Video report about the Inter-Old Believers round table
on cooperation with society and the state

March 3, 2016 occurred historical event in the life of the Old Believer - representatives of the three largest Old Believer Churches met at a round table to discuss general Old Believer cooperation with Russian society and the state. The meeting, which took place within the walls of the Moscow House of Nationalities, was attended by the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Old Believer Church Metropolitan Cornelius, Primate of the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexander, Chairman Russian Council Ancient Orthodox Pomeranian Church Fr. Oleg Ivanovich Rozanov, as well as official church delegations and representatives of the Old Believer community.

The participants of the round table from the very beginning of the meeting clearly indicated that cooperation between Old Believer agreements should have nothing to do with ecumenism and should not affect doctrinal and canonical issues. At the same time, as noted, it is necessary to remember that there is much in common between agreements, which can become a strong basis for fruitful cooperation with each other in the spirit of peace and love.

“We serve according to the same books, pray with the same prayers, and honor holy antiquity. However, despite unity in the main thing, we cannot overcome mistrust, we cannot restore communication in the spirit of love and see in each other brothers, although once separated from spiritual unity, but who have not lost their historical kinship. Now, we hope, the time has come favorably to develop good-neighborly dialogue between the Old Believer movements.”

Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexander (RDC):

“At the same time, we also need to find forms of cooperation with each other so that, on the one hand, the really existing religious boundaries between our churches are not blurred, and on the other hand, the differences between us do not negatively affect the effectiveness and usefulness of inter-Old Believer cooperation itself.” .

Chairman of the Russian Council of the Ancient Orthodox Pomeranian Church, Fr. Oleg Ivanovich Rozanov also noted the importance of the friendly attitude of representatives of Old Believer agreements towards each other according to the words of the Apostle Paul : “If possible, from you, with everyone Have peace, men" (Rom. 110).

Chairman of the Russian Council of the Ancient Orthodox Pomeranian Church, Fr. Oleg Ivanovich Rozanov:

“After atheistic dominance came the time of openness, multi-party system, then freedom and tolerance, tolerance, just as 100 years ago we remember attempts to create all-Russian Old Believer societies. The next step is cooperation and interaction, so that reason in the present time, the reason of good, defeats the power of evil, and violence is defeated by our goodwill towards each other. According to the Apostle Paul, have peace among yourself if possible.”

Old Believers have always respected government authority, but due to persecution on its part they were forced to limit their contacts with it. Now the state’s attitude towards the Old Believers is completely different - respectful and supportive. Representatives of the authorities see in the Old Believers not only the remarkable past of Russia, but also its future.

At the round table, Alexander Aleksandrovich Terentyev, Chief Advisor to the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation on Domestic Policy, and then other representatives of the highest government authorities made a welcoming speech and expressed support for the good initiative of the Old Believers.

“The Presidential Administration is very attentive and has deep respect for all the activities carried out by your religious organizations. […] We have great respect for the activities that are carried out by Metropolitan Korniliy as part of the Council for Interaction with Religious Associations under the President of the Russian Federation. Thanks to his tireless efforts, the voice of the Old Believers is heard. He speaks constantly, speaks out on all major issues both in the life of the state and in religious life. Temples are being restored, religious organizations in the regions are being strengthened, but there is still enormous potential for development.”

The favorable attitude of the state towards the Old Believers, according to the round table participants, should be used to educate society, whose spiritual and moral state is far from perfect. In modern Russian society, unfortunately, committing many mortal sins is considered the norm of life. The consequences of this are devastating for the state and the nation - early mortality, a huge number of divorces, low level life and many other problems. Old Believers, as bearers of Christian spiritual values, can be very useful to Russian society.

Chief Advisor to the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation on Domestic Policy Alexander Aleksandrovich Terentyev:

“Society really needs your work, because society can learn a lot from the Old Believers: loyalty to historical traditions, family values, and your experience in the business sector, in agriculture. Therefore, the first step that you are taking today within the framework of this round table can serve to create such a center and core of attraction for all Old Believers of the world. Good luck to you in your work."

But not only the state can benefit from such cooperation, but also the Old Believers themselves.

Priest John Kurbatsky (RPSC):

“We are sometimes invited to various venues, the media is invited. May Christ save Bishop Cornelius the Metropolitan, that he never refuses these opportunities, he speaks out, his voice is heard, he is seen by people. By the way, returning to the beginning of my speech, the next time, when I returned to the colony a few weeks later, I came again to the chief to sign the pass, he said: “Oh! I saw your metropolitan with the president, that’s it, no questions.” Because, indeed, he, as the head of the colony, is concerned that no extremist or incomprehensible elements will penetrate there, so that everything will be as it should be according to the law.”

Yes, interaction with the state can be very useful for the Old Believers, for example, in the revival and restoration of churches.

