. In addition, Nikon, for example, strove under Alexei Mikhailovich.
The first step of the young tsar in relations with the Orthodox clergy was the ban on the construction of new monasteries in Siberia. The decree is dated 1699. Immediately after this, the Great Northern War began with Sweden, which constantly distracted Peter from clarifying his relationship with Orthodoxy.
Creation of the title of locum tenens
When Patriarch Adrian died in 1700, the tsar appointed the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. Metropolitan of Ryazan became him. Adrian's successor was allowed to engage only in "matters of faith." That is, to engage in heresy and worship. All the rest of the powers of the patriarch were divided between orders. This concerned primarily economic activities on the lands of the Church. The war with Sweden promised to be long, the state needed resources, and the tsar was not going to leave extra funds for the “priests”. As it turned out later, this was a calculated step. Soon the parish bells were sent to be melted down for new cannons. The highest church body under Peter 1 did not resist.
The locum tenens did not have independent power. On all important issues, he had to consult with the other bishops, and send all reports directly to the sovereign. For the time being, the reforms were frozen.
At the same time, the importance of the monastery order increased. In particular, he was instructed to take control of the ancient Russian tradition - begging. The holy fools and begging were caught and taken to the order. Those who gave alms were also punished, regardless of rank and position in society. As a rule, such a person received a fine.
Creation of the Synod
Finally, in 1721, the Most Holy Governing Synod was established. In essence, it became an analogue of the Senate of the Russian Empire, which was responsible for the executive power, being the highest body of the state, directly subordinate to the emperor.
The synod in Russia meant such positions as president and vice president. Although they were soon canceled, such a step perfectly shows the habit of Peter I to use the practice of the Table of Ranks, that is, to create new ranks that have nothing to do with the past. Stefan Yarovsky became the first president. He did not use either authority or power. The Vice President served as an oversight function. In other words, it was an auditor who reported to the king about everything that happened in the department.
Other positions
The post of chief prosecutor also appeared, who regulated the relationship of the new structure with society, and also had the right to vote and lobbied for the interests of the crown.
As in secular ministries, the Synod has its own spiritual fiscal. All spiritual activities on the territory of the country were in their sphere of influence. They followed up on religious norms etc.
As noted above, the Synod was created as an analogue of the Senate, which means that it was in constant contact with it. The link between the two organizations was a special agent who delivered reports and was in charge of communication.
What the Synod was responsible for
The responsibility of the Synod included both the affairs of the clergy and matters related to the laity. In particular, the highest church body under Peter 1 was supposed to monitor the performance of Christian rituals and eradicate superstitions. It is worth mentioning here education as well. The Synod under Peter I was the last instance in charge of textbooks in all kinds of educational institutions.
Secular clergy
According to Peter's idea, the white clergy was to become an instrument of the state, which would influence the masses and monitor its spiritual state. In other words, the same clear and regulated class was created as the nobility and merchants, with their own goals and functions.
The Russian clergy throughout their previous history was distinguished by its accessibility to the population. This was not a priestly caste. On the contrary, almost everyone could enter it. For this reason, there was a surplus of priests in the country, many of whom stopped serving in the parish and became vagrants. Such ministers of the Church were called "sacral". The lack of regulation of this environment, of course, became something out of the ordinary in the time of Peter 1.
A strict statute was also introduced, according to which the priest at the service had only to praise the new reforms of the tsar. The synod under Peter 1 issued a decree obliging the confessor to inform the authorities if a person confessed in confession to a crime against the state or blasphemy against the crown. Mischief-makers were punishable by death.
Church education
Numerous audits were carried out to check the education of the clergy. Their result was the mass deprivation of dignity and the reduction of the estate. The supreme church body under Peter I introduced and systematized new norms for receiving the dignity of a priest. In addition, now each parish could only have a certain number of deacons and not a single person more. In parallel with this, the procedure for leaving his dignity was simplified.
Speaking about church education in the first quarter of the 18th century, one should note the active opening of seminaries in the 1920s. New educational institutions appeared in Nizhny Novgorod, Kharkov, Tver, Kazan, Kolomna, Pskov and other cities of the new empire. The program included 8 classes. Boys with primary education were admitted there.
Black clergy
The black clergy also became the target of the reforms. In short, the changes in the life of the monasteries boiled down to three goals. First, their number has been steadily decreasing. Secondly, access to dignity was hindered. Thirdly, the remaining monasteries were to receive a practical purpose.
The reason for this attitude was the personal dislike of the monarch towards the monks. This was largely due to the childhood impressions in which they remained rebels. In addition, the emperor had a distant lifestyle as a schema-monk. He preferred practical activity to fasting and prayer. Therefore, it is not surprising that he built ships, worked as a carpenter, and did not like monasteries.
Wishing that these institutions would bring some benefit to the state, Peter ordered them to be converted into hospitals, factories, factories, schools, etc. But the life of the monks became much more complicated. In particular, they were forbidden to leave the walls of their native monastery. Absenteeism was severely punished.
The results of the church reform and its further fate
Peter I was a convinced statesman and, according to this conviction, made the clergy a cog in common system... Considering himself the only bearer of power in the country, he deprived the patriarchy of any power, and eventually completely destroyed this structure.
After the death of the monarch, many excesses of the reforms were canceled, however, in general outlines, the system continued to exist until the 1917 revolution and the coming to power of the Bolsheviks. Those, by the way, in their anti-church propaganda actively used the image of Peter I, praising his desire to subordinate Orthodoxy to the state.
One of the transformations of Peter I was the reform of church government he carried out, aimed at eliminating church jurisdiction autonomous from the state and subordinating the Russian hierarchy to the Emperor.
