In 1589, the Russian Church achieved complete independence, being organized in the form of a special patriarchate. In practice, she lived an independent life since the time of Metropolitan Jonah. But there still remained the nominal dependence of the Russian metropolitan on the patriarch. Now she too has turned out to be inappropriate, since Russia became a powerful power, and the patriarch was a subject of the Turkish Sultan. Added to this was suspicion regarding the integrity of Orthodoxy in Greece: around 1480, a promise was included in the bishop’s oath not to accept anyone from the Greeks, either to the metropolis or to the bishopric. In 1586, the Patriarch of Antioch arrived in Moscow for alms. Joachim; This was the first time one of the patriarchs came to Moscow. Taking advantage of his arrival, Tsar Theodore, at the council of the boyars and clergy, proposed a decisive idea: is it possible, through the help of the visiting saint, to organize a own patriarchal throne. This idea was approved by everyone. Joachim also approved of it, but noted that its implementation required the consent of all the Eastern patriarchs, and upon leaving Moscow he promised to try to do this.
Summer 1588 arrived in Moscow myselfConstantinople patriarchJeremiah, and the Russian government hastened to take advantage of his arrival for moredecisive formulation of the question of the Russian patriarchate. Jeremiah himself was first offered the position of patriarch in Moscow. But at the same time, they took into account the extreme inconvenience of having a Greek patriarch, who was treated with distrust, and who, moreover, did not know either the Russian language or Russian customs; on the other hand, neither the Tsar nor Godunov, who ruled over all affairs, wanted to remove Metropolitan Job, in whom they both felt complete trust. Therefore, the patriarch was offered to live not in Moscow, where Job was still left, but in Vladimir. Jeremiah did not agree to this, saying: what kind of patriarchy is this, that one should not live under the sovereign? Then they directly suggested that he put Patriarch Job. The ceremony of installation took place on January 26, 1589. When leaving Moscow, Jeremiah left here laid down the document on the establishment of the patriarchate by him and promised, upon returning to the east, to carry out this matter through the council of eastern hierarchs. The council took place in Constantinople in 1590, but, since the Patriarch of Alexandria was not on it Meletia Pigas(and this influential patriarch did not approve of the actions of Patriarch Jeremiah in Moscow, as committed without the authority of other patriarchs), then A council on the Patriarchate of Moscow was convened in Constantinople again in 1593 with the participation of Meletius. The Russian patriarchate was confirmed with the appointment of a fifth place for the new patriarch, after that of Jerusalem; the right to appoint Moscow patriarchs was entirely given to a council of local bishops.
44. Time of Troubles. Hieromartyr Patriarch Hermogenes. Election of the king.
At the end of the 16th century, the Rurik family died out , having cast out a holy martyr from among his midst, Dimitry IoannovichUglitsky, killed by supporters of Boris Godunov (1591). After the death of the last Rurikovich, Tsar Theodore (1598), he sat on the Moscow throne boyar Godunov, but did not manage to become the founder of a new dynasty. The mysterious impostor, the shadow of the murdered Demetrius, stopped this dynasty at its very beginning, and Time of Troubles , a time of difficult trials for both the Russian land and the Russian Church, but at the same time also a time of discovery of their irresistible inner power.
The appearance of an impostor was a terrible event, both for the state and for the Orthodox Church, because he became an instrument of the Jesuits and Catholic propaganda. Wanting to find support for himself in the powerful Jesuit order, he allowed himself to be converted to Catholicism. At the beginning of 1604 in Krakow, the papal nuncio took from him an oath of obedience to the Roman throne. In his message to the pope, False Demetrius promised to convert all of Russia to Catholicism.
Patriarch Job rebelled against the impostor with all his firmness. He sent letters to Prince Ostrog, the Polish nobility and clergy with an admonition not to believe False Demetrius, anathematized him, ordered a letter to be read in all churches, which proved that False Demetrius was none other than the runaway monk of the Chudov Monastery Grigory Otrepiev , and all who stand for him were given over to damnation. After the death of Boris, the patriarch began to act just as zealously in favor of his son Boris Theodora. IN 1605 Having taken possession of Moscow, the followers of the impostor, first of all, began to overthrow the patriarch: Having burst into the Assumption Cathedral during the liturgy, they tore Job’s holy clothes off, dressed him in the cassock of a simple monk and took him to the Staritsky Monastery, where he remained until his death.(+ 1607). Tsar Theodore was killed, and an impostor ascended the Russian throne.
In Job's place, the new king himself, without a council of saints, erected Ryazan ArchbishopIgnatius,originally a Greek, inclined towards union. Jesuits came from Poland and, in one house allocated for them, began to freely perform their Catholic worship in the Kremlin itself. The new tsar, having surrounded himself with Poles and Germans, from the very beginning of his stay in Moscow began to offend the Orthodox and patriotic feelings of the Russians: he allowed people of other faiths to freely enter Orthodox churches, prayed poorly to God, and did not observe fasts. There were rumors among the people that he was a heretic; there were people who accused him of heresy to his face; their willingness to suffer for truth and faith clearly showed how alarmed the masses were.
From the pope, one after another, messages were sent to him with persistent exhortations to quickly enlighten the Russian people, sitting in darkness and the shadow of death. Meanwhile, False Demetrius had to ask the pope to allow Marina herself, the future queen, to conceal her Catholicism under the guise of observing Greek rituals. In Rome they were angry about this, but in Moscow it turned out to be difficult to leave Marina as a secret Catholic. Kazan Metropolitan Hermogenes and Kolomna bishop Joseph They resolutely demanded that Marina be rebaptized into Orthodoxy before her marriage, otherwise the Tsar’s marriage to her would be illegal. The king managed to get rid of these strict zealots by forcing Joseph to remain silent and sending Hermogenes from the capital to Kazan. But it was not so easy to get rid of the people's excitement. Marriage to Marina became a fatal event for the impostor. During the wedding celebrations, the Polish gentry who came to Moscow irritated the entire people with their riots. On the night of May 17, 1606, general irritation finally broke through with a popular uprising, among which the impostor was killed. Following this, he was immediately overthrown andPatriarch Ignatius.
The culprit of the coup, the prince, ascended the throne Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, A Hermogenes of Kazan was elected patriarch. Before his priesthood in Kazan, he was a priest of the Kazan Gostinodvorsky Church of St. Nicholas, and in this rank he was the first to serve in 1579 the appearance of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God, receiving it from the land where it was found, then he took monastic vows in the Kazan Spassky Monastery and was an archimandrite here, finally, in 1589 he was made metropolitan of Kazan. During his patriarchate, he was an unshakable pillar of church and state. In his honest frankness, he was not entirely at odds with the petty and two-minded Shuisky, but these personal relationships did not prevent him from standing firmly for the latter as a God-given king.
Even before the election of the patriarch, when rumors began to circulate about a second impostor, there were The relics of Tsarevich Dimitri were solemnly transferred to Moscow from Uglich. The new patriarch, first of all, sent letters of admonition throughout Russia to the people and to the rebels themselves, who rose up in the name of the new impostor in Seversk Ukraine; then, together with the king, he resorted to a new means of influencing the people, appointing in the Assumption Cathedral a ceremony of popular repentance. The already blind and decrepit Patriarch Job was deliberately summoned from Staritsa for her. A touching letter was drawn up, which set out on behalf of the people the confession of treason, perjury, murder, desecration of the shrine and other zemstvo sins since the death of Tsar Theodore. But this ceremony did not produce the desired results. The excitement in the name of Demetrius was growing, even though the impostor himself was not yet present. Finally, such a person was found and, with the help of Poles, Cossacks and various Russian traitors, he approached Moscow and established himself 12 versts from it in the village. Tushino. The noble Pan Mniszech recognized him as his son-in-law, and Marina as her husband; Jesuit brothers also appeared around him. In Poland they wrote him a whole order on how to act to spread Catholicism in Russia.
Patriarch Hermogenes approved of the tsar, exhorted the boyars and people to be faithful, pointed out the dangers for Orthodoxy from the Poles and cursed the traitors to the faith and the lawful tsar. But, on the other hand, it had an extremely seductive effect on Moscow and Tushino, breeding treason in it and undermining the importance of Vasily Shuisky.
Taking advantage of the turmoil that arose in Russia, King Sigismund demanded the Moscow crown for his son Vladislav And in the fall of 1609 he besieged Smolensk. The people of Smolny vowed to stand for the faith and the tsar until death. Of the Russians, the Tushins were the first to side with Sigismund. Abandoned by the Poles and the weakened impostor, they entered into an agreement with Sigismund and recognized Vladislav as king. Then a party was formed in favor of the prince in Moscow itself. Even at the beginning of 1609, those dissatisfied with the king dragged Hermogenes to the execution place and, shaking him by the collar, demanded his consent to change the king. The Patriarch was not afraid of the crowd and honestly stood up for Shuisky. This time the attempt to overthrow Vasily failed. But when the king was suspected of mysterious death Skopin, when the Russian troops, having lost their beloved leader, were defeated by the Poles, it was no longer possible for the patriarch to save Vasily. In July 1610, crowds of people, raised by Zakhar Lyapunov, Saltykov and other boyars, overthrew him from the throne; then the overthrown king was forcibly tonsured a monk.
Thereupon he immediately stood up the question of electing a new king; the mob wanted the Tushino thief; the patriarch proposed to choose a tsar from among the boyars, Prince. Vasily Golitsyn or Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov, son Filaret; The boyars were drawn to Poland, they wanted Vladislav to be king. The last game won. Ambassadors were sent to Smolensk for final negotiations with the king. The Patriarch had to agree to the wishes of the dominant party and only managed to insist that the ambassadors make Vladislav’s conversion to the Orthodox faith a necessary condition. The ambassadors stood firm in their demands that Vladislav convert to Orthodoxy. In April 1611, the ambassadors, by order of the irritated king, were sent to Marienburg as prisoners. Smolensk still continued to defend itself, reinforced by Voivode Shein and the admonitions of the ArchbishopSergius. When he was finally taken, Shein and Sergius were also taken to Lithuania.
Rumors about the claims of the Poles to the Moscow state and about future dangers to the faith created great excitement among the people. The Patriarch appealed to the Orthodox for paternal protection. A touching letter was sent out from Moscow everywhere, in which, exhorting cities to unite against a common enemy, Muscovites exposed the religious unity of all Russian people and the sacred significance of Moscow. The Patriarch stood at the head of the entire zemstvo movement; Apart from him, the cities did not want to know any other authorities. Saltykov, Masalsky and other boyars of the Polish party in Moscow were very angry with Hermogenes. At the same time as the ambassadors were taken prisoner, the Poles and Saltykov made a last attempt to persuade the patriarch to return the zemstvo army marching towards Moscow, and heard a decisive refusal from him. “I bless everyone,” said the patriarch, “to complete the work begun, for I see the trampling of the true faith from heretics and from you, traitors, and the destruction of God’s holy churches, and I cannot hear the singing of Latin in Moscow.” After that he was put in custody in the Chudov Monastery and deprived of all means of communicating with the people.
The first urban uprising failed. After the death of the zemstvo leader Prokopija Lyapunova, killed by the Cossacks, the militia dispersed, and the misfortunes of the Russian land increased even more. Moscow remained in the hands of the Poles. But after the first zemstvo militia, another soon rose up, formed at the appeal of the Nizhny Novgorod zemstvo elder Kozma Minina and under the command of the princePozharsky. Patriarch Hermogenes from his prison blessed the zemstvo army for the last time and soon (January 17, 1612) died, as they think, of starvation. At the head of the Russian Church, on the advice of all ranks of people, Kazan was installed metropolitanEphraim (however, without the patriarchal rank). On October 22, 1612, Moscow was finally liberated.
Moscow was cleared, but the royal throne remained empty. Letters were sent to cities with an invitation to send authorities and elected officials to Moscow for a great cause. After three days of fasting began cathedrals. They began to choose among their own. One day, a nobleman from Galich brought a written opinion to the council, which said that he was closest in kinship to the former kings Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov, he should be elected king. The voices of dissatisfied people were heard: “Who brought such a letter, who, where from?” At this time, the Don Ataman comes out and also submits a written opinion. “What did you submit, chieftain?” - Prince Dimitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky asked him. “About the natural king Mikhail Feodorovich,” answered the ataman. The same opinion expressed by the nobleman and the Don Cossack had a strong effect on voters. On February 21, 1613, the week of Orthodoxy, there was the last council: each rank submitted a written opinion, and all these opinions were found similar, all ranks pointed to one person - Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov. Then Ryazan Archbishop Theodoret, Trinity cellarer Abraham Palitsyn, Novospassky Archimandrite Joseph and boyar Vasily Petrovich Morozov went to the execution place and asked the people filling Red Square: who do they want as king? - The people unanimously exclaimed: “Mikhail Feodorovich.”
The ambassadors of the Zemsky Sobor arrived in Kostroma on March 14, raising icons brought from Moscow, and miraculous Feodorovskaya icon of the Mother of God, from the Kostroma Assumption Cathedral, everyone went in procession to Ipatiev Monastery, where the chosen king lived with his mother, nun Martha Ivanovna. They met the image behind the monastery; but when the ambassadors told them why they had been sent, Mikhail answered “with great anger and crying” that he did not want to be a sovereign, and his mother Martha added that she did not bless her son for the kingdom. In the church, the ambassadors presented Michael and his mother with letters from the cathedral and made speeches as ordered, but received the same answer. Finally, the sacred ranks, holding up honorable crosses and miraculous icons in their hands, approached Michael with them, and Theodoret said firmly: “Do not resist the will of God: it was not we who undertook this feat, but the Most Pure Mother of God loved you; be ashamed of Her coming.” . Then Michael threw himself to the ground in front of the miraculous icons of the Mother of God and, sobbing, said: “If it is Your will, I am Your servant, save and keep me.” Then, standing up and turning to the ambassadors, he said: “If it is the will of God for this matter, so be it.” So it happened accession of Mikhail Feodorovich in the Kostroma Ipatiev Monastery on the 14th day of March 1613, from that very time until now solemnly celebrated by the Church in honor of the Theodore Icon of the Mother of God.
Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation
University of Moscow
Department of History of State and Law
on the topic “History of the Patriarchate in Russia”
Moscow 2012
Introduction
1. Establishment of the Patriarchate in Russia
2. Revival of the patriarchate after 1917
3. Patriarchs of All Rus'
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
In the political system of medieval Russia, the church occupied one of the central places. Church administration was built on the mud of the secular. Boyars and armed servants were in the service of the church hierarchs. The structure and competence of the church organization, its administrative and judicial powers were determined by a special legal system- church law. The church's land and other wealth ensured its relative economic independence from the state and allowed it to play an important political role. The position of the medieval church organization can be defined as a state within a state. In such a situation, it became natural for the state to strive to include church institutions in general structure state apparatus, to solve a certain range of problems at the expense of the church.