Priest Alexander Pankratov (RPSC):

“I propose that the current high assembly include in the final resolution the wish to adopt a special nationwide program for the preservation and restoration of all types of cultural heritage objects in the use of the Old Believers, which would also contribute to the return to the Old Believers of religious property forcibly alienated in the past.”

This is a large-scale and long-term project. During its discussion with the authorities, the Old Believers can defend their interests within the framework of current legislation. Yes, on this moment It is possible and very relevant to protect Old Believer interests within the framework of the implementation of the Federal Law “On the transfer to religious organizations of property for religious purposes that is in state or municipal ownership.”

“Because in this law, unfortunately, at the time when it was adopted, a rather loose wording was adopted that the transfer of property is carried out taking into account religious affiliation, and not in strict accordance with this religious affiliation, which leaves a certain freedom of discretion when adopting decisions on specific objects."

According to Mikhail Olegovich, it is also necessary to develop general Old Believer interaction with the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. In particular, the state has been implementing huge programs for public funding for the repair, restoration and maintenance of cultural heritage sites for several years.

The earlier interaction between our Church and the state in this area has yielded wonderful results, one of which was the magnificent transformation of the Rogozhsky architectural ensemble.

Coordinator of the inter-Old Believer working group, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Mikhail Olegovich Shakhov (parishioner of the Moscow Preobrazhenskaya Old Believer community of Christians of the Old Pomeranian Fedoseyev Consent):

It will also be useful for the joint interaction of the Old Believer consents with the structures of the Ministry of Justice, which deal with issues of registration and control over the activities of religious organizations.

Another common priority area is the development of cooperation with the Ministry of Education.

Coordinator of the inter-Old Believer working group, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Mikhail Olegovich Shakhov (parishioner of the Moscow Preobrazhenskaya Old Believer community of Christians of the Old Pomeranian Fedoseyev Consent):

"First of all, we're talking about, of course, about the problems of teaching the discipline “Fundamentals of Religious Cultures and Secular Ethics”, “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” in state school programs, because to ensure that the teaching of knowledge about the Old Believers within the framework of the story about the fundamentals of Orthodox culture is adequate, fair, appropriate historical reality can only be achieved by ourselves and, again, only through joint efforts.”

Representatives of the Russian Old Orthodox Church also spoke about the possible most fruitful areas of inter-Old Believer cooperation.

Priest Alexander Filippskikh (RDC):

“In our opinion, the most effective will be collaboration in those issues in which we have common needs and views, inherent, perhaps, exclusively in Old Believer agreements, namely cultural, ritual and everyday, joint projects in publishing, the creation of icon-painting workshops, workshops for the production of church utensils. Such activity, in our opinion, would be mutually beneficial.”

The dialogue with the authorities will be conducted by the inter-Old Believer working group - a consultative structure designed to defend the interests of the Old Believer Churches in the highest bodies of state power and administration. Old Believers represent a significant part Russian society, there are about 1000 communities of three different consents, it is quite difficult for the state to communicate with each of them separately, as with a representative of the Old Believers, and besides, none of the consents represents the Old Believers. It is from this impasse that the inter-Old Believer working group wants to find a way out.

Such cooperation was highly valued by our ancestors - representatives of various Old Believer agreements, actively interacting with each other on social, educational and economic issues.

"Many socially and socially significant projects carried out by Old Believers at the inter-confessional level. Such cooperation was especially typical for the Nizhny Novgorod merchants. For example, in 1880, the Beglopopov merchants Blinovs and Bugrovys, together with the Belokrinitsky manufacturer Ustin Savvich Kurbatov, fully financed the construction of a city water supply system in Nizhny Novgorod. In 1880-1882. with donations from merchants-Old Believers from various consents, a free Mariinsky maternity hospital was built - the first maternity hospital in Nizhny Novgorod, which is still operating.”

The scale of pre-revolutionary inter-Old Believer cooperation in the field of education is striking.

Archpriest Andrey Marchenko (RDC):

“A decisive breakthrough in the field of public education among the Old Believers was the opening in 1889, under the care of the Beglopopov merchant Nikolai Aleksandrovich Bugrov, of the Old Believer one-class school of the Ministry of Public Education in the village of Popovo, Semenovsky district Nizhny Novgorod province for teaching children of boys exclusively of the Old Believer confession. This was the first in the entire history of the Old Believers to have its own legally operating educational institution. Permission for his activities, as an exception, was issued by the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod Pobedonostsev himself. About three hundred children from different Old Believer communities and a number of regions of Russia studied at the Bugrovsky school, for whom a special dormitory was built at the school. In addition to purely ecclesiastical sciences, a number of secular disciplines were also taught at the school. […] In 1912, through the efforts of the Belokrinitsky Old Believers, the Old Believer Theological and Teachers’ Institute was opened in Moscow, which trained teaching staff for Old Believer schools. The institute primarily trained specialists for schools in the communities of Belokrinitsky Old Believers, but representatives of other Old Believer communities also studied there freely.”