In 1696, the government ordered the white clergy not to make any unreported expenses from their treasury without a personal decree from the sovereign. Beginning in 1697, a number of decrees forbade the erection of new church buildings, the construction of monasteries, and the granting of salaries to bishops who had estates, and the financial privileges of the church were canceled. In 1700, the Patriarchal Order was abolished, the affairs of the laity were transferred to other orders, and the struggle against heresies and schism was made the responsibility of the “locum tenens”. Temporarily instead of Patriarch Adrian, who died in December 1700, was established new position"Exarch of the most holy patriarchal throne, overseer and administrator", to which was appointed Metropolitan of Murom and Ryazan Stefan Yavorsky, whose power was severely limited. The most important questions Church administration, he had to decide together with other hierarchs, summoned for this in Moscow "to the sacred council." By a decree of January 24, 1701, the Patriarchal Order was restored, at the head of it Peter put the secular person of the former Astrakhan voivode A.I. Musin-Pushkin. The order transferred the management of the immovable property of the patriarchal and bishop's houses and monasteries. In 1701, a series of decrees was issued to reform the administration of church and monastic possessions and the organization of monastic life. The patriarchal order again began to be in charge of the trial of the monastic peasants and to control the income from the church-monastic land holdings.
Church officials were subject to a poll tax. According to the "Spiritual Regulations" of 1721, the Spiritual Collegium was established (it was soon renamed the Synod). According to the decree of May 11, 1722, a special secular official was appointed to oversee the affairs and discipline of the Synod. The synod became government agency subordinate supreme power a king who becomes the head of the church. Priests had to take an oath of faithful service to the state and thus became civil servants dressed in special uniforms. In addition, the priests, under the threat of torture, were charged with violating the secret of confession and informing on their flock.
The tsar developed a persistently negative attitude towards monastics. In the decree of December 30, 1701, he cited the ancient monks as an example, who "by their own hardworking hands hunted food and, living in a social manner, and fed many beggars at their own hands." The present monks, the tsar reasoned, "have gone to the alien labors themselves, and the early monks have fallen into many luxuries." 23 years later, the tsar expressed the same thoughts: most of the monks are "parasites", for they lead an idle life ("the root of all evil is idleness"), care only about themselves, while before the tonsure they were "Troedan": that is, to their home , the state and the landowner. " Peter the Great issued a decree in 1724, according to which the number of monks in a monastery directly depends on the number of people they have to look after, that is, the number of tonsured tonsure was sharply reduced. According to Peter's thought, the monasteries were to be transformed into almshouses for crippled and aged soldiers or into workhouses; it was planned to teach nuns to read, spin, sew, weave lace, so that there was "benefit to society."
In 1721, Peter approved the Spiritual Regulations, the compilation of which was entrusted to the Pskov bishop, the tsar's close associate, Little Russia Feofan Prokopovich. As a result, a radical reform of the church took place, eliminating the autonomy of the clergy and completely subordinating it to the state. In wartime, valuables were to be removed from the monastic storehouses. But Peter still did not go to the full secularization of the church and monastic possessions, which was carried out much later, at the beginning of the reign of Catherine II.
Another feature of the church policy of Peter I consisted in the proclamation of religious tolerance by the manifesto of 1702, granting foreigners the right to freely profess their religion and build churches for this. This measure was due to the attraction foreign specialists to the Russian service. Therefore, the era of Peter was marked by a trend towards greater religious tolerance. Peter also terminated the "12 articles" adopted by Sophia, according to which the Old Believers who refused to renounce the "schism" were to be burned at the stake. The "schismatics" were allowed to practice their faith, subject to the recognition of the existing state order and paying double taxes. Complete freedom of faith was granted to foreigners who came to Russia, restrictions on communication between Orthodox Christians and Christians of other confessions were lifted (in particular, interfaith marriages are allowed).
All these transformations caused a dull, and sometimes even obvious, discontent of the clergy, for they destroyed the old Moscow system and customs, to which they were so committed due to their ignorance. Nevertheless, Peter still managed to find among the clergy a true supporter of the reforms and a reliable companion in their implementation - Feofan Prokopovich.
How statesman Peter did not allow the independence of the church in the state, and as a reformer who gave his life to the cause of the renewal of the fatherland, he did not like the clergy, among whom he found the greatest number of opponents of what was closest to him. Peter looked at the clergy in such a way that it “is not another state” and must, “on an equal basis with other estates,” obey the general state laws... But he was not an unbeliever - Peter was taught church piety from childhood, he mastered the order church service, participated in all church ceremonies and remained until the end of his days a deeply religious person, believing that everything good, expressed, for example, in victories at the theater of war, and evil, which came from the falls, such as the tragedy on the Prut, is nothing else as God's favor.
The case of Tsarevich Alexy was extremely painful for some of the higher clergy, with whom many clergy pinned their hopes for the restoration of former customs. Having fled abroad in 1716, the Tsarevich maintained relations with Metropolitan Ignatius (Resin) of Krutitskiy, Metropolitan Joasaph of Kiev (Krakow), Bishop Dositheus of Rostov, and others. the main reason infidelity Peter himself called "conversations with priests and monks." As a result of the investigation, the clergy, convicted of having ties with the Tsarevich, were punished: Bishop Dositheus was defrocked and executed, as well as the Tsarevich's confessor Archpriest Iakov Ignatiev and close to Peter's first wife, Tsarina Evdokia, the priest of the cathedral in Suzdal Theodore the Pustynny; Metropolitan Joasaph was deprived of his pulpit, and Metropolitan Joasaph, who was summoned for interrogation, died on the way from Kiev.
Peter used Prokopovich's talents, firstly, to justify his decision to deprive his son Alexei of the right to inherit the throne and, secondly, to justify the advantages of the collegial system over sole administration. But Prokopovich's main contribution to Peter's transformative undertakings was to substantiate the groundlessness of the theocratic claims of the clergy and the inconsistency of Nikon's idea of the superiority of spiritual power over secular power.
The prominent figure of the era of Peter the Great, Theophan Prokopovich, argued that the priesthood is only "a different order exists among the people, and not another state," that the sovereign and the patriarch are represented by one person in the spiritual and secular authorities - the emperor. The idea of the primacy of secular power over spiritual and the uselessness of the patriarchate is closely related to the system of evidence of the superiority of collegial government over individual government. The relationship that developed between the church and the royal authorities, which resulted in the Church reform of Peter 1, required a new formulation from a legal point of view. Prokopovich drew up the Spiritual Regulations in 1721, which provided for the destruction of the patriarchal institution and the creation of a new body called the Spiritual Collegium, which was soon renamed the Holy Government Synod. This document outlined the essence of church reform: the monarch was declared the head of the church, and the management of church affairs was entrusted to the same officials who were in the public service and received salaries like the officials sitting in the Senate and collegia.
