church schism

In the 17th century The Russian Orthodox Church experienced a split caused by the reforms of rites and the correction of liturgical books. The schism became a mass religious and social movement that gave rise to its own ideology, culture and historical tradition. Simultaneously with the split, a sharp conflict of secular and spiritual power took place, ending with the assertion of the primacy of the power of the king over the power of the patriarch.

Circle of "zealots of piety"

Church orders of the middle of the XVII century. caused a lot of criticism both among the laity and among the clergy themselves. There were many absurdities in the rite of worship, for example, polyphony, when, in order to shorten the church service in the temple, the gospel was read at the same time, litanies or exclamations were sung and pronounced. dominated home singing, in which the words were stretched to the point of meaninglessness, with a change in stress in them and with the addition of new vowels Uspensky B.A. Selected works. T.1. Semiotics of history. Semiotics of culture. M., 1994, p. 333-367. Against polyphony and other violations of the canons, the so-called circle of "zealots of piety", formed around the tsar's confessor Stefan Vonifatiev, spoke out. Among the members of this circle are the influential statesman Fyodor Rtishchev, Archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow John Neronov, Archpriest Avvakum of Yuryev and N.S. Borisov, Archbishop of Novgorod Nikon. Church leaders of medieval Russia XVIII - XVII centuries. MGU Publishing House M. 1988. pp. 135-136. The zealots introduced unanimity in their churches and, using access to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, obtained several royal decrees to correct church shortcomings. Their actions caused serious resistance from the higher hierarchs, especially from the then Patriarch Joseph. Meanwhile, the zealots of piety did not at all set themselves the task of fundamental transformations. From their point of view, the reform should have affected only the church organization and the morality of the clergy, they wanted to replace unworthy pastors, among whom Patriarch Joseph was also included. The zealots did not encroach either on age-old traditions or on local peculiarities in worship. However, one of the members of the circle of zealots of piety, Nikon, had, as it turned out later, his own idea of ​​reforms, which differed from the opinion of like-minded people.

Patriarch Nikon

The fate of Nikon is unusual and incomparable to anything. He quickly ascended from the very bottom of the social ladder to its top. Nikita Minov (that was the name of the future patriarch in the world) was born in 1605 in the village of Veldemanovo near Nizhny Novgorod "from simple but pious parents, a father named Mina and mother Mariama." His father was a peasant, according to some sources - a Mordvin by nationality.

Nikita's childhood was not easy, his own mother died, and his stepmother was evil and cruel. The boy was distinguished by his abilities: he quickly learned to read and write, and this opened the way for him to the clergy. He was ordained a priest, married, had children. It would seem that the life of a poor rural priest was forever predetermined and destined. But suddenly three of his children die of illness, and this tragedy caused such a spiritual shock to the spouses that they decided to leave and take the veil in the monastery. (see appendix 1, fig. 1)

Nikita's wife went to the Alekseevsky convent, and he himself went to the Solovetsky Islands to the Anzersky Skete and was tonsured a monk under the name Nikon. He became a monk in his prime. In his appearance, a strong peasant sourdough was guessed. He was tall, powerfully built, and possessed incredible stamina. His character was quick-tempered, he did not tolerate objections. There was not a drop of monastic humility in him. Three years later, having quarreled with the founder of the monastery and all the brethren, Nikon fled from the island in a storm in a fishing boat. By the way, many years later, it was the Solovetsky Monastery that became a stronghold of resistance to Nikonian innovations. Nikon went to the Novgorod diocese, he was accepted into the Kozheozersk hermitage, taking instead of a contribution the books he had copied. Nikon spent some time in a secluded cell, but after a few years the brethren chose him as their abbot. In 1646 he went to Moscow on business of the monastery. There, the abbot of a seedy monastery attracted the attention of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. By his nature, Alexei Mikhailovich was generally subject to outside influence, and at the age of seventeen, having reigned for less than a year, he needed spiritual guidance. Nikon made such a strong impression on the young tsar that he made him archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery, the ancestral tomb of the Romanovs. Here, every Friday, matins were served in the presence of Alexei Mikhailovich, and after matins, the archimandrite led long moralizing conversations with the sovereign. Nikon witnessed the "salt riot" in Moscow and participated in the Zemsky Sobor, which adopted the Cathedral Code. His signature was under this set of laws, but later Nikon called the Code "a cursed book", expressing dissatisfaction with the restrictions on the privileges of monasteries.

In March 1649, Nikon became Metropolitan of Novgorod and Velikolutsk. It happened at the insistence of the tsar, and Nikon was ordained a metropolitan while Metropolitan Avfoniy of Novgorod was still alive. Nikon showed himself to be an energetic lord. By royal order, he ruled the court on criminal cases in the Sofia courtyard. In 1650 Novgorod was seized by popular unrest, the power in the city passed from the governor to the elected government, which met in the Zemstvo hut. Nikon cursed the new rulers by name, but the Novgorodians did not want to listen to him. He himself wrote about this: “I went out and began to persuade them, but they grabbed me with all sorts of outrage, hit me with a dagger in the chest and bruised my chest, beat me on the sides with fists and stones, holding them in their hands.” Milyukov P.N. Essays on the history of Russian culture. M., 1994. p. 50-51. When the unrest was suppressed, Nikon took an active part in the search for the rebellious Novgorodians.

