Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action. Church reform of Patriarch Nikon

The 17th century in Russia was marked by church reform, which had far-reaching consequences both for the Church and for the entire Russian state. It is customary to associate changes in church life at that time with the activities of Patriarch Nikon. Many studies have been devoted to the study of this phenomenon, but they are not uniform in opinion. This publication talks about the reasons for the existence of different points of view on the authorship and implementation of church reform of the 17th century.

1. The generally accepted view of church reform in the 17th century

The mid-17th century in Russia was marked by church reform, which had far-reaching consequences both for the Church and for the entire Russian state. It is customary to associate changes in church life at that time with the activities of Patriarch Nikon. In various versions, this point of view can be found both in pre-revolutionary and modern authors. “Under him (Nikon) and with his main participation, a completely correct and fundamentally reliable correction of our church books and rituals really began, which we almost never had before...” writes the outstanding church historian of the 19th century, Metropolitan Macarius. It is worth noting how carefully the Metropolitan speaks about Patriarch Nikon’s participation in the reform: the correction began “with him and with his main participation.” We find a somewhat different view among most researchers of the Russian schism, where the correction of “liturgical books and church rites” or “church liturgical books and rites” is already firmly connected with the name of Nikon. Some authors make even more categorical judgments when they claim that Nikon’s care “put a limit to the sowing of chaff” in printed books. Without touching on the individuals who were involved in “sowing the tares” for now, we note the widespread belief that under Patriarch Joseph “those opinions that later became dogmas in the schism were predominantly included in liturgical and teaching books,” and the new patriarch “gave the correct formulation of this issue.” Thus, the phrases “the church innovations of Patriarch Nikon” or “his church corrections” have become a generally accepted cliche for many years and wander from one book to another with enviable persistence. We open the Dictionary of Scribes and Books of Ancient Rus' and read: “In the spring of 1653, Nikon, with the support of the tsar, began to implement the church reforms he had conceived...” The author of the article is not alone in his judgments, as far as can be judged from their articles and books , the same opinion is shared by: Shashkov A.T. , Urushev D.A. , Batser M.I. etc. Even written by such famous scientists as N.V. Ponyrko and E.M. Yukhimenko, the preface of the new scientific edition of the famous primary source - “Stories about the Fathers and Sufferers of Solovetsky” by Semyon Denisov - could not do without a paraphrase of the above-mentioned statement, moreover, in the first sentence. Despite the polarity of opinions in assessing Nikon’s activities, where some write about “ill-considered and ineptly implemented reforms carried out by the patriarch,” while others see in him the creator of “enlightened Orthodox culture,” which he “learns from the Orthodox East,” Patriarch Nikon remains a key figure reforms.

In church publications of the Soviet period and our time, as a rule, we find the same opinions in their pre-revolutionary or modern versions. This is not surprising, because after the defeat of the Russian Church at the beginning of the 20th century, on many issues we still have to turn to representatives of the secular scientific school or resort to the legacy of Tsarist Russia. An uncritical approach to this heritage sometimes gives rise to books containing information that was refuted in the 19th century and is erroneous. In recent years, a number of anniversary publications have been published, the work on which was either of a joint church-secular nature, or representatives of church science were invited to review, which in itself seems to be a gratifying phenomenon in our life. Unfortunately, these studies often contain extreme views and suffer from bias. So, for example, in the voluminous tome of the works of Patriarch Nikon, attention is drawn to the panegyric to the First Hierarch, according to which Nikon “brought Moscow Rus' out of the position of isolationism among the Orthodox Churches and through ritual reform brought it closer to other Local Churches, recalled the unity of the Church during local division, prepared a canonical the unification of Great Russia and Little Russia, revived the life of the Church, making the works of its fathers accessible to the people and explaining its rites, worked to change the morals of the clergy...", etc. Almost the same thing can be read in the address of Archbishop George of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas, published in a regional publication , dedicated to the 355th anniversary of Nikon’s accession to the Primate Throne. There are also more shocking statements: “In modern language, the “democrats” of that time dreamed of “Russia’s integration into the world community,” writes N.A. Koloty, - and the great Nikon consistently implemented the idea of ​​“Moscow - the Third Rome”. This was the time when the Holy Spirit left the “Second Rome” - Constantinople and sanctified Moscow,” the author concludes. Without going into theological discussions about the time of the consecration of Moscow by the Holy Spirit, we consider it necessary to note that A.V. Kartashev sets out a completely opposite point of view - in the matter of reform: “Nikon tactlessly and blindly drove the church ship against the rock of Rome III.”

There is an enthusiastic attitude towards Nikon and his transformations among Russian scientists abroad, for example N. Talberg, who, however, in the introduction to his book considered it necessary to write the following: “This work does not claim to have scientific research significance.” Even Fr. John Meyendorff writes about this in a traditional way, comprehending the events somewhat deeper and more restrained: “...Moscow Patriarch Nikon... energetically tried to restore what seemed to him to be Byzantine traditions, and to reform the Russian Church, making it in ritual and organizational respects identical to the contemporary Greek one Churches. His reform,” continues the protopresbyter, “was actively supported by the tsar, who, not at all in the custom of Moscow, solemnly promised to obey the patriarch.”

So, we have two versions of the generally accepted assessment of the church reform of the 17th century, which owe their origin to the division of the Russian Orthodox Church into the Old Believer and New Believer or, as they said before the revolution, the Greek-Russian Church. For various reasons, and especially under the influence of the preaching activities of both sides and fierce disputes between them, this point of view became widespread among the people and established itself in the scientific community. The main feature of this view, regardless of the positive or negative attitude towards the personality and activities of Patriarch Nikon, is its fundamental and dominant significance in the reform of the Russian Church. In our opinion, it will be more convenient to consider this point of view in the future as a simplified-traditional one.

2. A scientific view of church reform, its gradual formation and development

There is another approach to this problem, which apparently did not take shape right away. Let us first turn to the authors who, although they adhere to a simplified traditional point of view, nevertheless cite a number of facts from which opposite conclusions can be drawn. So, for example, Metropolitan Macarius, who also laid the foundation for the reform under Nikon, left us the following information: “Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself turned to Kyiv with a request to send learned men who knew Greek to Moscow so that they would correct the Slavic Bible according to the text of seventy interpreters, which they then intended to print again." Scientists soon arrived and “even during the lifetime of Patriarch Joseph, they managed to correct one book, “The Six Days,” from the Greek text, which was already being printed, and printed their corrections at the end of the book...” Count A. Heyden, pointing out that “the new patriarch set the whole matter in motion corrections of church books and rituals on an inter-church basis”, it is immediately stipulated: “True, even Nikon’s predecessor, Patriarch Joseph, in 1650, not daring to introduce unanimous singing in churches, applied for permission to this “great church need” to the Constantinople Patriarch Parthenius." Having devoted his work to the confrontation between Patriarch Nikon and Archpriest John Neronov, the count draws attention to the activities of the “main leader of the schism” before his opponent took the patriarchal throne. Neronov, according to his research, “took an active part in correcting church books, being a member of the council at the printing court” and “together with his future enemy Nikon, at that time still Metropolitan of Novgorod, he also contributed to the establishment of church deanery, the revival of church preaching and the correction of some church rituals, for example, the introduction of unanimous singing...” Interesting information about publishing activity during the time of Patriarch Joseph is given to us by the Olonets diocesan missionary and the author of a completely traditional textbook on the history of the schism, priest K. Plotnikov: “During the 10 years (1642-1652) of his patriarchate, such a number of books (116) were published as did not work under any of the previous patriarchs.” Even among supporters of deliberately introducing errors into printed publications under Patriarch Joseph, one can detect some discrepancies in the facts. “Damage of church books,” according to Count M.V. Tolstoy, - reached the highest degree and was all the more regrettable and dismal because it was carried out clearly, asserting itself, apparently, on legal grounds.” But if the “reasons are legal,” then the activity of the inspectors is no longer “damage,” but the correction of books, according to certain views on this issue, carried out not “from the wind of their head,” but on the basis of an officially approved program. Even during the time of Patriarchate Filaret, to improve book corrections, the “Trinity Inspectors” proposed the following system: “a) to have educated inspectors and b) special printing observers from the capital’s clergy,” which was organized. Only based on this alone, we can come to the conclusion that even with the participation of such personalities as “archpriests Ivan Neronov, Avvakum Petrov and deacon of the Annunciation Cathedral Fedor,” whose influence, according to S.F. Platonov, “many errors and incorrect opinions were introduced and disseminated in the new books,” the so-called “damage” could turn out to be extremely difficult. However, the venerable historian expresses this point of view, already outdated and criticized in his time, as an assumption. Along with Heyden, Platonov argues that the correction of books undertaken by the new patriarch “lost its former significance as a household matter and became an inter-church matter.” But if the “work” of church reform began before it became “inter-church,” then only its character changed and, therefore, it was not Nikon who started it.