The difference from the patriarchal institute was that officials dressed in robes sat in the Synod. The control of state power over the activities of the Synod was carried out by the chief prosecutor, a secular person declared by the instruction to be the same "eye of the sovereign" as the prosecutor general of the Senate. The complete dependence of the Synod on the state was expressed not only in the salary received, but also in the oath taken by its members. The members of the Synod swore an oath of loyalty to the reigning family, pledged to observe the state interest, and to honor the monarch himself as the supreme judge in spiritual matters. Police functions were also entrusted to the clergy - it was allowed to neglect the secret confession and report to the authorities in those cases when the confessing was plotting something against the existing order.
It was the creation of the Synod that marked the start of the absolutist period in the history of Russia. V this period all power, including church power, was in the hands of the sovereign - Peter the Great. Thus, the church loses its independence from the royal power, as well as the right to dispose of church property. The church reform of Peter the Great turned the clergy into government officials. Indeed, during this period, even the Synod was supervised by a secular person, the so-called chief prosecutor.
The attitude of researchers to the church reform carried out by Peter I is not the same. This topic causes controversy among scholars. In an attempt to give his own assessment of these ambiguous transformations, the author reveals the essence of the reform, and also analyzes its impact on the Orthodox Church in Russia and on the religious sentiments of the people of that time.
Introduction
Bishop Theophan Prokopovich, in his speech for the burial of Peter the Great, assessed the role of the emperor in the life of Russian Orthodoxy: “Behold, yours, about the Russian Church, both David and Constantine. His business, the Synodal government, his care - written and verb instructions. About kolikaya this heart spoke about the ignorance of the path of the saved! A colic of jealousy for superstition, and staircase pretenses, and a split nesting in us, insane, hostile and pernicious! There was also a colic desire in him and the search for the pastoral art in the rank, the most direct among the people of God-wisdom, the most hefty correction in everything. " And at the same time, many of Peter's contemporaries considered him "the king-antichrist" ...
There are also very different opinions about the impact of the church reform of Emperor Peter I on the life of the Russian Orthodox Church. Some church leaders and researchers noted its positive side, pointed out that it is a movement towards church conciliarity. Bishop Feofan (Prokopovich), the ideologist of the reform, was the first to speak about this. Another point of view is that the reform was extremely destructive for Russian Orthodoxy, was aimed at subordinating the Church to the state in Russia, while the samples of Protestant states were taken as a basis, in particular England, where the king is also the leader of the Church.
An extensive historiography is devoted to the study of the church reform of Emperor Peter I; it is not possible to consider all of it within the framework of the article. In this regard, when writing it, only some of the works were used, the authors of which adhered to different views on the problem. Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) gives a sharply negative assessment, Metropolitan John (Snychev) agrees with her, the more balanced works of Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, I.K. Smolich, N. Talberg and even written in atheistic Soviet Russia book by N.M. Nikolsky do not contain unambiguous assessments. Of particular interest is A. Bokhanov's research on autocracy, a short history of Russia written by S.G. Pushkarev.
1. Different views on church reform Peter I
As I.K. Smolich, considering the assessments that were given to Peter's reform in church life, “Theophanes repeatedly emphasizes that the Synod is a“ conciliar government ”and, therefore, is more than just a body of collegial government. Already in the manifesto, this expression is deliberately used in order to evoke in the reader associations with church Councils. In the official textbook of Russian church history in 1837, the Holy Synod is directly referred to as a "continuous Local Council." Filaret Gumilevsky's History of the Russian Church says: "The composition of the Holy Synod is the same as the lawful Church Council." Already in 1815, Filaret Drozdov, later Metropolitan, made an attempt to present the Holy Synod as the embodiment of the catholic principle of the ancient Church. In his essay "Conversations Between the Proving and Confident About the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Catholic Church", the doubter is explained that every time in which Church the patriarch died, a Council met in it, but in Greek the Synod, which took the place of the patriarch. " This Council had the same power as the patriarch. When the Russian Church received the Holy Synod as the highest authority of its administration, it "came closer to the ancient image of the hierarchy."
A. Bokhanov in his book also considers different points of view not only on the reforms of Peter, but also on his personal religiosity: “There are different judgments about the religiosity of Peter; this is one of the most unclear aspects historical portrait this amazing, contradictory personality in all its directions. Few consider him an unbeliever; discrepancies begin when assessing the nature of his faith. Specially considering this topic L.A. Tikhomirov, noted that “despite the blasphemous parodies of the church hierarchy with the“ prince pope ”at the head, he undoubtedly believed in God and in Christ the Savior. But he really had strong Protestant inclinations. In general, he put Luther very highly. , in front of the statue of Luther in Wartburg, he praised him for “stepping on the pope and all his army so courageously for the greatest benefit of his sovereign and many princes.” Praise for a religious reformer is not so flattering, but it portrays well Peter's views on the Church ".
The apparent inclination of the Russian tsar to European rationalistic regulation and in matters of faith came into conflict not only with the historically established forms of world outlook, familiar to a certain, privileged circle, but also with popular ideas. As G.V. Florovsky, "the novelty of Peter's reform is not in Westernism, but in secularization. It was in this that Peter's reform was not only a turn, but also a coup." The monarch unwittingly implanted the "psychology of a coup", initiating a genuine Russian split. Since that time, "the state of affairs and self-determination of power have changed. State power asserts itself in its self-suppression, asserts its sovereign self-sufficiency." Florovsky was convinced that Peter had created a "police state", that state care acquired the character of "guardianship". From now on, the human personality began to be assessed not from the position of moral qualities, but from the point of view of suitability for "political and technical goals and objectives." If Florovsky is not very convincing in his private assessments of Peter's transformations, then his general conclusion that the tsar-emperor introduced managerial techniques and power psychology in Russia not just "from Europe", but from Protestant countries - this conclusion seems reasonable.