Since the middle of the 16th century, church policy pursued by the state was aimed at limiting the privileges of the church organization. The most pressing issues became the issue of church land ownership, judicial and religious rights, and the intervention of the church in state affairs.
The purpose of the work is to study the emergence and restoration of the institution of patriarchy in Russia.
In accordance with this, the work tasks are defined:
study the history of the emergence and renewal of the patriarchate in Russia
Name and define the main contribution of the patriarchs from the emergence of the patriarchate to the present day.
Analyze the activities of the Patriarchs of Moscow and All Rus'.
1. Establishment of the Patriarchate in Russia
The patriarchate in Rus' was introduced in 1589 under Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, the son of Ivan the Terrible. By this time, the Russian state had calmed down from internal and external troubles, and together with the rise of the autocratic power of the Moscow Tsar and the expansion of the state border of Russia, the Russian Church spread and rose in its external position. In territorial and material terms, the Moscow Metropolis was superior to many patriarchates, and often the Jerusalem, Antioch and other patriarchs came to Moscow for alms; in addition, the Patriarch of Constantinople, after the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks (1453), was heavily dependent on the Turkish Sultan. In such conditions, the patriarchs understood the request of the Russian Tsar, the pious Theodore Ioannovich, to free the Russian Church from subordination to the Patriarch of Constantinople and to give the Russian Metropolitan the rank of Patriarch.
Moscow Metropolitan Job became the first patriarch. Patriarchal worship was introduced, the high priest received special clothes.
When Tsar Theodore Ioannovich took care of the establishment of the patriarchate, he, in pious zeal, wanted to exalt the Russian Church with this high rank, and the Providence of God prepared in the person of patriarchs for the Russian Church and the people guardians and champions of the Orthodox faith. The patriarchate was introduced shortly before the beginning of the Time of Troubles. In the terrible time of impostors, when Russia was almost destroyed by anarchy and foreign power, it was the patriarch, who enjoyed the highest respect and authority among the Russian people, who alone directed the actions of the people towards the salvation of Russia.
Patriarch Job took an active part in defending the independence of the country: he sent out a letter so that prayers would be served daily in churches for the success of Tsar Boris Godunov over the impostor, he denounced those in the church who violated the oath to the Russian Tsar, and asked the boyars to admonish the people. At a time when many swore allegiance to the impostor, Patriarch Job remained firm, for which he suffered reproach. When Moscow was captured by supporters of the impostor, the villains broke into the altar during the Liturgy and began to tear Job’s holy clothes; then, after many tortures, the saint was imprisoned in a monastery.
The second Russian patriarch, Hermogenes, occupied the patriarchal throne in 1607-1612. He showed an example of pastoral firmness and steadfastness in Orthodoxy even in the rank of Metropolitan of Kazan: the saint adamantly demanded that the wife of False Dmitry, Marina Mnishek, accept Orthodoxy; for this he was removed from Moscow to the diocese.
Having become a patriarch, Hermogenes supported Tsar Vasily Shuisky in every possible way in the fight against the second impostor, and even when the rebellious boyars forcibly tonsured Vasily as a monk, he did not stop praying for him as a crowned tsar. Saint Hermogenes came up with the idea of calling the young boyar Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom. Russia also owes him the fact that the trick of the Polish king Sigismund III, who wanted to reign in Moscow himself under the name of his son, failed; the patriarch adamantly demanded that Vladislav accept Orthodoxy and that Sigismund, his father, not interfere in the affairs of Russia.
Saint Hermogenes blessed the Russian people to gather a militia against the Poles for the salvation of faith and fatherland and in his messages exhorted the people to stand firmly for the Orthodox faith, knowing full well that the impostor and the Poles want not only to obtain the Russian throne, but also to replace Orthodoxy in Russia with Catholicism. Prokopiy Lyapunov, the governor of Ryazan, was the first to respond to the patriarch’s call. In vain they threatened Saint Hermogenes with death if he did not stop the militia - the saint refused. Then the patriarch was imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery in Moscow and in February 1612 he was starved to death.
300 years after his painful death, in 1913, under Emperor Nicholas II, Patriarch Hermogenes was canonized by the Church.
Thus, the first patriarchs, Saints Job and Hermogenes, showed by their feat spiritual meaning patriarchate for the Russian Church and Russia.
In the 17th century the most famous patriarch was Patriarch Nikon. His name is associated with the extraordinary growth of the power of the patriarch and the emergence of the Old Believer schism. Patriarch Nikon, being a friend of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, enjoyed his unlimited trust and during the tsar’s departures he ruled the state in his stead. For his services, the tsar honored Nikon with the title of great sovereign. The influence of Patriarch Nikon on the tsar was so significant that later Peter I, remembering the example of Nikon, who believed that “the priesthood is higher than the kingdom,” and fearing that the power of the patriarch would limit the autocratic power of the tsar, abolished the patriarchate.
The most important church reform during Nikon’s patriarchate was the so-called “book right,” i.e., the correction of errors made by illiterate copyists of liturgical books. The identification of these errors began a long time ago, and by the time Nikon became patriarch, the Russian bishops recognized the need to correct liturgical books and rituals. The most important ritual deviations of the Russian Church from the Greek tradition were seen in the following: at the service they sang “Hallelujah” twice instead of three times, they were baptized with two fingers instead of three, etc. In addition, the copyists of liturgical books made mistakes in the spelling of words, which distorted their dogmatic meaning. The council of bishops, convened by Patriarch Nikon, ordered all the old books in the churches to be burned and new ones, corrected and approved by the council, to be introduced.
The Old Believer schism arose as a refusal of some believers to submit to the patriarch and the council of bishops due to adherence to old books and rituals. Nikon’s personal enemies and defenders of antiquity scolded the introduced “innovations” and spread rumors among the people that the patriarch-antichrist was “spoiling the faith.” Among the unenlightened people, loyalty to the familiar turned out to be stronger voices mind. The essence of the schism was pride and ignorance, attachment to the letter and ritual, and not to the spirit of Christian doctrine.
For resistance to the ongoing reform, many champions of antiquity, among whom was the famous archpriest Avvakum, were sent into exile, and then some leaders and ideologists of the Old Believers were executed.
2. Revival of the patriarchate after 1917
the year was marked by the 95th anniversary of both two Russian revolutions and the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church. At one time it was abolished by Emperor Peter the Great after the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700. In 1721, with the consent of the Eastern Patriarchs, the highest body of church government was established in Russia - the Holy Governing Synod. A state control body over church affairs was also created.
At the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, opinions were increasingly heard among the clergy about the non-canonical nature of the Synod, about the “dominance” of the state in church affairs and about the need to reform internal church governance. Accordingly, the question arose about changing the relationship between the Church and the state. His decision began to be associated with the convening of the Local Council of the Russian Church. From the beginning of 1905, at the level of the Committee of Ministers and the Holy Synod, discussions began on the prospects for convening a Church Council. At the end of March of the same year, the Synod decided to petition the emperor to convene an All-Russian Council of Diocesan Bishops in Moscow to establish the patriarchate and discuss changes in church government. However, Nicholas II, who initially supported the idea of convening the Council, refused.
Fear of responsibility leads Orthodox believers to the dream of strong power
The relations between the state and the Church, established over two centuries, were consolidated by a number of legislative acts, the revision of which was an extremely difficult task. The destruction of the synodal system and the implementation of radical changes in church administration threatened to break the union of the empire and the Orthodox Church and even lead to the separation of the latter from the state. The restructuring of the religious foundation of the monarchy was fraught with the collapse of the entire edifice of the Orthodox state. Therefore, Nicholas II, following the advice of Chief Prosecutor Konstantin Pobedonostsev, not only was in no hurry to carry out church reforms, but also carried out a policy of “freezing”, leaving state-church relations unchanged.
State religious policy underwent major changes after April 17, 1905. On that day - in the context of the growing mass left-radical movement - the emperor issued a Decree “On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance.” According to it, all Russian subjects were given the right to profess any religion, and all religions of Russia were equal in rights. At the same time, the dominant position of the Church in the state worsened compared to what it had before the issuance of this royal decree: the Orthodox faith turned out to be the only one among all confessions that retained an inextricable connection with the state apparatus. The state did not interfere in the internal affairs of other confessions.
At the end of July 1905, Pobedonostsev turned to the Russian episcopate with a request to send to the Synod its proposals for reforms in the Church. Feedback from bishops was received by the spiritual department from the end of October 1905 until the beginning of spring of the following year. It turned out that almost the entire episcopate demanded reforms concerning the canonical structure of the Church and aimed at liberating it from state dependence. Almost everyone spoke about the non-canonical nature of the synodal system and the need to convene a Local Council.
On December 1905, the Emperor addressed the Chairman of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg with a rescript on the need to carry out reforms in the structure of the Church. Metropolitan Anthony, together with the Metropolitans of Moscow and Kyiv, was asked to determine the timing of the convening of the Council.
For a preliminary consideration of the issues of church reform scheduled for discussion at the planned Council, on January 14, 1906, the Holy Synod decided to create a special commission - the Pre-Conciliar Presence. Its members included representatives of the episcopate, priests and famous theologians. The presence operated from March 6 to December 15, 1906.
It was decided to recommend to the future Local Council the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Church. On June 3, the Presence adopted the document “On the attitude of the Supreme Government of the Orthodox Russian Church to the Supreme State Power.” It outlined the rights of the future Patriarch. In general, the Pre-Conciliar Presence proposed to reduce the imperial influence in the life of the Church: on the one hand, so that the state would continue to perform all political, financial, security and other functions for the Russian Church. On the other hand, so that the rights of the Church not only expand significantly, but so that it gains self-government. At the same time, in the decrees of the Presence, the principle of church structure was not the principle of conciliarity (that is, participation in the management of the Church in addition to the hierarchs of the white clergy and laity), but the sovereignty of the episcopate. Taking into account the plans to introduce the patriarchate, there was a desire to strengthen the power of the bishops.
The Pre-Conciliar Conference, which worked from February 28, 1912 to April 3, 1913, continued the same line. Its members decided to maintain the model of church-state relations previously proposed by the Pre-Conciliar Presence. However, it was proposed to increase the power of the chairman of the Holy Synod (the Patriarch), giving him the right to “managerially” control the work of all central church institutions. In general, in the scheme of church-state relations, which was defended by the hierarchy, the Patriarch was thought of as a person actually not under the control of the emperor, who, in a sense, is not “with” the king (as one of the closest advisers), but “opposite” the king - as a certain "counterweight" to him.
It is clear that if any (even minor) disagreements arose between the church and state authorities, the Patriarch could go into opposition to the tsar. At the same time, he would actually be “out of reach” for the emperor: in the case of, for example, the trial of the Patriarch, hierarchs of the Eastern Churches “equal in rank” should be invited to consider his case (as in the case of Patriarch Nikon in 1666). And the state would be threatened by the possibility of a church-political split, similar to the schism of the 17th century, which, given the growing revolutionary movement, could serve as a catalyst for the revolution.
At the beginning of the twentieth century Russian society in the fight against autocracy, he achieved the convening of the State Duma and received certain civil liberties. But at the same time, the interests of the Orthodox Church were not taken into account, which was left practically alone with its unresolved problems. The clergy, due to their social position, could not accept those methods of struggle for reforms that were used by society: participation in the strike movement and the use of methods of armed struggle. However, the clergy of the Russian Church could exert an ideological influence on the political consciousness of the multi-million Russian peasantry. And during the February Revolution, the clergy widely took advantage of this opportunity in order to legitimize in the minds of the flock the overthrow of the monarchy in order to achieve their goals of gaining independence (“alienation”) from the state
The long-awaited Local Council opened on August 15. Four days earlier, a decree of the Provisional Government on the rights of the Council was published. The bill he developed “On a new order of free self-government of the Russian Church” was to be submitted “to the respect” of the state authorities. That is, theoretically, the Provisional Government could refuse to sanction the conciliar resolution on the form of intra-church government. In this sense, the Local Council was legally unfree.
The Local Council (the highest governing body in the Church) that opened in Moscow on August 15, 1917 attracted public attention. To participate in it, 564 people were elected and appointed: 80 bishops, 129 priests, 10 deacons, 26 psalm-readers, 20 monastics (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity. It was perceived as the Church Constituent Assembly. The cathedral worked for more than a year. During this period, three of its sessions took place: the first - from August 15 to December 9, 1917, the second and third - in 1918: from January 20 (February 2) to April 7 (20) and from June 19 (July 2) to 7 (20) September.
In October 1917, the Council began discussing a report on the form of higher church government. The opinions of the Council participants were divided: some (mainly the episcopate) advocated the restoration of the patriarchate, others (ordinary clergy and laity) were opponents of such an idea, insisting on the need for conciliarity. Moreover, for almost two weeks the fate of this issue was unclear. However, the situation changed after news from Petrograd: on October 25, the Provisional Government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, and the next day a new one was formed - the Council of People's Commissars. Moreover, the Church did not defend the Provisional Government in any way, although in March 1917 it declared it “faithful”, an authority “from God” and led the people to swear allegiance to it.
The Council responded to the October revolution, according to Boris Titlinov, a professor at the Petrograd Theological Academy, “first of all, by accelerating the establishment of the patriarchate.” Indeed, after the departure of the Provisional Government from the political scene, the need to present to it “for respect” a conciliar resolution on the form of intra-church government disappeared. The interests of the new rulers of the state in those days were far from church topics: they faced the primary question of retaining power. Representatives of the “bishop’s party” took advantage of the temporary lack of control on the part of the authorities. Against the backdrop of the shooting that began on the streets of Moscow on October 28, which arose as a result of the anti-Soviet uprising of the cadets who seized the Kremlin, the opinions of the Council participants began to lean in favor of the patriarchate.
October, the discussions were over and the question of restoring the patriarchate was put to a vote. The corresponding resolution was adopted by an absolute majority of votes. It stated four points: 1) The Local Council, convened periodically at certain times and consisting of bishops, clergy and laity, has the highest power in the Russian Church - legislative, judicial, administrative and controlling; 2) the patriarchate and patriarchal government of the Church are restored again; 3) The Patriarch is the first among bishops equal to him; 4) The Patriarch, together with church governing bodies, is accountable to the Local Council.
and on October 31, three candidates for Patriarchs were determined by secret ballot: Archbishops of Kharkov Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Arseny of Novgorod (Stadnitsky) and Metropolitan of Moscow Tikhon (Belavin). On November 5, 1917, by drawing lots in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, Tikhon was elected Patriarch. But only two days later - on the 8th - the Local Council adopted the “Definition on the rights and duties of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.” In particular, the “first bishop” was vested with the powers of a representative of the Church before the state and had a “duty of sorrow before the state authorities.” The fact that the Patriarch was elected, but his rights and duties were unclear, serves as an indication that supporters of the “bishop’s party” were in a hurry to restore the patriarchate.