Nikon proposed to transfer to the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin the coffin of Patriarch Hermogenes from the Chudov Monastery, the coffin of Patriarch Job from Staritsa and the relics of Metropolitan Philip from Solovki. For the relics of Philip, Nikon went personally. CM. Solovyov emphasized that this was a far-reaching political action: “This celebration had more than one religious significance: Philip died as a result of a clash between secular and church authorities; he was overthrown by Tsar John for bold exhortations, he was put to death by guardsman Malyuta Skuratov. God glorified the martyr with holiness, but secular the authorities have not yet brought solemn repentance for their sin, and by this repentance they have not given up the opportunity to ever repeat such an act regarding church authority. Nikon, taking advantage of the religiosity and gentleness of the young tsar, forced the secular authorities to bring this solemn repentance. "

While Nikon was in Solovki, Patriarch Joseph, who was famous for his exorbitant covetousness, died in Moscow. The tsar wrote in a letter to the metropolitan that he had to come to rewrite the silver treasury of the deceased - “and if he didn’t go himself, I think that there would be nothing to find even half,” however, the tsar himself admitted: “A little and I did not encroach on other vessels, but by the grace of God I refrained from your prayers of the saints; she, she, the lord of the saint, did not touch anything. Alexey Mikhailovich urged the metropolitan to return as soon as possible for the election of the patriarch: "and without you we will by no means undertake anything" Bubnov N.Yu. Old Believer book in Russia in the second half of the 17th century. SPb., 1995. p. 51.

The Metropolitan of Novgorod was the main contender for the patriarchal throne, but he had serious opponents. The boyars were frightened by the imperious manners of the peasant son, who humbled the noblest princes. There were whispers in the palace: "There has never been such dishonor, the tsar betrayed us to the metropolitans." Nikon's relationship with his former friends in the circle of zealots of piety was not easy. They filed a petition to the tsar and tsarina, offering the tsar's confessor Stefan Vonifatyev as patriarch. Explaining their act, the church historian Metropolitan Macarius noted: “These people, especially Vonifatiev and Neronov, who were accustomed under the weak Patriarch Joseph to manage affairs in the church administration and court, wished now to retain all power over the Church and, not without reason, feared Nikon, enough having familiarized himself with his character" Macarius (Bulgakov), Met. History of the Russian Church. Book. 7. M., 1996. p. 80-81 .. Nevertheless, the tsar's goodwill decided the matter. On July 22, 1652, the church council informed the tsar, who was waiting in the Golden Chamber, that one "reverent and reverend man" with the name Nikon had been chosen from twelve candidates.

It was not enough for the imperious Nikon to be elected to the patriarchal throne. He refused this honor for a long time, and only after Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich prostrated before him in the Assumption Cathedral, he had mercy and put forward the following condition: "If you promise to obey me as your chief archpastor and father in everything that I will proclaim to you about the dogmas of God and about the rules, in which case, at your request and request, I will no longer renounce the great bishopric" Subbotin N. Materials for the history of the schism during the first time of its existence. T. 1. M., 1875. p. 279. Then the tsar, the boyars and the entire consecrated Cathedral made a vow before the Gospel to fulfill everything that Nikon suggested. Thus, at the age of forty-seven, Nikon became the seventh Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

At the end of the 40s of the 17th century, a “circle of zealots of piety” was formed in Russia, which included Nikon, who was then an archimandrite, archpriests I. Neronov, Avvakum, Daniil, Loggin, Lazar and others. The circle also included several representatives of the secular court nobility . It was headed by the royal confessor S. Vonifatiev.

Supporters of Nikon (since 1652 patriarch) believed that the correction of liturgical books and church services should be carried out to the Greek originals. The supporters of Archpriest Avvakum wanted to put Old Russian church books as the basis for correction. The circle aimed at restoring Orthodoxy in "its purity" by "correcting" liturgical books and eliminating "disorders" in church life.

But the unity of the "zealots" turned out to be fleeting. Already in the early 1950s, the circle disintegrated. The former unanimity of its participants gave way to their fierce mutual struggle, the smooth course of events - to fierce battles of people who have become irreconcilable enemies. Although all members of the circle were unanimous in the need to "correct" church books, they had different attitudes about how to "correct" them.

Nikon, Vonifatiev and Rtishchev insisted on bringing them into line with Byzantine models, consulted with the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisios - Grecophiles. Avvakum and Nero, on the other hand, shared the view that the books should be cleared of errors, and protested against blindly following Greek models. They believed that it was necessary to edit books according to ancient Russian manuscripts and opposed innovations in the church, which amounted to eliminating differences in Russian and Greek liturgical practice.

Reform of Patriarch Nikon.

In the middle of the 17th century, it became clear that in Russian church books, copied by hand from century to century, there are many errors and distortions of the text in comparison with the original. Many doubts were caused by the customs of polyphony during the church service, when everyone prayed using different prayers, baptisms with fingers. Believers are divided on this issue.

Some suggested correcting church books and rituals by returning to ancient Russian rituals.

Others believed that one should turn not to books of a hundred years ago, but to the Greek sources themselves, from which they corresponded in their time.

Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod was elected the new head of the Russian Orthodox Church. He was instructed to carry out church reform.

Let's get acquainted with the biography of Patriarch Nikon. pp.57-58.

