Church schism- Nikon reforms in action

Nothing amazes as much as a miracle, except the naivety with which it is taken for granted.

Mark Twain

The church schism in Russia is associated with the name of Patriarch Nikon, who in the 50s and 60s of the 17th century organized a grandiose reform of the Russian church. The changes affected literally all church structures. The need for such changes was due to the religious backwardness of Russia, as well as significant errors in religious texts. The implementation of the reform led to a split not only in the church, but also in society. People openly opposed new trends in religion, actively expressing their position through uprisings and popular unrest. In today's article we will talk about the reform of Patriarch Nikon, as one of major events 17th century, which had a huge influence not only for the church, but for all of Russia.

Prerequisites for reform

According to the assurances of many historians who study the 17th century, a unique situation arose in Russia at that time, when religious rites in the country were very different from those around the world, including from Greek rites, from where Christianity came to Rus'. In addition, it is often said that religious texts, as well as icons, have been distorted. Therefore, the following phenomena can be identified as the main reasons for the church schism in Russia:

• Books that were copied by hand over centuries had typos and distortions.
• Difference from world religious rites. In particular, in Russia, until the 17th century, everyone was baptized with two fingers, and in other countries - with three.
• Conducting church ceremonies. The rituals were conducted according to the principle of “polyphony,” which was expressed in the fact that at the same time the service was conducted by the priest, the clerk, the singers, and the parishioners. As a result, a polyphony was formed, in which it was difficult to make out anything.

The Russian Tsar was one of the first to point out these problems, proposing to take measures to restore order in religion.

Patriarch Nikon

Tsar Alexei Romanov, who wanted to reform the Russian church, decided to appoint Nikon to the post of Patriarch of the country. It was this man who was entrusted with carrying out reform in Russia. The choice was, to put it mildly, quite strange, since the new patriarch had no experience in holding such events, and also did not enjoy respect among other priests.

Patriarch Nikon was known in the world under the name Nikita Minov. He was born and raised in a simple peasant family. From the very early years he paid great attention our religious education, we study prayers, stories and rituals. At the age of 19, Nikita became a priest in his native village. At the age of thirty, the future patriarch moved to the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow. It was here that he met the young Russian Tsar Alexei Romanov. The views of the two people were quite similar, which determined future fate Nikita Minov.

Patriarch Nikon, as many historians note, was distinguished not so much by his knowledge as by his cruelty and authority. He was literally delirious with the idea of ​​obtaining unlimited power, which was, for example, Patriarch Filaret. Trying to prove his importance for the state and for the Russian Tsar, Nikon shows himself in every possible way, including not only in the religious field. For example, in 1650 he actively participated in the suppression of the uprising, being the main initiator of the brutal reprisal against all the rebels.

Lust for power, cruelty, literacy - all this was combined into patriarchy. These were exactly the qualities that were needed to carry out the reform of the Russian church.

Implementation of the reform

The reform of Patriarch Nikon began to be implemented in 1653 - 1655. This reform carried with it fundamental changes in religion, which were expressed in the following:

• Baptism with three fingers instead of two.
• Bows should have been made to the waist, and not to the ground, as was the case before.
• Changes have been made to religious books and icons.
• The concept of "Orthodoxy" was introduced.
• The name of God has been changed in accordance with the global spelling. Now instead of "Isus" it was written "Jesus".
• Replacement of the Christian cross. Patriarch Nikon proposed replacing it with a four-pointed cross.
• Changes in church service rituals. Now the procession of the Cross was carried out not clockwise, as before, but counterclockwise.

All this is described in detail in the Church Catechism. Surprisingly, if we consider Russian history textbooks, especially school textbooks, the reform of Patriarch Nikon comes down to only the first and second points of the above. Rare textbooks say in the third paragraph. The rest is not even mentioned. As a result, one gets the impression that the Russian patriarch did not undertake any cardinal reform activities, but this was not so... The reforms were cardinal. They crossed out everything that came before. It is no coincidence that these reforms are also called the church schism of the Russian church. The very word “schism” indicates dramatic changes.

Let's look at individual provisions of the reform in more detail. This will allow us to correctly understand the essence of the phenomena of those days.

The Scriptures predetermined the church schism in Russia

Patriarch Nikon, arguing for his reform, said that church texts in Russia have many typos that should be eliminated. It was said that one should turn to Greek sources in order to understand the original meaning of religion. In fact, it wasn't implemented quite like that...

In the 10th century, when Russia adopted Christianity, there were 2 charters in Greece:

• Studio. The main charter of the Christian church. For many years it was considered the main one in the Greek church, which is why it was the Studite charter that came to Rus'. For 7 centuries, the Russian Church in all religious matters was guided by precisely this charter.
• Jerusalem. It is more modern, aimed at the unity of all religions and the commonality of their interests. The charter, starting from the 12th century, became the main one in Greece, and it also became the main one in other Christian countries.

The process of rewriting Russian texts is also indicative. The plan was to take Greek sources and harmonize religious scriptures on their basis. For this purpose, Arseny Sukhanov was sent to Greece in 1653. The expedition lasted almost two years. He arrived in Moscow on February 22, 1655. He brought with him as many as 7 manuscripts. In fact, this violated the church council of 1653-55. Most priests then spoke out in favor of the idea of ​​​​supporting Nikon's reform only on the grounds that the rewriting of texts should have occurred exclusively from Greek handwritten sources.