A few days later, on November 21, Patriarch Tikhon was enthroned. In the Russian Church, essentially unlimited power of the “church monarch” appeared, accountable only to the Local Council.
The Council formulated its vision of state-church relations in the definition “On the legal status of the Orthodox Russian Church,” adopted on December 2, 1917. It was literally drawn up in a form imperative to the new (Soviet) government. It proposed to give the Church the public legal status of the “primary” denomination in the country, to ensure the right to self-determination and self-government, and to provide the opportunity for legislative activity (in cases where government decrees affected church interests). Church property was recognized as not subject to confiscation and taxation, and the state was expected to receive annual allocations within the limits of church needs. It was proposed to exempt clergy and full-time clergy from various duties (primarily from military duties), elevate the Orthodox calendar to the rank of the state calendar, recognize church holidays as non-public (weekend) days, reserve the right of maintaining metric books for the Church, and preserve the mandatory nature of teaching the Law of God for Orthodox students in all educational institutions, etc. In general, the clergy demanded significant privileges for themselves, but did not prescribe any of their responsibilities to the state.
On December 1917, the Council adopted a resolution concerning church governance “On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council.” These bodies, together with the Patriarch, were given the right to manage church affairs. All of them were accountable to periodically convened Local Councils, to which they were obliged to submit a report on their activities during the inter-council period.
The next day, November 8, the Council adopted a definition “On the range of affairs subject to the jurisdiction of the bodies of the highest church government.” According to it, the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod included matters primarily related to the internal life of the Church, in particular “the highest supervision and care for the inviolable preservation of the dogmas of the faith and their correct interpretation in the sense of the teachings of the Orthodox Church; protection of the text of the liturgical books, supervision of its correction and translation.” Before the revolution, “the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the ruling faith, the guardian of orthodoxy and all holy deanery in the Church,” as God’s anointed one, was the emperor. Thus, the tsar's ecclesiastical powers were fully transferred to the clergy.
Having established a Patriarch for himself - a “church monarch”, towering with his rank above the secular, deprived sacred meaning"kingdom", the clergy achieved their goals: the royal power was overthrown and, in fact, the patriarchal power was established in its place.
The new government, established in Russia in October 1917, began to pursue a well-known “religious” policy aimed at the complete separation of Church and state. The decree of the Soviet government “On freedom of conscience, church and religious societies” (or “On the separation of the Church from the state and the school from the Church”), adopted on January 20 (February 2), 1918, spoke of the deprivation of the rights of the Russian Church and all religious organizations legal entity and the separation of the school from the Church. The status of the Orthodox Church was equal to that of private societies and unions; it was denied any subsidies from the state; its property was declared public property. In other words, she was given the “freedom from state influence” she had long desired. However, this was “freedom” raised by the Bolsheviks to an absolute: the Church was not granted “distance” from the state (which the clergy themselves had advocated since the beginning of the 20th century), but complete “separation” from it.
3. Patriarchs of All Rus'
Table 1. Patriarchs of all Rus'
JOB<#"justify">.JOB (in the world John) (1589-1605) - the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
In 1587-1589. - Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus'. Boris Godunov, in political interests, put forward the idea of establishing a patriarchal throne in Russia. Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich supported this proposal and turned to the Eastern patriarchs with a request to establish the Moscow Patriarchate, installing a Russian patriarch. The consent of the eastern patriarchs was obtained in 1588 after long and persistent negotiations. The Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah, who came to Moscow for “alms” (money to pay tribute to Turkey), was actually forced to establish a patriarchal throne here. Job was named on January 23, 1589, and made patriarch on January 26.
Job's main task was to carry out the reforms in the Russian Church outlined by the Council Code of 1589. Almost all episcopal sees were raised in rank, and several new ones were opened. Job elevated to the rank of four metropolitans, five archbishops (out of six) and one bishop for the seven planned new dioceses. He established church-wide holidays for some previously recognized saints and canonized a number of new ones. The Patriarch contributed to the spread of Christianity among foreigners in Siberia, the Kazan region, and the Korel region (Karelia). In Moscow, in order to establish greater deanery among the lower clergy, eight priestly elders were established.
After the death of Tsar Fedor in 1598, Job found himself at the head of the state. He proposed to the Zemsky Sobor to make Boris Godunov king. During the period of the struggle against False Dmitry I, Job called on the people to war for faith and the fatherland (January 1605). After the death of Boris Godunov, he organized an oath to the young Tsar Fyodor Borisovich. But peasants and townspeople, Cossacks and serfs, nobles and priests, boyars and bishops recognized False Dmitry (Dmitry Ivanovich) as the legitimate sovereign of all Rus'. The Patriarch was driven out of the Assumption Cathedral in disgrace by the crowd. He turned out to be the only bishop who refused to recognize the new tsar, despite the requests and threats of False Dmitry. Job was exiled to the Staritsky Assumption Monastery, where were kept under strict supervision. In February 1607, together with the new Patriarch Hermogenes, he sent a farewell and permissive letter throughout the country, absolving the people of all previous perjuries and calling on them to faithfully serve the new Tsar - Vasily Shuisky (who came to the throne after the death of False Dmitry). In the same year, Job died in the Staritsky Monastery. Canonized.
IGNATIUS (1605-1606) - second Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
Greek origin. First he was an archbishop in Cyprus, then he lived in Rome. Arrived in Moscow as an envoy of the Patriarch of Constantinople for the royal wedding of Boris Godunov. In 1603 he became bishop of Ryazan and Murom. In 1605, he was the first of the Russian archbishops to meet False Dmitry in Tula as a tsar. After the accession of False Dmitry I, a council of the Russian clergy removed Job from the throne, unanimously electing Ignatius as patriarch. After the murder of False Dmitry in 1606, the council of hierarchs deprived Ignatius of not only the patriarchal, but also the priesthood, sending him as a simple monk to the Chudov Monastery. In 1611, during the Polish rule in Moscow, Ignatius was released from the monastery and again recognized as patriarch. A few months later he fled to Poland, settled in Vilna and accepted the union (that is, while maintaining almost all dogmas and rituals Orthodox Church recognized the primacy of the Pope). Publicly renounced Orthodoxy. Subsequently, Ignatius’s grave was destroyed during the capture of Vilna by Russian troops.
HERMOGENES (in the world - Ermolai) (1606-1612) - third Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
From the metropolitans of Kazan. He was elevated by Tsar Vasily Shuisky to the place of the deposed Patriarch Ignatius. During the uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov, he convinced the people to stand for Shuisky, placing a curse on Bolotnikov and his supporters. After the deposition of Shuisky, he became an active opponent of the Poles and was imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery, where he died of hunger.
Hermogenes was an outstanding church writer and preacher, one of the most educated people of his time. Under him, a new printing house was erected in Moscow, a printing press was installed, and books were printed.
FILARET (Romanov Fedor Nikitich) (1619-1633) - fourth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
From the metropolitans of Rostov and Yaroslavl. A major statesman. Father and co-ruler of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, nephew of Ivan the Terrible's first wife Anastasia.
False Dmitry II was “named” patriarch and in this capacity in 1608-1610. ruled the church on lands subject to the impostor. In October 1610, Filaret became part of the embassy upon the calling of the Polish prince Vladislav to the Russian throne. For his irreconcilable position on the issue of the unconditional preservation of Orthodoxy in Rus', he was arrested and sent to Poland, where he remained until the summer of 1619. In 1613, Philaret’s son Mikhail Fedorovich reigned on the Russian throne. Until his return from Poland, the name of the “Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia,” the “great sovereign” Filaret Nikitich, was commemorated in churches along with the name of the tsar and his mother, the “great old nun Marfa Ivanovna” (Filaret’s wife). At the same time, Metropolitan Jonah of Krutitsa “observed” the patriarchal throne for his arrival.
In June 1619, Filaret, who returned from captivity, was solemnly greeted near Moscow by the tsar, the court, the clergy, and crowds of people, and a few days later he was ordained by the Jerusalem Patriarch Theophan to the rank of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. Until his death, Filaret was the official co-ruler of his son. His patriarchal diocese covered more than 40 cities with suburbs and counties, and was governed by secular officials in the patriarchal orders (Palace, Treasury, Court, Razryadny). Filaret possessed enormous (unparalleled either before or after him) archpastoral power. He authorized the creation of a “Tale” about the emergence of the patriarchate in Russia, where the patriarch was declared the representative of God on earth.
Under Filaret, two Zemsky Councils were convened (in 1619 and 1632), the Tobolsk and Siberian archdioceses were established, a Greek school for children was opened, and book printing developed. In 1619-1630 The publication of a major work was prepared - the 12-volume Menya Menstruation.
One of the most powerful patriarchs of Moscow and all Rus', Filaret, was distinguished by his justice and hostility to fanaticism and greed.
JOASAPH I (1634-1640) - fifth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
From the archbishops of Pskov. He was recommended by Patriarch Filaret as a successor to the patriarchal throne. Under Joasaph I, the importance of patriarchal power decreased. The name of the patriarch ceased to be mentioned in royal decrees on state and even church affairs.
Under Joasaph I, the correction and publication of liturgical books continued: 23 editions were published. To stop disputes about places between hierarchs, the Patriarch published the “Ladder to Powers,” in which he determined the procedure for occupying places during worship and at councils.
JOSEPH (1642-1652) - sixth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
From the archimandrites of the Simonov Monastery. He was elected patriarch “by lot, and not by royal will.” He began his activity with the publication of “Instructions” for the clergy and laity. In 1644 he took part in a famous dispute about faith with Lutherans, caused by the alleged marriage of Princess Irina Mikhailovna with the Danish prince Voldemar (a Lutheran).
Joseph showed himself to be a limited, ignorant man and selfish. Did not enjoy the favor of Tsar Michael Fedorovich, who did not even involve him in the ceremonial transfer of the relics of St. Alexander of Svirsky. Joseph was forced to allow the creation of the sovereign's Monastic Order, which curtailed the rights of the patriarch himself.
Joseph's position changed with the accession of Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his great father, shepherd, great saint and sovereign. Together with the tsar, the patriarch approved the discovery of the relics of some Russian saints. By the decrees of the Tsar and the Patriarch, the authenticity of the miraculous icons was certified, and the All-Russian holiday of Our Lady of Kazan was established. Being an opponent of the church “multiharmony” beloved by the tsar, Joseph could not achieve its abolition and was forced to give in.
Joseph actively encouraged printing. Under him, the largest number of books (compared to previous patriarchates) was published - 38 titles (some of which went through up to eight editions). The Patriarch supported rapprochement with the Greek East and Kyiv. Joseph sent monk Arseny Sukhanov on a journey to explore issues of faith. From Kyiv, Joseph invited a group of prominent scientists to Moscow and allowed them to open a school in the “learned” monastery founded by F. M. Rtishchev near Moscow.
In general, the time of Patriarch Joseph was full of reform initiatives that preceded the upheavals of the Nikon era; Nikon and the future leaders of the initial Old Believers came forward.
NIKON (Nikita Minov) (1652-1666) - seventh Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
From the Metropolitans of Novgorod. One of the most striking and tragic figures in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Being elected patriarch Nikon repeatedly refused this honor, until the Tsar himself knelt before him with a prayer to become the archpastor of the entire Russian people. To this, Nikon demanded that Alexei Mikhailovich and the bureaucratic people swear before the shrines of the Assumption Cathedral to uphold the faith and laws, “to obey us in everything as the boss and the shepherd, and the redest father.” The king swore an oath, and so did everyone else. Only after this Nikon became patriarch.
Having subordinated the king and secular power to his influence, the patriarch began to reform the church. He issued a decree abolishing two fingers - so that everyone would be baptized with three fingers. Nikon convened a council to “correct” a number of Russian traditions. All corrections were declared innovations. Work began on “correcting” Russian liturgical books. The church reforms of the icon caused a split in the church, from which part of the believers separated who did not recognize the innovations (Old Believers).
Much attention the patriarch devoted to the increase of church property: land, fisheries, forests, fishing grounds. The number of peasants belonging to the church doubled under him. The richest monasteries were built: Resurrection on the river. Istra, Krestny on the White Sea, Iversky on Valdai. Dozens of smaller monasteries, churches, and villages are assigned to each of them.
In Russia, Nikon appropriated the title of “great sovereign”; in his messages abroad he was written as “great lord and sovereign.” At the Zemsky Sobor of 1653, he insisted on accepting Ukrainian citizenship and war with Poland. The Patriarch ensured that the Tsar personally led the army (1654) and began a war with Sweden (1656).
Nikon indicated the direction of the offensive and ensured the supply of the army. Soon Alexey Mikhailovich recognized the patriarch as a guardian angel royal family and a reliable co-ruler. Without a report to Nikon, not a single matter of the Boyar Duma was decided.
The patriarch's position changed suddenly. On May 6, 1658, the tsar did not invite Nikon to the ritual of welcoming the Georgian prince Teimuraz, and on July 10, the day of the Laying of the Lord's Robe, he did not appear at Matins. On the same day, the patriarch publicly announced in the Assumption Cathedral that he was leaving the patriarchate. Alexei Mikhailovich sent word to stay, but Nikon went to the Resurrection Monastery. From there he began to interfere in current church affairs. Thus, in 1662, he proclaimed anathema to the patriarchal locum tenens Pitirim, appointed by the tsar.
In January 1665, Nikon wrote to the Tsar about his abdication and his readiness to install a new patriarch. On December 12, 1666, at the Great Church Council with the participation of two eastern patriarchs, Nikon was deprived of his patriarchal rank and exiled to the Ferapontov Monastery under guard.
After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich, the new Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich wanted to free Nikon so that he could complete the construction of New Jerusalem, but Patriarch Joachim (third after Nikon) categorically refused this to the Tsar. At the insistence of Joachim, Nikon was interrogated on three hundred incriminating articles and was placed in a hopeless cell in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. Only with the news of Nikon’s illness did the tsar decide to give an order for his release. Accompanied all the way by crowds of people, the dying Nikon sailed to the Resurrection Monastery. He died on the way on August 17, 1681. Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich personally carried the coffin with Nikon’s body to New Jerusalem, buried him as a patriarch and obtained permission from the Eastern patriarchs to forever remember him in this rank.