In 1653-1655, the church reform began. It was introduced:

Baptism with three fingers;

· Belt bows instead of earthly ones;

· Icons and church books have been corrected according to Greek patterns.

These changes provoked protests from large segments of the population. In addition, the beginning of the war with the Commonwealth, the victims and losses associated with it, were regarded by ordinary people as God's punishment for violating church traditions. Convened in 1654, the Church Council approved the reform, but proposed to bring the existing rites in accordance not only with the Greek, but also with the Russian tradition.

Strengthening differences between church and secular authorities.

The new patriarch was a wayward, strong-willed and even fanatical person. Having received immense power over the believers, he soon came up with the idea of ​​the primacy of church authority over the royal one and invited Alexei Mikhailovich to share power with him, following the example of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and Patriarch Filaret.

The tsar did not want to endure these statements and moralizing of the patriarch for a long time. He stopped attending patriarchal services at the Assumption Cathedral and inviting Nikon to state receptions. This was a serious blow to the pride of the patriarch. During one of the sermons in the Assumption Cathedral, he announced the resignation of patriarchal duties and retired to the Resurrection Monastery. There Nikon began to wait for the tsar to repent and ask him to return to Moscow. However, Alexei Mikhailovich acted quite differently. He began to prepare a church trial against Nikon, for which he invited Orthodox patriarchs from other countries to Moscow.

Church Council of 1666-1667.

For the trial of Nikon in 1666, a Church Council was convened. The defendant was brought to him under the protection of soldiers. The tsar declared that Nikon "arbitrarily and without the tsar's order left the church and renounced the patriarchate." Thus, the king made it clear who exactly was the boss and who held the real power in the country. The church hierarchies present supported the tsar and condemned Nikon, blessing his deprivation of the rank of patriarch and eternal imprisonment in a monastery.

At the same time, the council supported the church reform and cursed all its opponents (Old Believers). The participants of the Council decided to transfer the leaders of the Old Believers into the hands of the secular authorities. According to the Council Code of 1649, they were threatened with death at the stake.

The Council of 1666-1667 deepened the schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Archpriest Avvakum.

Archpriest Avvakum was an outstanding leader of the Old Believers. Devoting himself to the church from a young age, he was an active supporter and righteous man of a pious way of life. He took Nikon's reforms sharply negatively. For his views, he was deprived of a place in the Moscow Kazan Cathedral, and then arrested and imprisoned in a monastery. Later Avvakum was exiled with his family to Siberia.

Wherever fate threw him, Avvakum actively promoted Old Believer ideas and principles. In 1664 he returned to Moscow, where the tsar and other acquaintances tried in vain to persuade him to come to terms with church reform. For his refusal at the Church Council of 1666-1667, Avvakum was cursed by the Church and removed from the priesthood, and then again imprisoned. For his disobedience and intransigence, Avvakum was sentenced by the Church Council of 1681-1682 to Execution. On April 11, 1862, the "violent archpriest" and his associates were burned alive.

Output: thus, the church, which had strengthened its position after the Time of Troubles, tried to take a dominant position in the political system of the country. However, in the conditions of the strengthening of autocracy, this led to a conflict between the authorities and the church. The defeat of the church in this clash paved the way for its transformation into an appendage of state power.

In the middle of the XVII century. The reform of the Russian Orthodox Church began, which entailed a number of serious changes in the political and spiritual life of Russian society.

The social crisis of the middle of the 17th century, the difficult economic situation of the country in one form or another affected the relationship between the state and the church - a large landowner who had judicial and tax privileges, had enormous political weight and ideological influence. An attempt by the authorities to limit the rights of the church (for example, with the help of the Monastic order) met with a decisive rebuff from her side and even strengthened her political claims.

The crisis also affected the church itself. The low level of professional training of the clergy, its vices (drunkenness, acquisitiveness, depravity, etc.), discrepancies in sacred books and differences in rituals, and distortions of some church services undermined the authority of the church. To restore its influence in society, it was necessary to restore order, unify rituals and sacred books according to a single model.

At the end of the 1640s, a circle of “zealots of ancient piety” arose in Moscow, uniting people who were concerned about both the state of affairs in the church and the penetration of secular principles into the spiritual life of society. Soon, differences began among the members of the circle on the choice of a sample. Some - S. Vonifatiev, the future Patriarch Nikon, F. Rtishchev - believed, like the tsar himself, that Russian church books and rituals should be corrected according to Greek standards. Others - I. Neronov, Archpriest Avvakum Petrov - saw the essence of the reform in a return to intact Russian antiquity, the decisions of the Stoglavy Cathedral, and considered it possible to correct church books only according to ancient Slavic manuscripts.

The spiritual crisis experienced by Russian society exacerbated the problem of the church's compliance with the requirements of the time. The crisis was expressed in the secularization of consciousness, which manifested itself in its rationalization and individualization among part of the townspeople and the upper classes of society. So, it was in the 17th century. artisans had personal brands, before that they felt like accomplices in a collective creation and did not “sign” their products. Thus, the connection between the personal efforts of a person and the results of his work, and even his social position, was increasingly comprehended. It is no coincidence that it was in this era that the saying appeared: “Trust in God, but don’t make a mistake yourself.”