Arseny Sukhanov brought only seven sources, thereby making it impossible to rewrite texts based on primary sources. Patriarch Nikon's next step was so cynical that it led to mass uprisings. The Moscow Patriarch stated that if there are no handwritten sources, then the rewriting of Russian texts will be carried out using modern Greek and Roman books. At that time, all these books were published in Paris (a Catholic state).

Ancient religion

For a very long time, the reforms of Patriarch Nikon were justified by the fact that he made the Orthodox Church enlightened. As a rule, there is nothing behind such formulations, since the vast majority of people have difficulty understanding what the fundamental difference is between orthodox beliefs and enlightened ones. What's the difference really? First, let's understand the terminology and define the meaning of the concept “orthodox.”

Orthodox (orthodox) came from Greek language and means: orthos - correct, doha - opinion. It turns out that an orthodox person, in the true sense of the word, is a person with a correct opinion.

Historical reference book

Here, the correct opinion does not mean the modern sense (when this is what people are called who do everything to please the state). This was the name given to people who carried ancient science and ancient knowledge for centuries. A striking example is a Jewish school. Everyone knows very well that today there are Jews, and there are Orthodox Jews. They believe in the same thing, they have common religion, general views, beliefs. The difference is that Orthodox Jews conveyed their true faith in its ancient, true meaning. And everyone admits this.

From this point of view, it is much easier to evaluate the actions of Patriarch Nikon. His attempts to destroy the Orthodox Church, which is exactly what he planned to do and successfully did, lie in the destruction of the ancient religion. And by and large it was done:

• All ancient religious texts were rewritten. Old books were not treated on ceremony; as a rule, they were destroyed. This process outlived the patriarch himself for many years. For example, Siberian legends are indicative, which say that under Peter 1 a huge amount of Orthodox literature was burned. After the burning, more than 650 kg of copper fasteners were recovered from the fires!
• The icons were rewritten in accordance with the new religious requirements and in accordance with the reform.
• The principles of religion are changed, sometimes even without the necessary justification. For example, Nikon’s idea that the procession should go counterclockwise, against the movement of the sun, is absolutely incomprehensible. This caused great discontent as people began to consider the new religion to be a religion of darkness.
• Replacement of concepts. The term “Orthodoxy” appeared for the first time. Until the 17th century, this term was not used, but concepts such as “true believer”, “true faith”, “immaculate faith”, “Christian faith”, “God’s faith” were used. Various terms, but not “Orthodoxy”.

Therefore, we can say that orthodox religion is as close as possible to the ancient postulates. That is why any attempts to radically change these views leads to mass indignation, as well as to what today is commonly called heresy. It was heresy that many people called the reforms of Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century. That is why a split in the church occurred, since “orthodox” priests and religious people called what was happening heresy, and saw how fundamental the difference was between the old and new religions.

People's reaction to church schism

The reaction to Nikon's reform is extremely revealing, emphasizing that the changes were much deeper than is commonly said. It is known for certain that after the implementation of the reform began, massive popular uprisings took place throughout the country, directed against changes in the church structure. Some people openly expressed their dissatisfaction, others simply left this country, not wanting to remain in this heresy. People went to the forests, to distant settlements, to other countries. They were caught, brought back, they left again - and this happened many times. The reaction of the state, which actually organized the Inquisition, is indicative. Not only books burned, but also people. Nikon, who was particularly cruel, personally welcomed all reprisals against the rebels. Thousands of people died opposing the reform ideas of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The reaction of the people and the state to the reform is indicative. We can say that mass unrest has begun. Now answer a simple question: are such uprisings and reprisals possible in the event of simple superficial changes? To answer this question, it is necessary to transfer the events of those days to today's reality. Let's imagine that today the Patriarch of Moscow will say that now you need to cross yourself, for example, with four fingers, bows should be made with a nod of the head, and books should be changed in accordance with the ancient scriptures. How will people perceive this? Most likely, neutral, and with certain propaganda even positive.

Another situation. Suppose that the Moscow Patriarch today obliges everyone to make the sign of the cross with four fingers, to use nods instead of bows, to wear a Catholic cross instead of an Orthodox one, to hand over all the icon books so that they can be rewritten and redrawn, the name of God will now be, for example, “Jesus,” and the religious procession will continue for example an arc. This type of reform will certainly lead to an uprising of religious people. Everything changes, the entire centuries-old religious history is crossed out. This is exactly what the Nikon reform did. This is why a church schism occurred in the 17th century, since the contradictions between the Old Believers and Nikon were insoluble.

What did the reform lead to?

Nikon's reform should be assessed from the point of view of the realities of that day. Of course, the patriarch destroyed ancient religion Rus', but he did what the tsar wanted - bringing the Russian church into line with international religion. And there were both pros and cons:

• Pros. Russian religion ceased to be isolated, and began to be more similar to Greek and Roman. This made it possible to create greater religious ties with other states.
• Minuses. Religion in Russia at the time of the 17th century was most oriented towards primitive Christianity. It was here that there were ancient icons, ancient books and ancient rituals. All this was destroyed for the sake of integration with other states, in modern terms.