Old Believer industrialists discovered not only educational establishments, but also hospitals, almshouses, shelters for the poor, provided targeted assistance to widows, fire victims, displaced persons, refugees and other categories of people in need, and not only Old Believers.

Deputy Head of the Department of National Policy, Interregional Relations and Tourism of the City of Moscow, Head of the Department for Relations with Religious Organizations Konstantin Leonidovich Blazhenov:

“Today we are present at an event that, without false modesty, can be called historical. For the first time in 150 years, representatives of various Old Believer movements gathered at one table. […] And it is very important that the Moscow Old Believers, the Russian Old Believers, having retained their connection with the historical past, are an example for our society of how traditional, cultural, national, and interpersonal relations are preserved. And this example must be used in the development of our society.”

The round table participants also raised the acute problem of the attitude of the outside world towards the Old Believers. Modern society associates the Old Believers with closedness and schism, and perceives Old Believers as museum exhibits. Sometimes these ideas are very far from the truth, in particular, the idea of ​​the participation of Old Believers in the preparation of the 1917 revolution.

Bishop of Yaroslavl and Kostroma Vikenty (Novozhilov) (ROC):

“The Old Believers are those who made the revolution. You understand, this is how people have such a skewed understanding of the Old Believers after such hearings. And our task, first of all, is to convey to the people of the surrounding world the truth about old faith. Because this is very important, because people’s awareness is practically zero.”

It was noted that society perceives the Old Believers as a single whole, therefore it is necessary to work with public opinion together, especially since there are many negative myths about us.

The round table participants agreed to hold an international conference “Old Believers, Power and Society in the Modern World” in June this year, as well as, at the suggestion of Metropolitan Cornelius, to prepare for the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the birth of the fiery fighter for the preservation Orthodox faith Holy Hieromartyr and Confessor Archpriest Avvakum. Moreover, Metropolitan Korniliy proposed to the participants of the round table a project of specific events with which the Old Believer consensus could now appeal to the Government of the Russian Federation and the Russian public.

Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' Korniliy (ROSC):

“The main message to society in connection with the 400th anniversary of the birth of Archpriest Avvakum can be a call to embody the spiritual and civil ideals of Holy Rus', the bright exponent of which was Archpriest Avvakum. This outstanding fighter and writer of the 17th century - he was not the instigator of disputes, enmity, and schism, but first of all an example of selfless service to faith and homeland. His followers, the so-called “Old Believers” or who were called “schismatics,” despite persecution, did not develop either protest ideologies or justification for resisting violence by any means. Persecuted for centuries, they set an example of loyalty to the traditions of their ancestors in everything - from everyday life, clothing to the deep foundations of their worldview. With the establishment of religious tolerance in Russia, according to the Decree of 1905, they accelerated industry, science and the arts, which made Russia at the beginning of the 20th century a dynamically developing world leader.

That is why the anniversary is intended to become an incentive both for the activation of historical memory and self-determination of the Russian people, and for the affirmation of the highest religious values ​​of Orthodoxy, which unite all citizens of the country.”

Any division makes people weaker. The division of the single pre-schism Russian Orthodox Church into many Old Believer agreements and rumors caused enormous damage to the authority of the Christian Church in the eyes of society. Therefore, the more we cooperate with each other in those areas in which such cooperation is possible, the more more people will learn the truth about ancient Orthodoxy and come to the Truth.

Speaker: Daniil Ermokhin

Journalist: Olga Samsonova

On February 3, another academic event took place within the framework of the Historical and Liturgical Seminar at the Patriarchal Center of Old Russian Liturgical Tradition in Rubtsov (ROC MP). With a lecture on the topic “ Pre-schism features of church life in Veliky Novgorod» spoke by the priest of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church, rector of Vitka in Veliky Novgorod Priest Alexander Pankratov.

In his speech, Fr. Alexander presented an overview of the main stages of the church and political history of one of the oldest Russian cities. The role and place of Veliky Novgorod is much larger than is usually imagined, since it was there that the peculiarities of spiritual practice and liturgical tradition were formed - that unique Novgorod culture, which, along with Moscow, was most clearly manifested in the pre-Nikon church and cultural life of Rus', in particular in old printed books, icon painting and statutory nuances of worship, and after the Schism it was organically preserved and developed in the Old Believers.

Only with the establishment of St. Petersburg as the new administrative center of Russia did Novgorod lose its former cultural influence in the North-West, including due to the demographic impoverishment of the Novgorod region during the St. Petersburg period. In addition, as a result of the government's policy regarding the ancient Russian church heritage, Novgorod suffered serious cultural losses - ancient churches and monasteries were destroyed and dismantled for building materials. According to Fr. Alexandra, damage caused in the 18th-19th centuries. historical heritage of Novgorod, comparable to communist destruction and almost surpasses them.