The foreign policy interests of the country also demanded reform. Russia tried to unite under its auspices all Orthodox churches and peoples. The Russian tsar dreamed of becoming the heir of the Byzantine emperors both in matters of faith and in their territorial possessions. He also hoped to achieve the power and splendor of imperial state power. Here the influence of the theory "Moscow - the third Rome" affected.

For the implementation of foreign policy goals, it was necessary to bring the rites into unity with the Greek models adopted in the Ukrainian, as well as Serbian and other Orthodox churches in the territories that were planned to be annexed to Russia or taken under its control.

After Nikon was elected patriarch, the reform began to be implemented. In 1653, he sent a “memory” (circular) to all Moscow churches about replacing the “sign of the cross from two-toed to three-toed. Against disobedient, with the blessing of the tsar, he unleashed repressions. Nikon’s intransigence, haste and violent methods of reforming caused a deep protest of the population and became one of the split factors.

After Nikon’s departure from Moscow in 1658 and the disgrace caused both by the excessive lust for power of the patriarch, fed by his main idea “.. the priesthood of the kingdom is more”, and by the intrigues of the boyars, who did not want to obey the “bad”, from the peasants, the patriarch, the transformation of the church continued the king himself. Cathedral 1666-1667 finally deposed Nikon. At the same time, the "schismatics" were declared heretics, legalizing repression against them.

A change was made in church rites and liturgical books in accordance with the latest Greek models. These patterns have undergone changes over the centuries (even the form of the sign of the cross has changed), while the Russian Church has preserved the rites in the form in which it received them from Byzantium.

It was ordered to be baptized not with two fingers, as before, but with three; The reading of the creed became different; the name of Christ began to be written "Jesus", and not "Jesus", as required by tradition; Greek icons were prescribed; a four-pointed cross was introduced, which was previously considered "Latin". There was a reform of the Church Slavonic language, vocabulary, grammar, stress changed.

In an effort to turn Russia into a promised land, Nikon began on the river. Istra construction of the Resurrection Monastery (named after the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem) - New Jerusalem, which was to become the spiritual center of world Orthodoxy.

The relationship between state and church. Nikon, believing that "the priesthood is higher than the kingdom", became in 1652-1658. actual co-ruler of the sovereign. On all issues discussed by the Boyar Duma, they first reported to the patriarch. These measures turned out to be temporary and, after Nikon's dismissal, remained in the past, but the secular authorities made some concessions later. In 1667, the secular court in relation to clerics was abolished, and in 1677 the Monastic order was abolished.

At the same time there was a rapid economic strengthening of the church. New monasteries were built, to which many villages were assigned.

The reform strengthened the church hierarchy and the centralization of the church.

The victory of the reformers created a spiritual atmosphere in society that contributed to a critical attitude towards tradition, the perception of innovations, which became the psychological prerequisite for the global transformations of Peter I.

The reform, the trial of Nikon became the prologue to the liquidation of the patriarchate and the complete subordination of the church to the state.

One of the spiritual consequences of the reform and schism was the deformation of the idea "Moscow is the third Rome." For a long time, the symbol of the "third Rome" was dual and contained the image of Jerusalem - the center of holiness and pagan Rome - the political and cultural capital of the world. In the XVI century. Moscow simultaneously claimed both special holiness and political power. As a result of the split, the idea of ​​the New Jerusalem, which was one of the cores of Russian history and culture, went into the subconscious of society. The second part of the idea was picked up by Peter I, who created "Great Russia" with a new political center - St. Petersburg, built in the image of imperial Rome.

5. The Old Believers was one of the most complex and controversial consequences of the reform, the split of society and the church. According to some reports, more than a third of the Orthodox population remained in the old faith.

The character of antiquity. The "split" was a religious and psychological phenomenon, containing in one way or another socio-political components. The appearance of the Old Believers was not caused by the religious formalism of the "dark masses", but by the fact that, without separating the rite from the dogma, the people saw in the reform an attack on the faith of the fathers. He identified the old faith with the idea of ​​Holy Russia, with the hope of finding "Pravda" - social justice, embodying the idea of ​​\u200b\u200b"Moscow is the third Rome", and most importantly - to save an immortal soul and get into the Kingdom of Heaven. As a result of the reform, according to the Russian philosopher N. A. Berdyaev, “the suspicion arose among the people that the Orthodox kingdom, the Third Rome, was damaged, there was a betrayal of the true faith. Antichrist took over state power and the highest church hierarchy.

In the conditions of the social crisis of the second half of the XVII century. Expectations of the imminent end of the world escalated, which explained both the behavior of the early Old Believers and the combination in this movement of social groups so different in their interests and worldview.

Fight against "novelties". The ideological leaders of the Old Believers I. Neronov, Archpriest Avvakum and others called for the rejection of the innovations of Nikon and the church authorities, “surrendered to the devil”, to the struggle for Orthodox traditions and the “true faith”. At the same time, the religious content was also manifested in socio-political protests. Zealots of the "old faith" went to S. Razin, raised an uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery in 1668-1676.

Many fled the world, "captured by the Antichrist." The flight took different forms - from solitude in forest hermitages and participation in the development of Siberia, the mass base of which was precisely the Old Believers, to voluntary self-immolation by entire communities (according to official data, at least 20 thousand people died in the burnt-out areas of the late 17th century).