JOASAPH II (1667-1672) - eighth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
From the archimandrites of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Nikon's successor. Under him, the famous Moscow Council of 1667 took place (Great Church Council of the Russian and Eastern clergy). The Council solemnly cursed the Old Believers, while simultaneously subjecting them to state criminal prosecution. The Patriarch addressed the Old Believers with a stern Letter of Exhortation. The priests who refused to conduct church services according to the new books and performed the liturgy on prosphora with an eight-pointed cross were stripped of their positions by Joasaph II and put on trial. He continued to defend Nikon's case regarding the immunity of the clergy from secular power. At the patriarchal court, an Order of Church Affairs was established, where only judges of ecclesiastical rank sat.
saints without reliable examinations, do not hold court, work or trade on holidays; priests should not ride with a cross in front of the wedding train, which includes komorokhi, music and singing. At the same time, Joasaph II did not have enough energy to complete a number of major decisions Moscow courtyard. The council's recommendation on the widespread establishment of colleges (schools) and the establishment of new dioceses in Russia remained unrealized (only one, Belgorod, was approved).
Joasaph II made efforts to implement the prohibitions introduced by the Moscow Council: not to recognize incorrupt bodies saints without reliable examinations, do not hold court, work or trade on holidays; priests should not ride with a cross in front of the wedding train, which includes buffoons, music and singing. At the same time, Joasaph II did not have enough energy to carry out a number of the most important decisions of the Moscow court. The council's recommendation on the widespread establishment of colleges (schools) and the establishment of new dioceses in Russia remained unrealized (only one, Belgorod, was approved).
Fighting against the penetration of Western European style into Russian icon painting, the patriarch sought to legitimize the Byzantine style. For this purpose, in 1668 he published “An Extract from the Divine Scriptures on the Splendid Painting of Icons and a Denunciation of Those Who Frantically Paint them.” Promoting book printing, Joasaph II attracted Simeon of Polotsk to the work, who published the “Tale of the Acts of the Council of 1667”, the Large and Small Catechisms.
During the patriarchate of Joasaph II, preaching in churches was resumed. On his initiative, Orthodox missionaries acted in the Far North (to the islands of Novaya Zemlya) and the Far East (to Dauria). On the Amur, not far from the border with the Qing Empire (China), the Spassky Monastery was founded.
Joasaph II was a follower of Nikon, although less persistent in achieving his goals.
PITIRIM (1672-1673) - ninth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
From the metropolitans of Krutitsky. Closer to Patriarch Nikon. After Nikon left the throne, he was his confidant in negotiations with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Having entrusted Pitirim with the management of church affairs, Nikon hoped to maintain his influence during his demonstrative departure from Moscow. Pitirim, on the instructions of the king, completely took over the church administration. To this, Nikon in the New Jerusalem Monastery solemnly anathematized Pitirim as having arbitrarily seized the patriarchal throne. At the request of the tsar, the Moscow bishops declared in writing that they would not recognize the anathema “against the patriarch.” In 1667, Nikon was condemned at the Great Church Council, but not Pitirim, but Joasaph II was elected patriarch. Only after his death Pitirim received the throne of the head of the Russian church, which he occupied for less than a year. During his patriarchate he did not commit any significant acts.
JOAKIM (Ivan Savelov) (1674-1690) - tenth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
From the Metropolitans of Novgorod. In 1675, he convened a council, which decided that secular judges should not judge or rule clergymen in anything, that secular plaintiffs should not summon clergymen to Moscow, that diocesan lords should have clergymen in their orders and collect church tributes through archpriests, archimandrites and priestly elders (and not through secular officials). Joachim managed to obtain a royal charter stating that clergy were not subject to the jurisdiction of civil authorities and established a common standard for church tributes and duties for all dioceses.
As a mentor to the young Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, the patriarch actively participated in state affairs, opposing all innovations. He energetically implemented church decrees against schismatics, sending special exhorters to large centers of schism and issuing the polemical “Proclamation exhorting all to the Russian people».
Under Joachim in 1687, the Kiev Metropolis was subordinated to the Moscow Patriarchate, with the consent of the Eastern Patriarchs.
Joachim sided with the boyars who wanted to rule on behalf of young Peter and overthrew the ruler Sophia. In the fall of 1689, he achieved the immediate expulsion of the Jesuits from the country, wanting to destroy churches, churches, mosques throughout Russia and “from now on, of course, not allow new ones to be built anywhere.”
Joachim did not have a positive program, although the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was established under him. The content of Joachim’s activities was the defense of antiquity, the prestige of the church and the clergy.
ADRIAN (in the world Andrey) (1690-1700) - the eleventh and last pre-Synodal Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
From the metropolitans of Kazan and Sviyazhsk. He was elevated to patriarch by the will of Tsarina Natalia Kirillovna.
Adrian wrote several teachings, epistles, letters, a significant number of sermons and denunciations. Under him, two councils were held: one (in 1697) against the sexton Mikheev, who proposed to adopt new dogmas regarding baptism and other rites; another (in 1698) against Deacon Peter, who argued that the pope is the true shepherd.
Adrian was a supporter of antiquity and an opponent of the reforms of Peter the Great. The patriarch's relationship with the king was tense. At the same time, the letter prohibiting the establishment of new monasteries without the sovereign's decree and the Note on the Hierarchical Courts, submitted to the Chamber of Code, testified to Adrian's readiness to cooperate with the state, recognizing its competence in church affairs.
The Patriarch died on October 16, 1700. With his death, the patriarchal (pre-synodal) period in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church ended.
patriarch orthodox church
Conclusion
Thus, the process of subordination of the church to the state covers the second half of the XVI - first quarter XVIII centuries. During this period, the relationship between secular power and spiritual power repeatedly moved from harmony (Tsar Mikhail Romanov and Patriarch Filaret) to open conflicts (Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon). century in Russian history became a time of centralization of power and the emergence of autocracy. The Church contributed to overcoming fragmentation and unifying Russian lands. Church ideologists also participated in the development of the ideology of autocracy, representatives of the clergy substantiated the thesis about the divine origin of royal power, but at the same time the church was assigned an exclusive role in the state - a strong church power capable of influencing state policy was to be preserved.
In the second half of the 16th century, the material benefits of the church repeatedly attracted the attention of the Moscow government. The conduct of the Livonian War, campaigns of conquest and others required significant funds, which the state did not have enough. The government carried out “squeezing” money from the church through various measures. One-time measures include, for example:
plunder of the wealth of the Novgorod diocese during the oprichnina;
the monasteries redeemed their charters in 1576.
Long-term measures include the imposition and collection of state taxes from monastery lands.
The most important event in the history of the Russian church of the second half of the 16th century was the establishment of the patriarchate. The establishment of the patriarchate met the interests of both royal power and church power.
When carrying out the reform of the highest church administration, state power pursued the following goals: increasing the authority of the monarch's power (since it will be illuminated by the highest hierarch in the Orthodox world - the patriarch) and appointing proteges of state power to the most important church positions during the church organization. The main purpose of establishing the patriarchate for church authorities was to establish equality with other Orthodox centers. The common goal of the state and church authorities can be considered to be strengthening the authority of Orthodox Russia in the international arena. Assessing the results of the church government reform of 1598, we can say that the set goals were achieved.
The church pursued such goals as:
an increase in the number of diocesan sees and the creation of metropolises, after the head of the Russian church organization accepted the patriarchal title;
consolidation of the achievements of the process of spreading Christianity in the Lower Volga region.
The state authorities considered the Astrakhan diocese as a certain guarantee of the region's belonging to the Moscow state, in addition, the Orthodox hierarchs were supposed to serve as ideologists of the tsarist power.
Based on the sources and opinions available in Russian historiography about the relationship between church and state in the 17th century, we can conclude that the most active process of subordinating the church to the state took place in the second half of the century. The main events that reflected the relationship between church and state were:
adoption of the Council Code of 1649 (the Code limited the privileges of the church);
conflict between Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich;
reform of church governance in the early 80s.
Church hierarchs were deprived of the right to trial; cases previously falling under church jurisdiction were transferred to the jurisdiction of civil courts, with the only exceptions being crimes against religion. Thus, the church lost income in the form of court fees.
The Council Code provided for the creation of a special state body - the Monastic Prikaz, one of the main functions of which was the administration of justice over the clergy; that is, the clergy was subject to state court (for the bulk of cases).
The patriarch retained the right of trial over persons in his service and over residents of the patriarchal estates. However
The Council Code established that decisions of the patriarchal court can be appealed to a state court.
The black clergy was divided into two categories, each with clearly defined goals. The goal of the first category of black clergy was to “serve suffering humanity” (caring for the sick, wounded, etc.), the goals of the second category were to appoint bishops from among themselves and “spread religious truths among the people.” The patriarchs of Moscow and all Rus', whose activities we touched upon in this work, had a huge influence on the development of the patriarchate in Russia.
Bibliography
1.F. R-3431 On. 1. (Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917-1918)
2. Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917-1918. M., 1918. Reprint: M., 1994. T. 1-3.
Historical correspondence about the fate of the Orthodox Church. M., 1912.
Preobrazhensky I.V. All-Russian Orthodox Church according to statistical data from 1840-41 to 1890-91. St. Petersburg, 1897.1. Periodicals
Bychkov S.S. Russian Church and imperial power. (Essays on the history of the Orthodox Russian Church 1900-1917) T.1. M., 1998. 319 p. Veniamin (Fedchenkov), Metropolitan. Russia between faith and unbelief. M., 2003. 732 p.
V.N. State doctrine of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. M., 1883. 131 p.
Note from A.N. Muravyov on the state of the Orthodox Church in Russia // Russian Archive. 1883. Book. 2. No. h. pp. 175-203.
Zernov N.M. Reform of the Russian Church and pre-revolutionary episcopate // The Path. 1934. No. 5.
Zernov N.M. Russian religious revival of the 20th century. Paris, 1974. 382 p. Zyryanov P.N. The Orthodox Church in the fight against the revolution of 1905-1907. M., 1984. 222 p.
Zyryanov P.N. The Church during the period of three Russian revolutions // Russian Orthodoxy: milestones of history". M., 1989. pp. 380-437.
Ivantsov-Platonov A.I., prot. About Russian church administration. M., 1898. 86 p.
Kapterev N.F. Patriarchal and episcopal power in ancient Rus' in their attitude to the royal power and to the parish clergy // Theological Bulletin. 1905. T. 1. No. 4. p. 657-690; No. 5. p. 27-64.
Kapterev N.F. Judgment of the great Moscow Council of 2007 on the power of the royal and patriarchal (On the issue of the transformation of the highest church administration by Peter the Great) // Theological Bulletin. 2002. No. 6. P. 483516; No. 8. pp. 171-190; No. 10. P. 46-74.
Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. M., 2003. T. 1. 686 p. T.2. 568 pp.
Lvov A.N. Princes of the Church // Red Archive. 2003, No. 2. P. 110-141. Meyendorff John, Rev. Russian episcopate and church reform (1905) // Bulletin of the Russian Christian Democracy. 1999, no. 122.
Rogovich Alexey. His Holiness Tikhon Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. // His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Tikhon in the memoirs of his contemporaries. M., 2009. 45 p.
Tikhomirov JI.A. Personality, society and the Church // Theological Bulletin. 1903. T. 3. No. 10. P. 197-239.
Tikhomirov P.V. The canonical dignity of Peter the Great’s reform on church governance // Theological Bulletin. 1904. No. 1. P. 75-106; No. 2. pp. 217-247.
Fedorov V.A. Russian Orthodox Church and State. Synodal period. 1700-1917. M., 2003. 479 p.
Firsov S.L. The Russian Church on the eve of change (late 1890s-1918). M., 2002. 623 p.
Florovsky Georgy, prot. Paths of Russian theology. Paris, 1937. Reprint: Vilnius, 2001. 599 p.
Fominykh E.V. Projects of church reforms in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Author's abstract. diss. Ph.D. ist. Sci. L., 2007. 16 p.
Order work
Our specialists will help you write a paper with a mandatory check for uniqueness in the Anti-Plagiarism system.
Submit your application with the requirements right now to find out the cost and possibility of writing.
Introduction of the patriarchate in Rus'
During the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich in 1586, Patriarch Joachim of Antioch came to Moscow for alms. This was the first ecumenical patriarch to visit Russia. The Moscow government took advantage of his visit to raise the issue of establishing a patriarchate in Russia. Joachim promised to intercede for the Russian Church before other patriarchs upon his return to the East. Two years later, Moscow solemnly welcomed Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople. However, contrary to the expectations of the sovereign, it turned out that he was not vested with the authority to install a Russian patriarch. Negotiations on the establishment of the patriarchate were resumed. Unexpectedly for the Russians, Jeremiah expressed a desire to stay in Rus' and become the first Russian patriarch. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich agreed, but on the condition that the department should be located not in Moscow, but in Vladimir. Jeremiah, which was what Moscow wanted, did not accept such a humiliating condition, according to which he would be away from the court, having no chance to influence public policy. In 1589, a council of Russian bishops elected Metropolitan Job to the established patriarchal throne. He was elevated to the rank of Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah. In 1590 and 1593, at the Councils of Constantinople, the high priests confirmed the legitimacy of the act and assigned the Patriarch of Moscow the fifth place among the ecumenical primates.
In 1591, with the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, the Rurik dynasty came to an end (Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich had no children). Boris Godunov was elected to the royal throne. Patriarch Job contributed in every possible way to his elevation to the throne, and subsequently, after the death of the latter, he opposed the impostor False Dmitry I, who instilled Catholicism and Western customs
Russian Orthodox Church in times of turmoil
In 1603 the first impostor appeared. Job, already old and sick, stood firmly behind Boris. Specially accusatory letters were sent with Job’s signature, one of which was addressed to the Rada of the Polish Crown. Here False Dmitry is called a gross deceiver, former monk and deacon Grigory Otrepyev. Another letter was sent to the military head of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Prince Konstantin Ivanovich Ostrozhsky, who personally knew Otrepyev, with a request to expose him and arrest him. But these messages had no significance, however, not because the idea of union, promoted by Catholics, was close to the Russian people, but because the patriarch, already an old man, being Godunov’s protege, was not perceived by people as an intercessor. The patriarch did not participate in those minor repressions that Tsar Boris sanctioned and did not want to look into it, refusing even to listen to complaints. Some see this as Godunov’s guilt for the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri. It should be noted that, according to modern historians, the version of the murder of Dimitri by Godunov is not confirmed.