Having covered the main stages of the pre-Nikon history of Novgorod, including the first decades after the Baptism of Rus', pre-Mongol period, the era of the Golden Horde's rule over the rest of Russia and, finally, the political rise of Moscow after the annexation of Novgorod and the liquidation of the Republic there in the second half. XV century, about. Alexander noted that up to late XVII century, the Novgorod diocese retained its extensive borders and a certain degree of freedom in its internal life, in particular in terms of the election of the priesthood.

According to Fr. Alexandra, one of the brightest properties of psychology local population, starting from the earliest chronicle mentions, there was a desire for independence, special orders, as well as an attitude towards the outside world according to the principle of “accept it or not.” Subsequently, this mentality was also characteristic of the Old Believers, for example, when appointing clergy to church communities.

Separately about. Alexander spoke about how Novgorod accepted the reforms of Patriarch Nikon: it was the northwestern bishops (Makariy Novgorodsky, Markell Vologdasky and Alexander Vyatsky), formally submitting to the tsar and patriarch, who actually sabotaged the implementation of church reforms, thanks to which Novgorod became one of the centers of the Old Believer opposition. The Solovetsky Monastery, which did not accept the “corrected” books and other Nikon innovations, also belonged to the Novgorod diocese.

Subsequently, due to the resettlement of Old Believers to Pomorie and the Baltic states, the Novgorod tradition became one of the defining ones for the Old Believers: from the historical boundaries of the Novgorod land came the largest number of sufferers known by name who died for adherence to the old rite, listed in “Russian Grapes”. And it was at the Novgorod cathedrals of the 1690s. The basic principles of priestlessness were formulated, in particular, Fedoseev’s consent. According to Fr. Alexander, in the decisions of those councils a certain skepticism towards everything that comes from Moscow, characteristic of the mentality of the Novgorod population, was manifested.

At the end of his speech, Fr. Alexander expressed the wish that the sense of responsibility for the preservation of their native church antiquity, characteristic of the ancient Novgorodians and making the Old Believers related to the adherents of the ancient Russian tradition in the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church, would contribute to the study and revival of this heritage in their spiritual practice - “each in his own hope.” Known to many for his online publications and discussions, the priest answered questions from those gathered, thanked the organizers and guests of the seminar for their keen interest and communication, and offered his assistance in organizing pilgrimage trips to Veliky Novgorod.

Also Fr. Alexander spoke about Slavna, recently broadcast Old Believer community Veliky Novgorod, and addressed the participants of the meeting in the Patriarchal Center with a request to provide financial assistance in the restoration of this monument of ancient Russian architecture.

Based on materials from the website www.oldrpc.ru and messages from event participants.

On Friday, November 27 V 19:00 As part of a series of open evening lectures at the Moscow Old Believer Theological School in Rogozhsky Village, a lecture will be held by the rector of the church in the name of St. John the Theologian, Veliky Novgorod, Father Alexander Pankratov “Dialogue of the Russian Orthodox Church with other hopes”

Priest Alexander Pankratov in the photo of Father Alexey Lopatin

Priest Alexander Pankratov- historian, member of the commission at the Metropolis of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church for dialogue with other hopes - will speak knowledgeably about the current state of affairs in this difficult area.

Directions:

By car to the intersection of Nizhegorodskaya Street or Enthusiastov Highway with the Third Ring Road.

1. Fastest in the evening:

From Art. metro Ilyich Square (Roman) minibus no. 340M

2. With guaranteed traffic jams on weekday evenings:

From Art. metro Marxistskaya, Ryazansky Prospekt by any transport to the stop “Starobryadcheskaya Street”.

3. Exotic option(the bus rarely runs on schedule)

From Art. metro Aviamotornaya by bus no. 759 to the stop “Rogozhsky village street”.

4. The train option is also an option, and without traffic jams :)

Travel by train from the stations “Kuntsevo”, “Rabochy Poselok”, “Fili”, Belorussky Station, Savelovsky Station, metro station “Rizhskaya”, metro station. "Kalanchevskaya", Kursky station, station. “Textilshchiki”, “Lublino”, “Kolomenskoye”, “Tsaritsyno” - to the “Kalitniki” station.

Classes are held with information and technical support from the project "Old Believer Thought"

About upcoming lectures - follow the announcements on the website for those who think and seek

We invite everyone!

Related material:

Quite recently, the head of Mordovia said that the 400th anniversary of the birth of Patriarch Nikon would be “a major event in 2005.” “Mordvin, who became the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, made a significant contribution to the unification of the peoples of Russia, strengthening the spiritual foundations of society,” he said. There are already many publications in the media and in church-scientific publications testifying to the preparation by certain forces in the Moscow Patriarchate of canonization, that is, the canonization of Patriarch Nikon, very famous in our history. I would like to note that upon careful study, the scientific-historical, in particular, the factual basis of the theoretical constructions of the current apologists of the mentioned hierarch raises a number of bewilderments. In this message, an attempt is made to show this, in mainly based on the example of V. Schmidt’s article “Biography of Patriarch Nikon”, published in the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”, No. 11, 2002.