Nikon’s reforms cannot be regarded as the total destruction of everything (although this is exactly what most authors are doing, including the principle “everything is lost”). We can only say with certainty that the Moscow Patriarch made significant changes to the ancient religion and deprived Christians of a significant part of their cultural and religious heritage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results of church reform:

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

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

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

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

Reasons for Nikon's church reform Increasing centralization of the Moscow state demanded a centralized church. It was necessary to unify it - the introduction of the same text of prayer, the same type of worship, the same forms of magical rituals and manipulations that make up the cult. For this purpose, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich as patriarch Nikon a reform was carried out that significant influence for the further development of Orthodoxy in Russia. The changes were based on the practice of worship in Byzantium.After the baptism of Rus', some changes occurred in the ritual of the Byzantine church. Having conceived the idea of ​​​​correcting books according to Greek models, Nikon realized that it was impossible to do without a decisive break in many rituals that had taken root in the Russian Church. In order to gain support, he turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisia, who did not recommend that Nikon break established traditions, but Nikon did it his own way. In addition to changes in church books, innovations concerned the order of worship. Thus, the sign of the cross had to be made with three fingers, not two; the religious procession around the church should be carried out not in the direction of the sun (from east to west, salting), but against the sun (from west to east); instead of bows to the ground, bows should be made from the waist; to honor the cross not only with eight and six points, but also with four points; sing hallelujah three times, not two, and some others.The reform was proclaimed at a solemn service in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral on the so-called Orthodoxy Week 1656 (first Sunday of Lent). Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich supported the reform, and the councils of 1655 and 1656 approved it. However, it aroused protest from a significant part of the boyars and merchants, the lower clergy and peasantry. The protest was based on social contradictions that took a religious form. As a result, a split in the church began. Those who did not agree with the reforms were called schismatics. The schismatics were led by the archpriest Habakkuk And Ivan Neronov. The means of power were used against schismatics: prisons and exile, executions and persecution. Avvakum and his companions were stripped of their hair and sent to the Pustozersky prison, where they were burned alive in 1682; others were caught, tortured, beaten, beheaded and burned. The confrontation was especially brutal in the Solovetsky Monastery, which held a siege from the tsarist troops for about eight years.In Moscow, the archers, under the leadership of Nikita Pustosvyat. They demanded a debate between the Nikonians and the Old Believers. The dispute resulted in a squabble, but the Old Believers felt like winners. Nevertheless, the victory turned out to be illusory: the next day the leaders of the Old Believers were arrested and executed a few days later. The adherents of the old faith realized that they had no hope of victory in the state plan. The flight to the outskirts of the country intensified. The most extreme form of protest was self-immolation. It is believed that during the existence of the Old Believers, the number of those who burned themselves reached 20 thousand. “Burning” continued throughout most of the 18th century. and stopped only during the reign of Catherine II. Patriarch Nikon tried to establish the priority of spiritual power over secular power, to place the patriarchate above autocracy. He hoped that the tsar would not be able to do without him, and in 1658 he pointedly renounced the patriarchate. The blackmail was not successful. The local council of 1666 condemned Nikon and deprived him of his rank. The Council, recognizing the independence of the patriarch in resolving spiritual issues, confirmed the need to subordinate the church to royal authority. Nikon was exiled to the Belozersko-Ferapontov Monastery.

In the history of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church, its consequences were reflected in riots, religious persecution, giving rise to countless martyrs for the faith. This religious and political movement, powerful in scale and significance, had its own prehistory, without studying which it is impossible to understand the reasons for this great Russian drama. First of all, although this event concerned the sphere of religious rites and, mainly, the order of the liturgy, it also had other reasons. One can also especially highlight the role of Tsar Alexei the Quiet and thanks to whom the political preconditions turned into driving force split. It should be noted that church reasons played a secondary role in this situation.

So, with the ascension to the throne of the second in the Romanov dynasty, nicknamed the Quietest, Moscow’s imperial appetites increased. The monarch cherished ambitious plans to unite under his wing all the Orthodox peoples living in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. But after the capture and annexation of Left Bank Ukraine, a problem of a ritual nature suddenly arose. Most believers in the conquered lands were baptized with three fingers, as was done in Greece and throughout the Orthodox world, while the Russians were baptized with two. The king’s aspirations to found the “Third Rome” required a single ritual. There were two ways out of this situation: either to impose Russian rituals on the conquered population, or to force their own believers to confess Christ in a new way. Therefore, the church schism is a consequence of the incompetent policy of the authorities to introduce a unified Orthodoxy.

Since it was dangerous to impose anything on the already dissatisfied provinces, the king decided to take on “his own.” And he did this with tough, “police” measures. In 1653, Metropolitan Nikon, who had been elected the Patriarch of All Rus' a year earlier, sent out a decree in which he most categorically ordered to be baptized with three fingers and to make four prostrations instead of sixteen when praying to St. Ephraim the Syrian. He also replaced monophonic singing with polyphonic singing and allowed priests to preach sermons of their own composition. Thus, the church schism is inextricably linked with each other.

Since innovations were imposed “from above”, without any explanation or conviction of the correctness of such measures, this decree met with the most fierce resistance, and from all segments of the population. Even some nobles and boyars advocated non-deviation from ancient piety. Representatives of the clergy, especially Archpriests Daniel and Avvakum, also acted as conductors of the opposition. But both the king and the patriarch remained unshaken. Even the fact that in 1658 Nikon fell into disgrace, and in 1666 he was deposed from the rank of patriarch, did not affect the ever-widening church schism: in 1667, the Great Moscow Council anathematized those who refused to accept new rituals, and also continued “ blaspheme the Church,” accusing her of apostasy.

The first manifestation of discontent among the broadest masses of the population was the Solovetsky Uprising (1667-1676). It ended in the massacre of the dissatisfied. The church schism widened and deepened. Many families, fleeing persecution and not wanting to betray their faith, fled to the outskirts of the Russian kingdom - to the floodplains of the Danube, to the north, to the Volga region and Siberia, spreading the doctrine of the onset of the last times and the kingdom of the Antichrist, who is now served by both the tsar and the patriarch. The death of Alexei Tishaishy did not change the situation at all. Sofya Alekseevna only intensified the persecution of the rebellious Old Believers.