Since the people, as a result of several hungry years and rumors circulating about Tsarevich Demetrius, refused to trust Tsar Boris, this distrust was automatically transferred to the patriarch, especially since the patriarch was not saying at all what the crowd wanted to hear. The Patriarch repeatedly from the pulpit assured the crowd of the reality of the death of Tsarevich Demetrius and the identity of the current False Dmitry with the “thief” known to him, the defrocked Grigory Otrepiev, a witness of which was the Tsarevich’s mother, nun Martha ( last wife Grozny, Maria Nagaya). In the same spirit, the patriarch sent proclamations to the governors, troops and nobles throughout Russia. In January 1605, the patriarch sent instructions to the diocesan authorities on how to prevent the danger of rebellion and intimidate the people: the Orthodox faith was being trampled, and the Polish king Sigismund was using the Pretender to convert the people to the Latin and “Luthor” heresy. It is ordered through the bishops to read about this in all churches, to sing prayers for the victory of the tsarist army and to anathematize the Pretender and all Russian traitors pestering him.
At the sight of this picture, Tsar Boris died suddenly on April 13, 1605. After the impostor moved to Moscow from Tula, the crowd broke into the Assumption Cathedral to physically remove the patriarch. Job at that moment, standing before the image of the Vladimir Mother of God, prayed loudly. The rioters attacked him, beat him and dragged him to the Execution Ground. The Patriarchal courtyard was plundered. The patriarch himself was left alive and asked to be returned to the Staritsky Monastery. The assembled Consecrated Council actually submitted to the impostor, and False Dmitry forced the Council to issue an order: to fulfill Job’s request, to keep him in the monastery under close supervision and to keep him “in sorrowful embitterment.” There, two years later, on June 19, 1607, Job died.
Already on May 25, 1606, a week after the arrest of Patriarch Ignatius and eight days after the death of the impostor, the organizer of the conspiracy against False Dmitry, Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, was elevated to the throne in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. The ceremony was led by the oldest bishop, Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod, co-served by other bishops of the same Consecrated Council, which was convened under Job. Later, Shuisky tried to hide this fact as detracting from his royal dignity - he was supposed to be crowned king by the patriarch, but he had not yet been installed, so Shuisky was in a hurry to become king. Immediately after this, Tsar Vasily sent the exiled patriarch Job to Staritsa with an offer to return to the patriarchate, but due to his blindness and old age, he refused.
Even before the election of the new patriarch, Tsar Vasily undertook the transfer of the relics of Tsarevich Dimitri from Uglich to Moscow in order to drive away the ghost of impostor. Metropolitan Philaret (Romanov) of Rostov, who had risen under False Dmitry, and the confessor of Astrakhan Archbishop Theodosius, who was under arrest under the impostor, were sent for the relics. The relics were found incorrupt, a series of miraculous healings followed, and on June 3 the relics were brought to Moscow and laid in the Archangel Cathedral. The nun Martha publicly repented of her deception, after which the prince was canonized by the council.
On the day the relics of the prince were brought to Moscow, Patriarch Hermogenes was installed. During his lifetime, he was already a legendary person; several significant events were associated with his name: the discovery of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God, missionary activity among the Tatars, the discovery of the relics of the Kazan saints Herman, Guria and Barsanuphius.
Outside Moscow, recognition of Vasily Shuisky as tsar was poorly spread. They believed the rumor that Dmitry was not killed, but fled from Moscow. Book Grigory Shakhovsky, the favorite of False Dmitry, sent by Tsar Shuisky to the voivodeship in the border Putivl, turned out to be a traitor; Chernigov, Starodub, Novgorod-Seversky, Belgorod and other southern cities were separated from Moscow. The Tsar and Patriarch sent Metropolitan Paphnutius of Krutitsa to the south to admonish him, but his mission was unsuccessful. Tver resisted, inspired by its archbishop Feoktist.
Patriarch Ermogen began sending out his letters throughout Russia, urging them to believe not in fairy tales, but in actual facts: the circumstances of the death of False Demetrius, the discovery of the relics of the real Tsarevich Demetrius and miracles from them, the accession of V. Shuisky, “the pious king and champion of the Orthodox faith,” are described. ” It was prescribed that the clergy read these letters to the people and sing prayers for the health and salvation of the God-crowned Sovereign, and not listen to thieves and robbers. In this regard, the statement that “The honest, straightforward patriarch could not get along with the cunning Tsar Vasily Shuisky seems strange.” It seems that the friction between the tsar and the patriarch was greatly exaggerated by some of his contemporaries. Kazan Metropolitan Ephraim imposed excommunication on the rebellious residents of Sviyazhsk, and when it had a positive effect, he sought royal forgiveness. The Patriarch, on behalf of the cathedral, expressed gratitude to Ephraim.
But the position of Tsar Shuisky was still fragile. To strengthen it, it was necessary to find the culprit of Russia’s troubles, and they decided to make Tsar Boris so guilty, blaming him for the sin of murdering Tsarevich Dimitri. At one time, Patriarch Job, as Godunov’s protege, spoke out against this version. Now it was decided to play out the nationwide repentance of Job, supposedly in a lie, in order to thereby call the entire population to repentance for the complete betrayal. By order of the tsar, the work of the Archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral, Terenty, “The Tale of the Vision of a Certain Spiritual Man,” was publicly read, where responsibility for the unrest rested with the people, the tsar and the patriarch. On the advice of Patriarch Ermogen, the king summoned Patriarch Job from seclusion to give forgiveness to the people for all the betrayals committed, after a strict nationwide fast, which was arranged on February 20, 1607 in the Assumption Cathedral. After this, Patriarch Ermogen subjected Bolotnikov to a church curse. The Patriarch defended the power of Tsar Vasily probably even more desperately than Job defended the power of Boris. On November 17, 1609, after the first attempt to overthrow Shuisky, the patriarch gave a speech, calling on the people to be faithful to the kiss of the cross. Knowing that these attempts were inspired by False Dmitry II standing in Tushino, Ermogen wrote a letter there, trying to influence the conscience of the Russian people who were there.
However, all the influence of the patriarch would not be enough to retain Shuisky’s throne. The people turned more and more against him. Even Metropolitan Philaret welcomed this decision. Finally, on July 17, 1610, when a crowd, incited by the boyars, came to the windows of the royal palace to demand his abdication, the patriarch tried for the last time to influence the crowd. However, they did not listen to him. The king was captured and forcibly tonsured a monk. Knowing about Shuisky’s protest behavior at the time of the ceremony, the patriarch did not recognize this monastic tonsure. After this, the boyar elite, at the request of Sigismund, sent Shuisky and his two brothers to Smolensk, where they were forced to bow to the king as a sign of their defeat and were imprisoned in Gostynsky Castle near Warsaw, where the former king died on September 12, 1612. The ashes of the former tsar were returned to Moscow only in 1634. At the request of Patriarch Philaret, he was “rehabilitated”, since responsibility for the unrest was placed on Sigismund.
After Shuisky was removed, the commander of the Polish troops, Hetman Zholkiewsky, sent an ultimatum to Moscow: to accept Vladislav in fulfillment of the agreement concluded by the boyars in Tushino, where Filaret, who is now sitting in Moscow, renounced the patriarchate and made peace with the patriarch, signed the agreement. The boyars, led by Prince Mstislavsky, agreed, but Patriarch Ermogen objected. He suggested finding one of the Moscow boyars who could lead the state and would have a family connection with the Rurikovichs. And then for the first time a figure loomed on the horizon, then still quite young Mikhail Romanov, the son of Metropolitan Philaret, as the most suitable candidate. But it was possible to defend such a program of action only if there were troops, and there were none, but there were Poles near Moscow. Therefore, Ermogen and Filaret had to give in, on the terms of the Tushino negotiations - the rebaptism of Vladislav. On August 27, the people on the Maiden Field in Moscow solemnly took the oath of allegiance to Vladislav, and the next day in the Assumption Cathedral, during the service of the patriarch himself, the oath was taken by those in power. An embassy was organized to Sigismund to personally testify to the goodwill of the Muscovites and the fulfillment of the terms of the treaty. Metropolitan Filaret became the spiritual head of the embassy, although he had no desire to encounter the Poles again.
Near Smolensk, the Poles demanded the immediate surrender of Smolensk to Sigismund and the introduction of Zolkiewski's Polish troops into Moscow. A long diplomatic competition began. The composition of the embassy near Smolensk turned out to be more stable than the Moscow government that sent it. The boyars in the capital allowed the Zholkiewski garrison into Moscow and even intended to send an order to the embassy to agree to any conditions, but this capitulation failed due to the stubborn will of Patriarch Ermogen, who refused to sign the papers.
Despite the patriarch’s voice, the boyar party still brought its capitulation to Smolensk on December 23, 1610. But there they encountered the same resistance from the embassy at headquarters, which, headed by Filaret, recognized the brought text without the patriarch’s signature as illegal. Their main argument was the assertion that now, at a time when the sovereign is not there, his importance in the life of the country is replaced by the patriarch. The steadfastness of Filaret, Abraham and other spiritual and, after them, secular ambassadors was decisive. With this steadfastness and his further captivity and suffering, Filaret cleared himself of the reproaches of dishonesty that rained down on him for his ambiguous relationship with both impostors.
While the Russian ambassadors near Smolensk withstood the onslaught, a turning point was brewing in Moscow, which was expressed in the correspondence of cities among themselves and the appearance of the first militia. Attempts by supporters of Polish rule to put pressure on the patriarch so that he would stop this correspondence with his authority were unsuccessful. For this, the patriarch was placed under house arrest.
On March 19, 1611, a rebellion began in Moscow. In response, the Poles set Moscow on fire, and themselves concentrated in Kitay-Gorod and the Kremlin. Patriarch Hermogen was first kept at the Kirillo-Belozersky Compound, and then transferred to the Chudov Monastery. A 100,000-strong Russian militia approached Moscow and began its siege. Saltykov and the Pole Gonsevsky again demanded that the patriarch, under the threat of starvation, give the order to the military Russian people to retreat away. Hermogenes refused. Moreover, in August he was able to convey his message to the people of Nizhny Novgorod with a call to raise the people against foreigners. He could not do more and on January 17, 1612 he died.
The Polish party was pleased with the disappearance of Hermogenes, and the Greek Ignatius, who had been overthrown by the conciliar and since then lived in the same Miracle Monastery, returned to the patriarchate. He performed Easter services in 1611. But, realizing the falsity of his position, he fled to Lithuania, where he ended his days as a Uniate.
After the arrest and death of Patriarch Hermogenes, the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, whose rector, Archimandrite Dionysius, was a friend of Patriarch Hermogenes and protector of Tsar Vasily Shuisky, raised its voice. Now Archimandrite Dionysius, together with Abraham Palitsyn, sent patriotic messages throughout the country. When the first militia was formed, a copy of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God arrived from Kazan to Nizhny Novgorod.
When the Poles realized that they could not retain power in Moscow, they organized a fire in Moscow, in which almost 450 churches were destroyed. This action resembled a demonstrative slamming of a door. After this, one could not even think about the accession of Prince Vladislav. The Poles plundered and destroyed a large number of valuables from the temples of the Kremlin and Kitay-Gorod. After such actions it was impossible to consider them as contenders for power.
The embassy of Metropolitan Philaret, meanwhile, was increasingly turning into hostages in the eyes of the Poles. Metropolitan Filaret increasingly became the embodiment of patriotism for the Russian people, especially after he did not agree to stop the Nizhny Novgorod militia with a special message. The Poles held the Russian embassy near Smolensk for six months, and after the Poles were expelled from the Moscow Kremlin, the embassy was arrested, robbed and taken deep into Poland, where Metropolitan Philaret was detained for 8 years.
With the expulsion of the Poles, the question arose about the head of both state and church. The head of the church could only be the patriarch, but he still had to be chosen, just as the Zemsky Sobor had to choose the tsar, although both candidates were already known. The consecrated council, assembled by the locum tenens of the patriarch, Metropolitan Paphnutius of Krutitsa, decided that Metropolitan Philaret, who with his feat had demonstrated his dignity to become a patriarch, should be elected patriarch. But he was not there, he languished in Polish captivity. And therefore it was decided to wait for his return, and the church would be temporarily governed by the oldest bishop. After the death of Paphnutius, this honor belonged to Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod, but he was also inaccessible - Novgorod was captured by the Swedes. Therefore, Metropolitan Ephraim of Kazan took on the role of temporary head of the church. He had to crown Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov, chosen by the Tsar, as king. Judging by the documents, he generally performed the temporary role of head of state, signing all the resolutions of the Zemsky Sobor first. Soon after his coronation, he died, and the leadership of the Consecrated Council passed, according to custom, to the recently installed Metropolitan Jonah of Krutitsa.
IV. Attitude to the Russian Orthodox Church of impostors
during the Time of Troubles.
The power of the impostors was not legitimate, although formally False Dmitry I nevertheless became the sovereign in Rus'. However, his policy and, accordingly, the attitude of the people and the church towards him was fundamentally different than towards the chosen kings Godunov and Shuisky.
False Dmitry, a Muscovite by origin, although he felt some attraction to the West, was not in the literal sense a Catholic, but simply a freethinker. When he began to lay claim to royal dignity or at least show opposition to the authorities (this was the case in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery and among Orthodox priest in Lithuania), they did not believe him. Therefore, the first contact with the Orthodox Church from the opposite Russian statehood failed and False Dmitry did not like to remember it. This predetermined his attitude towards the church in Russia. At least strange, in this regard, is the statement of the same author that Otrepyev, as an impostor, was born in the Chudov Monastery and the church turned out to be a hotbed of intrigue. But the Poles nevertheless forced him to participate in church affairs and pursue pro-Catholic policies, to which he was generally indifferent, as, apparently, to religion in general. In any case, all manifestations of his religiosity are easily explained by political benefits, but in nothing can one discern even a shadow of sincere religious feeling. Even after becoming king, he could not bring himself to practice the ritual side of Orthodoxy in a public setting. As for his Latin program, it, in the form of a union, was loudly advertised by Moscow court circles from the very beginning of the Troubles.
From the correspondence of the papal nuncio in Poland, Xavier Rongoni, it became known that Prince Adam Vishnevetsky and his father-in-law, the Sandomierz voivode Yuri Mnishek, agreed with Rongoni that Yuri's daughter Marina would become, through marriage with False Dmitry, the Moscow queen, and False Dmitry himself would give an oath for himself and for Russia to join the Russian people through a union to the Roman Church. In 1604, at a special meeting of Polish magnates, False Dmitry and Yuri Mnishek announced this publicly, after which Rongoni secretly introduced False Dmitry to Sigismund III, and he diplomatically recognized him as the true Tsarevich Dmitry. Then False Dmitry was secretly accepted into Latinism by Rongoni himself through confirmation and communion according to the Latin rite. In order to hide this purpose of his in the face of the Russian people, False Dmitry ordered to bring to his camp the icon of the Mother of God of Kursk-Root, with which he entered Moscow on June 20, 1605. Execution Place False Dmitry was met by the entire Consecrated Council of Bishops, which recognized the power of the impostor, however, without the patriarch, but with banners, icons, crosses and prayer singing. The only bishop who dared not recognize False Dmitry, Theodosius of Astrakhan, was captured and put under arrest.