The narrative about Nikon’s activities at the Novgorod department says: “he zealously takes care of the splendor of churches.” Probably, by such concern the author means, in particular, what is known from the recently fully published “Investigative Case of the Novgorod Uprising of 1650.” Nikon’s desire to carry out major reconstructions inside the St. Sophia Cathedral. But the opinion of the Novgorodians regarding this “zeal for splendor” was sharply negative, which V. Schmidt, however, is silent about.

Let me give you a short excerpt from the source mentioned above: “Yes, he is Metropolitan Nikon, by your sovereign decree he came to Veliky Novgorod as a metropolitan, and he took the masons Fedka from his comrades and wanted to destroy the cathedral church of Sothea the Wisdom of God and break the pillars. And that ", sir, the cathedral church was built according to the angelic gospel. And we, people of all ranks, beat him, the metropolitan, with our foreheads and did not allow the cathedral church to be destroyed and did not allow the pillars to be broken. Before him, the metropolitan, there were many authorities and did not spoil anything of antiquity." It should be especially noted that this was practically the only accusation against Nikon made by the rebels, which was supported by the government. On April 21, 1650, a letter was sent from the Ambassadorial Prikaz to the Novgorod Metropolitan, which directly stated on behalf of the Tsar: “And you, our pilgrim, would not order the cathedral churches to be destroyed and the pillars to be broken.”

The beginning of the reform dates back to the Novgorod period of the future patriarch’s activity. church singing, introduction into liturgical use of the so-called “Kyiv chant”. Giving a completely positive assessment of this change, V. Schmidt, however, glosses over the existence of, for example, such an opinion on this matter: “At the center of the transition to the gradual secularization of this art (church singing - A.P.) stands Patriarch Nikon with his reforms I would like to compare him with a railway switchman, who moved the arrow of the path of liturgical and singing art to another path, continuously moving away from the first, main path.

Beginning from this period, liturgical singing ceases to be understood as one of the forms of worship itself and begins to be considered as music brought into the church." To this it should be added that quite a long time ago a letter of 1668 was published, given to those who were then in Moscow eastern patriarchs Macarius of Antioch and Paisius of Alexandria, where it is recognized that the singing is “partesian... not accepted from this place by the Eastern Church.” It has, let us recall sufficiently known fact, undoubtedly Western, Catholic origin. However, V. Schmidt does not talk about this either.

Other significant historical realities, associated with the name of Nikon: the so-called “book correction” and the creation of a theory about the primacy of the priesthood over the kingdom. There are many studies and publications on this topic, the most significant of which are, however, ignored by V. Schmidt. Thus, there are no references to the fundamental monograph by N. F. Kapterev, the two-volume work “Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich,” published back in 1909-1912. and recently reprinted. The major work of S. A. Zenkovsky “Russian Old Believers” is also not mentioned.

Spiritual movements of the seventeenth century." In connection with the last of the noted circumstances, I think it is appropriate to cite S. A. Zenkovsky's description of Nikon's aspirations, which V. Schmidt calls the "churchization of the state": "In his interpretation of church power and its superiority over the authorities Tsar Nikon completely moved away from the Byzantine and Russian tradition of the symphony of authorities and completely took the point of view catholic church, as it was expounded by the popes in the 11th-13th centuries, during the struggle with the emperors for investiture." Against the background of this statement, V. Schmidt's opinion that Nikon "was a bright exponent of the traditional Russian religious and philosophical worldview" seems, at least , not sufficiently substantiated.

As is known, the events of the Russian-Swedish war of 1656-1658, which was largely fought on the lands of the historical Novgorod region, are connected with the times, so to speak, of the zenith of Nikon’s sovereignty. V. Schmidt gives a very high assessment of the geopolitical talents of the patriarch, saying that “it was he who pointed out Russia’s historical tasks of annexing Little Russia and Belarus, gaining access to the Baltic Sea, and defending Orthodoxy in Ingria and Karelia.”

What is kept silent, however, is the fact that the war with Poland was actually started and waged by Tsar Alexei, who left Moscow for this purpose on May 18, 1654, leaving the patriarch “in his place.” War with Sweden was also declared by the king. The patriarch showed his “geopolitical consciousness” in a rather peculiar way. Blessing the troops on the campaign, he urged them to go by sea (!) to Stockholm and capture it.