The church schism found its most terrible manifestation in mass self-immolations - the so-called “burnings”. People driven to despair took their own lives so as not to betray their faith. These suicides continued throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. The secular authorities put an end to the persecution: the decree of Nicholas II “On Tolerance”, which guaranteed the Old Believers. And in 1929, the Holy Synod adopted a resolution that “old Russian rituals are also saving.”

Full text search:

Home > Test >History

Test

in the discipline: "National History"

on the topic: “State and Church in the XVI-XVII centuries.

Church reform of Patriarch Nikon and its consequences"

Plan

1. Relationships between church and state in the 16th-17th centuries. (pp. 2-3).

Church reform of Patriarch Nikon, goals, causes and consequences. (pp. 4-16).

Church schism, its essence and consequences. (pp. 16-21).

4. Analysis of the topic studied. (pp.21-24).

5. List of used literature. (p.25).

Relations between church and state in the 15th centuryI- XVIIcenturies

As the Russian autocracy developed, the issue of the priority of state power over church power became more and more pressing on the agenda. During the period of feudal fragmentation, the Russian church played a significant role in uniting the country to fight the Mongol-Tatar invasion. However, for all its desire to play an independent role, the Russian Orthodox Church has always been dependent on state power. In this it differed greatly from the Roman Catholic Church, which had complete independence in church affairs.

The transformation of the church from an instrument of domination of feudal lords into an instrument of domination of the noble state was completed in the 17th century, when, after the unrest, the nobility finally seized a leading position in the Moscow state. This also affected the church. She lost a significant part of her influence, and even the patriarch was forced to reckon with the constant control of the tsar and the boyar duma.

This change in the position of the church had an economic basis. True, the absolute size of church estates and the number of church people were very impressive in the 17th century: at the end of the century, the patriarch, metropolitans and bishops owned about 37,000 households, which included about 440,000 souls of the tax population; in addition, significant lands belonged to individual monasteries. But, still, compared to the noble state, it was not so much. Commercial and industrial cities and settlements grew. The nobility jealously monitored the church economy and continued to take measures against its growth. At the council of 1580, the Moscow government passed a resolution according to which it was forbidden to give monasteries estates for the funeral of the soul, and it was also generally prohibited for church persons and institutions to buy and take land as collateral. The Troubles paralyzed the operation of this rule; but in 1649, when the Code was drawn up, it was restored, expanded and implemented as a national law. It was the Council Code that decreed (Chapter XVII, Art. 42): “The Patriarch and the Metropolitan and the Archbishop and the Bishop, and in monasteries, should not buy ancestral, and served and purchased estates from anyone, and do not mortgage them, and do not keep them for themselves.” , and a heart-to-heart in eternal remembrance, do not deal with some matters ... "

The Code finally abolished church jurisdiction in relation to church people in civil and criminal cases. These measures, in addition to their legal significance, caused considerable material damage to the church, depriving it of constant and large income in the form of court fees.

The initiative to establish the patriarchate came from the tsar. All of them were “elected” by the councils on the instructions of the king.

The Tsar intervened not only in administrative, financial and judicial matters. He also issued orders on the observance of fasts, the service of prayers, and order in churches. And often these decrees were sent not to the bishops, but to the royal governors, who zealously monitored their implementation and punished those who disobeyed.

Thus, the leadership of the church in all respects actually belonged to the king, and not to the patriarch. This situation in church circles was not only not considered abnormal, but was even officially recognized by the councils.

The church reform of the 50-60s of the 17th century was caused by the desire to strengthen the centralization of the Russian church in a similar way to other parts of the state apparatus.

Church reform of Patriarch Nikon, goals, causes and consequences.

Patriarch Nikon was born in 1605 in a peasant environment, with the help of his literacy he became a rural priest, but due to the circumstances of his life he entered monasticism early and hardened himself with a harsh lifestyle in northern monasteries. He acquired the ability to greatly influence people and the unlimited trust of the king. He quite quickly achieved the rank of Metropolitan of Novgorod and finally, at the age of 47, became the All-Russian Patriarch.

From Russian people of the 17th century. Nikon was the largest and most original figure. In quiet times in everyday life, he was heavy, capricious, hot-tempered and power-hungry, most of all proud. But these were hardly his real, fundamental qualities. He knew how to make a huge moral impression, but proud people are incapable of this. Because of his bitterness in the struggle, he was considered evil, but he was burdened by all enmity, and he easily forgave his enemies everything if he noticed in them a desire to meet him halfway. Nikon was cruel to stubborn enemies. But he forgot everything at the sight of human tears and suffering. Charity, helping a weak or sick neighbor was for him not so much a duty of pastoral service as an unconscious attraction of good nature. In terms of his mental and moral strength, he was a great businessman, willing and able to do big things.