New trends in the spiritual life of the Old Believers. But it was not only about preserving the old. On the eve of the New Age, in the new conditions of the spiritual crisis of Russian society, the Old Believers acquired some socio-psychological features that are uncharacteristic of traditional Orthodoxy. Since the king and the church turned out to be discredited, there was a “loss” of external authority, an intercessor before God, the role of the morality of each of the believers as the bearer of the internal ideal increased. The Old Believers keenly felt personal responsibility not only for their own salvation, but also for the fate of the church and society. Their faith became more active, their spiritual life intensified. The Old Believers began to rely on themselves, on their inner faith, which positively influenced their moral character, contributed to moderation in needs, diligence, honesty, etc. These trends were characteristic not only for Russia, in that era they also manifested themselves in the European Reformation, incomparable with old belief in a religious sense.

It is no coincidence that it was the Old Believers at the end of the 18th - the first half of the 19th centuries. has done exceptionally much for the development of Russian entrepreneurship. The founders of the largest dynasties of Russian industrialists and merchants - the Morozovs, Ryabushinskys, Guchkovs, Tretyakovs, Shchukins, etc. - belonged to the Old Believers

From WikiSyktSU

Church schism of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century

church schism- separation from the Russian Orthodox Church of a part of the believers who did not recognize the church reform of Patriarch Nikon (1653-1656); religious and social movement that arose in Russia in the 17th century.

Through the second half of the XVII, XVIII, XIX centuries- on the part of the tsarist authorities, a struggle was waged with those who did not accept the reform of the church, with those who were called schismatics by the people.

Preconditions for Church Reform

Starting from the 10th century, from the moment of the baptism of Russia, a new faith for the majority of the ancient Slavs, Orthodoxy, was born and began to spread on the territory of our Motherland. After the adoption of Orthodoxy by Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, metropolitans began to come to Russia, who were approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople to guide the spiritual life of the new flock. Learned men also began to come, - icon painters, various kinds of church ministers. It was they who brought into the life of the Orthodox Russian Church the dogmas of icon painting, church singing, sign composition, the practice of bowing, and writing liturgical texts. Over time, the original dogmatic attitudes have undergone changes, a lot of errors have accumulated, especially in connection with the rewriting of liturgical texts. The invention of the printing press by Ivan Fedorov in the 50s of the 16th century did not solve this problem. By the time of the events described, Russia had gone through the Time of Troubles and church life had become even more secularized. A reform was required, during which a renewal, a purification of Orthodoxy, was to take place. The situation was aggravated by the Ukrainian events, since its Western part suffered the most from the Polish intervention during the Time of Troubles. That is why Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, at the suggestion of his confessor Stefan Vanifatiev, decided to organize a "circle of zealots of ancient piety" to develop a solution to the problems associated with the reform of the church.

"The circle of zealots of ancient piety"

The "circle of zealots of ancient piety" was formed two decades before the reform of the church, in the 1640s, and had an exclusively ideological goal, to bring uniformity to the church life of the state. Its members included:

• Fedor Rtishchev;
• Archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery Nikon;
• Bishop Pavel of Kolomna;
• Rector of the Kazan Cathedral Ivan Neronov;
• Archpriests Avvakum, Daniel, Lazar, Login.

The last six subsequently suffered from Archimandrite Nikon, who became patriarch on July 25, 1652. His ascension to the patriarchal throne is quite remarkable. What were the challenges facing the circle? There were several of these:

• Elimination of polyphony in churches - that is, the elimination of the practice of parishioners and clergy to sing prayers for interruption;
• Solving the issue of piety of local clergy;
• Establishing a common practice of worship with the outskirts of Russia (Ukraine), and so on.

To implement the tasks, an influential, strong-willed figure was required. It was the archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery Nikon. How did the archimandrite, later Metropolitan Nikon (in the world Nikita Minov) become a patriarch? In his work "Church History" Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov, in the fifth volume presented the following information:

“And the tsar, with all his synclite, clergy and people, began to beg Nikon to be a patriarch in Moscow and Russia, but Nikon did not agree, calling himself humble, unreasonable and unable to feed the sheep of the flock of Christ. A lot of time has passed in vain prayers. Finally, the tsar and all those present in the church fell to the ground and with tears begged Nikon to accept the patriarchate.

And such information was presented by the cleric of Patriarch Nikon Ivan Shusherin in "The news of the birth and upbringing and life of His Holiness Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, written by his cleric John Shusherin":

“It’s in vain that the pious Tsar, as at that time no one was equal to him in reason and in the affirmation of piety, having consulted with the entire consecrated cathedral, even His Grace Metropolitan Nikon, who is very unwilling and in every possible way denies, and serving with various wines, compelling him to accept the Patriarchal throne and set was in the summer of the 7160s (1652) of the month of July on the 25th day.

Further, in the same source, information followed that Nikon agreed, but presenting the conditions under which Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich had to listen to him in everything, like his father. The tsar also agreed, and Nikon, having ascended the patriarchal throne, immediately began reform. Thus, we see that a man, stubborn, self-willed, but nevertheless strong in convictions, has entered the rank of patriarch. What were the results of his activities?