In the absence of a military fleet in the then Rus' European level it was, of course, impossible to fulfill this blessing. Here we can draw a conclusion about how things stood with practical politics in Nikon’s “statist” consciousness: he called for the achievement of obviously unrealistic goals (V. Schmidt says nothing about the mentioned call for a sea voyage). Real history delivered its harsh verdict: the war was lost by Russia, and a stream of Orthodox refugees poured into us from Ingria and part of Karelia that remained behind Sweden. Nikon’s defense of Orthodoxy in the Baltic states turned out to be true. And about this, however, V. Schmidt is silent.

Nothing is said about another interesting point. As is known, fighting between Russia and Sweden were terminated on July 21, 1658. Nikon left the department without permission just shortly before, on July 10. Perhaps he foresaw the outcome of the war and the associated collapse of his own in the role of not only the church, but also the secular supreme leader. Of course, this is just an assumption, perhaps quite bold and certainly in need of evidence. However, indisputable historical fact is that the period of final disagreement between the tsar and the patriarch was precisely July 1658, the time of defeat in the war with the Swedes. Probably, Alexey Mikhailovich, as a undoubtedly practical politician, simply stopped valuing Nikon after that. In other words, the priesthood, which was the “pre-bole of the kingdom” in patriarchal theory, could not withstand the clash with brutal military practice, and was blessed (and perhaps initiated) by an idea that, I repeat, was obviously unsuccessful.

In 1666, Nikon was sent into exile, where, according to V. Schmidt, he was “under the strictest supervision, in a cramped and musty cell, with no communication with the world.” However, published at the end of the 19th century. the documents paint a slightly different picture of the defrocked patriarch’s stay in the Ferapontov Monastery. In the royal "Order" the monastic brethren were instructed to "give him food and rest to Nikon according to his needs."

By a special decree of January 5, 1666, the resources of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, one of the richest in the country, were used to support the exile. After July 1667, according to a new royal decree, new “cells” were built for Nikon, which were replaced by the end of 1675 with a real palace, which cost the state and monastic treasury a huge sum of 672 rubles at that time. Only living rooms there were 25 here. The “listing” of the former patriarch’s annual supplies is also impressive, for example, dated November 1673. There are 15 buckets of church wine, 10 buckets of Romanei, 10 buckets of Rensky, 30 poods of caviar, 10,000 (!) eggs, 1 pood of salmon, 150 pike-perch and ide, 20 poods of hops. Directly subordinate to Nikon were 10 monks and approximately 25 serf servants.

By order of the exile, the serfs of the Ferapontov Monastery built an entire island on Lake Borodavskoye, where Nikon sometimes retired to pray. The conditions of the former patriarch’s stay in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, where, as is known, Nikon was moved in 1676, after the death of Tsar Alexei, were not too ascetic. Here Nikon lived in a separate building, with seven servants, and the table for the “sufferer” was prepared “better than for the brethren, not only on permitted days, but also on fasting days (!)”, there was also “good beer and honey according to him” (Nikon - A.P.) as needed."

V. Schmidt ignores the evidence given above (and in part, these are only the most striking) of the “hardships of exile.” But he writes a lot and pompously about Nikon’s monastery construction. However, even the quotes given by the named author on this topic from the writings of the patriarch himself, upon objective analysis, turn out to be not so sublime. In this regard, I will dwell on the history of the Valdai Iveron Monastery of the Novgorod diocese, especially since Nikon himself dedicated a work to it entitled “Mental Paradise.” We read here (quoted by V. Schmidt) the patriarch’s “prediction” about the future monastery: “And with a little care, everything on this land will be abundant.” Below it is deciphered what, in fact, this “care” consisted of: “The Emperor (says Nikon - A.P.) with joy promised me that place (Valdai - A.P.) and sat down with the neighbors of that place weigh" .

I think it is appropriate to provide here the data that in the Starorussky district alone, the Iversky Monastery received 430 villages with peasants, as well as “forest lands, fishing and animal catchments, beaver runs.” With such possessions, the monastery, of course, was quickly rebuilt, and precious objects appeared in its churches. Nikon wrote that he placed the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God in the monastery “I have fourty-four thousand rubles worth of treasures, except for the grace that overshadows it, for it has no comparison anywhere.” This phrase quite clearly characterizes inner world patriarch. The monetary value of the icon is here in the first, that is, the main place, and the purely theological concept of “overshadowing grace” is in the second, or more precisely, secondary position. V. Schmidt calls this a rationalized system of socio-political views.

Nikon’s “healing” activities are also completely within the framework of this system, which V. Schmidt writes almost as a gift of healing, similar to what, according to Church Tradition, was inherent in the ancient saints. However, in the collections of the Preobrazhensky Prikaz in Moscow there was preserved (more precisely, it was preserved at the end of the 19th century, when it was published, which V. Schmidt, however, is silent about) an investigative case from 1694 on charges of “witchcraft.” Its main figure was a certain elder Savin. He testified during interrogation that he was in Nikon’s retinue during his exile in Ferapontovo, where “he, the most holy patriarch, treated many people for all sorts of diseases using herbalism and medicine, and he, the most holy patriarch, taught him this treatment, Savina.