His behavior in 1650 with the Novgorod rebels, to whom he allowed himself to be beaten in order to bring them to reason, then during the Moscow pestilence of 1654, when in the absence of the Tsar he rescued his family from the infection, reveals in him rare courage and self-control. But he easily got lost and lost his temper over everyday trifles, everyday nonsense: a momentary impression grew into a whole mood. In the most difficult moments, which he created for himself and required full work of thought, he occupied himself with trifles and was ready to raise a big fuss over trifles. Convicted and exiled to the Ferapontov monastery, he received gifts from the tsar, and when one day the tsar sent him a lot of good fish, Nikon was offended and responded with a reproach for why they did not send vegetables, grapes, and apples. In a good mood he was resourceful and witty, but, offended and irritated, he lost all tact and took the whims of his embittered imagination for reality. In captivity, he began to treat the sick, but could not resist, so as not to prick the king with his healing miracles, sent him a list of those cured, and told the royal messenger that the patriarchate had been taken away from him, but he was given a “medicinal cup: “heal the sick.” Nikon was one of those people who calmly endure terrible pain, but groan and despair from a pinprick. He had a weakness that often affects strong, but little-constrained people: he missed peace, did not know how to wait patiently; he constantly needed anxiety, a passion for courage; whether by thought or a broad enterprise, even just a quarrel with a person.

Reasons for church reform.

Until July 1652, that is, before the election of Nikon to the patriarchal throne (Patriarch Joseph died on April 15, 1652), the situation in the church and ritual sphere remained uncertain. Archpriests and priests from the zealots of piety and Metropolitan Nikon in Novgorod, regardless of the decision of the church council of 1649 on moderate “multiharmony,” sought to perform a “unanimous” service. On the contrary, the parish clergy, reflecting the sentiments of the parishioners, did not comply with the decision of the church council of 1651 on “unanimity”, and therefore “multivocal” services were preserved in most churches. The results of the correction of liturgical books were not put into practice, since there was no church approval of these corrections. This uncertainty worried the royal authorities most of all.

In foreign policy terms, the issues of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia and the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was associated with the beginning of the liberation war of the Ukrainian people against the power of gentry Poland in 1648, became of paramount importance for her (already in 1649, a representative of B. Khmelnitsky S. . Muzhilovsky with a proposal to accept Ukraine under Russian rule). To begin to resolve these issues without eliminating the religious and ritual differences between the Russian and Greek churches and without overcoming the negative attitude of the Russian Orthodox hierarchs towards the Church of Ukraine was, to say the least, careless. However, the events of 1649 - 1651 in the church sphere, and especially the deterioration of relations between secular and church authorities, played a partly positive role. Their consequence was that the tsar and his closest secular circle felt the complexity and enormity of the changes that were to be carried out in

religious field, and the impossibility of carrying out this kind of reform without the closest alliance with church authorities. Alexei Mikhailovich also realized that it was not enough to have a supporter of such a reform at the head of the church. The successful implementation of the transformation of church life in Russia according to the Greek model was accessible only to a strong patriarchal government that had independence and high political authority and was capable of centralizing church administration. This determined the subsequent attitude of Tsar Alexei towards church authority.

The tsar's choice fell on Nikon, and this choice was supported by the tsar's confessor Stefan Vonifatiev. Kazan Metropolitan Korniliy and the zealots of piety who were in the capital, who were not privy to the tsar’s plans, submitted a petition with a proposal to elect Stefan Vonifatiev, the most influential and authoritative member of the circle, as patriarch. There was no reaction from the tsar to the petition, and Stefan avoided the proposal and persistently recommended Nikon’s candidacy to his like-minded people. The latter was also a member of the circle. Therefore, the zealots of piety in the new petition to the tsar spoke out in favor of electing Nikon, who was then the Novgorod metropolitan, as patriarch.

Nikon (before becoming a monk - Nikita Minov) had all the qualities Tsar Alexei needed. He was born in 1605 in Nizhny Novgorod district into a peasant family. Richly gifted by nature with energy, intelligence, excellent memory and sensitivity, Nikon early, with the help of a village priest, mastered literacy and professional knowledge as a church minister and at the age of 20 became a priest in his village. In 1635, he became a monk at the Solovetsky Monastery and was appointed in 1643 as abbot of the Kozheozersk Monastery. In 1646, Nikon, on monastery business, ended up in Moscow, where he met with Tsar Alexei. He made the most favorable impression on the tsar and therefore received the position of archimandrite of the influential capital Novospassky monastery. The newly-minted archimandrite became close to Stefan Vonifatiev and other metropolitan zealots of piety, entered their circle, repeatedly talked about faith and rituals with the Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius (when he was in Moscow) and became an active church figure. He acted before the king most often as an intercessor for the poor, disadvantaged or innocently convicted, and won his favor and trust. Having become the Novgorod metropolitan on the recommendation of the tsar in 1648, Nikon proved himself to be a decisive and energetic ruler and a zealous champion of piety. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was also impressed by the fact that Nikon moved away from the point of view of provincial zealots of piety on church reform and became a supporter of the plan for transforming church life in Russia according to the Greek model.

Nikon considered himself the only real candidate for patriarch. The essence of his far-reaching plans was to eliminate the dependence of church power on secular power, to place it in church affairs above the tsarist power and, having become a patriarch, to occupy at least an equal position with the tsar in the governance of Russia.

A decisive step followed on July 25, 1652, when the church council had already elected Nikon as patriarch and the tsar approved the election results. On this day, the Tsar, members of the royal family, Boyar Duma and participants in the church council. Nikon appeared only after a number of delegations were sent to him from the tsar. Nikon announced that he could not accept the rank of patriarch. He gave his consent only after the “praying” of the tsar and representatives of secular and ecclesiastical authorities present at the cathedral. With this “prayer” they, and, first of all, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, pledged to obey Nikon in everything that he would “proclaim” to them about “the dogmas of God and the rules”, to obey him “as a chief, a shepherd and a most noble father.” This act significantly raised the prestige of the new patriarch.