<...>According to N.M. Karamzin, the reformer's plan was to "make Russia Holland." This statement can be considered exaggerated. However, the conclusion of the historiographer, made long before the Slavophiles, that from Peter "we became citizens of the world, but ceased to be, in some cases, citizens of Russia," cannot but be recognized as historically adequate. "
At the same time, as IK Smolich wrote, “it is hardly fair to believe that Peter's religiosity was imbued with the spirit of Western rationalism. He venerated icons and Mother of God how he confessed to Patriarch Adrian during the procession about the execution of the archers; he reverently kissed the relics, willingly attended services, read the Apostle and sang in the church choir. His contemporaries knew his readiness in the Bible, quotes from which he aptly used, both in conversations and in letters. Feofan Prokopovich notes that "like the whole armor (to Peter - ed.) Was learned from the Holy Scriptures dogmas, especially Pavlov's Epistle, which he firmly fixed in his memory." The same Theophanes says that Peter "was not ashamed to be silent in conversations between theological and others, and he himself was not used to being silent, but he was eager to try and instruct many in the confusion of conscience." ...
Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) and Metropolitan John (Snychev) give unequivocally negative assessments of the activities of the first Russian emperor in church matters. In the opinion of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), “the harm from the anti-church reforms of Peter I was not limited to the fact that Protestantism, even during his time, began to spread strongly through the multiplication of sects in Russian society. The main evil here was that Peter instilled in the Russian people Protestantism, which had in itself the greatest temptation and attractiveness, by virtue of which he began to live in Russia after Peter. Protestantism is attractive because it seems to elevate human personality, since it gives preponderance to reason and freedom over the authority of faith and seduces with the independence and progressiveness of its principles.<...>But this does not exhaust the evil that Peter inflicted on Russia. The Russian Church could successfully fight the deviation from the Orthodox faith of the Russian people on the basis of Protestantism through school education. But Peter took the property from the Church. Due to this, the enlightenment of the Russian people was not under the jurisdiction of the Church, it did not extend to the original historical foundations of our Orthodox faith, but since the 19th century it even introduced a negative attitude towards faith and therefore concealed the death of Russia in itself. "
According to Metropolitan John (Snychev), “the convulsive era of Peter, which swept away the Russian antiquity in pursuit of European innovations, was replaced by the domination of a succession of temporary workers who had little love for Russia and even less understood the unique features of its character and worldview.<...>The Orthodox Church was humiliated and weakened: the canonical form of its government (patriarchy) was abolished, the seizure of church lands undermined the well-being of the clergy and the possibility of church charity, and the number of monasteries - the beacons of Christian spirituality and Orthodox education - was sharply reduced. Autocracy as a principle of government (presupposing a religiously conscious attitude to power as to church service, obedience) was increasingly distorted under the influence of the ideas of Western European absolutism. "
2. The essence of the church reform of Emperor Peter I
The idea of reforming church government in Russia is the first Russian emperor, most likely, brought from Europe. “Quite a lot of evidence has been preserved about Peter's wide interest in church life in England, not only in its official, but also in its sectarian parts. He talked with Canterbury themselves and with other Anglican bishops all about church affairs. The archbishops of Canterbury and York appointed special theologians-consultants for Peter. They were joined by and Oxford University who appointed a consultant for his part. William of Orange, who received the English crown, but was brought up in the Left Protestant spirit, referring to the example of his native Holland and England itself, advised Peter to become the "head of religion" himself in order to have the fullness of monarchical power. When talking abroad about church issues, Peter nevertheless observed great caution, pointing out to his interlocutors that the highest ecclesiastical authority in Russia knew them. General question about collegial management interested him. "
As S.V. Pushkarev, “with his utilitarian and practical approach to all life issues and with his desire to drag all his subjects to work and the service of the state, Peter did not sympathize and even hostile toward monasticism, especially since he saw either felt overt or covert opposition to their reforms. From 1700 until the end of his reign, Peter systematically took a number of measures in order to limit and neutralize monasticism. In 1701, the administration of monastic and episcopal estates was removed from the hands of the spiritual authorities and transferred to the hands of secular officials of the Monastic Order. On the maintenance of the monks and nuns, an annual "dacha" was put in money and bread. It was ordered to rewrite the monasteries and all the monks and nuns in them, and henceforth not to tonsure anyone as a monk again without a royal decree; men under the age of 30 were completely forbidden to take monastic vows, and it was ordered to tonsure as monks mostly retired soldiers, old and disabled, in "desolate places". The income from the monastic estates was to be used for the needs of charity. "
According to the memoirs of A.K. Nartova, “His Imperial Majesty, being present at the meeting with the bishops, noticing some strong desire for the election of the Patriarch, which was repeatedly suggested by the clergy, taking out of his pocket the Spiritual Regulations prepared for such an occasion with one hand and giving them, he said menacingly:“ You ask Patriarch, here is a spiritual patriarch for you, and for those who do not think so (pulling the dagger out of the scabbard with the other hand and hitting it on the table), here is the damask patriarch! " Then he got up and went out. After this, a petition for the election of a patriarch was left and the Holy Synod was established.
Stefan Yavorsky and Theophan of Novgorodsky agreed with the intention of Peter the Great to establish the Theological College, who helped his Majesty in the composition of the Rules of Procedure, of which he appointed the first chairman in the synod, and the other vice-president, he himself became the head of the church of his state and once talking about Patriarch Nikon's quarrels with his tsar and his parent, Alexei Mikhailovich, said: "It's time to curb the elder who does not belong to the power. I will deign to God to correct my citizenship and clergy.