And for him, the Holy Patriarch, that medicinal and herbalist in the Roman language was taken from Persida and translated into Greek, and from Greek into Russian, by a Greek, Elder Meletius." It is curious that Savin ended up in the Preobrazhensky Prikaz because he was "treating" epilepsy burying the roots of a young birch tree (!) in the ground, “so that the disease does not regurgitate in the future.” Thus, the rationalism characteristic of Nikon and his circle turns out to be not free from the occult component.

Not entirely Orthodox, to put it mildly, foundations are also revealed when analyzing the design of perhaps the most famous Nikon monastery, the New Jerusalem near Moscow. Modern researcher V.I. Martynov, in his book “Culture, iconosphere and liturgical singing of Muscovite Rus',” published in 2000, quotes from the work of the founder of the Jesuit order, Ignatius of Loyola, which clearly indicates that spiritual exercises in the Jesuit style are very a literal reproduction of Palestinian topography is desirable, albeit on a mental level.

Nikon, in fact, went even further, trying, as is known, to create an absolutely tangible “Holy Land” in the Moscow region, perhaps to ease the contemplative load on his own consciousness, burdened state affairs. These circumstances are ignored by both V. Schmidt and A. A. Eshchenko, the author of the article “Russian Palestine of Patriarch Nikon”, in the 3rd 2003 issue of the magazine of the Novgorod diocese “Sofia”.

A passage from V. Schmidt’s article is also connected with the historical territory of our diocese, causing greatest number perplexities per unit of printed area. We are talking about Nikon’s founding of the Cross Monastery on Kiy Island in Onega Bay White Sea. The author of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, talking about this, contradicts himself. First, V. Schmidt sets out the well-known legend about the founding of the monastery “by promise” on the island, where, as yet an unknown monk, Nikon was thrown out by a wave during a shipwreck and was saved from death. Below, however, it is said that “The Monastery of the Cross - the guardian and symbol of Holy Rus' in the North - was created to counter schismatic and Protestant tendencies, to strengthen the foundations of Orthodox statehood ... as a military fortress to protect the approaches to the mainland. Choosing a location near the Solovetsky Monastery, Apparently, it was also caused by the fact that Solovki, this powerful and rich citadel on the border of the Russian state, gravitated and finally joined the Old Believers, becoming a stronghold of anti-state forces throughout the 17th century."

Firstly, as already noted, the contradiction in the presentation of the reason for the construction of the monastery is surprising: it is unclear whether it was a purely religious gratitude to God for the miraculous salvation or a political calculation. There is no specific generalizing conclusion.

Secondly, in the Novgorod diocese in the 17th century there were hundreds of monasteries, many of which were much more ancient and famous than the newly created Krestny. Therefore, calling only the latter “the guardian and symbol of Holy Rus' in the North” is puzzling.

Thirdly, in historiography, according to my data, there is no information about the presence of a prison for “church disobedients” in the Cross Monastery, or about the conduct of special “anti-schism,” much less “anti-Protestant” missionary work by the island brethren. There was no book correspondence center here, not to mention a printing house.

Fourthly, it is quite strange to call the low wooden fence of the monastery with decorative turrets, which, by the way, is depicted in one of the illustrations in V. Schmidt’s article, a “military fortress”.

All of the above suggests that, paradoxically, the author of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate allowed excessive politicization of the spiritual work of Nikon, whom he deeply revered.

What V. Schmidt said about the Solovetsky Monastery deserves special consideration. It is not clear, in particular, how “before” and during the church reform of the 17th century. could one “gravitate towards the Old Believers”? After all, before the transformations, this spiritual movement did not exist, and in the process of reforms they could either be accepted or not (as the Solovetsky brethren did in 1658). Rejection of innovations initially limited the actions on Solovki of those forces that V. Schmidt calls “anti-state.” It is well known that the monastic “anti-power” activists wrote petitions full of self-deprecation to the tsar for a long time, and only after not receiving an answer to them did they decide to take armed opposition to the reformers, in order to preserve the antiquity that they revered as a saint. And even in 1674, at the height of the famous siege, one of the prominent leaders of the rebel monastery, Elder Gerontius, persuaded the monks “not to shoot at the sovereign’s people.”

On June 23 and 24, 2016, an international Old Believer conference was held in Moscow on the topic “ Old Believers, state and society in the modern world" Old Believers of all consents in Russia and abroad touched upon a number of problems of the Old Believers and modernity and shared their experiences.

A platform for an inter-Old Believer event, the format of which is similar to those held at the beginning of the 20th century. Old Believer congresses, spoke Moscow House of Nationalities on the basis of the Cultural and Pilgrimage Center named after. Archpriest Avvakum" and with the support state grant National Charitable Foundation.