More in-depth studies on this issue in the late 19th and early 20th centuries contradict generally accepted views, pointing to other authors of the reform. N.F. Kapterev, in his fundamental work, convincingly proves this, shifting the initiative of church reform onto the shoulders of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and his confessor, Archpriest Stefan. “They were the first, even before Nikon,” the author reports, “to conceive of carrying out a church reform, previously outlined its general nature and began, before Nikon, to gradually implement it... they also created Nikon himself as a Greek-phile reformer.” Some of his other contemporaries hold the same view. HER. Golubinsky believes that Nikon’s sole takeover of the enterprise of correcting rituals and books seems “unfair and unfounded.” “The first thought about correction,” he continues, “belonged not only to Nikon... but as much as he did, so did Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with the latter’s other closest advisers, and if the sovereign, like Nikon, had not been able to heed the ideas about the injustice of our opinion regarding the later Greeks, as if they had lost the purity of the Orthodoxy of the ancient Greeks, even Nikon’s correction of rituals and books could not have taken place, for the sovereign’s veto could have stopped the matter at the very beginning.” Without the approval and support of the tsar, according to Golubinsky, Nikon and his ideas simply would not have been allowed to the Patriarchal throne. “At present, it can be considered completely proven that the ground for Nikon’s activities, in essence, was prepared earlier, under his predecessors,” we read from A. Galkin. He considers only the predecessor of the “first Russian reformer” to be Patriarch Joseph, who “just like Nikon, came to realize the need for a radical correction of books and rituals, and, moreover, according to Greek originals, and not according to Slavic manuscripts.” In our opinion, this is an unjustifiably bold statement, although one cannot, of course, agree with the statements of some scientists who called Joseph “indecisive and weak” and stated: “It is not surprising that such a patriarch did not leave a good memory among the people and in history.” Perhaps Galkin made such hasty conclusions from the events of the last years of the reign of the First Hierarch, and it was precisely at this time that the arrival of the Kyiv learned monks in Moscow, the first and second trips of Arseny Sukhanov to the East, or the fact that Joseph turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople for clarification about the introduction of unanimous worship occurred . “Many outstanding things happened in the Russian Church under his leadership,” writes A.K. Borozdin, - but recently his personal participation in the affairs of the church has weakened significantly, thanks to the activities of the Vonifatiev circle and the Novgorod Metropolitan Nikon, who was adjacent to this circle.” Archpriest Pavel Nikolaevsky shares his observations of the progress of this activity, reporting that the books published in 1651 “in many places bear obvious traces of corrections from Greek sources”; as we can observe, the reform in the form in which Nikon usually assimilates it has already begun. Consequently, the circle of zealots of piety initially worked to implement church reforms, and some of its representatives are the creators of this reform.

The February Revolution and the October Revolution of 1917 made their own adjustments to scientific research activities, as a result of which the study of this issue went in two directions. Emigration was the successor of the Russian pre-revolutionary scientific school and preserved the church-historical tradition, and in Soviet Russia, under the influence of Marxism-Leninism, a materialist position was established with its negative attitude towards religion, which extended in its negation, depending on the political situation, even to militant atheism. However, the Bolsheviks initially had no time for historians and their stories, so in the first two decades of Soviet power there are studies that develop the direction set before the great upheavals.

Adhering to a simplified traditional point of view, Marxist historian N.M. Nikolsky describes the beginning of church reform activities as follows: “Nikon really began reforms, but not those and not in the spirit that the zealots desired.” But a little earlier, falling into a contradiction, the author reasonably leads the reader to the conclusion that “supremacy in the church in all respects actually belonged to the king, and not the patriarch.” N.K. shares the same view. Gudziy, seeing the reason for the “gradual loss by the Church of its relative independence” in “the destruction of dependence ... on the Patriarch of Constantinople.” Unlike the previous author, he calls Nikon just a “conductor of reform.” According to Nikolsky, having headed the Church, the patriarch-reformer promoted his reform, and everything that came before him was preparation. Here he echoes the emigrant historian E.F. Shmurlo, who, although he claims that “the Tsar and Vonifatiev decided to introduce a transformation in the Russian Church in the spirit of its complete unity with the Greek Church,” for some reason calls the period dedicated to church transformations under Patriarch Joseph in the “Course of Russian History” “Preparation reforms". In our opinion, this is unfounded; contrary to the facts, both authors unconditionally follow the established tradition, when the question is much more complicated. “The religious reform, begun without the patriarch, from now on went past and further than the lovers of God,” writes a researcher of the Siberian exile of Archpriest Avvakum, namesake and contemporary of N.M. Nikolsky, Nikolsky V.K., thereby indicating that both patriarchs were not its initiators. Here is how he develops his thought further: “Nikon began to carry it through people obedient to him, whom until recently, together with other lovers of God, he had honored as “enemies of God” and “destroyers of the law.” Having become a patriarch, the tsar’s “king’s friend” removed the zealots from the reforms, shifting this concern onto the shoulders of the administration and those who were entirely obliged to him.

The study of issues of Russian church history, in its classical sense, has fallen on the shoulders of our emigration since the middle of the 20th century. Following Kapterev and Golubinsky, Archpriest Georgy Florovsky also writes that “the “reform” was decided and thought out in the palace,” but Nikon brought his incredible temperament to it. “...It was he who put all the passion of his stormy and reckless nature into the execution of these transformative plans, so it was with his name that this attempt to Greekize the Russian Church in all its life and way of life was forever associated.” Of interest is the psychological portrait of the patriarch compiled by Fr. George, in which, in our opinion, he tried to avoid extremes of both a positive and negative nature. Apologist of Patriarch Nikon M.V. Zyzykin, referring to the same Kapterev, also denies him the authorship of the church reform. “Nikon,” writes the professor, “was not its initiator, but only the executor of the intentions of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and his confessor Stefan Vonifatiev, which is why he completely lost interest in the reform after the death of Stefan, who died as a monk on November 11, 1656, and after the end of his friendship with king." Zyzykin reports the following about Nikon’s influence on the nature of the reforms: “...having agreed to carry it out, he carried it out with the authority of the Patriarch, with the energy characteristic of him in any matter.” Due to the specifics of his work, the author pays special attention to the confrontation between the first hierarch and the boyars, who sought to push the “king’s friend” away from the tsar and for this did not disdain anything, even an alliance with the church opposition. “The Old Believers,” according to Zyzykin, “although mistakenly, considered Nikon to be the initiator of the reform... and therefore created the most unflattering idea of ​​Nikon, saw only bad things in his activities and put various low motives into his actions and willingly joined any fight against Nikon ". Russian scientist of the German school I.K. Smolich touches on this topic in his unique work dedicated to Russian monasticism. “Nikon’s measures to correct church books and change some liturgical rites,” the historian reports, “in essence, did not contain anything new; they were only the last link in a long chain of similar events that either had already been carried out before him or were supposed to be carried out in the future." The author emphasizes that the patriarch was forced to continue correcting the books, “but this compulsion was precisely contrary to his character and could not awaken in him a genuine interest in the matter.” According to another representative of our foreign countries, A.V. Kartashev, the author of the reform was Archpriest Stefan, who headed the God-loving movement. “The new patriarch,” he writes in his essays on the history of the Russian Church, “began with inspiration to carry out the program of his ministry, which was well known to the tsar from long-term personal conversations and suggestions and was shared by the latter, because it came from the tsar’s confessor, Archpriest Stefan Vonifatiev ". The matter of correcting books and rituals, the author believes, “which gave rise to our unfortunate schism, has become so well known that to the uninitiated it seems to be Nikon’s main business.” The real state of affairs, according to Kartashev, is such that the idea of ​​a book council for the patriarch “was a passing accident, a conclusion from his main idea, and the thing itself... was for him the old traditional work of the patriarchs, which had to be continued simply by inertia.” Nikon was obsessed with another idea: he dreamed of raising spiritual power over secular power, and the young tsar, with his disposition and affection, favored its strengthening and development. “The thought of the primacy of the Church over the state clouded Nikon’s head,” we read from A.V. Kartashev, and in this context we must consider all his activities. The author of the fundamental work on Old Believers S.A. Zenkovsky notes: “The Tsar hastened to elect a new patriarch, since the conflict between the lovers of God and the patriarchal administration, which had dragged on for too long, naturally disrupted the normal life of the Church and did not make it possible to carry out the reforms planned by the Tsar and the lovers of God.” But in one of the prefaces to his study, he writes that “the death of the weak-willed Patriarch Joseph in 1652 completely unexpectedly changed the course of the “Russian Reformation”. This kind of inconsistency among this and other authors can be explained by the uncertainty and undeveloped terminology on this issue, when tradition says one thing, and the facts say something else. However, elsewhere in the book the author limits the transformative actions of the “extreme bishop” to the correction of the Service Book, “which is what all Nikon’s “reforms” actually amounted to.” Zenkovsky also draws attention to the changing nature of the reform under the influence of the new patriarch: “He sought to carry out the reform autocratically, from the position of the growing power of the patriarchal throne.” Following N.M. Nikolsky, who wrote about the fundamental difference in views on the organization of church corrections between the lovers of God and Nikon, when the latter “wanted to correct the church... not by establishing a conciliar principle in it, but through the elevation of the priesthood over the kingdom,” S. A. Zenkovsky points out that “the authoritarian principle was opposed in practice to the beginning of conciliarity.”