Results of the reform

The active church activity of Patriarch Nikon has different estimates, however, such researchers of his life and work as Garin Yu.V., Zhukov D.A., Kozhurin K.Ya., Lobachev S.V., Uspensky B.A. - provide factual information that the reform has caused serious confusion in the minds of Russian society. The reasons they express are completely different, ranging from changes in the way of cultural life, ending with changes in iconography, texts of church books, changes in the title of the cross, the rite of baptism, and many, many others. Many opponents of the reform suffered a painful death for their ideals of ancient piety, for the pre-reform canons of the church. The most obvious example is Archpriest Avvakum. Entering the circle of zealots of ancient piety, he nevertheless did not support the patriarch and his reform. For this, he was subsequently burned in a log house in the distant city of exiles Pustozersk, which now does not exist as a settlement.

List of used literature

1. Borozdin A.K. Essay on the history of the mental life of Russian society in the 17th century. - St. Petersburg. 1900; Russian religious diversity. - St. Petersburg. 1907.

3. Garin Yu.V. Old Believers. Komi book publishing house, 1973.

5. Zhukov D.A. Pushkarev L.N. Russian writers of the 17th century. - M. 1972.

6. Kizevetter A.A. Historical silhouettes. - Rostov. 1997.

8. Kozlov Yu.F. Union of the Crown and the Cross. - Saransk, 1995.

The great wealth accumulated by hierarchs, churches and monasteries - land and thousands of peasants, crafts and money, huge ideological influence in society led to the growth of the church's political claims. Its leaders often intervened in resolving issues of the country's domestic and foreign policy.

The growing Russian autocracy, especially in the era of the formation of absolutism (the second half of the 17th century), could not put up with this. From here come disagreements, the desire of secular authorities to limit the growth of monastic land ownership, as well as judicial and fiscal immunities for spiritual pastors. Both the authorities, with their course towards centralization, and the feudal lords, who coveted the rich land holdings of the white and black clergy, were interested in this, and followed their increase with disapproval.

Disagreements between the church and secular authorities, which did not exist under the two great sovereigns - Tsar Mikhail and his father - Patriarch Filaret, flared up during the reign of their son and grandson - Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

By the middle of the XVII century. it turned out that in the Russian liturgical books, which were copied from century to century, many clerical errors, distortions, and changes had accumulated. The scribes, using the texts of dilapidated manuscripts, could not read everything in the corrupted texts, added something from memory, speculated, corrected, and thereby often distorted the words, the meaning of the rewritten.

The same thing happened in church ceremonies. Many people who know the liturgy condemned polyphony during church services. The latter walked long and tediously, in accordance with the church charter, and the priests took a very peculiar path: they themselves read their own prayer and did not forbid that at the same time the deacon read his own, and the choir sang psalms. Simultaneous reading and singing filled the church with noise and dissonance. The parishioners could not make out anything, expressed dissatisfaction.

The custom of being baptized with two fingers, which came from fathers and grandfathers, according to the assertion of many parishioners, was also erroneous, sinful: it is necessary to lay the cross with three fingers. All this is not befitting the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow - the "Third Rome", the guardian of the highest spiritual values ​​of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Some said that it was necessary to correct the liturgical books and rites, trying on the old, ancient Russian models, the decisions of the Stoglavy Cathedral, which approved in the middle of the last century the inviolability of the rites of the Russian church. Others believed that in the ancient Russian manuscripts themselves there are many slips and errors, therefore, only Greek originals, from which Russian translations were made long ago, in the days of Ancient Russia, can serve as samples.

At the end of the fourth decade, learned monks Epiphanius Slavinetsky, Arseniy Satanovsky and Damaskin Ptitsky arrived in the capital from Kyiv by invitation. We looked at Russian books, "horrified" and sat down for a good deed - correcting books that confuse Orthodox people, leading them into temptation and sin.

At the same time, a circle formed in Moscow "zealots of ancient piety." They, too, grumbled about the faults of books and rituals, as well as the riotous and drunken life of the monastic brethren. The circle of zealots was headed by Stefan Vonifatiev, the tsar's confessor, archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral, which stands in the Kremlin next to the tsar's palaces. The circle included the roundabout Fyodor Mikhailovich Rtishchev - the tsar's favorite, an affectionate and quiet man, intelligent and enlightened; Nikon - by that time the archimandrite of the Novospassky monastery in the capital; Ivan Neronov - archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral, fellow countryman of Nikon; deacon of the same Cathedral of the Annunciation Fyodor. And provincial shepherds, archpriests - Avvakum from Yuryevets Povolzhsky, Daniel from Kostroma, Lazar from Romanov, Loggin from Murom and so on. .

The members of the circle sought to eliminate direct violations of the liturgical rite, in particular "multiple voices", to strengthen the "teaching" element by introducing sermons, teachings and publishing religious literature for reading, to eliminate discrepancies and disagreements in church ranks, to raise the moral level of the clergy, including bearers of ecclesiastical authority.

Among the members of the circle there was no unity in assessing the differences in the theological system and church ritual practice that existed between the Russian and Greek churches. Two points of view arose on this issue, and the circle was divided into two groups.

One group consisted of provincial zealots of piety - archpriests Ivan Neronov, Avvakum Petrov, Daniil, Lazar and Loggin, as well as the deacon of the Cathedral of the Annunciation Fyodor Ivanov. Initially, Nikon was also their supporter. They adhered to the view traditional for the Russian clergy, which was established in the 16th century. Its supporters believed that the difference between the rites of worship and the rites of the Greek Church from the Russians is an indicator of the loss of the true Orthodox faith by the Greeks, which, in their opinion, was the result of the conquest of Byzantium by the Turks, the subordination of the Greeks to the "godless" conquerors and the relations of the Greek Church with the "Latin" (" heretical) by the Roman Church. They also believed that as a result of the reform of Peter Mohyla (Metropolitan of Kyiv from 1632 to 1647), the Ukrainian Church also lost the true faith.