Let us recall that the previous landmark event in the inter-Old Believers dialogue was the round table “Current problems of the Old Believers” in March current year, which was also attended by delegates from traditional Old Believer communities in Russia and neighboring countries.

The two-day conference was attended by representatives of the main Old Believer communities from Russia, as well as guests from near and far abroad. Official delegations of the Old Believer Accords took part in the conference events. Participants of the event came from Pskov, Rzhev, Ulan-Ude, Samara, Ulyanovsk, the Komi Republic, St. Petersburg, and Moscow. There were also representatives from the countries: Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, Australia, Bolivia and Ukraine.

Conference participants

The opening was attended by the primates of: Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' Korniliy (Titov) and the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexander (Kalinin). The Old Orthodox Pomeranian Church was represented by Chairman of the Central Council of the DOC of Latvia Fr. Alexey (Zhilko).

Conference Presidium

Metropolitan Korniliy, in his welcoming speech to the conference participants, noted what the Old Believers of different agreements had in common:

“...Despite the existing differences of opinion and territorial disunity, there remains a lot in common between us - this is a commitment to the historical roots of ancient Orthodoxy and a careful attitude to the history of the two-fingered Holy Rus', the preservation of the customs of ancient Russian culture and everyday traditions of the people and love for their Fatherland.”

His Eminence Cornelius, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus'

The Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church mentioned the above-mentioned round table, which became a predecessor in preparation for the conference, listing possible facets of interaction:

“Representatives of the three largest ancient Orthodox concords got together and agreed to leave disputes about faith and polemics about dogmas outside the scope of discussion and to discuss the basis of mutual cooperation and coordination of actions in dialogue with the state on the issues of revival of spiritual and moral values, as well as state assistance in the return and restoration of monuments architecture and cultural heritage, in the field social activities and in preparation for the four hundredth anniversary of the birth of Archpriest Avvakum.”

The Bishop also noted the possibility of jointly solving problems:

“With common cooperation, we would be able to solve such important problems as the preservation of Russian national culture, Russian and Old Church Slavonic languages, customs and foundations, which are the invaluable wealth of the peoples of Russia.”

The conference was also attended by four more Old Believer bishops, in addition to the primates of the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian Orthodox Church: Bishop Siluyan (Kilin), Novosibirsk and All Siberia, Bishop Zosima (Eremeev), Donskoy and Caucasus, Bishop Evmeniy (Mikheev), Kishinev and All Moldavia, and Bishop Vikenty (Novozhilov), Yaroslavl and Kostroma.

Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church. Photo protode. Alexandra Govorova

On the first day of the conference he spoke Archpriest Andrey Marchenko(RDC) with a report on the topic “Inter-Old Believer cooperation: past, present, prospects.” Chairman of the Central Council of the DOC of Latvia O. Alexey Nikolaevich Zhilko and Chairman of the Supreme Council of the DOC of Lithuania O. Grigory Boyarov talked about the priestless Old Believers in the Baltic countries and their experience of interaction with government authorities. Representatives of the Pomeranian Church Walter Walterovich Foth And Maxim Borisovich Pashinin talked about work public organization « Cultural and Pilgrimage Center named after. Archpriest Avvakum"over the past five years of its activity. Professor Mikhail Olegovich Shakhov spoke about the problems and prospects for the development of state-confessional relations. An Old Believer of the Chapel Concord, who moved from Bolivia to Primorye, Elisey Murachev spoke about the difficulties that displaced compatriots in Russia have to face.

Then the representative of the delegation from Romania, Professor Feodor Ivanovich Kirile shared 26 years of experience in the work of the Russian-Lipovan community in Romania and spoke about relations with society and the state and practical steps to preserve the spiritual connection with the traditions of Holy Rus'.

He spoke about his experience of working with youth, instilling Christian patriotism and cultural and moral education. Archpriest Evgeny Chunin(RPSC), and the priest Alexander Pankratov(RPSC) prepared a report on the prospects for creating an Old Believer pilgrimage center in Veliky Novgorod.

Priest Alexander (Pankratov) speaking

Archpriest Evgeny Chunin from Rzhev emphasized the importance of working with youth and children, one of the forms of which is pilgrimages:

“The most important and most difficult thing is to pass on the memory of our ancestors to our children. In this regard, Christian pilgrimages to holy places, springs, graves, places former temples and monasteries are the best means of persuasion even for unbelieving youth."

On Friday, June 24, the conference continued its work. Among the reports there was a speech Alexey Bezgodov(Deputy Chairman of the RS DOC) on the topic “Old Believer consent in modern Russia.” Alexey Muravyov(Professor High school Economics, Russian Orthodox Church) shared his vision of the principles and approaches to the study of the Old Believers at the present stage. Representative of the Rzhev Pokrovskaya community Vasily Gladyshev(RPSC) spoke about his experience in analyzing and analyzing anti-Old Believer programs and publications in the media and online publications.