A visible revival of church-scientific thought in Russia itself occurred during the events associated with the celebration of the millennium of the Baptism of Rus', although the gradual weakening of the pressure of state power on the Church began earlier. Somewhere from the mid-70s, there has been a gradual attenuation of ideological influence on the work of historians, which was reflected in their works by greater objectivity. The efforts of scientists are still aimed at searching for new sources and new factual data, at describing and systematizing the achievements of their predecessors. As a result of their activities, autographs and previously unknown writings of participants in the events of the 17th century are published, studies appear that can be called unique, for example, “Materials for the “Chronicle of the Life of Archpriest Avvakum”” by V.I. Malyshev is the work of his entire life, the most important primary source not only for the study of Avvakum and the Old Believers, but also for the entire era as a whole. Working with primary sources certainly leads to the need to evaluate the historical events mentioned in them. This is what N.Yu. writes in his article. Bubnov: “Patriarch Nikon carried out the will of the tsar, who consciously set a course to change the ideological orientation of the country, taking the path of cultural rapprochement with European countries.” Describing the activities of the zealots of piety, the scientist draws attention to the hopes of the latter that the new patriarch “will consolidate their predominant influence on the course of ideological restructuring in the Moscow state.” However, all this does not prevent the author from connecting the beginning of reforms with Nikon; Apparently, the influence of Old Believer primary sources is felt, but they will be discussed below. In the context of the problem under consideration, the remark of the church historian Archpriest John Belevtsev is of interest. The transformations, in his opinion, “were not a personal matter for Patriarch Nikon, and therefore the correction of liturgical books and changes in church rituals continued even after he left the patriarchal see.” Famous Eurasianist L.N. Gumilyov, in his original research, did not ignore church reform. He writes that “after the turmoil, the reform of the Church became the most pressing problem,” and the reformers were “zealots of piety.” “The reform was carried out not by bishops,” the author emphasizes, “but by priests: Archpriest Ivan Neronov, confessor of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Stefan Vonifatiev, the famous Avvakum.” For some reason, Gumilyov forgets about the secular component of the “circle of God-lovers.” In the candidate’s thesis devoted to the activities of the Moscow Printing House under Patriarch Joseph, priest Ioann Mirolyubov, we read: “The “Lovers of God” advocated the living and active participation of the lower priesthood and laity in the affairs of church life, up to and including participation in church councils and the administration of the Church.” John Neronov, the author points out, was a “link” between Moscow lovers of God and “zealots of piety from the provinces.” The initiators of the “novins” were Fr. John considers the core of the capital's circle of God-lovers, namely Fyodor Rtishchev, the future Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who “gradually came to the firm conviction that ritual reform and book correction should be carried out in order to bring Russian liturgical practice into conformity with Greek ". However, as we have already noted, this point of view is quite widespread; only the composition of the circle of people who were inspired by this idea changes.

The change in the political course of Russia was not slow to affect the increase in interest in this topic; life itself in an era of change forces us to study the experience of our ancestors. “Patriarch Nikon is a direct parallel with the Russian reformers of the 1990s - Gaidar, etc.,” we read in one Old Believer publication, “in both cases, reforms were necessary, but there was an essential question: how to carry them out? » The extensive publishing activity of the Russian Orthodox Church, with the support of the government, commercial organizations and individuals, Old Believer publications, as well as scientific and commercial projects, on the one hand, made it possible to make available many wonderful, but already bibliographically rare works of pre-revolutionary authors, works of Russian emigration and little-known modern studies, and on the other hand, splashed out all the wide variety of opinions that had accumulated over three centuries, which is extremely difficult for an unprepared reader to navigate. Perhaps that is why some modern authors often begin with a simplified view of the reform, first describing the great plans and vigorous activity of the patriarch-reformer, such as, for example, “the last attempt to reverse the process unfavorable for the church” of the decline of its political role and considering church-ritual corrections in in this context as “replacing specific diversity with uniformity.” But under the pressure of facts, they come to an unexpected result: “After Nikon’s deposition, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself took into his own hands the continuation of reforms, who tried to come to an agreement with the anti-Nikon opposition, without conceding to it on the merits.” The question arises: why should the tsar engage in the reform of the disgraced patriarch? This is only possible if the changes owe their existence not to Nikon, but to Alexei Mikhailovich himself and his entourage. In this context, it is also possible to explain the exclusion from the reforms of the circle of God-lovers who sought “to carry out church reform based on Russian traditions.” They interfered with someone, perhaps the “moderate Westerners” from the tsar’s entourage; these experienced intriguers could well have played on the repentant feelings of the tsar, Archpriest Stefan and Nikon himself regarding the late Patriarch Joseph, whom they, along with other lovers of God, actually removed from business. Calling the zealots “a society of clergy and secular persons interested in theological issues and focused on streamlining church life,” D.F. Poloznev adheres to a simplified-traditional point of view on the issue of starting the reform. At the same time, he draws attention to the fact that the tsar promoted the Novgorod metropolitan to the patriarchate against the wishes of the courtiers and notes: “In Nikon, the tsar saw a man capable of transformation in the spirit of the ideas of the universal significance of Russian Orthodoxy that were close to both of them.” It turns out that Nikon started the reforms, but the tsar took care of this in advance, who, due to his youth, himself still needed support and care. V.V. Molzinsky notes: “It was the tsar, driven by political thoughts, who initiated this state-church reform, which is most often called Nikon’s.” His opinion about Nikon coincides with Bubnov’s: “The modern level of scientific knowledge... forces us to recognize the patriarch only as the executor of the “sovereign” aspirations, although not without his goals, political ambitions and a (deeply erroneous) vision of the prospects for his place in the structure of supreme power.” The author is more consistent in his judgment regarding the term “Nikon reform”. He writes about the “total dissemination” and rooting of this concept in Russian historiography due to established “stereotypes of thinking.” One of the last major studies on church reform of the 17th century is the work of the same name by B.P. Kutuzov, in which he also criticizes the “stereotypical ideas” on this issue, widespread among “average believers.” “However, such an understanding of the reform of the 17th century,” the author claims, “is far from the truth.” “Nikon,” according to Kutuzov, “was just a performer, and behind him, invisible to many, stood Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich...”, who “conceived the reform and made Nikon patriarch, having become confident in his full readiness to carry out this reform.” In his other book, which is one of the continuations of the author’s first work, he writes even more categorically: “Attention is drawn to the fact that Tsar Alexei began preparing the reform immediately after ascending the throne, i.e. when he was only 16 years old! This indicates that the tsar was raised in this direction from childhood; there were, of course, experienced advisers and actual leaders.” Unfortunately, the information in the works of B.P. Kutuzov is presented in a tendentious manner: the author is focused on the “conspiracy against Russia” and the apology of the Old Believers, so he reduces all the rich factual material to these problems, which significantly complicates the work with his books. S.V. Lobachev, in a study dedicated to Patriarch Nikon, through a “comparison of sources from different times,” also comes to the conclusion that “the history of the early schism, apparently, does not fit into the framework of the usual scheme.” The result of the chapter devoted to church reform is the conclusion already known to us from the works of emigration: “... Nikon’s main task was not reform, but the elevation of the role of the priesthood and universal Orthodoxy, which was reflected in the new foreign policy course of the Russian state.” Archpriest Georgy Krylov, who studied the book of liturgical minas in the 17th century, traditionally connects the beginning of “the actual liturgical reform, which is usually called Nikon’s,” with Nikon’s accession to the patriarchal throne. But further in his “plan-scheme” of this “immense”, according to the author of the topic, he writes the following: “The last two mentioned periods - Nikon’s and Joachim’s - must be considered in connection with Greek and Latin influence in Russia.” O. George divides the book literature of the 17th century into the following periods: Philaret-Joasaph, Joseph, Nikon (before the council of 1666-1667), pre-Joakimov (1667-1673), Joakimov (includes the first years of the reign of Patriarch Adrian). For our work, the very fact of dividing book corrections and the associated church reform into periods is of greatest importance.

Thus, we have a significant number of studies in which the initiators of the reforms are other members of the God-loving movement, namely: Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (in the vast majority of works), Archpriest Stefan Vonifatiev, “experienced advisers and actual leaders” and even Patriarch Joseph. Nikon is engaged in reform “by inertia”; he is the executor of the will of its author, and only at a certain stage. Church reform began (and was being prepared by a number of historians) before Nikon and continued after his departure from the pulpit. It owes its name to the unbridled temperament of the patriarch, his domineering and hasty methods of introducing changes and, consequently, numerous miscalculations; One should not forget about the influence of factors beyond his control, such as the approach of 1666, with all the circumstances that flow from this, according to Cyril’s book. This point of view is supported by logical conclusions and numerous factual materials, which allows us to further call it scientific.

As we can observe, not all of the mentioned authors fully share the scientific view on the problem under consideration. This is due, firstly, to the gradualness of its formation, secondly, to the influence of established stereotypes and the influence of censorship, and thirdly, to the religious beliefs of the scientists themselves. That is why the works of many researchers remained in a transitional state, i.e. contain elements of both simplified-traditional and scientific points of view. It should be especially emphasized the ongoing ideological pressure that they had to overcome, along with scientific research difficulties, this applies to both the 19th century and the 20th, although we must not forget that communist pressure had a comprehensive anti-religious character. These factors will be discussed in more detail in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. Old Believer point of view and its influence on science

Echoes of the simplified-traditional point of view found everywhere in various modern publications do not seem to be something unusual. Even N.F. Kapterev resorts to the expression “Nikon reform” that has become a term. To be sure of this, just look at the table of contents of his book; this, however, is not surprising, because the author considers the patriarch “during the entire period of his patriarchate... an independent and independent figure.” The vitality of this tradition is directly related to the Old Believers, the views and works of whose representatives on the issue under study we will consider. In the preface of one anti-Old Believers book, you can read the following passage: “At present, the Old Believers are fighting the Orthodox Church in a completely different way than before: they are not satisfied with old printed books and manuscripts, but are “on the prowl, as the Rev. says.” Vincent of Lirinsky, according to all books of the divine law"; they carefully follow modern spiritual literature, noticing everywhere one way or another thoughts that are favorable to their delusions; they cite evidence “from outside”, not only Orthodox spiritual and secular writers, but also non-Orthodox ones; especially with a full hand they draw evidence from the patristic works in the Russian translation.” This statement, quite intriguing in terms of the polemical and research activities of the Old Believers, left hope of finding some objectivity in the presentation of the history of the beginning of the church division by the Old Believer authors. But here, too, we are faced with a split in views on the church reform of the 17th century, albeit of a somewhat different nature.