Instead of the overthrown Job, at the direction of False Dmitry, the same Consecrated Council installed as patriarch the Ryazan Archbishop Ignatius, a Greek by birth, possibly a former Uniate, and definitely a careerist. Once he came to Moscow for the coronation of Tsar Fedor, as a representative of the Patriarch of Alexandria. Here he stayed and achieved the Ryazan see in 1605. Naturally, during the Time of Troubles, he easily adapted to the new course and, the first of the bishops, in June 1605, went to Tula to meet the impostor, recognized him, took the oath and swore in others. Together with the impostor, he ceremoniously entered Moscow, and he, as the patriarch, was presented with a staff and a cross, and four days later, by decree of False Dmitry, a council of bishops elevated Ignatius to patriarchy, although the Russian enthronement ceremony was not performed.
A week later, Ignatius sent out a circular message throughout Russia about the accession to the throne of the “born Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich” and about his elevation to the throne of the High Hierarch “by his royal permission.” At the same time, it turns out that the Catholics negotiated with him, and Ignatius was already ready to enter into a union.
Immediately after ascending the throne, False Dmitry began to return from exile those whom Boris Godunov had removed from the court. Among them was the future Patriarch Filaret, Fyodor Nikitich Yuryin, and his father Nikita Romanovich, brother of Ivan the Terrible’s wife Anastasia. Fyodor Nikitich was forcibly tonsured into monasticism under the name of Philaret and imprisoned in the Siysky monastery near Arkhangelsk, where he became an archimandrite. For the sake of Philaret’s elevation, the Pretender retired Metropolitan Kirill from the Rostov see and appointed his imaginary relative to it. Filaret, out of hatred for Godunov, accepted this appointment and dedication from the hand of Ignatius. Philaret’s brother John also received boyarhood at the hands of False Dmitry.
The topic of the work does not imply a detailed consideration of the implementation of plans for the Latinization of the Russian Church. We are more interested in the attitude of the impostor to the Russian Church and vice versa. Almost all official church circles recognized the power of False Dmitry and accepted the new rules of the political game. So, on July 21, during the coronation of the impostor, the archpriest of the court Annunciation Cathedral Fyodor Terentyev gave a panegyric speech glorifying the new Tsar Dimitri Ioannovich. Immediately after the coronation, an official royal confessor was appointed, who became the archimandrite of the Vladimir Nativity Monastery. He scattered favors and tokens of attention to Russian bishops and monasteries. Even in Poland itself, he did not hesitate to act as a patron of the Orthodox, and not of the Uniates. Precisely because he perfectly understood the futility of the efforts of the Catholics, during the 11 months of his reign False Dmitry did not have time to undertake anything aggressive against Orthodoxy.
However, friction between the hierarchy and the impostor could not help but begin when the question of his marriage to Marina Mnishek arose. Russian bishops could not allow mixed marriages of Orthodox Christians with Latins and Armenians without rebaptizing the latter. The demand for rebaptism was expressed by Met. Ermogen of Kazan, Bishop Joseph of Kolomna and a number of archpriests. False Dmitry sent Hermogenes to Kazan to the see, and sent Joseph to rest. Ignatius convinced False Dmitry to persuade Marina to deceive: so that she would only outwardly perform the Orthodox rite, while remaining a Catholic in her soul. So it was decided.
Marina solemnly entered Moscow and was placed in the Kremlin, in the Ascension Monastery for women, where the royal brides settled before their wedding. Next to her cell was the imaginary mother of the groom, the royal nun Martha, ex-wife Grozny Maria Nagaya. Out of hatred for Boris Godunov, she, together with the boyars, played this game of recognizing the impostor as her son Dimitri. The betrothal took place in the Palace, in the Dining Chamber on May 8, 1606. Archpriest Fyodor Terentyev let Marina kiss the cross and gave a speech. From here we solemnly proceeded to the Assumption Cathedral, where Marina venerated the icons and relics. After this, before the liturgy, Patriarch Ignatius and the council performed the royal coronation. The royal barmas and crown with “confirmation” were placed on Marina, which was repeated at the sacramental verse of the liturgy. But Marina refused to take communion, and in solidarity with her, False Dmitry did not take communion, which immediately turned into a scandal.
Already on May 17, the impostor was overthrown and killed. Along with him, three cardinals, four priests and many Poles were killed. Marina was spared. The next day, Sunday, without trial or investigation, Patriarch Ignatius was overthrown and sent into captivity in the Chudov Monastery by the same bishops who recognized him on the orders of the impostor. Ignatius sat in Chudovoy for 5 whole troubled years, until in 1611 he had to be again briefly elevated to the patriarchate under Tsarevich Vladislav.
When the second impostor appeared and established himself in Tushino, where even the boyars began to visit, the previous enthusiasm was no longer there. The clergy resisted the new betrayal, and many suffered. The Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery itself sent out letters of loyalty to Tsar Vasily. Pskov Bishop Gennady, observing the betrayal, “died of grief.” Suzdal Bishop Galaktion was expelled by False Dmitry II and died in exile. Kolomna Bishop Joseph was captured by the troops of the Pole Lisovsky and tortured for a long time until the Moscow army managed to recapture him. An ardent opponent of treason, Tver Archbishop Feoktist, the Tushins captured and killed, allegedly while trying to escape. On October 11, 1608, Sapieha’s troops approached Rostov. Residents of the city fled to Yaroslavl, but Metropolitan Filaret (Romanov), who had already endured the burden of lies under the first Pretender, felt a moral need to heroically resist the second, more obvious lie. He, along with the faithful residents of Rostov, locked himself in the cathedral church. The Poles, having taken the city, began the massacre. Filaret, undressed and barefoot, was taken into captivity in Tushino. Here, presumably, under the threat of death, he was forced to formally accept the title of “nominated patriarch” in order to contrast Hermogenes, who remained in Moscow. Filaret was forced to obey, without having the slightest desire to do so. It was all the more easy for him to take a patriotic position when, feeling the strength behind him, it was needed more. The opinion of some researchers who believed that Filaret received what he wanted from the hands of False Dmitry and “quickly took root” with the Tushins, should be considered unfounded.
Neither the Trinity-Sergius Lavra nor its active cellarer Abraham (Palitsyn) escaped these compromises. They had to deal with authorities that depended not on the legal Moscow government, but on the Tushino thief or on the Cossacks allied to him, for Tushino was one of the Lavra’s estates. But at some point it was no longer possible to endure, and from September 23, 1608 to January 12, 1610, she was forced to withstand the siege of Polish troops, setting an example of a heroic feat. In the end, the gangs fled from the army of the prince advancing from the north. Mikhail Vasilievich Skopin-Shuisky.
During the siege and after the Lavra demonstrated shining example selflessness for the benefit of his people. Thus, during the famine of 1608, its granaries were opened to sell bread at an average price, knocking down speculation. During the 16-month siege of the Lavra, about ten thousand people were fed within its borders. The later 1612 militia was supported by the Lavra's reserves along with the meager remains of the state treasury. True, subsequently the feat of Archimandrite Dionysius was not immediately taken into account. At first, on the contrary, he was even accused of corruption and heresy.
In September 1609, Sigismund besieged Smolensk, and the stage of Polish intervention began. While trying to implement the plan for a military campaign, the king also thought about finding support within the country. He considered the Tushino camp the most convenient addressee, where he could demand the fulfillment of the oath from the Poles and promise something desired to the Russians. Therefore, a special letter was addressed to Metropolitan Philaret, as the “nominated patriarch,” with promises to preserve the Russians’ faith, rituals, rights of church self-government and court. Tushino split, the thief lost his support and fled to Kaluga. Some of the Russians went to Moscow to Tsar Vasily. The remaining Russian boyars decided to ask Sigismund to become king of his son Vladislav, subject to his adoption of Orthodoxy. Filaret also took part in this venture.
Meanwhile, the empty Tushino was forced to be liquidated as a state center. Russian troops arrived from the north under the command of Prince Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky. The commander of the Tushins, the Pole Ronzhinsky, burned the camp and, retreating to Volokolamsk, took Metropolitan Philaret with him hostage. The Moscow army still managed to defeat Ronzhinsky and free Met. Filaret and bring him to Moscow after 7 months of captivity in Tushino.
History is the dramaturgy of life, endlessly alive, because people act in it with their vices and virtues. A time of troubles is a time of hard times, when circumstances put people in conditions in which a person, willingly or unwillingly, is revealed as he is, and all carefully hidden vices come out. This is a time of strong temptation. Temptations because the temptation to reach an unattainable peak is always especially strong, but at the same time especially illusory. But there is another side to the coin. Having gone through all the temptations, a person either falls immensely, never to get up, or acquires perseverance and courage, and, hardened by trials, a person sensitively chooses the path of good, which leads him out of the turmoil in the era of recovery.
This characteristic is applicable, perhaps, to most of the participants in the turmoil individually, and to entire social institutions taken together. If Boris Godunov during the reign of Theodore Ioannovich pursued only selfish interests, then over the years of his reign he became an increasingly consistent statesman, thinking not so much about himself as about the well-being of the country entrusted to him. His opposite, Vasily Shuisky, secured his way into the darkness of historical contempt by achieving small tactical benefits through big or small lies. Such seemingly lofty feelings as national repentance should only bring good fruit. But having barely mixed them with lies (“the confession” of Patriarch Job), Shuisky reduced to “no” all the positive dividends from this action. All impostors followed the same path, but among them lies, as a rule, were called lies, and this cynicism made reality even more terrible, and their fall even more terrible.
A similar assessment applies to the people of the church, with one exception. All of them experienced strong temptations from power and imaginary prosperity, lies and money. All of them fell into these exceptions more than once. But they all emerged from these fights with evil as winners, for their further path is the path of consistent truth. So it was with Patriarch Ermogen, who agreed to lie under Vasily Shuisky, but then atoned for this howl with consistent steadfastness in the face of the cowardice of the boyars in Moscow occupied by the Poles. So it was with Metropolitan Philaret, who in his youth experienced the temptation of political prosperity, then tonsure against his will, and then favor under both impostors. But, having already found himself for the second time in the hands of an impostor - False Dmitry II - he already realized that only consistent patriotism and honesty can give truly tangible, not illusory, results. And he atoned for his failures by standing firm in Polish captivity.
Through them, the church also suffered that only consistent patriotism can give the church and the state peace and prosperity, and patriotism is necessarily associated with cooperation with a strong and legal government in the eyes of the people. Patriarchs Job and Ermogen understood this when they defended the kings Godunov and Shuisky, who were sitting on the throne, to the end. The monks of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra understood this when they defended Russian churchliness and statehood with arms in hand, and Metropolitan Philaret, defending only those conditions for the candidate for king that were acceptable to Russia. On the whole, the church, like the state, which was eventually recreated by the people and the church, realized that only together, only sincerely, could they count on existing in Russia in prosperity and peace.
Patriarch Nikon.
Patriarch Nikon was an outstanding figure of the Russian Orthodox Church. The most important things are associated with his name historical events our life XVII century- not only church, but also political, which had a decisive influence on further development church and civil life Russian state.
Patriarch Nikon (in the world Nikita Minich Minin) was born in May 1605 into a peasant family in the village of Veldemanova, Nizhny Novgorod province, and was named Nikita in holy baptism, after the name of the Monk Nikita, the Pereyaslav miracle worker. He experienced a very difficult childhood with an evil stepmother who constantly tyrannized him and even tried to kill him. From an early age, Nikita learned to “read holy books” and tried not to miss a single service. At the age of 12, a boy prone to solitude, inquisitive and loving to learn, secretly left his father’s house and entered the Makariev Zheltovodsk Monastery, where he learned monastic obedience, non-covetousness, and the basics of selfless service.
At the insistence of his dying father, Nikita returned home, got married, took on the responsibility of running the household, but he was still irresistibly drawn to church and worship. Being a literate and well-read man, he was soon ordained as a parish priest. He was only 20 years old at the time. His zeal in serving the Church and the people, love, sincerity, simplicity, humility and peacefulness became known to many in the capital, where priest Nikita and his family soon moved at the request of Moscow merchants. Life in Mother See of Moscow turned out to be even more vain and also burdened the young priest prone to asceticism - his soul aspired to monastic service. His married life lasted 10 years, but all three of his children died one after another in infancy, and he, shocked by grief, saw in this a sign of God.
Priest Nikita persuaded his wife to take monastic vows, and at the age of 30, on Solovki, in the Anzersky skete, he became a monk with the name Nikon. In 1643 he became abbot of the Kozheezersky monastery. In 1646, he came to Moscow to collect alms and fell in love with the 16-year-old Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich so much for his spirituality, deep asceticism, extensive knowledge, lively, noble disposition that the Tsar did not let him go back, appointing him archimandrite of the Novo-Spassky Monastery in Moscow, where was the family tomb of the Romanovs. The Tsar often went there to pray for the repose of his ancestors and became even closer to Archimandrite Nikon, whom he ordered to go to his palace for conversations every Friday. Taking advantage of the king's favor, Archimandrite Nikon began to ask him for the oppressed and offended. This was to the liking of the king, who soon instructed Nikon to accept requests from all judges who sought royal mercy and justice for untruths. Nikon occupied an exceptional position in Moscow and gained universal love. Elected Metropolitan of Novgorod in 1649, Nikon, during the terrible famine and subsequent riot in Novgorod in 1650, showed amazing fortitude and the dignity of an archpastor. As a modern church researcher rightly notes, Metropolitan Nikon “with his careful and wise actions not only contributed to the successful outcome of the whole matter, but also saved many people from severe punishments...”.
In 1651, Metropolitan Nikon, while in Moscow, convinced the Tsar and Patriarch Joseph to transfer the relics of Saints Philip, Job and Hermogenes to the Moscow Assumption Cathedral.
In 1652, after the death of Patriarch Joseph, from among 12 candidates, Metropolitan Nikon, according to the royal desire, was elected to be appointed Patriarch. At first he resolutely refused. Then the Tsar, in front of a large crowd of people, in the Assumption Cathedral, in front of the relics of St. Philip, fell at Nikon’s feet and, “prostrate on the ground and shedding tears,” begged him to accept the Patriarchal rank. After him, everyone else fell to the ground. Shocked, Nikon agreed to accept the difficult lot of Patriarchal service, but considered it necessary to receive from everyone an oath promise to be obedient to him, the Patriarch, in all matters of faith and spiritual life. The Tsar, the boyars, and the people took such an oath.
