Discussing the reasons that led to “a change in the Russian view of the relative merits of Greek and Russian piety,” he noted:

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

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

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

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

Background: Greek and Russian liturgical customs

The evolution of the rite of Christian worship in ancient times, especially those elements of it that are determined not by book tradition, but by oral church tradition (and these include such essential customs as, for example, the sign of the cross), is known only fragmentarily, based on the information which are found in the writings of the Holy Fathers. In particular, there is an assumption [ specify], that in the 10th century, at the time of the Baptism of Rus, in the Byzantine Empire there were two competing customs regarding the sign of the cross, the number of prosphoras at the proskomedia, a special or trembling hallelujah, the direction of the procession, etc. The Russians borrowed one, and from the Greeks subsequently (especially after the fall of Constantinople) another was finally established.

Main features of the Nikon reform

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

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

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

Reaction to the reform

The Patriarch was pointed out that such actions were arbitrary, and then in 1654 he organized a council, at which, as a result of pressure on the participants, he sought permission to conduct a “book inquiry on ancient Greek and Slavic manuscripts.” However, the comparison was not with old models, but with modern Greek practice. On the Week of Orthodoxy in 1656, an anathema was solemnly proclaimed in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral against those who cross themselves with two fingers.

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

The Great Moscow Council of 1667, having condemned and deposed Nikon for leaving the department without permission, anathematized all opponents of the reforms. Subsequently, due to state support for church reform, the name of the Russian Church was assigned exclusively to those who made the decisions of the Councils and, and adherents of liturgical traditions (Old Believers) began to be called schismatics and persecuted.

Views of Old Believers on reform

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

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

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

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

The term "Nikonianism"

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

Evolution of the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC)

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

Reasons for Nikon's church reform

Increasing demanded 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 magical rites and manipulations that make up the cult. For this purpose, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich as patriarch Nikon a reform was carried out that significant influence on further development in Russia. The changes were based on the practice of worship in Byzantium.

Afterwards, some changes occurred in the ritual of the Byzantine church. Having conceived the idea of ​​​​correcting books according to Greek models, Nikon realized that it was impossible to do without a decisive break in many rituals that had taken root in the Russian Church. In order to gain support, he turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisia, who did not recommend that Nikon break established traditions, but Nikon did it his own way. In addition to changes in church books, innovations concerned the order of worship. Thus, 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; to honor the cross not only with eight and six points, but also with four points; 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 Orthodoxy Week 1656 (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. The schismatics were led by archpriest Habakkuk 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.

In Moscow, the archers, under the leadership of Nikita Pustosvyat. They demanded a debate between the Nikonians and the Old Believers. The dispute resulted in a squabble, but the Old Believers felt like winners. Nevertheless, the victory turned out to be illusory: the next day the leaders of the Old Believers were arrested and executed a few days later.

The adherents of the old faith realized that they had no hope of victory in the state plan. The flight to the outskirts of the country intensified. The most extreme form of protest was self-immolation. It is believed that during the existence of the Old Believers, the number of those who burned themselves reached 20 thousand. “Burning” continued throughout most of the 18th century. and stopped only during the reign of Catherine II.

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.

Consequences of Nikon's church reform

Nikon's reforms led to a split in the church, as a result of which two groups of Old Believers were formed: priests(had priests) and bespopovtsy(priests were replaced by charter officers). In turn, these groups were divided into many opinions and agreements. The most powerful currents were " spiritual Christians" - Molokans and Doukhobors. The founder of Molokanism is considered to be a wandering tailor Semyon Uklein. Molokans recognize the Bible, unlike the Doukhobors. They associate it with the image of “spiritual milk”, which nourishes human soul. In their teaching, set forth in the book "Doctrines of the Molokans", much attention is paid to predictions of the second coming of Christ and the establishment of a thousand-year kingdom on earth. Communities are governed by elected leaders-mentors. Worship consists of reading the Bible and singing psalms.

Doukhobors The main religious document is considered not the Bible, but “ Book of Life" - a collection of psalms composed by the Doukhobors themselves. They interpret God as “eternal good,” and Jesus Christ as a man with divine reason.

Christians - another current of the Old Believers - they teach that Christ can dwell in every believer; they are distinguished by extreme mysticism and asceticism. The main form of worship was “zeal”, which had the goal of achieving unity with the Holy Spirit. “Rejoicings” are accompanied by dancing, chants, prophecies, and ecstasies. The most fanatical group of believers has separated from them, who consider the emasculation of men and women to be the main means of moral improvement. They got the name "Skoptsy".

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 the Russian state Ukraine was included. This was no coincidence. The sole order of the religious leader provided for changes in two main rituals. Church reform 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, Alexey Mikhailovich, being in good relations with the patriarch, did not take the complaint 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 priesthood).