Pre-revolutionary authors, as a rule, write in the traditional vein, whose books, like ours, are now being actively republished. For example, in the short biography of Avvakum, compiled by S. Melgunov, published in a brochure containing the canon of this “hieromartyr and confessor” revered by the Old Believers, in the preface to the Justification of the Old Believers Church of Christ by Belokrinitsky Bishop Arseny of the Urals, etc. Here is the most typical example: “...Inflated by the spirit of pride, ambition and uncontrollable lust for power,” writes the famous Old Believer scholar D.S. Varakin, - he (Nikon) attacked the holy antiquity together with his “hangers-on” - the eastern “Paisiys”, “Makarii” and “Arsens” - let’s “blaspheme”... and “blame” everything holy and saving..."

Contemporary Old Believer writers should be examined in more detail. “The reason for the split,” we read from M.O. Shakhov, - was the attempt of Patriarch Nikon and his successors, with the active participation of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, to transform the liturgical practice of the Russian Church, completely likening it to the modern Eastern Orthodox churches or, as they said in Rus' then, the “Greek Church”. This is the most scientifically verified form of the simplified-traditional point of view. The further presentation of events is such that in the context of “news” the author mentions only Nikon. But elsewhere in the book, where Shakhov discusses the attitude of the Old Believers to the Tsar, we already encounter a different opinion, which looks like this: “The inextricable connection between state and church authorities excluded the possibility that the reform of Patriarch Nikon would remain a purely church matter, in relation to which the state could remain neutral." Moreover, the author immediately strengthens his idea with the statement that “from the very beginning, the civil authorities were in complete solidarity with Nikon,” which contradicts, for example, the statement of E.F. Shmurlo: “Nikon was hated, and to a large extent this hatred was the reason that many of his measures, in themselves quite fair and reasonable, met with hostility in advance solely because they came from him.” It is clear that not everyone hated the patriarch, and at different times this hatred manifested itself in different ways, but it could only have no influence in one case: if the patriarch followed the instructions of the state authorities, which is what we see in the matter of church reform. What we have before us is a typical transitional version from one view to another, which arose as a result of the influence of the author’s religious affiliation, which is characterized by a simplified traditional perception of the reform in combination with data that contradicts this tradition. It is more convenient to call this point of view mixed. A similar position is taken by the creators of the encyclopedic dictionary called Old Believers. There are works that contain two views at once, for example, S.I. Bystrov in his book follows a simplified tradition, speaking about “the reforms of Patriarch Nikon,” and the author of the preface, L.S. Dementieva looks at the transformations more broadly, calling them “the reforms of Tsar Alexei and Patriarch Nikon.” From the brief statements of the above authors, of course, it is difficult to judge their opinions, but both this and other similar books themselves serve as an example of an unsettled point of view and an uncertain state of terminology on this issue.

To find out the reasons for the origin of this uncertainty, let us turn for clarification to the famous Old Believer writer and polemicist F.E. Melnikov. Thanks to the publishing activities of the Belokrinitsky Old Believer Metropolis, we have two options for describing the events of the 17th century by this author. In the earliest book, the author mainly adheres to a simplified-traditional view, where Nikon uses “the good nature and trust of the young king” to achieve his goals. Following Kapterev, Melnikov points out that the visiting Greeks seduced the sovereign with the “exalted throne of the great King Constantine,” and the patriarch with the fact that he “will consecrate the Cathedral Apostolic Church of Sophia the Wisdom of God in Constantinople.” It was only necessary to make corrections, since, according to the Greeks, “the Russian Church has largely departed from the true church traditions and customs.” The author attributes all further activity in the matter of reform exclusively to Nikon, and this continues until he left the patriarchate. Further in the story, the king looks like a completely independent and even dexterous ruler. “It was Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich who destroyed Nikon: the Greek and Russian bishops were only a tool in his hands.” Moreover, the author tells us that “at the palace and in the highest circles of Moscow society, a fairly strong church-political party was formed,” headed by “the tsar himself,” who dreamed of becoming “both the Byzantine emperor and the Polish king.” Indeed, such a sharp change in the character of the Russian autocrat is difficult to explain without taking into account his environment. F.E. Melnikov lists the diverse composition of this party, calling some by name, in particular Paisius Ligarid and Simeon of Polotsk, who led the Greeks and Little Russians, respectively. “Russian courtiers” - Westerners, “boyars - intriguers” and “various foreigners” are indicated without their main bosses. These people, according to the author, thanks to Nikon, seized power in the Church and were not interested in restoring the desecrated antiquity, and given the dependence of the episcopate on the government and the fear of bishops to lose their position and income, supporters of the old rite had no chance. The question immediately arises: did this “church-political party” really appear only at the time the patriarch left his see? Let us turn to another work of the author in question, written in Romania after the Russian disaster of 1917. Just as in his first work, the historian of the Old Belief points to the influence of the Greeks who came to Moscow, led by the Jesuit Paisius Ligarid, who helped the sovereign in condemning the patriarch he disliked and governing the Church. Mentions “Southwestern monks, teachers, politicians and other businessmen infected with Latin” who arrived from Little Russia, points to Western trends among the courtiers and boyars. Only the reform begins differently: “The Tsar and Patriarch, Alexei and Nikon, and their successors and followers, began to introduce new rituals, new liturgical books and rites into the Russian Church, establish new relationships with the Church, as well as with Russia itself, with the Russian people; to root other concepts about piety, about church sacraments, about hierarchy; impose on the Russian people a completely different worldview and so on.” There is no doubt that the historical information in these books is presented under the influence of the religious beliefs of the author, but if in the first Nikon plays the main role in the reform, then in the second the emphasis in the matter of transformation is already placed on the tsar and the patriarch. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the second book was written after the fall of tsarism, or perhaps Melnikov changed his view of some events under the influence of new research. It is important for us that three factors can be traced here at once, under the influence of which a mixed point of view on church corrections is formed, i.e. the author’s religious beliefs, his overcoming of ingrained stereotypes, the presence or absence of ideological pressure. But the most important thing is that in his short history F.E. Melnikov writes further: “Those who followed Nikon, accepted new rituals and ranks, and adopted a new faith, the people began to call them Nikonians and New Believers.” On the one hand, the author tells us the facts presented in the Old Believer interpretation, i.e. a mixed vision of the problem, and on the other hand, a simplified and traditional popular perception of events related to the reform. Let us turn to the origins of this perception, which was most directly influenced by people from among the people - persecuted traditionalists led by Archpriest Avvakum.