The second group consisted of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Stefan Vonifatiev, F. M. Rtishchev and other capital members of the circle. Later, Nikon joined them. They refused (to a certain extent - for political reasons) from the traditional assessment of the Greek Church, as deviating from the true faith. They expressed a new assessment of it in the Book of Faith, published in 1648 on the initiative of Stefan Vonifatiev, in particular, in the position that even at the present time, in captivity, the Turkish Christians completely observe the Orthodox faith, ... yes, every mouth of those who speak untruth ... against the humble Greeks. This group of zealots of piety considered it necessary to eliminate discrepancies in the theological system and church ritual practice between the churches on the basis of the Greek model. This proposal received the support of a narrow but influential circle of clergy and secular persons in Russia, including Patriarch Joseph, and church hierarchs of Ukraine.

The greatest dissatisfaction of Patriarch Joseph was caused by the unauthorized introduction of “unanimity” by the zealots of piety in a number of cathedrals and parish churches and their interference (thanks to belonging to the circle of Tsar Alexei) in the appointment of bishops, archimandrites and archpriests. To put an end to this interference, Patriarch Joseph, at the church council on February 11, 1649, convened by order of the king, used the weakness of the position of the zealots of piety on the issue of "unanimity." The zealots of piety, insisting on "unanimity", did not provide for the reduction of the liturgical text, so the services became so long that many believers did not stand them to the end. Thus, believers were deprived of the “spiritual food” established for them. Skipping a service or leaving it early was considered a great sin. Therefore, when considering on February 11, 1649, at the initiative of the tsar, the proposal of the zealots of piety to introduce “unanimity” in the parish churches, the patriarch and bishops rejected the proposal to introduce “unanimity”.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was dissatisfied with the decision of the church council and the behavior of the patriarch. He did not approve this decision, but he could not cancel it with his power. As a result, the tsar demanded that the issue of "unanimity" be referred to the Patriarch of Constantinople for consideration. The correspondence took two years. In response to Joseph's message, the Patriarch of Constantinople, pleasing the tsar on a controversial issue, wrote that "unanimity" in the parish churches "is not only appropriate, but must certainly be." In this regard, in 1651 a new church council was convened. He canceled the decision of the previous council and decreed "to sing in the holy churches of God, ... the psalms and the psalter to speak with one voice, quietly and slowly." The patriarch and his supporters expressed their dissatisfaction with the interference of the secular authorities in church ritual affairs. It was a condemnation of the intentions of the tsar and the zealots of piety close to him to carry out the church reform themselves.

Well known names Archpriest Avvakum, Bishop Pavel of Kolomensky, Noblewoman Theodosius Morozova. However, very little is said about such defenders of ancient piety as Archpriests Loggin of Murom and Daniel of Kostroma, monks of the Solovetsky Monastery and others. On September 16, the Holy Martyr and Confessor Daniel, Archpriest of Kostroma, is commemorated, who suffered for ancient church piety in the 17th century. Archpriest Daniel was one of the first to suffer for orthodoxy at the beginning of Nikon's reform.

Daniel's ministry in Moscow. Circle of zealots of ancient piety

Holy Martyr and Confessor Daniel was a member of the clergy. Presumably from the mid 40's. 17th century served in Moscow and was a member of a circle of zealots of ancient piety, headed by the rector of the Kremlin Cathedral of the Annunciation and the confessor of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1629 - 1676) - Archpriest Stefan Vnifatiev (d. 1656).

The members of the circle sought to eliminate violations in worship (first of all, “multiple voices,” that is, the simultaneous performance of several rites), and to raise the moral level of the clergy. Daniil became close to the members of the circle - the rector of the Kazan Cathedral on Red Square, John Neronov (1591 - 1670), later - with Archpriest Avvakum (1620 - 1682).

Standing for piety in Kostroma

At the beginning of 1649, Daniel was appointed rector of the Cathedral in the name of the Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos in Kostroma. The stone Assumption Cathedral was erected in the middle of the 16th century, in place of the wooden one.

The Assumption Cathedral was located in the Kostroma Kremlin, the main shrine of Kostroma, the Feodorovskaya Icon of the Mother of God, was in the cathedral. At the same time, Daniel was elevated to the rank of archpriest.

In Kostroma, Archpriest Daniel actively took up the organization of the church life of the parish. In the sermons delivered by him in the Assumption Cathedral, the archpriest denounced drunkenness and immorality among the clergy and laity, and actively opposed pagan games. Drunkenness was especially widespread in Kostroma. Kostroma pop Pavel paints a picture of street manners:

On St. Thomas' week on Tuesday, after vespers, I went to my courtyard. And how I will be at the Nikolsky bridge, which is from the Volga, and from the lower tavern, a drunkard without trousers in a caftan walks, and in front of him they carry a bowl of wine. And he, the drunkard, ascended the Nikolsky Bridge and came near me, lifted his hem and shamefully ... put it out: But for me, for enthusiasm, he did such a stingy deed or because of his drunken disposition, I don’t know, and I don’t know who exactly ...