The explanation for such an unusual “oath” is that Nikon very deeply saw and felt a serious internal division in the bowels of Russian society, which threatened a split. This was manifested in a retreat from faith and the Church, which emerged in various strata of society and in different directions. The task that he consciously set for himself was, therefore, to retain everything Russian society in general in obedience to the Orthodox Church. Hence the need for everyone to take an oath to unconditionally obey the Church in the person of its Patriarch in all matters of purely spiritual and church life.
The Patriarchate of Nikon constituted an entire era in the history of the Russian Church. Like Patriarch Philaret, he had the title of “Great Sovereign,” which he received in the first years of his Patriarchate due to the special favor of the Tsar towards him. He took part in solving almost all national affairs.
Patriarch Nikon's influence on civil affairs was very great; he was essentially the tsar's first adviser. This influence had many beneficial aspects for the Church. In particular, with the active assistance of Patriarch Nikon, the historical reunification of Ukraine with Russia took place in 1654. Earth Kievan Rus, once rejected by the Polish-Lithuanian magnates, became part of the Moscow state. This soon led to the return of the original Orthodox dioceses of Southwestern Rus' to the bosom of the Mother - the Russian Church. Soon Belarus was reunited with Russia. The title of the Patriarch of Moscow “Great Sovereign” was supplemented by the title “Patriarch of All Great and Little and White Russia”.
From the very beginning of his Patriarchate, His Serene Highness Nikon established strict order in divine services. Unanimity and “adverbial” singing became the practical norm under him. He himself served slowly, reverently, striving to ensure that church services were as moralizing as possible. Patriarch Nikon was a talented preacher, who delivered his teachings and sermons in such a way that people forgot about everything and there was complete silence in the church. In those days in the Russian Church he had no equal in speech. But Patriarch Nikon showed himself to be especially zealous as a church reformer. In addition to streamlining the divine service, he replaced the two-fingered sign with the three-fingered one during the sign of the cross, and corrected the liturgical books according to Greek models, which is his immortal, great service to the Russian Church. However, the church reforms of Patriarch Nikon gave rise to an Old Believer schism, the consequences of which darkened the life of the Russian Church for several centuries, although the Patriarch himself was in no way its cause.
Patriarch Nikon cared a lot about church splendor. In material images, the Church should show people the non-material beauty of the heavenly world of the Kingdom of Heaven, such was his deep conviction. A strict faster and ascetic in his personal life, who wore the simplest clothes in everyday life, and under them iron chains, Patriarch Nikon used such rich vestments during divine services that none of the Russian Patriarchs had.
The high priest encouraged church construction in every possible way; he himself was one of the best architects of his time. Under Patriarch Nikon, the richest monasteries of Orthodox Rus' were built: Resurrection Monastery near Moscow, called the “New Jerusalem”, Iversky Svyatoozersky in Valdai and Krestny Kiyostrovsky in Onega Bay.
But Patriarch Nikon considered the height of the personal life of the clergy and monasticism to be the main foundation of the earthly Church. By very generously encouraging the worthy and severely punishing the dissolute and careless, he achieved a very significant increase moral level clergy and monks and, in connection with this, increasing their authority and importance in society. “The Church is not stone walls, but canons and spiritual shepherds,” said Patriarch Nikon. In other words, in his opinion, as long as the canonical fence of the Church stands indestructible and its shepherds are vigilant to guard the “verbal sheep” of the flock of Christ, hostile forces cannot penetrate it.
All his life, Patriarch Nikon never stopped striving for knowledge and learning something. He collected a rich library, which contained books of the Holy Scriptures, liturgical literature, patristic works, books on history, philosophy in Greek and Latin, including works by Aristotle, Plutarch, Herodotus, Strabo, and Demosthenes. Patriarch Nikon studied Greek, studied medicine, painted icons, mastered the skill of making tiles... Under him, schools of both primary and higher levels were created.
Patriarch Nikon set an example of mercy towards the poor, unjustly oppressed, and impartiality in exposing vices powerful of the world this, which made him many enemies among the boyars. Under the influence of Patriarch Nikon in Russia, the system of care for the poor, wretched, and needy people was streamlined, and an active struggle was waged against injustice and corruption in the judiciary. At the insistence of the Patriarch, the Tsar took effective measures to suppress drunkenness and moral depravity.
Patriarch Nikon sought to create Holy Rus' - a new Israel. Preserving a living, creative Orthodoxy, he wanted to create an enlightened Orthodox culture and learned it from the Orthodox East. But some of the measures carried out by Patriarch Nikon infringed on the interests of the boyars. They did not allow him to lead Rus' onto the path of further churching, to deepen Orthodoxy in Russian life so much that it would be perceived not only as a teaching of faith, but also as the path, truth and life. They slandered the Patriarch before the Tsar.
Patriarch Nikon was forced to leave the Primate See and retire to the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery, which he founded near Moscow. In 1666, the Tsar summoned Patriarch Paisius of Alexandria and Patriarch Macarius of Antioch to Moscow to participate in the Council proceedings in the case of Patriarch Nikon. By the decision of the Council, he was deprived of the Patriarchate and sent to prison: first to Ferapontov, and then, in 1676, to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. At the same time, however, the church reforms he carried out were not only not canceled, but received the approval of the Council.
The deposed Patriarch Nikon remained in exile for 15 years. Before his death, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich asked Patriarch Nikon for forgiveness in his will. The new Tsar Theodore Alekseevich decided to return Patriarch Nikon to his rank and asked him to return to the Resurrection Monastery he founded. On the way to this monastery, Patriarch Nikon, exhausted by the hardships, sorrows and burden of the labors endured, on August 17 (30), 1681, peacefully departed to the Lord, surrounded by manifestations great love people and their students. Patriarch Nikon was buried with due honors in the Resurrection Cathedral of the New Jerusalem Monastery. At his tomb, many healings and signs of grace-filled help began to take place (especially for mothers and those unjustly persecuted), which indicated that his soul was honored to reside in Heavenly Jerusalem. In September 1682, letters from all four Eastern Patriarchs were delivered to Moscow, releasing Nikon from all punishments and restoring him to the rank of Patriarch of All Rus'.
Church reform Nikon.
In 1652 Nikon was elected Moscow Patriarch. In an effort to turn the Russian Church into the center of world Orthodoxy, the “imperious” and “cool” Patriarch Nikon began a reform to unify rituals and establish uniformity in church services. Greek rules and rituals were taken as a model. Nikon personally went to the patriarchal library and, as far as he could, compared the books of the Moscow press with ancient Greek manuscripts, and became convinced of the existence of disagreements.
For this purpose, a church council was convened in 1654, which was supposed to accept the patriarch’s proposal on the need to correct the liturgical books. according to ancient Greek and ancient Slavic books, but in fact the correction was made according to new Greek books printed in Jesuit printing houses in Venice and Paris. Even the Greeks themselves spoke of these books as distorted and erroneous. Thus, the activities of Nikon and his like-minded people came down not to correcting ancient books, but to changing them, or more precisely, to damaging them. The change in books was followed by other church innovations. The Church Council of 1656 was the last at which decisions were made regarding the correction of liturgical books. There were 3 cathedrals in total: 1654, 1655, 1656.
The most important changes and innovations were the following:
1. Instead of the two-fingered sign of the cross, which was adopted in Rus' from the Greek Orthodox Church along with Christianity and which is part of the Holy Apostolic tradition, three fingers were introduced.
2. In old books, in accordance with the spirit of the Slavic language, the name of the Savior Jesus was always written and pronounced; in new books this name was changed to the Greekized “Jesus”.
3. In old books, it is established during baptism, wedding and consecration of the temple to walk around the sun as a sign that we are following the Sun-Christ. In the new books, walking against the sun has been introduced.
4. In the old books, in the Creed (VIII clause), it reads:
“And in the spirit of the Holy Lord, true and life-giving,” after the corrections, the word “true” was excluded.
5. Instead of the double hallelujah that the Russian Church has created since ancient times, a “triple” (triple) hallelujah was introduced.
6. The Divine Liturgy in ancient Rus' was celebrated on seven prosphoras; new “spravshchiki” introduced five prosphoras, i.e. two prosphoras were excluded.
These changes in church laws, traditions and rituals could not but cause a sharp rebuff from the Russian people, who sacredly kept the ancient holy books and traditions.
Patriarch Nikon began his reforms with the abolition of the two-fingered addition. The people, who had long been accustomed to be baptized with two fingers (which was also enshrined in the codes of the Hundred-Glav Cathedral), were suddenly declared that the only correct one was three-fingered (accepted by that time among the Greeks) - although both two and the three- and even one-finger sign of the cross existed and coexisted for centuries in the history of the ancient church. Christians said: the new patriarch abolished Christ.
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 revised books for reasons of so-called “church ideology”
Church schism.
Changes in the spiritual sphere caused a great resonance among the people. The whole society split into adherents of the old and new faiths. This split had both ideological and socio-political motives. Supporters of the old faith defended the idea of the originality of Russian Orthodoxy, its superiority over other Orthodox churches, including over its ancestor - the Constantinople, which, in their opinion, having concluded the Union of Florence with the Roman Catholic Church, fell into heresy. Moreover, the fact of signing the Union of Florence allegedly testifies to the weakness of the faith of Constantinople. This means he did not have true, Orthodox faith. Therefore, given the difference in church forms and rituals, all preferences should belong to national Russian forms. Only they should be considered truly Orthodox. Since Greek Orthodoxy is corrupted, the highest and most important task of Russian piety should be to preserve everything that does not resemble Greek
Supporters of old rituals are usually represented as inert people, unable to accept unimportant ritual and formal innovations.
However, according to the famous Russian historian Kostomarov, schismatics are the most active participants in the Orthodox Church. IN ancient Rus' few people thought about religion; schismatics not only thought about religion, their entire spiritual life was focused on it. In ancient Rus', the ritual was a dead form and was poorly performed. The schismatics looked for meaning in it and tried to do everything accurately and sacredly. The creation of national-religious identity and the resulting firm commitment to the world-historical mission of Russian Orthodoxy (Moscow - the third Rome) formed the ideological basis of the schismatic movement.
Nikon's main enemies are the priests Ivan Neronov, Avvakum, Lazar and Nikita. These people were the most well-read and educated of the clergy of that time. The first typical personality is Archpriest Avvakum. He is a man of iron will and an unyielding, unyielding character, a fanatic in pursuing his goals and defending his beliefs.
Under the influence of this protest, Nikon realized that “it is better to act by conciliar verdict than by personal authority.” The council, as is known, approved and approved all of Nikon's corrections; only one bishop - Bishop Pavel Kolomna - did not agree with the council, for which he was defrocked and imprisoned. The Church Council of 1666-1667 cursed the Old Believers. Brutal persecution of schismatics began. The bulk of them were the lower clergy, tax workers, townspeople and peasants. Supporters of the split hid in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, Trans-Volga region, Urals, and Siberia. Here they created hermitages and camps, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, when the tsarist punitive detachments approached, they staged a “burn” - self-immolation. The most powerful protest against the reforms manifested itself in the Solovetsky uprising (1668-1676). Opponents of reforms flocked here, to a distant monastery with powerful walls. Many differences have found shelter here. In 1676, a traitor let the royal troops into the monastery through a secret hole. Of the 600 defenders of the church, only 50 remained alive.
So, two main schismatic movements arose: priesthood and non-priesthood. With them, further disorganization of the Old Believers movement began.
The leaders of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum and his associates, were exiled to Pustozersk and spent 14 years in an earthen prison. After which they were burned alive. From then on, Old Believers often subjected themselves to “baptism of fire” - self-immolation in response to the coming into the world of “Nikon the Antichrist”
2.2 Fall of Nikon
The people said that the patriarch-tormentor and murderer sat on the high priestly throne. Nikon began his reforms not with God’s blessing, but with curses and anathemas, not with church prayer, but with bloodshed and murder. Everyone was in awe of him, and none of the bishops dared to speak with a courageous word of reproof. Timidly and silently they agreed to his demands and orders.
Nikon did not remain on the patriarchal throne for long, only seven years. With his lust for power and pride, he managed to alienate everyone from himself. In 1658, the tsar, during one of his quarrels with the patriarch, let him know that he was angry with him because Nikon bore the title of “great sovereign” and abused power. Then Nikon decided to influence the king with a threat, which he had previously succeeded in doing. He decided to publicly renounce the patriarchate, counting on this; that the king would be touched by his renunciation and would beg him not to leave the high priestly throne.
To try Nikon and consider other church matters, Tsar Alexei convened a new council in 1666 (it was continued in the next one, 1667). The eastern patriarchs arrived at the council, who, as it later turned out, had been deposed from their thrones by the council of eastern hierarchs and therefore did not have the canonical right to decide Russian church affairs. The Council found Nikon guilty of unauthorized flight from the pulpit and other crimes. The patriarchs called him a liar, a deceiver, a torturer, compared him to Satan, said that he was even worse than Satan, and recognized him as a heretic because he ordered that thieves and robbers not confess before death. In the end, the cathedral deprived Nikon of his holy rank and made him a simple monk.
In 1676, the disgraced patriarch was transferred to the neighboring Kirillov Monastery, where he remained until 1681, when Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich ordered Nikon to be returned for his services after a 15-year imprisonment to his beloved New Jerusalem. “This return was like a triumphal procession of the 75-year-old patriarch, exhausted by labor and sorrow, to a place of rest.” But near Yaroslavl, on the way to his Resurrection Monastery, Nikon died. He was buried in the Resurrection Monastery with honor as a patriarch
2.3 Summary church schism
Brutal government repression, which resulted in thousands of Old Believers being executed, tens of thousands tortured, imprisoned and exiled, did not sway the most ardent adherents in their beliefs, but many Christians began to think that they had arrived last times, and that the end of the world will soon come. The rejection of the reforms was precisely double - both religious and political - in nature (I. Neronov, for example, protested primarily not against the change in rituals, but against the strengthening of Nikon’s immense power). Rus' in these years experienced unprecedented activity of theological consciousness, which splashed out in furious polemics, which, exacerbating mutual hostility.
However, the official church won. Church reform was put into effect. The Council accepted all Greek patriarchs and all Greek liturgical books as Orthodox. The Russian Orthodox Church has become closer to the rest of the Orthodox world. The council also approved the principle of separation of secular and spiritual power. The king has the advantage in deciding civil matters, and the church in deciding spiritual ones.