So, the roots of the simplified tradition in its Old Believer version go back to the very first Old Believer writers - eyewitnesses and participants in these tragic events. “In the summer of 7160,” we read from Avvakum, “on the 10th day of June, by God’s permission, the patriarchal former priest Nikita Minich, in the monks Nikon, climbed onto the throne, seducing the holy soul of the archpriest of the spiritual tsar, Stefan, appearing to him like an angel, and inside there is a devil.” According to the archpriest, it was Stefan Vonifatiev who “admonished the Tsar and Tsarina to put Nikon in Joseph’s place.” Describing the attempt of the lovers of God to elevate the royal confessor to the patriarchate, the leader of the emerging Old Belief in another of his works reports: “He did not want it himself and pointed to Metropolitan Nikon.” Further events, according to the memoirs of Avvakum, look like this: “...When the evil leader and boss became the patriarch, and the orthodoxy began, commanding three fingers to be baptized and during Lent to do throwing in the church at the waist.” Another Pustozersky prisoner, priest Lazar, complements Avvakum’s story, reporting on the activities of the new patriarch after the “fiery archpriest” was exiled to Siberia. This is what he writes: “To God, who allowed for our sin, to you, the noble king, who was in battle, the evil shepherd, who was a wolf in sheep’s skin, Patriarch Nikon, change the holy rite, pervert the books and the beauty of the holy Church, and refute the absurd discords and ranks into the holy He brought the church down from various heresies, and his disciples are perpetrating great persecution on the faithful even to this day.” Protopopov's fellow prisoner and confessor monk Epiphanius is more occupied by the unsuccessful tandem of the patriarch and the adventurer Arseny the Greek who was released by him, who discredited the entire Nikon book. The monk probably knew him personally; at least, he was the cell attendant of Elder Martyrius, under whom Arseny was “under command.” “And as a sin for our sakes, God allowed Nikon, the forerunner of the Antichrist, to attack the patriarchal throne; he, the accursed one, soon placed on the Printing House the enemy of God Arseny, a Jew and a Greek, a heretic who was imprisoned in our Solovetsky Monastery,” writes Epiphanius, - and with this Arseny, the mark and with the enemy of Christ, Nikon, the enemy of Christ, they, the enemies of God, began to sow heretical, cursed tares in printed books, and with those evil tares they began to send those new books to the whole Russian land for mourning, and for mourning to the churches of God, and for the destruction of the souls of men.” The very title of the work of another representative of the “Pustozersk bitter brethren”, Deacon Fyodor, speaks of his views on what is happening: “About the wolf, and the predator, and Nikon, the mark of God, there is a reliable testimony, who was a shepherd in sheep’s skin, the forerunner of the Antichrists, who divided the Church of God and the entire universe stir up, and slander and hate the saints, and create much bloodshed for the true right faith of Christ.” Half a century later, in the works of Vygov’s writers, these events take on poetic form. This is how it looks like from the author of Vinograd of Russia, Simeon Denisov: “When, by God’s permission, the All-Russian Church Government handed over the ship to Nikon, on the highest patriarchal throne, in the summer of 7160, unworthy of a worthy one, which did not raise all-dark storms? Why don’t you let the sea into the Russian sea? What kind of vortex vibrations did you not cause to the all-red ship? Did this discord gain the sails of the all-blessed, spiritually inspired dogmas, did the all-good church statutes unmercifully break, did the walls of the all-strong divine laws, most furiously cut, did the oars of the fatherly all-blessed rites break with all malice, and in short, the whole church robe was shamelessly torn apart, the whole ship of the Russian Church crush with all wrath, utterly disturb the entire church refuge, fill all of Russia with rebellion, confusion, hesitation and bloodshed with much lament; The Orthodox commandments of the ancient Church in Russia, and the pious laws that embellished Russia with all grace, were rejected by the Church without reverence, and instead of these, others and new ones were betrayed with all impudence.” The historian of the Vygovskaya Hermitage, Ivan Filipov, repeating word for word much of Denisov’s above statement, provides the following details: “... As if Nikon, having been clothed with patriarchal robes, has received the highest throne: he approaches the highest royal majesty with his evil, crafty intentions; The Tsar's Majesty asks that he be ordered to edit the Russian books with the ancient Greek charateans on the printing yard, saying that the Russian books from many prescribers are incorrect in appearing with the ancient Greek books: but the Tsar's Majesty does not expect such evil in him, evil, crafty intentions and deceit and allow him to do so his evil crafty invention and petition, to give him the power to do this; He, having accepted power without fear, began to fulfill his desire and the great confusion and rebellion of the Church, the great embitterment and misfortunes of the people, the great hesitation and cowardice of all Russia: having shaken the unshakable limits of the church and the immovable statutes of piety, foreseeing, the father of the synod of saints broke the oath.” Thus, we can observe how the participants in the events, in this case Pustozersky prisoners, formed a simplified-traditional view of the reform, and how the later iconization of this point of view took place on Vyga. But if you look more closely at the works of the Pustozerians, and especially the works of Avvakum, you can find very interesting information. Here, for example, are the statements of the archpriest about the participation of Alexei Mikhailovich in the fateful events of the era: “You, autocrat, bring judgment against all of them, who have given such impudence to us... Who would dare to say such blasphemous words against the saints, if not your power had allowed will it be?.. Everything is in you, the king, the matter is closed and it’s only about you.” Or the details reported by Avvakum about the events of Nikon’s election to the patriarchate: “The king calls him to the patriarchate, but he doesn’t want to be, he gloomed the king and the people, and with Anna they put him to bed at night, what to do, and having dallied a lot with the devil, he went up to the patriarchate by God’s permission, strengthening the king with his intrigues and evil oath.” And how could the “Mordvin man” come up with all this and carry it out alone? Even if we agree with the opinion of the archpriest that Nikon “took away the mind from Milov (the Tsar), from the current one, as he was close to him,” we must remember that the Russian monarchy was then only on the path to absolutism, and the influence of the favorite, and even with such origin, could not be so significant, unless of course it was the other way around, as, for example, S.S. believes. Mikhailov. “The ambitious patriarch,” he declares, “who decided to act on the principle of “reform for the sake of reform,” turned out to be easy to use by the cunning Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with his political dreams of pan-Orthodox domination.” And although the author’s judgment seems overly categorical, the “cunning” of the king alone in such a matter is not enough, and it is doubtful that this cunning was inherent in him from the very beginning. Eyewitness accounts show in the best possible way that behind Nikon there were strong and influential people: the royal confessor Archpriest Stefan, the okolnichy Fyodor Rtishchev and his sister, the second close noblewoman of the Queen Anna. There is no doubt that there were other, more influential and less noticeable personalities, and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich took a very direct part in everything. The betrayal, in the understanding of the lovers of God, by the new patriarch of his friends, when he “didn’t let them into the Cross,” the sole decision-making on issues of church reform, the passion and cruelty that accompanied his actions and decrees, apparently shocked the zealots so much that behind the figure of Nikon they no longer saw anyone or anything. It was extremely difficult, and even impossible, for Ioann Neronov, and even more so for the provincial archpriests, to understand the currents of Moscow politics, the intricacies of palace intrigues and other behind-the-scenes fuss that accompanied the events in question. They very soon went into exile. Therefore, it was Patriarch Nikon who was primarily to blame for everything, who with his colorful personality overshadowed the true creators and inspirers of the reform, and thanks to the sermons and writings of the first leaders and inspirers of the fight against the “Nikon innovations”, this tradition was entrenched in the Old Believers and throughout the Russian people.

Returning to the issue of approval and dissemination of simplified-traditional and mixed points of view, we note the influence of the Old Believers on the formation of scientific views in Soviet times. This happened primarily for reasons of an ideological nature under the influence of the socio-political explanation of the events in question in the 17th century, which was favored by the new government. “...Split,” notes D.A. Balalykin, - in Soviet historiography of the first years it was assessed as passive, but still resistance to the tsarist regime." Back in the middle of the 19th century A.P. Shchapov saw in the schism a protest of those dissatisfied with the Code (1648) and the spreading “German customs” of the zemstvo, and this hostility to the overthrown government made the Old Believers “socially close” to the Bolshevik regime. However, for communists, Old Belief always remained just one of the forms of “religious obscurantism,” although “in the first years after the revolution, the wave of persecution had little impact on the Old Believers.” Works related to the search for new monuments of the history of early Old Belief and their description, undertaken in Soviet times and bearing rich fruits, represent another way of influence of the Old Believer tradition on the Soviet scientific school. The point here is not only about the “new Marxist concept” developed by N.K. Gudziem and focusing on the “ideological and aesthetic value of monuments of ancient literature.” Historical truth was on the side of the Old Believers, which naturally affected the critical understanding of their scientific achievements.

To summarize, I would like to note that the description of events received from the martyrs and confessors of the Old Belief was established among the masses not as scientific knowledge, but was and is perceived in most cases as an object of faith. That is why Old Believer authors, although they try to use new materials and facts in their scientific research, are almost always forced to look back at the teaching that has become church tradition and sanctified by the suffering of previous generations. Thus, a point of view arises, more or less successfully, depending on the author, combining the religious-historical tradition and new scientific facts. The same problem may arise for the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the nature of the research of the authors who are supporters of the canonization of Patriarch Nikon. We call this scientific view mixed and, due to its dependent nature, is not considered in detail. In addition to supporters of the old faith, this point of view is widespread both in secular circles and among new believers. In the scientific community, this view became most widespread during the Soviet period and retains its influence to this day, especially if the scientists are Old Believers or sympathize with it.

4. Reasons for the emergence and spread of different points of view on church reforms

Before addressing the main issues of this paragraph, it is necessary to determine what types of understanding we have of the events under study. According to the material reviewed, there are two main points of view on the topic under consideration - simplified-traditional and scientific. The first arose in the second half of the 17th century and is divided into two versions - official and Old Believer. The scientific approach was finally formed towards the end of the 19th century, under its influence the simplified tradition began to undergo changes, and many works of a mixed nature appeared. This point of view is not independent and, adjacent to the simplified-traditional view, also has two variants of the same name. It is worth mentioning the socio-political tradition of explaining the events of the church schism, which originates from the works of A.P. Shchapova, is developed by democratically and materialistically minded scientists and argues that church reform is only a slogan, a reason, a call to action in the struggle of the dissatisfied, and under the communists, the oppressed masses. It is loved by Marxist scientists, but apart from this characteristic explanation of events it has almost nothing independent, because the presentation of events is borrowed depending on the author’s sympathies, either from some version of a simplified or mixed point of view, or from a scientific one. The connection between the main views on the Church Reform of the 17th century and historical facts, the degree of influence on them by various circumstances (benefits, controversy, established church and scientific traditions) and the relationship between them is more convenient to show schematically:

As we can see, the most free view of the reform and related events from various external influences is the scientific one. In relation to the polemicizing parties, he is, as it were, between a rock and a hard place, this feature should also be taken into account.

So, why, despite the abundance of facts, despite the presence of the fundamental research we mentioned, do we have such a diversity of views on the authorship and implementation of the church reform of the 17th century? N.F. shows us the path to solving this problem. Kapterev. “...The history of the emergence of the Old Believers in our country was studied and written mainly by polemicists with a schism,” writes the historian, “who, in most cases, studied events from a tendentious polemical point of view, tried to see and find in them only what contributed and helped them polemics with the Old Believers...” Modern authors also say the same thing, this is what T.V. reports on the consideration in scientific literature of the issue of book corrections under Patriarch Nikon. Suzdaltseva: “...the pronounced tendency of anti-Old Believer polemics did not allow the majority of authors of the 19th century. XX century fully critically look at the results of this campaign and the quality of the resulting books.” Consequently, one of the reasons is the polemical nature that both versions of the simplified-traditional point of view on the events in question initially received. Thanks to this, “archpriests Avvakum and Ivan Neronov, priests Lazar and Nikita, deacon Theodore Ivanov” turned out to be inquirers. This is where the myth of the “centuries-old Russian ignorance”, which distorted rites and rituals, originates, about the famous “literal-rite-belief” of our ancestors and, undoubtedly, the assertion that Nikon is the creator of the reform. The latter, as we could already see, was facilitated by the teaching of the apostles of the Old Belief - the Pustozersky prisoners.

The polemic itself is also dependent, secondary in relation to another factor, which even the most progressive pre-revolutionary authors tried to talk about as carefully as possible. State policy gave rise to both church reform and the entire controversy around it - this is the main reason that influenced both the emergence and vitality of the simplified tradition in all its variants. Aleksei Mikhailovich himself, when he needed to prevent the trial of Nikon from extending to reforms, “put and brought to the fore those bishops who, of course, were devoted to the church reform carried out.” By doing this, the tsar, according to Kapterev, carried out “a systematic selection of persons of a strictly defined direction, from whom... he could no longer expect opposition.” Peter I turned out to be a worthy disciple and successor of his father; very soon the Russian Church found itself completely subordinated to tsarist power, and its hierarchical structure was absorbed by the state bureaucratic apparatus. That is why, even before it appeared, Russian church-scientific thought was forced to work only in the direction provided for by the censorship. This state persisted almost until the end of the synodal period. As an example, we can cite the events associated with MDA professor Gilyarov-Platonov. This outstanding teacher, I.K. tells us. Smolich, “read hermeneutics, non-Orthodox confessions, the history of heresies and schisms in the Church, but at the request of Metropolitan Philaret he had to give up lecturing on the schism because of his “liberal criticism” of the positions of the Orthodox Church.” But the matter did not end there, since “as a result of the memorandum he submitted demanding religious tolerance towards the Old Believers, he was dismissed from the academy in 1854.” A sad illustration of the era is the statement of V.M. Undolsky about the work of censorship: “My more than six-month work: Patriarch Nikon’s review of the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was not missed by the St. Petersburg censorship due to the harsh expressions of His Holiness the author of the Objection.” It is not surprising if, after the publication of the famous work of Academician E.E. Golubinsky, dedicated to polemics with the Old Believers, the scientist was accused of writing in favor of the Old Believers. N.F. Kapterev also suffered when, through the machinations of the famous historian of the schism and publisher of Old Believer primary sources, Prof. N.I. Subbotina Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev ordered the printing of his work to be interrupted. Only twenty years later the book saw its reader.