Daniel struggled with local vices. So, in 1652, during Shrovetide and Great Lent, at the insistence of Archpriest Daniel, all taverns in Kostroma were closed, which caused sharp discontent among a significant part of the townspeople and residents of the surrounding villages. These actions of Daniil were the reason for the hostility towards him of the head of the local administration, voivode Yu. M. Aksakov. May 25, 1652, during a quarrel with peasants from the village. Lyskovo (now it is the city of Lyskovo in the Nizhny Novgorod region), "Kuzemka Vasiliev and comrades" Daniil was severely beaten not far from the yard of the governor, who did not even stand up for the priest. The reason for the quarrel was the pagan songs that the peasants sang at night, sailing up the Volga. During their stop in Kostroma, Archpriest Daniel tried to calm them down.

Daniel told the guard of the Assumption Cathedral to ring the bell to gather the townspeople for help. However, neither the governor nor the inhabitants of Kostroma wanted to protect the rector of the cathedral, who was beaten by visiting people:

On May 25, the peasant Lyskovets Kuzemka Vasiliev and his comrades began to sing songs at night on the banks of the Volga. And I went out to appease them, and they beat me to death and knocked me down, and from this blow I fell without knowledge (without feelings). Then, with the same people, Vasiliev went to the cathedral church, and at the voivodship court they beat me with a dagger. And at half an hour in the morning I ordered the watchman to ring the bell. The voevoda came out, but did not make me defend. And the peasants then fled

In May 1652, an episode occurred, after which Archpriest Daniel was forced to leave the city of Kostroma. On May 26 or 27, the archpriest put three drunken brawlers in a chamber under the cathedral, probably they were from the surrounding villages. On May 28, a large crowd of peasants came to the Kremlin from the villages of Selishche and Minskoe, which at that time belonged to Boyar Gleb Ivanovich Morozov(1539 (?) - 1662). The crowd, in which there were many drunks, knocked down the lock and freed the prisoners. The rebels beat several people, they were also looking for Daniel, who, saving his life, first took refuge in the cathedral, then lived for two days in the Holy Cross Monastery located in the Kremlin. During the outrages, the governor, whose courtyard was close to the cathedral, did not even take measures to restore order.

The fight against Nikon innovations

In early June, Archpriest Daniel went to Moscow. Avvakum, expelled from Yuryevets and heading for Moscow, was in Kostroma on June 1-3 and later wrote in his Life about the expulsion of Daniil from there. Arriving in Moscow, Archpriest Daniel filed a petition addressed to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with a description of the events in Kostroma. According to this petition, the steward V. M. Eropkin was instructed to conduct an investigation in Kostroma and the district.

On the eve of Great Lent, at the end of February 1653, shortly before this, Nikon (1605 - 1681), who had been elevated to the Patriarchal throne, sent a “Memory” to Moscow churches, in which it was prescribed to change the number of bows during Lenten worship and replace the two-fingered addition for the sign of the cross with three fingers.

By decision of the zealots of ancient piety, at the end of February 1653, Avvakum and Daniel wrote a protesting petition "On the folding of fingers and on bows", which was submitted to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

On August 4, 1653, Archpriest John Neronov was arrested in Moscow and soon exiled to one of the oldest monasteries in the Russian North, the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery on Lake Kubenskoye.

Death for the Father's Tradition

Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel again submitted a petition to the tsar, protesting against the arrest of John Neronov. A few days later Avvakum was arrested and exiled to Siberia. At the same time, apparently at the end of August, Daniel was also captured. According to Avvakum, the arrest took place "in a monastery outside the Tver Gates." By order of the Patriarch, Daniel was defrocked and sent to the Chudov Monastery "to the bakery."

Later, Archpriest Daniel was exiled to Astrakhan, where he was thrown into an earthen prison and starved to death. The place of his burial is unknown.

After that, says Avvakum, Nikon soon grabbed Daniil, in the monastery behind the Tver Gates, cut off his head under the tsar and, tearing off his one-row scolding, took him to the Chudov Monastery in the bakery, and suffering a lot, exiled him to Astrakhan. They placed a crown of thorns on his head there, in an earthen prison, and they killed him.

Avvakum calls Daniel a holy martyr who suffered for his orthodoxy from Nikon. In "Russian Grapes" Daniil is called "prejudiced", along with Pavel, Bishop of Kolomna (d. 1656) and Archpriest Avvakum.

Glorification and iconography

Since the beginning of the church schism in the middle of the 17th century, Archpriest Daniel, along with Archpriest Avvakum, noblewoman Theodosia Morozova, Bishop Pavel of Kolomna, was revered by the Old Believers as a martyr.

The last before the October Revolution, the Consecrated Council of the Old Orthodox Church of Christ of the Belokrinitsky Hierarchy (now the Russian Orthodox Church), held at the Rogozhsky cemetery in Moscow, on May 31, 1917, decided to glorify Daniel among other martyrs of the early Old Believers. Service to Daniel was (1870 - 1942).

The first icon of Daniel was painted in 2003 for the Old Believer Church of the Nativity of the Virgin in the village. Durasov, Krasnoselsky district, Kostroma region (icon painter I. V. Nikolskaya). On it, depicted in full growth, Daniel blesses Kostroma, overshadowed by the Feodorovskaya Icon of the Mother of God.