Before 1700
Before the election of the first Patriarch in Rus', Russian kingdom was considered a metropolitanate (in this case, an integral part) of the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople. And although metropolitans were most often proposed by the Grand Dukes and Tsars of Russia, they were still approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Since the fall of the Byzantine Empire (1453) by the middle of the 16th century, the Church of Constantinople had lost its greatness. At the same time, the Russian Church and the Russian Tsardom had long been nurturing the idea of a patriarchate in Rus'. Favorable conditions for this ripened during the reign of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich.
The first election of the Patriarch in Rus' enriched church history with an interesting precedent. On June 17, 1586, Patriarch Joachim of Antioch visited Moscow for the first time. This event gave impetus to the implementation of the plan, which had long been ripened in the mind of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, to give the Moscow Metropolis the status of a Patriarchate. This also corresponded to the self-perception of the Russian high priest (thus, during the meeting between Patriarch Joachim and the then Metropolitan Dionysius, it was the Patriarch who was the first to approach the latter for blessing, and not vice versa). The Tsar, after consulting with the boyars and clergy, turned to Joachim with the question of the possibility of creating a patriarchal see in Moscow. He agreed and promised to intercede about this with other patriarchs.
In 1588, during the visit of the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah, similar negotiations were conducted with him. After the latter gave his consent, a Council of all Russian bishops was convened, which elected three candidates for the patriarchal throne. The Tsar chose the Patriarch from among the three proposed, and the Patriarch only approved the already chosen candidacy of the Metropolitan of Moscow Job . This happened in 1589. Later, at the Councils of Constantinople in 1590 (all the patriarchs participated except that of Alexandria) and 1593, Job was recognized among the patriarchs by the entire Ecumenical Church.
The peculiarity and exclusivity of the fact of Job's installation as patriarch was that during this ceremony Job was re-ordained bishop. Moreover, for Job this was already the third ordination. The practice of the 16th century was to re-consecrate bishops during the transition to the Moscow Metropolis, which indicates a certain separation in the Russian church consciousness of the Moscow High Hierarch from among other bishops. As far as one can judge, the Patriarchs of Moscow were re-ordained in the 17th century.
According to a similar model, the next Patriarch was enthroned in 1606 - Hermogenes . Tsar Vasily Mikhailovich Shuisky chose him from the candidates proposed by the Council of Bishops.
Metropolitan Filaret essentially began to be called Patriarch even before his election. This title was awarded to him by False Dmitry II. Although, in a strict sense, the title of “Nominated Patriarch” assigned by the “Tushinsky thief” meant something like a locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. The unconditional authority of this ruler and the fact that he was the father of the new Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich became the prerequisites for the fact that when choosing the High Hierarch at the Council of Bishops in 1619 (Patriarch Theophan of Jerusalem also participated in it) and when approving this choice by the Tsar, Philaret’s candidacy was the only one.
Patriarch Joasapha , who took over the department in 1634, was chosen as his successor by Patriarch Filaret himself with the consent of the tsar, but the established form of patriarchal election was observed over him as well. Next Patriarch Joseph was elected quite in an unusual way. After the metropolitans and archbishops invited by Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich arrived in Moscow, the Tsar, asking for their prayers, prepared six lots with the names of the most worthy bishops and heads of monasteries. The bishops gathered in the cathedral church had to test the lot.
In 1652, to elect a new Patriarch, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich gathered four metropolitans in Moscow, who were instructed to compile a list of “12 spiritual men.” From this list, the metropolitans had to choose the most worthy, and then notify the king about this. Metropolitan of Novgorod was elected Patriarch Nikon . This time the lot was not cast.
The procedure for electing the Patriarch in 1667 was very similar to that after which Job and Hermogenes were elected. At the Council called to elect the Patriarch, there were two Patriarchs - Alexandria and Antioch, bishops, archimandrites, abbots and many other clergy. The council, with the active participation of the tsar, selected three of the most worthy from 12 candidates. The list with their names was handed over to the king, who, after consulting with Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, pointed to the archimandrite of the Vladimir monastery Joasapha . The next patriarchs Pitirim And Joachim , one might say, were directly “appointed” by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with the formal support of the Council of Bishops.
During the election of the last patriarch before the abolition of the patriarchate of the high priest Adriana there was a conflict between him and Peter I. Peter I wanted the Pskov Metropolitan Markell, a man distinguished by his learning and able to support the Tsar’s innovations, to become patriarch. The bishop generally agreed. But the middle clergy (archimandrites, abbots of prominent monasteries) proposed Adrian - a man of high spiritual life, a strict zealot of church traditions. Petra’s mother Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina, who revered Adrian, also agreed with this choice. The Church Council, at which these differences were revealed, decided the matter in favor of Adrian
After 1917
After two hundred years of Synodal governance of the church, a new Patriarch was elected in 1917 at the Local Council. The election procedure consisted of two stages. The full composition of the Council (bishops, priests and laity numbering 364 people on November 5) chose three candidates. Then the lot was cast, which fell on the Metropolitan of Moscow Tikhona (Belavina) . It must be said that this election of the Patriarch was the first in the history of Russia in which secular power did not take any part. Moreover, the patriarchate was revived precisely with the aim of opposing the amorphous power of the Provisional Government (at first no one seriously thought about the Bolsheviks) with a formalized organism that was closed on a specific individual.
After the death of Patriarch Tikhon in 1925, the Bolsheviks did not allow the election of a new high priest for a long time. The situation changed in 1943. Stalin allows the convening of a Council of Bishops, which meets on September 8, 1943. 19 hierarchs took part in the Council. The only candidate in the voting was Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) , who was elected by open voting.
41 Russian and 5 foreign bishops took part in the 1945 Council. Voting was again open and uncontested. Metropolitan of Leningrad was elected Alexy (Simansky), named by Metropolitan Sergius as his successor.
The election of Patriarch Pimen in 1971 was held by open voting. Here is how Archbishop of Brussels and Belgium Vasily (Krivoshein), a participant in that Council, writes about this: “I hurried to the Assumption Church, everyone was already assembled there, they were waiting for me and were worried about my tardiness. They quickly put the robe on me, without even having time to fasten the hooks, and we, in procession and in order of seniority, entered the premises of the Cathedral, the Refectory Church of St. Sergius, and took our usual places. Foreign guests in in full force also settled down, and I managed to notice that Kuroyedov or any of the representatives of the civil authorities were not there either.
The meeting began at about two o'clock in the afternoon. Metropolitan Pimen proposed discussing the procedure for electing the Patriarch. Metropolitan Nikodim stood up and said: “The election procedure was the subject of a deep and comprehensive discussion at the Bishops’ Conference. It was decided that the election would take place by open voting, and, therefore, I ask and propose that the Council approve this procedure.”
Latest in modern history the elections of the Patriarch took place during the Local Council of 1990 for the first time in many years without any pressure from the secular authorities. This time, the candidates for patriarch were 75 diocesan bishops over the age of 40 who had Soviet citizenship from birth. The Council of Bishops first nominated its candidates: each of its members could nominate up to three people from the proposed list. The Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod received the most votes Alexy (Ridiger) , Metropolitan of Rostov Vladimir (Sabodan) and Metropolitan of Kiev Philaret (Denisenko). Further, five candidates were nominated by the Local Council, but due to the weak support of each of them individually, further voting took place only on the first three candidates. Voting at the Local Council took place secretly in two stages. At first, only two candidates remained - Metropolitans Alexy and Vladimir. In the second round, Alexy prevailed by 15 votes.
“Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'” - with all its ancient solemnity, this title has firmly entered modern media circulation. Whose patriarch is more important, more ancient, more authoritative? - we ask these questions as modern ones. "RG" discusses the history of the patriarchate in Russia with Sergei Perevezentsev, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor at Moscow State University and Dean of the Faculty of History and Philology of the Russian Orthodox University.
How and why did we have a patriarchate?
Sergey Perevezentsev: The patriarchate in Rus' officially arose at the end of the 16th century. But back in the middle of the 15th century, the famous Union of Florence took place, at which the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized the primacy of the Pope and agreed to profess Catholic dogmas in the Orthodox Church. The majority of the Orthodox world (including in Constantinople itself) perceived the news of union extremely critically. And in Rus' as well. The Greek Metropolitan, who came to Moscow from the Council of Florence and announced this news, was soon simply expelled from the country. And when in 1453 the Ottoman Turks took Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire perished, in Rus' this was perceived as God’s punishment for betraying the faith. Since the end of the 15th century, the desire of Russian theologians, politicians and thinkers to affirm the idea that there was only one independent Orthodox power left in the world - Rus', Russia - became noticeable. All Eastern Christians, who hoped that Russia would liberate them from Turkish rule, agreed with this growing sense of uniqueness. As a result, in the middle of the 15th century, autocephaly (independent self-government) of the Russian metropolis was established, and 150 years later, the patriarchate was established, the fifth after the previous four. The Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem have existed since ancient times, around the 4th century. In Rus' they were all called Ecumenical and were considered the main ones in resolving theological issues. But until the middle of the 17th century, a critical attitude towards the Greek Church remained; it was believed that the Greeks had betrayed the faith. Only the church reform of Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in the middle of the 17th century transferred the rules of the Greek Church to Rus', but it also led to a schism; many did not accept the innovations and became “Old Believers.”
How many patriarchs are there in the world today, what is their hierarchy and significance?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Today the existence of 15 local Orthodox churches is officially recognized. They are not necessarily headed by patriarchs; they may also be headed (as, for example, in the Greek Church) by an archbishop. In the Orthodox tradition there is no rule of a single head of the entire church. The heads of each of the local churches are equal to each other and are independent in making decisions in the church territories subordinate to them. The interference of other churches gives rise to political conflicts. Such a conflict currently exists between the Antioch and Jerusalem Patriarchates over Orthodox parishes in Qatar.
Did it also lead to the impossibility of convening a truly Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Yes, this is one of the reasons for the refusal of the Church of Antioch to participate in the Council in Crete. A conflict over some canonical territories also exists between the Serbian and Romanian churches. In the 90s, there was a conflict between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church, when part of the Estonian parishes went under the rule of Constantinople. Although from a canonical point of view he did not have the right to take over these parishes. But these conflicts also highlight an important thing: in the Orthodox Church there is no single head to whom everyone must obey. This has been the tradition of the Pope since ancient times, and in many ways it served to divide the churches in the 11th century. The Patriarch of Constantinople is by no means the “chief” in the Orthodox Church, only the “senior in honor” - a certain seniority is recognized, but not legal, but moral.
Have the names of patriarchal titles changed?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Certainly. The patriarch is also a bishop, and the episcopal title usually includes the names of those territories over which the authority of a particular church extended. After the annexation of Little and White Rus' in the second half of the 17th century, the Moscow Patriarch began to bear the title of Patriarch of White and Little Rus'. In the 19th century there was no longer the concept of Rus', they said: Russia.
But today we say “...all Rus',” but the word “Rus” has now come to mean the whole world, which is spiritually and culturally connected with our church?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Yes, behind this is the idea of the Russian World. Not political, not marked by state borders, not connected with any expansion, but the spiritual world. The word “Rus” means the spiritual connection of people living in different parts of the Earth, but professing Orthodoxy and recognizing the values of the Russian world as the main ones for themselves.
How do you explain the almost two-century gap in the history of the patriarchate? How important was its revival at the beginning of the 20th century?
Sergey Perevezentsev: During this period of Russian history, the Church found itself subordinate to the state. This process began long before the reign of Tsar Peter the Great. Even during the time of his father, Alexei Mikhailovich, attempts were made to subordinate the Church to the state in the economic, political, and judicial sense, but this trend finally prevailed in the 18th and 19th centuries. The results were inconsistent. On the one hand, the Church received direct state support, for example, in its missionary activities in the East. It was in the XVIII and 19th centuries The great Orthodox missionaries became famous - Innocent of Irkutsk, Innocent of Moscow, who enlightened Siberia and Alaska. But, on the other hand, all state sins were blamed on the Church - in popular opinion. And this had a serious negative impact. No wonder in late XIX- at the beginning of the 20th century, a movement for the restoration of the patriarchate arose in both Russian intellectual and priestly circles. Even before the First World War, a Council was planned at which this issue was to be resolved. And Tsar Nicholas II supported this cause. The war did not allow it to be carried out. And today, it seems to me, the Church should be an independent organization.
What were the patriarchs like as individuals? There are saints among them. Perhaps there are also losers?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Being a patriarch is a tough job. After all, he bears spiritual, moral, physical, legal responsibility for the entire Church. Not to mention the fact that a person holding this highest position must be an ideal of moral purity. Because it is through him that the church itself is most often perceived.
It must be said that most of the heads of the Russian Church, starting from the 11th century (from the time of the first metropolitans), were people of very high culture, deep experts and followers of Christian doctrine. It's hard to name someone who has outright done something bad. True, one bishop at the beginning of the 17th century, under False Dmitry I, agreed to take the patriarchal throne after the first Russian Patriarch Job was forcibly removed from him and sent to live out his life in a monastery. But he later fled from Moscow and is now not remembered among the patriarchs.
First Patriarch of Moscow Job. In 1989 he was glorified as a saint. Photo: wikipedia.org
What place does the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' occupy among other patriarchs?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Nominally - fifth. The first four come first. But in fact, the Russian Orthodox Church is now the largest in terms of the number of churchgoers. Its parishes are located all over the world. Therefore, in fact, the Russian Orthodox Church now occupies a position equal to Constantinople. And in terms of authority, she is one of the most influential. It is no coincidence that quite often held in last years No one paid attention to the meeting of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Pope, but the meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill with him caused a huge stir.
A Brief History of the Russian Patriarchate
The Patriarchate in Moscow was established in 1589. The first patriarch was Job. In 1721 it was abolished. The so-called synodal period followed in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, when it was governed by the Holy Synod. In 1917, at the All-Russian Local Council, the patriarchate was restored. Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow became Patriarch.
How the name of the patriarchal title changed
The first Patriarch Job was called "the Most Holy Patriarch of the reigning city of Moscow and the Great Russian Kingdom" and "Patriarch of the reigning city of Moscow and all Russia."
“Patriarch of All Russia and All Northern Countries” - this is how the title usually sounded until the time of Peter the Great. “By the grace of God, great lord and sovereign, archbishop of the reigning city of Moscow and all great, small and white Russia and all northern countries and Pomoria and many states, Patriarch” - this is how Patriarch Nikon wrote his title. On the tomb of Patriarch Adrian, his title is written as follows: Archbishop of Moscow and all Russia and all northern countries, Patriarch.
Patriarch Tikhon bore the title "Moscow and All Russia". Modern form“His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'” was chosen by Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1943, but it was also used in antiquity.
A candidate for patriarch must be, according to the Church Charter, a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, at least 40 years old, have a higher theological education and sufficient experience in church administration of the diocese. The rank of patriarch is for life.