The secular authorities accepted Nikon's conditions because they considered this measure useful for carrying out church reform, and the patriarch himself was a reliable supporter of the reform plan. Moreover, in order to solve priority foreign policy problems (reunification with Ukraine, war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), which was supposed to be facilitated by church reform, the secular government made new concessions. The tsar refused to interfere in the actions of the patriarch that affected the church and ritual sphere. He also allowed Nikon’s participation in solving all domestic and foreign political affairs that interested the patriarch, recognized Nikon as his friend, and began to call him the great sovereign, that is, as if he bestowed on him a title that, of the previous patriarchs, only Filaret Romanov had. As a result, a close union of secular and ecclesiastical authorities arose in the form of the “wise two,” that is, the king and the patriarch.

Patriarch Nikon soon after his election became the autocratic ruler of the Russian church. He began by eliminating the interference in church affairs of his former like-minded people in the circle of zealots of piety. Nikon even ordered that the archpriests Ivan Neronov, Avvakum, Daniil and others should not be allowed to visit him. Their complaints were not supported by the tsar, nor Stefan Vonifatiev, nor F. M. Rtishchev, who avoided interfering in the actions of the patriarch.

Already at the end of 1652, some of the abbots of the monasteries, in order to please Nikon, began to slavishly call him the great sovereign. The bishops followed their example. In the 50s of the 17th century. Thanks to Nikon’s energetic and decisive activity, a set of measures was implemented that determined the content and nature of church reform.

Church reform.

Its implementation began in the spring of 1653, almost immediately after the Tsar and the Boyar Duma made the final decision on the inclusion of Ukraine into the Russian state. This coincidence was not accidental.

The first step was the sole order of the patriarch, which affected two rituals, bowing and making the sign of the cross. In the memory of March 14, 1653, sent to churches, it was said that from now on believers “it is not appropriate to do throwing on the knee in church, but bow to the waist, and cross yourself with three fingers naturally” (instead of two) . At the same time, the memory did not contain any justification for the need for this change in rituals.

Moreover, the patriarch's order was not supported by the authority of the church council. This beginning of the reform cannot be called successful. After all, this decision affected the most familiar rituals, which the clergy and believers considered an indicator of the truth of their faith. Therefore, it is not surprising that the change in bowing and signing caused discontent among believers. This was openly expressed by the provincial members of the circle of zealots of piety. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel prepared an extensive petition, in which they pointed out the inconsistency of the innovations with the institutions of the Russian Church. They submitted the petition to Tsar Alexei, but the Tsar handed it over to Nikon. The patriarch's order was also condemned by archpriests Ivan Neronov, Lazar and Loggin and deacon Fyodor Ivanov. Their judgments sowed distrust and hostility towards the reform and, of course, undermined the authority of the patriarch. Therefore, Nikon decisively suppressed the protest of his former like-minded people. He exiled Ivan Neronov under close supervision to the Spasokamenny Monastery in the Vologda district, Avvakum to Siberia, Daniel to Astrakhan, depriving him of the rank of clergyman, etc. The circle of zealots of piety disintegrated and ceased to exist.

Nikon's subsequent decisions were more deliberate and supported by the authority of the church council and the hierarchs of the Greek church, which gave these undertakings the appearance of decisions of the entire Russian church, which were supported by the “ecumenical” (that is, Constantinople) Orthodox Church. This was the nature of, in particular, the decisions on the procedure for corrections in church rites and rituals, approved by the church council in the spring of 1654.

Changes in rituals were carried out on the basis of Greek books contemporary to Nikon and the practice of the Church of Constantinople, information about which the reformer received mainly from the Antiochian Patriarch Macarius. Decisions on changes of a ritual nature were approved by church councils convened in March 1655 and April 1656. These decisions eliminated the difference in church ritual practice between the Russian and Constantinople churches. Most of the changes concerned the design of church services and the actions of clergy and clergy during services. All believers were affected by the replacement of two fingers with three fingers when performing the sign of the cross, a “three-part” (eight-pointed) cross with a two-part (four-pointed) one, walking during the baptismal rite in the sun (“salting”) with walking against the sun, and some other changes in rituals.

Exclusion from services was also of significant importance for church ministers and believers, mainly from the liturgy, hierarchal prayer, dismissal (prayer at the end of the service) and some litanies (praying for someone, most often a prayer for health for the Tsar and members of his family). . This entailed a significant reduction in the volume of the text, a shortening of the church service and contributed to the establishment of “unanimity.”

In 1653 - 1656 The liturgical books were also corrected. Officially, the need for corrections was motivated at the council of 1654 by the fact that there were many errors and insertions in the old printed books, and by the fact that the Russian liturgical order was very significantly different from the Greek. For this purpose, a large number of Greek and Slavic books, including ancient handwritten ones, were collected. Due to the presence of discrepancies in the texts of the collected books, the reference workers (with the knowledge of Nikon) took as a basis the text, which was a translation into Church Slavonic of a Greek service book of the 17th century, which, in turn, went back to the text of liturgical books of the 12th-15th centuries. As this basis was compared with ancient Slavic manuscripts, individual corrections were made to its text. As a result, in the new service book (compared to the previous Russian service books), some psalms became shorter, others became fuller, new words and expressions appeared, the triple “hallelujah” (instead of double), the spelling of the name of Christ Jesus (instead of Jesus), etc. New the missal was approved by the church council in 1656 and soon published.