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 of the Greek Church 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 rite of baptism, wedding, consecration of the temple, the circumambulation is done against the sun (whereas in old tradition it was made 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'. 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 essence of the official reform was to establish uniformity in liturgical rites. The United Russian Church, the sister of the Eastern churches, did not have a uniform liturgical order and differed in this from its Eastern brethren, as the Eastern Patriarchs constantly pointed out to Nikon and his predecessors. IN one church there had to be a single cult. Cathedrals XVI c., having elevated local patrons to the rank of All-Russian saints, did not complete the work of unifying the cult. It was also necessary to introduce uniformity in the liturgical rite, to replace the specific liturgical diversity with Moscow uniformity.

The question of carrying out this fundamental reform arose even before Nikon in connection with the victory of technology in the book business. As long as there were handwritten books produced locally by local scribes and based on local originals, there could be no question of reform. But when in the second half of the 16th century. The Printing House appeared in Moscow, and it was decided to supply all churches with printed liturgical books. The reference books, that is, the editors of printed publications, discovered an extraordinary diversity in handwritten books, both in terms of individual words and expressions, and in terms of the rites of liturgical rites. The powerful patriarch influenced the correction of church books, based on his own views on worship. It should also be noted that the process of correcting church books under Nikon was characterized by some haste, probably caused by the patriarch’s desire to quickly establish himself in his rightness.

But, despite all this, work to correct liturgical books under Patriarch Nikon was carried out very carefully and thoroughly. Errors and typos were not difficult to correct, but the matter was more complicated - it was necessary to choose one, the most correct, rite and record it in printed books, thereby destroying all other ritual options. The main difficulty turned out to be in choosing a sample for correction. For the Tsar and Nikon these were the Greek ranks of that time; for the vast majority of clergy - ancient Russian ranks, enshrined in “charatean” (handwritten) books.

So, the reform had to concern rituals. They are surprised how such a reform, the correction of the details of the liturgical rite, could arouse such fierce disputes; they refuse to understand why Nikon and his opponents attached such importance to the “single letter “az””. But behind this “basic” were hidden two real opposites: the old independent parish clergy with its diverse cults and ranks and the new noble church, which everywhere destroyed every shadow of independence and strived for uniformity.

On the other hand, we already know that even a hundred years before Nikon, that religious worldview was in full force, which placed all the strength and practical benefit of religion precisely in the technical ability to serve the deity. The deity had not yet become in the eyes of the people of the 16th century. a bearer of truth, but remained a “cunning” creature who must be able to win over, who must be “pleasing” in order to achieve well-being. A hundred years after Stoglav, who quite seriously and officially elevated the basic methods of “pleasing” the deity to the level of dogma, the worldview did not have time to change significantly. Nikon himself stood entirely on the same point of view.

In an effort to introduce uniformity in the Russian Church according to the Greek model, he bombarded the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisius with questions of a purely ritual nature and scholastic incidents, in this case not differing at all from his predecessor Joseph, who asked the Eastern patriarchs about the four “great church needs” of the same kind. Having received 27 such questions, Paisiy was perplexed and delicately tried to enlighten Nikon in his answer: “We should not think that our Orthodox faith is being distorted if someone has a rite that is somewhat different in things that do not belong to the essential or members of the faith.” , as long as he agrees with the Catholic Church on important and important things” - and, by the way, he attached a copy of the “Orthodox Confession of Faith” for Nikon’s information.

But these moral teachings, as well as all of Paisius’s discussions about the conventions of even such things as making the sign of the cross and blessing, were in vain for Nikon. Probably he simply did not understand them. Nikon’s opponents in this case were completely in solidarity with him, and the only difference was that Nikon gave primacy to Greek rituals, which he considered more ancient and therefore more reliable, and the former adhered to Russian antiquity, in their opinion, sanctified and justified by the saints and miracle workers.

The very process of “correction” further contributed to the gap between the new uniformity and the old faith. Officially, the need for correction was motivated at the council of 1654 by the fact that there were many errors and insertions in the old printed books, and by the fact that the Russian liturgical rite differed very significantly from the Greek. They wanted to base the correction on ancient charatean, i.e., handwritten, Slavic and Greek books; This, at least, was Nikon's original intention. But when we began to implement this task in practice, enormous difficulties emerged. There were few ancient manuscripts, and those that were available diverged from one another; the inquiry officers did not know how to understand them, and this path was abandoned and replaced by another.

The Tsar and Nikon decided to recognize as the norm the then printed Greek books printed in Venice, as well as the Slavic missals for the Lithuanian-Russian Uniates, printed there, and to edit Russian books based on them. Following this directive, the reference workers first translated from Greek Venetian publications and, without particularly relying on their knowledge Greek language, constantly checked it with the Slavic Uniate text. This translation was the main edition of the new Russian liturgical books. The final edition was established by making individual amendments based on some ancient manuscripts, Slavic and Greek. This final edition was approved by Nikon and went to the Printing House for reproduction.

The result of this correction was completely unexpected. The fact is that over the seven centuries that have passed since the religious reform of Vladimir, the entire Greek liturgical rite has changed in a very significant way. Double-fingering (which became a custom to replace the former single-fingering), which the first Greek priests taught to the Russian and Balkan Slavs and which until the middle of the 17th century. It was also maintained in the Kyiv and Serbian churches; in Byzantium, under the influence of the fight against the Nestorians, it was replaced by tripartite (late 12th century). The finger shape during blessing has also changed. All liturgical rites became much shorter, some important chants were replaced by others. As a result, when Nikon replaced old books and rituals with new ones, it was like the introduction of a “new faith.”