Why obstacles to the objective study of the fatal events of the 17th century by the church hierarchy were so zealously erected can be told to us by one interesting statement by Metropolitan Platon Levshin. This is what he writes to Archbishop Ambrose (Podobedov) on the issue of establishing the Unity of Faith: “This is an important matter: after 160 years the Church has stood against this, a common council of all the pastors of the Russian Church is needed, and a common position, and, moreover, to preserve the honor of the Church, that it is not in vain so many fought against and condemned so many definitions, so many proclamations, so many published works, so many establishments of joining them to the Church, so that we would not remain in shame and the opponents would not proclaim the former “victor” and are already shouting.” If the church hierarchs of that time were so concerned about issues of honor and shame, if they were so afraid to see their opponents as winners, then it was impossible to expect understanding, much less love and mercy, from the state bureaucratic machine, the nobility and the royal house. The honor of the imperial family was much more important for them than some Old Believers, and a change in attitude towards the schism necessarily led to the recognition of the unjustification and criminality of the persecution.

The events of the mid-17th century are the key to understanding the entire subsequent development of the Russian state, the helm of which was first in the hands of the Westerners, and then passed into the hands of their idols - the Germans. Lack of understanding of the needs of the people and fear of losing power led to total control over everything Russian, including the Church. Hence the long-term (more than two and a half centuries) fear of Patriarch Nikon, “as an example of strong independent church power,” hence the brutal persecution of traditionalists - Old Believers, whose existence did not fit into the pro-Western regulations of that era. As a result of unbiased scientific research, “inconvenient” facts could be revealed that cast a shadow not only on Alexei Mikhailovich and subsequent rulers, but also on the Council of 1666-1667, which, in the opinion of synodal officials and the church hierarchy, undermined the authority of the Church and became a temptation for Orthodox people. Oddly enough, for some reason the brutal persecution of dissidents, in this case the Old Believers, was not considered such a temptation. Apparently, concern for the “honor of the Church” in the conditions of Caesar-papism was primarily associated with justifying the actions of its leader, the tsar, caused by political expediency.

Since the secular power in the Russian Empire subjugated the spiritual power, their unanimity in matters of attitude towards church corrections of the 17th century does not seem surprising. But Caesar-Papism had to be somehow theologically justified, and even under Alexei Mikhailovich, state power turned to the bearers of Western Latin learning in the person of the Greeks and Little Russians. This example of political influence on the formation of public opinion on the issue of reform is noteworthy in that the not yet born church education was already perceived as a means designed to protect the interests of the powerful. We see another reason in the Latin and even Jesuit character of scholarship that influenced the emergence and spread of a simplified understanding of the transformations of the 17th century. It was beneficial for the creators of the reform to carry out external transformations, changes in the letter of the ritual, and not the education of the people in the spirit of the Divine Law, so they removed from the corrections those of the Moscow scribes for whom the achievement of spiritual renewal of life was the main goal of the reforms. This place was filled by people whose church education was not burdened with excessive religiosity. The program for holding the cathedral fatal for the unity of the Russian Church and its definition could not have happened without the active participation of such representatives of Jesuit science as Paisius Ligarid, Simeon of Polotsk and others, where they, together with the Greek patriarchs, in addition to the trial of Nikon and all Russian church antiquity, even then tried to push the idea that the head of the Church is the king. The methods of further work of our home-grown specialists directly follow from the church-educational policy of the successor of the work of his father - Peter I, when Little Russians found themselves in the episcopal departments, and the overwhelming majority of schools were organized in the manner of the Latinized Kyiv Theological College. The opinion of Empress Catherine II about the graduates of contemporary Ukrainian theological schools of her time is interesting: “Theology students who are preparing in Little Russian educational institutions to occupy spiritual positions are infected, following the harmful rules of Roman Catholicism, with the beginnings of insatiable ambition.” The definition of the cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and part-time Russian diplomat and traveler Arseny Sukhanov, can be called prophetic: “Their science is such that they are not trying to find the truth, but only to argue and hush up the truth with verbosity. Their science is Jesuitical... there is a lot of deceit in Latin science; but the truth cannot be found by deceit.”

For a whole century, our theological school had to overcome its dependence on the West, learn to think independently, without looking back at Catholic and Protestant sciences. Only then did we realize what we really needed and what we could refuse. So, for example, in the MDA “the church charter (Typik) ... began to be studied only in 1798.” , and the History of the Russian Church since 1806. It was the overcoming of scholastic influence that contributed to the emergence of such scientific methods, which, in turn, led to the formation of a scientific view of church reform and related events. At the same time, a mixed point of view begins to appear, since it took time to overcome existing stereotypes and a personal feat of impartial coverage of the problem. Unfortunately, throughout the 19th century, the Russian church scientific school had to endure almost constant interference from government authorities and conservative representatives of the episcopate. It is usually customary to give examples of the reaction during the time of Nicholas I, when seminary students went to church in formation, and any deviation from traditional views was considered a crime. M.I., a researcher of the Old Believers in Vyga who has not abandoned the historical methods of Marxism and materialism. Batzer describes this era as follows: “Jurred historians viewed Peter’s times through the prism of “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality,” which obviously excluded the possibility of an objective attitude towards the leaders of the Old Believers.” Problems arose not only because of the negative attitude of the emperor and his entourage towards the Old Belief, but also the methodology for studying this issue left much to be desired. “In school teaching, and in scientific consideration,” writes N.N. Glubokovsky, - the schism did not separate into an independent area for a long time, except for utilitarian works of a polemic-practical nature and private attempts to collect, describe and systematize various materials. The direct question of the scientific specialization of this subject,” he continues, “was raised only in the early 50s of the 19th century, to which time the opening of the corresponding professorial departments at the Theological Academies dates back to.” In connection with the above, one can cite the remark of S. Belokurov: “... only since the 60s of the current century (XIX century) more or less satisfactory research, based on a careful study of primary sources, begins to appear, as well as very important materials from some of which are precious, irreplaceable sources." What else is there to talk about, if even such an enlightened hierarch as St. Philaret of Moscow, “considered the use of scientific-critical methods in theology... to be a dangerous sign of unbelief.” With the assassination of Alexander II, the Narodnaya Volya procured for the Russian people a new long period of reaction and conservatism, which was also reflected in scientific and educational activities. All this immediately affected theological schools and church science. “The constantly deepening application of scientific-critical methods in research and teaching was subjected to the strongest attacks of the Holy Synod,” writes I.K. Smolich about the times of the “authoritarian church-political regime” K.P. Pobedonostseva. And “there can be no justification for the present campaign that the episcopate organized against the secular professors, who have done so much for the development of science and teaching in academies,” according to the scientist. Censorship is again intensifying, and accordingly, the level of scientific work is decreasing, “correct” textbooks are being published, which are far from scientific objectivity. What can we say about the attitude towards the Old Believers, if the Holy Synod, until the collapse of the Russian Empire, could not decide on its attitude towards the Edinoverie. “One faith,” writes Hieromartyr Simon Bishop of Okhtensky, “as soon as he can remember, from then to the present day, has not been equal in rights and equal honor to general Orthodoxy - it has been in a lower position in relation to the latter, it has been only a missionary means.” Even the toleration declared under the influence of the revolutionary events of 1905-1907 did not help them get a bishop, and the following statements were often heard as arguments for refusal: “if Edinoverie and the Old Believers unite, we will remain in the background.” A paradoxical situation arose - the declared tolerance affected all Old Believers, except those who wanted to remain in unity with the New Believer Russian Orthodox Church. However, this is not surprising, because no one was going to grant freedom to the Russian Church. It, as before, was headed by the emperor and was under the vigilant supervision of chief prosecutors. Edinoverie had to wait until 1918, and this example can be considered as the result of a joint policy of secular and church authorities in the development of science and education of the people, when “the contradiction between the government’s desire to promote education and its attempt to suppress free thought” was resolved in favor of the latter. For the same reason, nothing has actually changed either in solving the problem of the Old Believers or in studying the events associated with its emergence. Trying to consider the development of understanding of the essence of the schism in different historical eras, D.A. Balalykin argues that “contemporaries... understood by schism not only the Old Believers, but in general all religious movements in opposition to the official church.” In his opinion, “pre-revolutionary historiography narrowed the schism to the Old Believers, which was associated with the official church concept of the origin and essence of the schism as a church-ritual movement that emerged in connection with Nikon’s ritual reform.” But in the Orthodox Church there has always been a specific distinction between heresy, schism and unauthorized assembly, and the phenomenon called the schism of the Old Believers still does not fit any of the Helmsman’s definitions. S.A. Zenkovsky writes about it this way: “The schism was not a split from the church of a significant part of its clergy and laity, but a genuine internal rupture in the church itself, which significantly impoverished Russian Orthodoxy, for which not one, but both sides were to blame: both those who were stubborn and those who refused to see the consequences of their persistence are the planters of the new rite, and they are too zealous, and, unfortunately, often also very stubborn, and one-sided defenders of the old.” Consequently, the schism was not narrowed to the Old Believers, but the Old Believers were called a schism. Balalykin’s essentially erroneous conclusions are not without positive dynamics; The author’s historical instinct correctly points us to a steady desire in pre-revolutionary historiography to narrow and simplify the historical and conceptual outline of events associated with the split. Scholastic science, forced to argue with traditionalists and obliged to observe state interests in this dispute, created a simplified traditional point of view in its official version, significantly influenced the Old Believer version and, since it was required to “keep the secret of the Tsarev,” covered the true state of affairs with a foggy veil. Under the influence of these three components - Latinized science, polemical fervor and political expediency - myths about Russian ignorance, the reform of Patriarch Nikon and the emergence of a schism in the Russian Church arose and took hold. In the context of the above, Balalykin’s statement is of interest that “the emerging Soviet “split studies” borrowed, among other ideas, this approach.” For a long time, a different vision of the events of the mid-17th century remained the property of only a few outstanding scientific figures.