“Theophanes was one of the few contemporaries of Peter who knew what the tsar wanted to do and how. We must pay tribute to Theophan's subtle instinct: he understood Peter at a glance, in a sense he even ran ahead, thus creating the impression in Peter that he was a man on whom he could rely. All this was the reason that Theophanes was tasked with developing a plan for reorganizing church administration. "
As N.M. wrote Nikolsky, “The Spiritual Regulations, published on January 25, 1721, together with the manifesto of Peter, established, in the syllable of the manifesto, a" conciliar government "in the Church in fact, as the Spiritual Regulations stated without any ambiguity. The Spiritual Collegium, which was from now on to govern the Russian Church, was conceived and organized in the form of one of the other colleges, i.e. institutions corresponding to modern ministries; thus the new "conciliar government" became only one of the spokes in the wheel of the absolutist state. The new legislative act was prepared without any participation of the Church, because, although the Pskov Bishop Feofan Prokopovich drafted the Rules of Procedure, he was only fulfilling Peter's task - to establish a collegium to govern the Russian Church on the model of Protestant spiritual consistories. "
Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin described the history of the advancement of Bishop Feofan (Prokopovich): “The son of a Kiev merchant, in baptism he was named Eleazar. Having successfully graduated from the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, Eleazar studied in Lvov, Krakow and at the Roman college of St. Athanasius. In Rome, he became the Basilian monk Elisha. Returning to his homeland, he renounced Uniatism and was tonsured at the Kiev Bratsk monastery with the name of Samuel. He was appointed professor of the academy and soon, as a reward for his successes in teaching, he was honored with the name of his late uncle Feofan, the rector of the Mohyla Academy. From Rome, Prokopovich brought out his disgust for the Jesuits, for school scholasticism and for the whole atmosphere of Catholicism. In his theological lectures, he used not Catholic, as was customary in Kiev before him, but Protestant presentation of dogma. On the day of the Battle of Poltava, Theophanes congratulated the tsar on his victory. The word he uttered during worship on the battlefield shocked Peter. The orator used the day of victory on June 27, which is the memory of the Monk Samson, to compare Peter with the biblical Samson who tore apart a lion (the coat of arms of Sweden is made up of three lion figures). Since then, Peter could not forget Theophanes. "
Another prominent church figure of the Petrine era, Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky), was also not an unambiguous person.
According to the description of I.K. Smolich, “Stefan Yavorsky, appointed locum tenens, was a new and alien person for the church circles of Moscow. He belonged to immigrants from Little Russia, who were not much favored in Moscow and whose Orthodoxy was in great doubt. We can say that the worldly biography of Stephen (he was then only 42 years old) gave rise to such doubts.<...>To enter the Jesuit school, Yavorsky, like his other contemporaries, had to accept union or Catholicism and received the name Simeon - Stanislav. In southwestern Russia, this was common. However, the Jesuit teachers had little faith in the belief that the change of religion was due to conviction; in many cases, after graduating from college, students returned to Orthodoxy. As for Yavorsky, Catholic training did not pass without a trace for him. Returning to Kiev in 1689, he again converted to Orthodoxy, but the Roman Catholic influence was present in his theological views throughout his life, which was especially pronounced in his sharp rejection of Protestantism, which later made Yavorsky an opponent of Feofan Prokopovich. These facts from the life of Yavorsky served in the future for his enemies to call him "papist."
Having become the first president of the Synod, “Metropolitan Stephen had practically no influence on the course of synodal affairs, where the emperor's favorite, Theophanes, was in charge. In 1722, Metropolitan Stephen died. After his death, the office of president was abolished. Formally church hierarchy The first vice-president was headed by Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod, but while Emperor Peter was alive, Archbishop Theophanes remained the most influential in the Synod. "
“On January 25, 1721, the Emperor issued a manifesto on the establishment of the“ Spiritual Collegium, that is, the Spiritual Council Government ”. And the next day, the Senate handed over for the highest approval the states of the newly created collegium: the president from the metropolitans, two vice-presidents from the archbishops, and four advisers from the archimandrites. Four assessors from the protopope and one of the "Greek black priests". Staffing table exactly corresponded to the states of other colleges, up to the presence of a "Greek priest" in the Spiritual College. The fact is that Peter established such a procedure - to appoint foreigners to the collegium who were supposed to teach Russians the correct conduct of business. Still, Peter could not put a German from Protestants into the Orthodox church collegium, therefore he was included in the "Spiritual Collegium" of the Greek. The staff of the collegium was also proposed, headed by the President, Metropolitan Stephen and the vice-presidents, Archbishops Theodosius of Novgorod and Theophan of Pskov. The Tsar imposed a resolution: "Having called them to the Senate, to declare."
As N.M. wrote Nikolsky, “The organization of the synod, as the spiritual collegium was soon named, transfers the administration of the church entirely into the hands of the state.<...>Having a wide scope for the choice of members of the synod, the imperial power does not offer the same scope for the synod to replace free sees. The Synod only "testifies" to the emperor of the candidates, that is, indicates them, but the imperial power does not at all undertake the obligation to appoint precisely those persons whom the synod indicates. True, the synod immediately after its establishment achieved the abolition of the Monastic Order and received all the functions that had previously belonged to the latter; but on the other hand, the government immediately took measures so that the administrative and economic administration of the synod stood under the strict eye of the state. Control was entrusted to the chief prosecutor of the synod, a secular official named in the official instruction of 1722 "the eye of the sovereign and the solicitor for state affairs." He, like the Ober-Prosecutor of the Senate, was obliged "to look firmly, so that the synod would maintain its office in all matters ... verily, zealously and decently without wasting time, according to regulations and decrees," he acted righteously and unfeignedly in his title. " In case of omissions or violations of decrees and regulations, the chief prosecutor was supposed to propose to the synod, "in order to correct"; "and if they do not listen, then I must at that hour to protest and stop another matter, and immediately inform us (the emperor), if it is very necessary." Through the chief prosecutor, the synod also received all government decrees and orders. "
As Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin wrote, “unlike the Synod under the Eastern Patriarchs, our Synod did not replace the patriarchal power, but replaced it. Likewise, it replaced the Local Council as the supreme body of ecclesiastical authority. The abolition of the primate throne, as well as the disappearance of the Local Councils from the life of the Russian Church for more than 200 years, was a gross violation of the 34th apostolic canon, according to which "the bishops of every nation should be the nobility of the first in them, and recognize him as the head, and nothing exceeding their power cannot be created without his reasoning ... But the former does not do anything without the reasoning of everyone. " The leading member of the Synod, at first with the title of president, was no different in his rights from its other members, only symbolically represented the first bishop, the first hierarch, without whose permission nothing should be done in the Church that would exceed the authority of individual bishops. There was no Synod, consisting of only a few bishops and elders, and a full-fledged replacement for the Local Council.
Another sad consequence of the reform was the subordination of the church government to the secular supreme power. For the members of the Synod, an oath was drawn up: "I confess with the oath of the extreme judge of this Spiritual Collegium the existence of the most All-Russian monarch, our most merciful sovereign." This oath, contrary to the canonical principles of the Church, existed until 1901, for almost 200 years. The "Spiritual Regulations" unambiguously proclaimed that "there is a government collegium under the sovereign monarch and established by the monarch." The monarch, with the help of a seductive play on words, instead of the traditional name of him "anointed" was called in the "Regulations" "Christ of the Lord."