Over the seven centuries that have passed since the religious reform of Prince Vladimir, the entire Greek liturgical rite has changed greatly. Double-fingering (which became a custom to replace the former single-fingering), which the first Greek priests taught to the Russian and Balkan Slavs and which until the middle of the 17th century was also maintained in the Kyiv and Serbian churches, in Byzantium - was replaced, under the influence of the fight against the Nestorians, with three-fingering (late 12th century) . The finger formation during blessing also changed, all liturgical rites became shorter, and some important chants were replaced by others. Thus, the rites of confirmation and baptism, repentance, consecration of oil and marriage were changed and shortened. The biggest changes were in the liturgy. As a result, when Nikon replaced old books and rituals with new ones, it was like the introduction of a “new faith.”

The majority of the clergy reacted negatively to the newly corrected books.

In addition, among the parish clergy and monks there were many illiterate people who had to relearn their voice, which was a very difficult task for them. The majority of the city clergy, and even the monasteries, found themselves in the same position.

Nikon, in 1654-1656, also became a leader in resolving matters that fell within the competence of the royal government. “great sovereign”, de facto co-ruler of Alexei Mikhailovich. In the summer of 1654, when a plague epidemic broke out in Moscow, Nikon facilitated the departure of the royal family from the capital to a safe place.

During the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden, the tsar left the capital for a long time. During these months, Nikon played the role of head of government and independently decided on civil and military affairs. True, a commission of the boyar duma remained in Moscow for observation, and more important matters were sent to the king and the boyar duma for decision. But Nikon subordinated the commission of the boyar duma to his authority. In the absence of the king, she began to report all matters to him. Even the formula appeared in the verdicts on the cases: “... the Holy Patriarch indicated, and the boyars sentenced.” To make reports, members of the boyar duma commission and court judges came to the patriarchal palace and waited here for reception. During receptions, Nikon behaved arrogantly, including towards the most noble boyars. This behavior of the patriarch offended the arrogance of the courtiers, but in 1654-1656. they not only tolerated, but also subserviently before him. Nikon's self-esteem and activity grew along with the successes of Russian foreign policy, since he also took an active part in determining its course.

But for the failures of 1656-1657. in foreign policy, the tsar's entourage placed the blame on Nikon. Active interference in literally all the affairs of the state and the desire to impose his decisions everywhere, including through threats (at least twice, due to the tsar’s disagreement with his “advices,” Nikon threatened to leave the patriarchal see), the tsar also began to feel burdened. The relationship between them began to cool. The Patriarch was invited to the royal palace less often; Alexei Mikhailovich increasingly communicated with him with the help of messengers from the courtiers and made attempts to limit his power, which, of course, Nikon did not want to put up with. This change was used by secular and spiritual feudal lords. Nikon was accused of violating laws, greed and cruelty.

An open clash between the tsar and the patriarch, which led to the fall of Nikon, occurred in July 1658. The reason for it was the insult by the okolnichy B. M. Khitrovo of the patriarchal solicitor Prince D. Meshchersky on July 6 during a reception in the Kremlin of the Georgian prince Teimuraz (Nikon was not invited). The Patriarch demanded in a letter that the Tsar immediately punish B.M. Khitrovo, but received only a note with a promise to investigate the case and see the Patriarch. Nikon was not satisfied with this and regarded the incident as an open disdain for his rank as head of the Russian church. On July 10, 1658, the tsar did not appear at the solemn mass in the Assumption Cathedral. Prince Yu. Romodanovsky, who came in his place, said to Nikon: “The Tsar’s Majesty honored you as a father and shepherd, but you did not understand this, now the Tsar’s Majesty ordered me to tell you that in the future you should not be written or called a great sovereign and will not honor you in the future.” " At the end of the service, Nikon announced his resignation from the patriarchal chair. He hoped that his unprecedented step would cause confusion in government circles and in the country, and then he would be able to dictate the terms of his return to the king. This situation did not suit the royal authorities.

The only way out of this situation was to depose Nikon and choose a new patriarch. For this purpose, in 1660, a church council was convened, which decided to deprive him of the patriarchal throne and priesthood, accusing Nikon of unauthorized removal from the patriarchal see. Epiphany Slavinetsky, speaking, pointed out the illegality of the council’s decision, since Nikon was not guilty of heresy, and only other patriarchs had the right to judge him. Given Nikon's international fame, the tsar was forced to agree and order the convening of a new council with the participation of the ecumenical patriarchs.

To win over the eastern patriarchs to his side, Nikon tried to enter into correspondence with them.

In November 1666, the patriarchs arrived in Moscow. On December 1, Nikon appeared before a council of church hierarchs, which was attended by the tsar and the boyars. The patriarch either denied all accusations or pleaded ignorance. Nikon was sentenced to deprivation of the patriarchal throne, but retained his previous title, prohibiting him from interfering “in the worldly affairs of the Moscow state and all of Russia, except for his three monasteries given to him and their estates.” The Eastern Patriarchs sought to restore the relationship between the two authorities on the basis of the Byzantine principle of “all-wise twos." At the same time, the limits of both authorities were established as follows: “Let the Patriarch not enter into the royal things of the royal court, and let him not retreat outside the boundaries of the church, as the king also preserves his rank.” At the same time, a reservation was made: “but when there is a heretic and it is wrong to rule, then it is most appropriate for the patriarch to confront him and protect him.” Thus, the council gave the church authorities a formidable weapon that the patriarch could use by declaring the tsar’s policy heretical. This decision did not satisfy the government.

On December 12, the final verdict in the Nikon case was announced. The place of exile of the deposed patriarch was determined to be the Ferapontov Monastery.

But the question of the relationship between the “priesthood” and secular power remained open. In the end, the disputing parties came to a compromise solution: “The Tsar has precedence in civil matters, and the Patriarch in ecclesiastical matters.” This decision remained unsigned by the council participants and was not included in the official acts of the council of 1666-1667.