As we see, the revolution did not solve this problem, but only fixed it in the state in which it remained until 1917. For many years, historical science in Russia was forced to adjust historical events to the templates of class theory, and the achievements of Russian emigration, for ideological reasons, were unavailable in their homeland. Under the conditions of a totalitarian regime, literary studies achieved great success, due to the latter's lesser dependence on ideological cliches. Soviet scientists described and introduced into scientific circulation many primary sources on the history of the 17th century, the emergence and development of the Old Believers and other issues related to the study of church reform. In addition, Soviet science, being under the doctrinal influence of the communists, was freed from the influence of confessional biases. Thus, on the one hand, we have enormous developments in the field of factual material, and on the other, the works of the Russian emigration are few, but extremely important for understanding these facts. The most important task of church historical science of our time in this matter is precisely to connect these directions, comprehend the available factual material from the Orthodox point of view and draw the right conclusions.

Bibliography

Sources

1. Basil the Great, St. Saint Basil the Great from the letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, and to Diodorus, and to certain others sent: rule 91. Rule 1. / Helmsman (Nomocanon). Printed from the original of Patriarch Joseph. Russian Orthodox Academy of Theological Sciences and Scientific Theological Research: text preparation, design. Ch. ed. M.V. Danilushkin. - St. Petersburg: Resurrection, 2004.

2. Avvakum, archpriest (defrocked - A.V.). From the Book of Conversations. First conversation. The story of those who suffered in Russia for the pious traditions of the ancient church. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection. Compilation, preface, comments, design under the general editorship of Bishop Zosima (Old Believer - A.V.). Rostov-on-Don, 2009.

3. Habakkuk... Life, written by him. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

4. Habakkuk... From the “Book of Conversations”. First conversation. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

5. Habakkuk... From the “Book of Interpretations”. I. Interpretation of the psalms with the application of judgments about Patriarch Nikon and appeals to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

6. Habakkuk... Petitions, letters, messages. “Fifth” petition. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

7. Denisov S. Russian Vinograd or description of victims in Russia for ancient church piety (reprint). M.: Old Believer Publishing House “Third Rome”, 2003.

8. Epiphanius, monk (deprived of monasticism - A.V.). Life, written by himself. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

9. Lazarus, priest. (defrocked - A.V.). Petition to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

10. Theodore, deacon (defrocked - A.V.). The Legend of Nikon, the Marker of God. / Pustozersky prisoners are witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

11. Filipov I. History of the Vygov Old Believer Hermitage. Published from the manuscript of Ivan Filipov. Editor-in-Chief: Pashinin M.B. M.: Old Believer Publishing House "Third Rome", 2005.

Literature

1. Habakkuk. / Encyclopedic Dictionary of Russian Civilization. Compiled by O.A. Platonov. M.: Orthodox publishing house "Encyclopedia of Russian Civilization", 2000.

2. Arseny (Shvetsov), bishop (Old Believer - A.V.). Justification of the Old Believer Holy Church of Christ in answers to demanding and puzzling questions of the present time. Letters. M.: Kitezh Publishing House, 1999.

3. Atsamba F.M., Bektimirova N.N., Davydov I.P. and others. History of religion in 2 volumes. T.2. Textbook. Under the general editorship. I.N. Yablokov. M.: Higher. school, 2007.

4. Balalykin D.A. Problems of the “Priesthood” and the “Kingdom” in Russia in the second half of the 17th century. in Russian historiography (1917-2000). M.: Publishing house "Vest", 2006.

5. Batser M.I. Two-fingered over Vyg: Historical essays. Petrozavodsk: PetrSU Publishing House, 2005.

6. Belevtsev I., prot. Russian church schism in the 17th century. / Millennium of the Baptism of Rus'. International Church Scientific Conference "Theology and Spirituality", Moscow, May 11-18, 1987. M.: Publication of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1989.

7. Belokurov S. Biography of Arseny Sukhanov. Part 1. // Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. Book first (156). M., 1891.

8. Borozdin A.K. Archpriest Avvakum. Essay on the history of the mental life of Russian society in the 17th century. St. Petersburg, 1900.

9. Bubnov N.Yu. Nikon. / Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Issue 3 (XVII century). Part 2, I-O. St. Petersburg, 1993.

10. Bubnov N.Yu. Old Believer book of the 3rd quarter of the 17th century. as a historical and cultural phenomenon. / Bubnov N.Yu. Book culture of the Old Believers: Articles from different years. SPb.: BAN, 2007.

11. Bystrov S.I. Duality in monuments of Christian art and writing. Barnaul: Publishing house AKOOH-I “Fund for Support of the Construction of the Church of the Intercession...”, 2001.

12. Varakin D.S. Consideration of examples given in defense of the reforms of Patriarch Nikon. M.: Publishing house of the magazine “Church”, 2000.

13. Wurgaft S.G., Ushakov I.A. Old Believers. Persons, objects, events and symbols. Experience of an encyclopedic dictionary. M.: Church, 1996.

14. Galkin A. On the reasons for the origin of the schism in the Russian Church (public lecture). Kharkov, 1910.

15. Heyden A. From the history of the schism under Patriarch Nikon. St. Petersburg, 1886.

16. Georgy (Danilov) Archbishop. A word to the readers. / Tikhon (Zatekin) archim., Degteva O.V., Davydova A.A., Zelenskaya G.M., Rogozhkina E.I. Patriarch Nikon. Born on the land of Nizhny Novgorod. Nizhny Novgorod, 2007.

17. Glubokovsky N.N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. M.: Publishing house of the St. Vladimir Brotherhood, 2002.

18. Golubinsky E.E. To our polemic with the Old Believers (additions and amendments to the polemic regarding its general formulation and regarding the most important particular points of disagreement between us and the Old Believers). // Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. Book third (214). M., 1905.

19. Gudziy N.K. Archpriest Avvakum as a writer and as a cultural and historical phenomenon. / The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, written by himself, and his other works. Editorial, introductory article and commentary by N.K. Gujia. - M.: JSC "Svarog and K", 1997.

20. Gumilyov L.N. From Rus' to Russia: essays on ethnic history. M.; Iris Press, 2008.

21. Dobroklonsky A.P. Guide to the history of the Russian Church. M.: Krutitskoye Patriarchal Compound, Society of Church History Lovers, 2001.

22. Zenkovsky S.A. Russian Old Believers. In two volumes. Comp. G.M. Prokhorov. General ed. V.V. Nekhotina. M.: Institute DI-DIK, Quadriga, 2009.

23. Znamensky P.V. History of the Russian Church (educational manual). M., 2000.

24. Zyzykin M.V., prof. Patriarch Nikon. His state and canonical ideas (in three parts). Part III. The fall of Nikon and the collapse of his ideas in Peter's legislation. Reviews about Nikon. Warsaw: Synodal Printing House, 1931.

25. Kapterev N.F., prof. Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (reprint). T.1, 2. M., 1996.

26. Karpovich M.M. Imperial Russia (1801-1917). / Vernadsky G.V. Moscow kingdom. Per. from English E.P. Berenstein, B.L. Gubmana, O.V. Stroganova. - Tver: LEAN, M.: AGRAF, 2001.

27. Kartashev A.V., prof. Essays on the history of the Russian Church: in 2 volumes. M.: Publishing house “Nauka”, 1991.

28. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. Full course of lectures. Afterword, comments by A.F. Smirnova. M.: OLMA - PRESS Education, 2004.

29. Kolotiy N.A. Introduction (introductory article). / Way of the Cross of Patriarch Nikon. Kaluga: Orthodox parish of the Temple of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God in Yasenevo with the participation of Syntagma LLC, 2000.

30. Krylov G., prot. The book on the right is from the 17th century. Liturgical menaions. M.: Indrik, 2009.

31. Kutuzov B.P. The mistake of the Russian Tsar: the Byzantine temptation. (Conspiracy against Russia). M.: Algorithm, 2008.

32. Kutuzov B.P. Church “reform” of the 17th century as ideological sabotage and national catastrophe. M.: IPA "TRI-L", 2003.

33. Lobachev S.V. Patriarch Nikon. St. Petersburg: “Iskusstvo-SPB”, 2003.

34. Macarius (Bulgakov) Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church, book seven. M.: Publishing house of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1996.

35. Malitsky P.I. Guide to the history of the Russian Church. M.: Krutitskoye Patriarchal Compound, Society of Church History Lovers, print. according to edition: 1897 (Vol. 1) and 1902 (Vol. 2), 2000.

36. Meyendorff I., protopresbyter. Rome-Constantinople-Moscow. Historical and theological studies. M.: Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University, 2006.