In the terminology adopted in Soviet times, but, in fact, basically exactly, although more simplified than it was in general in reality, N.M. Nikolsky, how the synodal reform affected the diocesan bishops and priests: "diocesan bishops who turned into clergymen, and white clergy, in cities entirely dependent on bishops, and in villages - on local landowners, who interpreted rural priests as a" vile race of people " ".
“The Synod was the highest administrative and judicial body of the Russian Church. He had the right to open new chairs, elect hierarchs and place them on widowed chairs. He exercised the supreme supervision over the fulfillment of church laws by all members of the Church and over the spiritual enlightenment of the people. The Synod had the right to establish new holidays and rituals, to canonize saints. The synod issued Holy Bible and liturgical books, as well as subjecting the supreme censorship to works of theological, church-historical and canonical judgments. He had the right to intercede with the highest authorities for the needs of the Russian Orthodox Church. As the highest ecclesiastical judicial authority, the Synod was a court of first instance on charges of anticanonical acts against bishops; he also represented an appellate instance in cases decided in diocesan courts. The Synod had the right to make final decisions on most of the divorce cases, as well as on the removal of dignity from clergy and on the anathematization of the laity. Finally, the Synod served as the organ of canonical communion between the Russian Church and the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, with Ecumenical Orthodoxy. In the home church of the leading member of the Synod, the names of the Eastern Patriarchs were ascended at the service.
On the issue of relations with the Senate, the Synod, in an inquiry to the emperor, wrote that "the spiritual collegium has the honor, power and power of the patriarchal, or almost greater, before the council"; but Peter in 1722, setting off on the Persian campaign, officially subordinated the Synod to the Senate. "
According to Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, “the establishment of the Holy Synod opened a new era in the history of the Russian Church. As a result of the reform, the Church lost its former independence from the secular authorities. A gross violation of Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles was the abolition of the priestly rank, its replacement by a "headless" Synod. The reasons for many ailments that have darkened church life over the past two centuries are rooted in Peter's reform. The canonical defectiveness of the management system established under Peter the Great is beyond doubt. The reform confused the ecclesiastical conscience of the hierarchy, clergy, and people. Nevertheless, it was accepted by both the law-abiding clergy and the believing people. This means that, in spite of its canonical inferiority, nothing was seen in it that would distort the structure of church life so that the Russian Church fell out of the catholic unity of Ecumenical Orthodoxy. "
3. The impact of the reform on church life in Russia
As A. Bokhanov wrote, “Peter was not a herald of secular sentiments in Russia; they have practically always existed. But he became the first king to consider the "tsar's service" outside the framework of "God's work." It was in this new expression of the state ideocratic attitude that the main line of historical division between Russia "before" and Russia "after" Peter was revealed. The new "feeling of power" badly, one might even say, did not correlate at all with the traditional state "feeling" of the popular environment, which inevitably led, according to Florovsky, to "polarization of the spiritual life of Russia."
The Christian "modernism" of Peter could not but be reflected in the external manifestations of the priestly royal service. In this area, he simultaneously established something fundamentally new and modified the established methods. When in 1721 the monarch assumed the title of emperor, no church enthronement ritual followed in this case. The monarch, as it were, remained once and for all "appointed tsar", who accepted only a new designation.<...>The church rite of the wedding to the kingdom underwent changes, which affected the crowning of the wife of Emperor Catherine (1684-1727) in May 1724. The main innovation was that from now on the monarch began to play a key role in the ceremony. If earlier the metropolitan or patriarch placed the crown on the head of the crowned person, now this function has passed to the tsar. "
According to I.K. Smolich, “as in other matters of state administration, Peter I in church affairs was content, first of all, with the establishment of a new supreme body - Holy Synod in the hope that circumstances will gradually develop in the spirit of his instructions, in this case - "Spiritual regulations". During the reign of Peter, the Holy Synod remained at the initial stage of its development. Under Peter's successors, changes took place due to the interests of state power. "
According to a somewhat simplified assessment of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), “as a result of Peter's anti-church reforms in the life of the Russian people, Orthodox faith and everyone external forms its manifestations. Freethinkers multiplied, condemning ritualism on Protestant principles. Even the Russian educated society of Peter the Great's day, imbued with European Protestant views, began to be ashamed of its former childish and simple-minded religiosity and tried to hide it, especially since it was openly condemned from the height of the throne and by the authorities. "
This idea is revealed in more detail by Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin: “in the Peter the Great's era, a rift, fatal for the fate of the state, begins between the upper stratum of society and the common people, who traditionally remained faithful to the behests of their ancestors.<...>At that time, orders were issued one after another with Peter's and Feofan's "educational" orientation, such as decrees about "burning in vain" church candles or about "not using the Holy Mysteries for pharmaceutical medicine." There were also such orders that grossly insulted the people's piety, decrees against the construction of chapels, against the custom of wearing icons at home, against rich vestments, expensive bells, and precious vessels. A great temptation among the people was caused by the real obsession of the king with exposure popular superstitions, which meant ancient pious rites. For divulging false rumors about miracles, visions and prophecies, he imposed a heavy punishment - tearing out his nostrils and exile to the galleys. Even worse, confessors were ordered to inform the authorities if someone confesses in confession to divulging false rumors about miracles. Both the secular and spiritual authorities were obliged to persecute the people's "prophets", holy fools, and hysterics. The whores and the possessed were ordered to torture until they confess to pretense. Sorcerers were subjected death penalty... The "educational direction" in Peter's decrees was combined with the most dense barbarism. "
At the same time, “in order to facilitate the cause spiritual education, Peter I issued a decree according to which the children of the clergy who were not taught in schools were not allowed to church positions. Without certificates of "priesthood" it was forbidden to be admitted to the ranks of the "civil service", except for the "soldier's rank". While the number of regular religious schools was small, as a temporary measure, primary "digital" schools were ordered to be set up at bishops' houses and large monasteries, where children from all classes were admitted, and all children of clergy were obliged to attend these schools under the threat of forced soldiery. The Spiritual Regulations proclaimed the compulsory education for children of clergy and clergy. Untrained undergrowths were subject to exclusion from the spiritual class. "
“A significant event in the church life of Peter's era was the conversion to Christ of many thousands of pagans and Mohammedans. As in previous centuries, Christian enlightenment took place in Russia without violence and coercion. Expressing the spirit of the primordially Russian sense of justice - religious tolerance inherent in our people, Peter the Great wrote in a decree of 1702: "We do not want to force the human conscience and we willingly leave everyone responsible for his responsibility for the salvation of his soul." The government, however, did not avoid incentives in relation to converted foreigners. Baptized serfs were signed off from their unbaptized landowners. From 1720, all new converts were offered a three-year tax and recruitment benefit. "
The greatest creation of Russian spiritual literature of the Peter the Great era was “ men of the Menaion"St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov.