The dogmas of the Stoglavy Cathedral, two-fingered and salt-walking, were destroyed. While Stoglav proclaimed: “Whoever is not marked with two fingers, like Christ, is cursed,” Patriarch Macarius, at the request of Nikon, on the week of Orthodoxy in the Assumption Cathedral publicly showed how to be baptized with three fingers, and proclaimed: “And “Whoever, according to Theodorite’s writings and false tradition, does (two-fingered), he is cursed,” and after Macarius, the same curse on double-fingered people was proclaimed by two other Eastern patriarchs.

The entire liturgical rite was redone and shortened so much that the question of polyphony no longer existed. Previous formulas and actions had to be replaced with completely new ones; the new church brought with it a new faith. “The wise men of today,” Lazarus sarcastically, “have little, but much—they have not left a single word in all their books that they cannot change or break. And they proudly boast that now we have found faith, now we have corrected everything.” According to the “Tales of the Solovetsky Monks,” “the Jesus Prayer, and the confession of the Orthodox faith, and the angelic trisagion hymn, and the initial verse “to the heavenly king,” from human baptism and weddings, and the blessing of oil, and monastic and secular burial, and the chronicle from christmas, and church singing, matins and midnight service, and the hours, and prayer services, vespers, and compline, and nephimon, and the whole rite and charter, and cathedral, and church bells - they changed everything without a trace, they changed the divine liturgy.”

And these and many other complaints were not an exaggeration. The priests Lazar and Nikita (Pustosvyat), from the city zealots, had the patience to do a huge job of detailed comparison of new books with old ones, and presented the results of their research in petitions to the king. It turned out that the rites of baptism and confirmation were changed and shortened, in which the “sacramental invitations” that followed the words “seal of the gift of the holy spirit” and explained what gift was given were excluded, i.e. the most magic formulas. Further, the rite of repentance, consecration of oil and marriage was changed. Among the public services, the rites of the ninth hour and Vespers have also been changed, now combined and significantly reduced compared to the previous ones, as well as the rite of Matins.

The biggest changes were in the liturgy. First of all, the rite of proskomedia has been completely redone: instead of seven prosviras there are five, for the repose of the dead, not one part is taken out for everyone, but a particle for each person commemorated. This change even gives Nikita a reason for caustic ridicule: “And for so many name days (the synodics were huge at that time) is there enough prosphora to fill the monastery’s carpet! And that day will be too small for one prosphora service.” Then, instead of the image on the provira of the commonly used eight-pointed cross, the image of a four-pointed cross, commonly used among the Greeks and Catholics of that time, was introduced.

Further Nikita and Lazar point out more whole line changes and abbreviations in the liturgy from the very beginning to the end: one is subtracted, another is changed, a third is inserted, so that “the whole order is broken.” The second and eighth members of the creed have been changed: in the first, “az” (born, but created) has been destroyed; in the latter the word “true” is missing. Finally, in those prayers and psalms that remained untouched, new figures of speech and new terms were introduced instead of the old ones, and without any need.

The listing of examples of these discrepancies in Nikita’s petition takes up six pages of text. In conclusion, Nikita makes another discovery that completely undermines the good quality of the correction: in different books “official actions and litanies are printed inconsistently, in one book it is printed this way, and in another differently, and the first verses are placed last, and the last ones ahead or in the middle.” Obviously, the editors of the new books did not get along with each other or did not monitor the printing, and thus greatly damaged the introduction of Nikon’s uniformity.

The "innovations" were not accepted in many places. Russian people are frightened by any novelty - they were so frightened by such a decisive introduction of new church orders into everyday life. So at first, the rejection of Nikon’s books was purely psychological and therefore little expressed. But some people with a theological education did not immediately accept the corrected books for reasons of so-called “church ideology”: in those Greek church books on which corrections were made, they saw a reflection of the union of the Orthodox and Catholic churches - the Union of Florence. Among such people, those who corrected before Nikon immediately came forward church books, and under him, as already mentioned, they found themselves out of work. They went to educate the people: they say that Nikon started a bad thing - he contacted the Greeks (the Greeks were the main consultants in correcting liturgical books under Nikon), who fell under the “pernicious influence of Catholicism.” Thus, a whole movement appeared in the Russian Church, separating itself from the official (“Nikonian”) church, which did not recognize the church reform of Patriarch Nikon.

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

Cultural, historical and geopolitical context of the reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: Greek and Russian liturgical customs

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

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

Famous linguist and historian of Russian and Church Slavonic languages Boris Uspensky described the difference between the pre-Nikon and post-Nikon traditions:

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

Chronology of the schism in the Russian Church

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

Main features of the Nikon reform

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

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

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

Reaction to the reform

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

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

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

Views of Old Believers on reform

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

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

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

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

The term "Nikonianism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1974, a similar decision was made by the Russian Orthodox Church abroad.

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

Criticism of reform in the Russian Orthodox Church

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