37. Melgunov S. The great ascetic Archpriest Avvakum (from the 1907 publication). / Canon to the holy martyr and confessor Avvakum. M.: Kitezh Publishing House, 2002.

38. Melnikov F.E. History of the Russian Church (from the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich to the destruction of the Solovetsky Monastery). Barnaul: AKOOH-I “Fund for Support of the Construction of the Church of the Intercession...”, 2006.

39. Melnikov F.E. A brief history of the Old Orthodox (Old Believer) Church. Barnaul: Publishing house BSPU, 1999.

40. Mirolyubov I., priest. Activities of the Moscow Printing House under Patriarch Joseph. Dissertation for the degree of candidate of theology. Sergiev Posad, 1993.

41. Mikhailov S.S. Sergiev Posad and the Old Believers. M.: “Archeodoxia”, 2008.

42. Molzinsky V.V. Historian N.M. Nikolsky. His views on the Old Believers in Russian history. // Old Believers: history, culture, modernity. Materials. M.: Museum of History and Culture of the Old Believers, Borovsky Museum of History and Local Lore, 2002.

43. Nikolin A., priest. Church and State (history of legal relations). M.: Publication of the Sretensky Monastery, 1997.

45. Nikolsky N.M. History of the Russian Church. M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1985.

46. ​​Platonov S.F. A complete course of lectures on Russian history. St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Crystal", 2001.

47. Plotnikov K., priest. The history of the Russian schism known as the Old Believers. Petrozavodsk, 1898.

48. Poloznev D. F. Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century. / Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2000.

49. Preface. / Extracts from the works of the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church on issues of sectarianism (reprint of the publication: Extracts from the works of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church, in Russian translation, as well as from early printed and ancient written books and works of spiritual and secular writers on issues of faith and piety, disputed by the Old Believers Compiled by Samara diocesan missionary Priest Dimitry Alexandrov, St. Petersburg, 1907). Tver: Tver branch of the Russian International Cultural Foundation, 1994.

50. Preface. / Shusherin I. The story of the birth, upbringing and life of His Holiness Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. Translation, notes, preface. Church-scientific center of the Russian Orthodox Church "Orthodox Encyclopedia". M., 1997.

51. Pulkin M.V., Zakharova O.A., Zhukov A.Yu. Orthodoxy in Karelia (XV-first third of XX century). M.: All year round, 1999.

52. His Holiness Patriarch Nikon (article). / Nikon, Patriarch. Proceedings. Scientific research, preparation of documents for publication, drafting and general editing by V.V. Schmidt. - M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 2004.

53. Simon, sschmch. Bishop of Okhtensky. The path to Golgotha. Orthodox St. Tikhon's University for the Humanities, Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Ufa Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. M.: PSTGU Publishing House, 2005.

54. Smirnov P.S. History of the Russian schism of the Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 1895.

55. Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700-1917. / History of the Russian Church, book eight, part one. M.: Publishing house of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1996.

56. Smolich I.K. Russian monasticism. Origin, development and essence (988-1917). / History of the Russian Church. Application. M.: Church and Scientific Center of the Russian Orthodox Church “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, publishing house “Palomnik”, 1999.

57. Sokolov A., prot. The Orthodox Church and the Old Believers. Nizhny Novgorod: Quartz, 2012.

58. Suzdaltseva T.V. Russian typical, problem statement. / Old Russian monastic regulations. Compilation, preface, afterword by Suzdaltseva T.V. M.: Northern Pilgrim, 2001.

59. Talberg N. History of the Russian Church. M.: Publication of the Sretensky Monastery, 1997.

60. Tolstoy M.V. Stories from the history of the Russian Church. / History of the Russian Church. M.: Publication of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1991.

61. Undolsky V.M. Review of Patriarch Nikon on the Code of Alexei Mikhailovich (preface by the Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate). / Nikon, Patriarch. Proceedings. Scientific research, preparation of documents for publication, drafting and general editing by V.V. Schmidt. - M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 2004.

62. Urushev D.A. To the biography of Bishop Pavel Kolomensky. // Old Believers in Russia (XVII-XX centuries): Sat. scientific Proceedings Issue 3. / State Historical Museum; Rep. ed. and comp. EAT. Yukhimenko. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2004.

63. Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. History of the Russian Church in five periods (reprint). M.: Publication of the Sretensky Monastery, 2001.

64. Florovsky G., prot. Paths of Russian theology. Kyiv: Christian Charitable Association “Path to Truth”, 1991.

65. Khlanta K. History of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy in the 20th century. Graduate work. Kaluga: Moscow Patriarchate, Kaluga Theological Seminary, 2005.

66. Shakhov M.O. Old Believers, society, state. M.: “SIMS” together with the charitable foundation for the development of humanitarian and technical knowledge “SLOVO”, 1998.

67. Shashkov A.T. Habakkuk. / Orthodox Encyclopedia. T.1. A-Alexiy Studit. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2000.

68. Shashkov A.T. Epiphanius. / Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Issue 3 (XVII century). Part 1, A-Z. St. Petersburg, 1992.

70. Shkarovsky M.V. Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century. M.: Veche, Lepta, 2010.

71. Shmurlo E.F. Course of Russian history. Moscow kingdom. St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Aletheya", 2000.

72. Shchapov A. Zemstvo and Raskol. First issue. St. Petersburg, 1862.

73. Yukhimenko E.M., Ponyrko N.V. “The story of the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky” by Semyon Denisov in the spiritual life of the Russian Old Believers of the 18th-20th centuries. / Denisov S. The story of the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky. M., 2002.

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 the 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, Alexei 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 this 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.

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 at the same time 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 tent shape of 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 on the walls of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral of frescoes depicting buffoon performances. 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.

1653-1655: Patriarch Nikon carried out church reforms. Baptism with three fingers was introduced, bows from the waist instead of bows to the ground, icons and church books were corrected according to Greek models. These changes caused protest among wide sections of the population. But Nikon acted harshly and without diplomatic tact, as a result provoking a church schism.

1666-1667: Church Council took place. He supported church reform, deepening the schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.

The increasing centralization of the Moscow state required a centralized church. It was necessary to unify it - the introduction of the same text of prayer, the same type of worship, the same forms of magical rituals and manipulations that make up the cult. To this end, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, Patriarch Nikon carried out a reform that had a significant impact on the further development of Orthodoxy in Russia. The changes were based on the practice of worship in Byzantium.

In addition to changes in church books, innovations concerned the order of worship.

the sign of the cross had to be made with three fingers, not two;

the religious procession around the church should be carried out not in the direction of the sun (from east to west, salting), but against the sun (from west to east);

instead of bows to the ground, bows should be made from the waist;

sing hallelujah three times, not two, and some others.

The reform was proclaimed at a solemn service in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral on the so-called Week of Orthodoxy in 1656 (the first Sunday of Lent).

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich supported the reform, and the councils of 1655 and 1656 approved it.

However, it aroused protest from a significant part of the boyars and merchants, the lower clergy and peasantry. The protest was based on social contradictions that took a religious form. As a result, a split in the church began.

Those who did not agree with the reforms were called schismatics or Old Believers. The schismatics were led by Archpriest Avvakum and Ivan Neronov. The means of power were used against schismatics: prisons and exile, executions and persecution. Avvakum and his companions were stripped of their hair and sent to the Pustozersky prison, where they were burned alive in 1682; others were caught, tortured, beaten, beheaded and burned. The confrontation was especially brutal in the Solovetsky Monastery, which held a siege from the tsarist troops for about eight years.

Patriarch Nikon tried to establish the priority of spiritual power over secular power, to place the patriarchate above autocracy. He hoped that the tsar would not be able to do without him, and in 1658 he pointedly renounced the patriarchate. The blackmail was not successful. The local council of 1666 condemned Nikon and deprived him of his rank. The Council, recognizing the independence of the patriarch in resolving spiritual issues, confirmed the need to subordinate the church to royal authority. Nikon was exiled to the Belozersko-Ferapontov Monastery.

Results of church reform:

1) Nikon’s reform led to a split in the church into the mainstream and the Old Believers; to transform the church into part of the state apparatus.

2) church reform and schism were a major social and spiritual revolution, which reflected tendencies towards centralization and gave impetus to the development of social thought.

The significance of his reform for the Russian Church is enormous to this day, since the most thorough and ambitious work was carried out to correct Russian Orthodox liturgical books. It also gave a powerful impetus to the development of education in Rus', the lack of education of which immediately became noticeable during the implementation of church reform. Thanks to this same reform, some international ties were strengthened, which later helped the emergence of progressive attributes of European civilization in Russia (especially during the time of Peter I).

Even such a negative consequence of Nikon’s reform as a schism had, from the point of view of archaeology, history, culture and some other sciences, its “pluses”: the schismatics left behind a huge number of ancient monuments, and also became the main component of the new one that arose in the second half XVII century, class - merchants. During the time of Peter I, schismatics were also cheap labor in all the emperor’s projects. But we must not forget that the church schism also became a schism in Russian society and divided it. Old Believers have always been persecuted. The split was a national tragedy for the Russian people.

The church reform of Patriarch Nikon had a great influence on the spirituality of the Russian people and Russian history. To this day this question is open. Historical literature has not fully revealed the reasons for the schism and the presence of the Old Believers in the Orthodox Church in Rus'.

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

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

Reasons for the church reform of Patriarch Nikon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The beginning of the church reform of Patriarch Nikon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The essence of church reforms of Patriarch Nikon

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

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

The main differences between the Russian and Greek churches were:

Carrying out proskomedia on 5 prosphora instead of 7;

A special hallelujah replaced a three-fold one;

Walking was with the sun, not against it;

There was no release from the royal doors;

Two fingers were used for baptism, not three.

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

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