“Contradictory opinions were expressed about the church reform of Peter. The deepest assessment of it belongs to the Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret. According to him, “The Spiritual College, which Peter took over from the Protestant ...
Conclusion
“It seems not quite historically accurate two popular historiosophical statements that reveal the theme of the Tsar and the Church. First, under Peter the Great, the state was simply "emancipated from the Church" (IA Ilyin). Second, Peter "secularized the Russian kingdom and introduced it to the type of Western enlightened absolutism" (NA Berdyaev). Rather, F.A. Stepun, who wrote that under Peter, as before, "both swords" - secular and spiritual, remained in the hands of the supreme ruler of Russia, but under him the subordination of the spiritual sword to the secular only intensifies. In the figurative expression of this philosopher, Peter did not strive to separate the church from the state, he intended, as it were, "to involve it in state circulation." The well-known Slavophile Yu.F. Samarin, who believed that "Peter the Great understood religion only from its moral side, how much it is needed for the state, and this expressed his exclusivity, his Protestant one-sidedness. From his point of view, he did not understand what the Church is, he just her I did not see it, because its sphere is higher than the sphere of practicality, and therefore he acted as if it did not exist, denying it not maliciously, but rather out of ignorance. "
Different views on the church reform carried out by Emperor Peter I show its complexity and ambiguity. The own views of the authors who studied it have a decisive influence on the conclusions they draw.
The essence of the reform consisted in a radical transformation of the system of church government in Russia. The replacement of the Patriarch by the Most Holy Synod, in fact a state body, whose members were to take the oath of state, the transformation of diocesan bishops into officials, restrictions on monasticism, the complication of the life of the parish clergy - its quite obvious consequences. In many ways, there is a desire to take England as an example, where the king is the head of the Anglican Church. In the context of the fact that many of Peter the Great's successors were alien to Orthodoxy, the reform ultimately led to the fact that the Orthodox Church in Russia became more and more dependent not only on the emperor, but also on officials. This was initiated by Peter I himself, who subordinated the Synod to the Senate during one of his absences.
The reform had a great impact on church life in Russia. A rationalizing view of the processes taking place in it, a lack of understanding of its essence led to many sad consequences, among which can be called attempts to resolve spiritual issues by police measures, the departure from Orthodoxy of many representatives of the educated part of Russian society. At the same time, serious steps were taken to develop church education and missionary work; at the same time, the reform marked the beginning of the Synodal period, the consequences and results of which, on the whole, are difficult to assess positively.
List of sources and literature used
Sources of
1. Feofan Prokopovich. Word for the burial of Peter the Great // Peter the Great. Memories. Diary entries. Paris - Moscow - New York, 1993.S. 225-232.
2. Nartov AK Memorable narratives and speeches of Peter the Great // Peter the Great. Memories. Diary entries. Paris - Moscow - New York, 1993.S. 247-326.
Literature
3. Bokhanov A. Autocracy. M., 2002.
4. John (Snychev), Met. Russian Symphony. SPb., 2002.
5. Nikolsky N. M. History of the Russian Church. M., 1988.
6. Pushkarev S.G. Review of Russian history. Stavropol, 1993.
7. Seraphim (Sobolev), Archbishop. Russian ideology. SPb., 1992.
8. Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700-1917. M., 1996.
9. Talberg N. History of the Russian Church. M., 1997.
10. Tsypin V., prot. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal and recent periods... 1700-2005. M., 2007.
The Church Reform of Peter I - the measures carried out by Peter I at the beginning of the 18th century, which radically changed the governance of the Orthodox Russian Church, introducing a system that some researchers consider Caesaropapist.
The position of the Russian Church before the reforms of Peter I
By the end of the 17th century, the Russian Church accumulated a significant number of both internal problems and problems associated with its position in society and the state, as well as the almost complete absence of a system of religious and church enlightenment and education. In half a century, as a result of the not entirely successful reforms of Patriarch Nikon, the Old Believers split took place: a significant part of the Church - primarily the common people - did not accept the decisions of the Moscow Councils of 1654, 1655, 1656, 1666 and 1667 and rejected the reforms prescribed by them in the Church, following norms and traditions that formed in Moscow in the 16th century, when the Moscow Church was in schism with Ecumenical Orthodoxy - until its status was normalized in 1589-1593. All this left a significant imprint on the society of that time. Also, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, Patriarch Nikon pursued a policy that clearly threatened the emerging Russian absolutism. An ambitious man, Nikon tried to maintain the same status in the Moscow State that Patriarch Filaret had before him. These attempts ended in complete failure for him personally. The Russian tsars, clearly seeing the danger of the privileged position of the Russian Church, which owned vast lands and enjoyed privileges, felt the need to reform the government of the church. But in the 17th century, the government did not dare to take radical measures. The privileges of the Church, which came into conflict with the emerging absolutism, consisted in the right to land tenure and to judge clergy in all matters. The land holdings of the church were huge, the population of these lands, in most cases exempted from paying taxes, was useless for the state. Monastic and bishop's commercial and industrial enterprises also did not pay anything to the treasury, thanks to which they could sell their goods cheaper, thereby undermining the merchants. The unceasing growth of monastic and ecclesiastical land tenure in general threatened the state with huge losses.
Even Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, despite his devotion to the church, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to put an end to the claims of the clergy. Under him, the further transfer of land to the ownership of the clergy was stopped, and those recognized as draft lands, which found themselves in the hands of the clergy, were returned back to tax. According to the Cathedral Code of 1649, the trial of the clergy in all civil matters was transferred to the hands of a new institution - the Monastic Order. The monastic order was the main significant subject of the ensuing conflict between the Tsar and Nikon, which in this case expressed the interests of the entire corporation of the highest clergy. The protest was so strong that the tsar had to give in and agree with the fathers of the Council of 1667, so that the trial of clergy in civil and even criminal cases was returned to the hands of the clergy. After the cathedral in 1675, the Monastery order was abolished.
An important factor in church life at the end of the 17th century was the annexation of the Kiev Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1687. Western-educated Little Russian bishops entered the Russian episcopate, some of whom will play a key role in the church reforms of Peter I.
General nature and prerequisites
Peter I, having become at the helm of state rule, saw a dull, and sometimes even obvious, discontent of the clergy with the reforms that were begun to modernize Russia, because they destroyed the old Moscow system and customs to which they were so committed due to their ignorance. As the bearer of the state idea, Peter did not allow the independence of the church in the state, and as a reformer who gave his life to the renewal of the fatherland, he did not like the clergy, among whom he found the greatest number of opponents of what was closest to him. But he was not an unbeliever; rather, he belonged to those who are called indifferent to works of faith.
Even during the lifetime of Patriarch Adrian, Peter, a very young man who led a life rather far from church interests, expressed his wishes to the head of the Russian clergy regarding the ordering of the spiritual order. However, the patriarch shunned innovations that penetrated the system of state and public life Russia. Over time, Peter's dissatisfaction with the Russian clergy intensified, so that he even got used to attributing most of his failures and difficulties in internal affairs to the secret but stubborn opposition of the clergy. When, in the mind of Peter, everything that opposed and hostile to his reforms and plans was embodied in the person of the clergy, he decided to neutralize this opposition, and all his reforms related to the structure of the Russian Church were directed towards this. They all meant:
- Eliminating the possibility of growing up for the Russian pope - “the second sovereign, equal to or greater”, which he could become, and in the person of the patriarchs Filaret and Nikon, to a certain extent became, the Moscow patriarch;
- Submission of the church to the monarch. Peter looked at the clergy in such a way that it “is not another state” and must, “on an equal basis with other estates,” obey general state laws.
Peter's travels to the Protestant countries of Europe further strengthened his views on the relationship between the state and the church. With considerable attention, Peter listened to the advice of William of Orange in 1698, during his informal meetings, to arrange the Church in Russia in the manner of the Anglican Church, declaring himself its Head.
In 1707, Metropolitan Isaiah of Nizhny Novgorod was deprived of his chair and exiled to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, who sharply protested against the actions of the Monastic order in his diocese.
The case of Tsarevich Alexy was extremely painful for some of the higher clergy, with whom many clergy pinned their hopes for the restoration of former customs. Having fled abroad in 1716, the Tsarevich maintained relations with Metropolitan Ignatius (Resin) of Krutitskiy, Metropolitan Ioasaph of Kiev (Krakow), Bishop Dositheus of Rostov, and others. During the search carried out by Peter, Peter himself called the “conversations with the blackguards” the main reason for treason. As a result of the investigation, the clergy, convicted of having ties with the Tsarevich, were punished: Bishop Dositheus was defrocked and executed, as well as the Tsarevich's confessor Archpriest Iakov Ignatiev and close to Peter's first wife, Tsarina Evdokia, the priest of the cathedral in Suzdal Theodore the Pustynny; Metropolitan Joasaph was deprived of his pulpit, and Metropolitan Joasaph, who was summoned for interrogation, died on the way from Kiev.
It is noteworthy that throughout the preparation of the reform of church government, Peter was in intensive relations with Eastern patriarchs- first of all, by Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem - on various issues of both spiritual and political nature. And to To the Ecumenical Patriarch Cosme also addressed with private spiritual requests, such as permission for him to "eat meat" during all fasts; His Diploma to the Patriarch of July 4, 1715 substantiates the request by the fact that, as the document says, “I suffer from febroy and scourge, which sickness happens to me more from any harsh food, and, especially, I’m forced to be unceasingly for the defense of the sacred church and state and my subjects. military difficult and distant campaigns<...>". With another letter from the same day, he asks Patriarch Cosmas for permission to eat meat at all posts for the entire Russian army during military campaigns, "" our Orthodox troops<...>there are in heavy and long hikes and remote and inconvenient and deserted places, where there are few, and sometimes nothing, no fish, lower than some lean dishes, and often samago bread ”. Undoubtedly, it was more convenient for Peter to resolve issues of a spiritual nature with the Eastern patriarchs, who were largely supported by the Moscow government (and Patriarch Dositheus was de facto for several decades a political agent and informant of the Russian government about everything that happened in Constantinople). rather than with their own, sometimes obstinate, clergy.
Peter's first beginnings in this area
During the lifetime of Patriarch Adrian, Peter independently forbade the construction of new monasteries in Siberia.
In October 1700, Patriarch Adrian died. Peter was at this time with troops near Narva. Here, in the camp, he received two letters concerning the situation created by the death of the Patriarch. Boyarin Tikhon Streshnev, who remained in charge of Moscow during the absence of the sovereign, according to the old custom, gave an account of the death and burial of the patriarch, the measures taken to protect the property of the patriarchal house, and asked whom to appoint as the new patriarch. The profit-maker Kurbatov, obliged by his position to represent to the sovereign about everything that tends to the profit and benefit of the state, wrote to the sovereign that the Lord judged him, the tsar, "his property and his people in everyday needs, to govern in truth, like the father's children." He further pointed out that due to the death of the patriarch, his subordinates took all matters into their own hands and in their own interests dispose of all the patriarchal income. Kurbatov proposed to elect, as it was before, a bishop for the temporary administration of the patriarchal throne. All the monastic and bishop's estates Kurbatov advised to rewrite and give them to someone for protection.
A week after returning from Narva, Peter did as Kurbatov suggested. Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky of Ryazan and Murom was appointed guardian and steward of the Patriarchal Throne. The locum tenens were entrusted with managing only matters of faith: "about schism, about the opposites of the church, about heresies", all the other matters that were in the jurisdiction of the Patriarch were distributed according to the orders to which they were related. A special order in charge of these matters - the Patriarchal order - was destroyed.