Church schism, its essence and consequences.

The introduction of new rituals and services according to the corrected books was perceived by many as the introduction of a new religious faith, different from the previous one, “true Orthodox.” A movement of supporters of the old faith arose - a schism, the founders of which were provincial zealots of piety. They became the ideologists of this movement, the composition of which was heterogeneous. Among them were many low-income church ministers. Speaking for the “old faith,” they expressed dissatisfaction with the increasing oppression on the part of the church authorities. The majority of supporters of the “old faith” were townspeople and peasants, dissatisfied with the strengthening of the feudal-serf regime and the deterioration of their position, which they associated with innovations, including in the religious and church sphere. Nikon's reform was not accepted by some secular feudal lords, bishops and monks. Nikon's departure gave rise to hopes among supporters of the “old faith” for a rejection of innovations and a return to previous church rites and rituals. Investigations of schismatics carried out by the tsarist authorities showed that already in the late 50s and early 60s of the 17th century. in some areas this movement became widespread. Moreover, among the schismatics found, along with supporters of the “old faith,” there were many followers of the teachings of the monk Capito, that is, people who denied the need for a professional clergy and church authorities. Under these conditions, the tsarist government became the leader of the Orthodox Church of Russia, which after 1658 focused on solving two main tasks - consolidating the results of church reform and overcoming the crisis in church administration caused by Nikon's abandonment of the patriarchal chair. This was to be facilitated by the investigation of schismatics, the return from exile of Archpriest Avvakum, Daniel and other clergy, the ideologists of the schism, and the government’s attempts to persuade them to reconcile with the official church (Ivan Neronov reconciled with it back in 1656). The solution to these problems took almost eight years, mainly due to Nikon’s opposition.

The church council elected Archimandrite Joasaph of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery as the new patriarch. At the request of the Eastern Patriarchs, the convened council condemned the old rituals and canceled the resolution of the Stoglavy Council of 1551 on these rituals as unfounded. Believers who adhered to the old rites and defended them were condemned as heretics; it was ordered to excommunicate them from the church, and the secular authorities were ordered to try them in a civil court as opponents of the church. The decisions of the council on the old rituals contributed to the formalization and consolidation of the split of the Russian Orthodox Church into the official church that dominated society and the Old Believers. The latter, in those conditions, was hostile not only to the official church, but also to the state closely associated with it.

In the 1650-1660s, a movement of supporters of the “old faith” and a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church arose.

Entertaining artistic narratives and hysterical writings, including those criticizing church orders, were in great demand.

Struggling with the desire for secular education, the churchmen insisted that only by studying the Holy Scriptures and theological literature can believers achieve true enlightenment, cleansing the soul from sins and spiritual salvation—the main goal of a person’s earthly life. They regarded Western influence as a source of penetration into Russia of harmful foreign customs, innovations and views of Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism hostile to Orthodoxy. Therefore, they were supporters of Russia's national isolation and opponents of its rapprochement with Western states.

A consistent exponent and conductor of the policy of hostility and intolerance towards the Old Believers and other church opponents, other faiths, foreigners, their faith and customs, and secular knowledge was Joachim, Patriarch from 1674 to 1690. Opponents of the desire for secular knowledge, rapprochement with the West and the spread of foreign culture and customs there were also leaders of the schism, among them Archpriest Avvakum, and those that developed in the last third of the 17th century. Old Believer religious communities.

The tsarist government actively supported the church in the fight against schism and heterodoxy and used the full power of the state apparatus. She also initiated new measures aimed at improving the church organization and its further centralization.

Schism of the last third of the 17th century. is a complex socio-religious movement. It was attended by supporters of the “old faith” (they made up the majority of participants in the movement), members of various sects and heretical movements who did not recognize the official church and were hostile to it and the state, which was closely associated with this church. The hostility of the schism to the official church and the state was not determined by differences of a religious and ritual nature. It was determined by the progressive aspects of the ideology of this movement, its social composition and character. The ideology of the split reflected the aspirations of the peasantry and partly the townspeople, and therefore it had both conservative and progressive features. The first include the idealization and defense of antiquity, isolation and propaganda of accepting the crown of martyrdom in the name of the “old faith” as the only way to save the soul. These ideas left their mark on the schism movement, giving rise to conservative religious aspirations and the practice of “baptisms of fire” (self-immolation). The progressive sides of the ideology of schism include sanctification, that is, the religious justification of various forms of resistance to the power of the official church and the feudal-serf state, and the struggle for the democratization of the church.

The complexity and inconsistency of the schism movement was manifested in the uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery of 1668-1676, which began as an uprising by supporters of the “old faith.” The aristocratic elite of the “elders” opposed Nikon’s church reform, the ordinary mass of monks - moreover - for the democratization of the church, and the “beltsy”, that is, novices and monastic workers, were against feudal oppression, and in particular against serfdom in the monastery itself.

To suppress the movement, various means were used, including ideological ones, in particular, anti-schismatic polemical works were published (“Rod of Rule” by Simeon of Polotsk in 1667, “Spiritual Doom” by Patriarch Joachim” in 1682, etc.), and to increase the “educational quality” of church services, the publication of books containing sermons began (for example, “The Soulful Dinner” and “The Soulful Supper” by Simeon of Polotsk).

But the main ones were violent means of combating schism, which were used by secular authorities at the request of the church leadership. The period of repression began with the exile of the ideologists of the schism, who refused reconciliation with the official church at a church council in April 1666; of them, archpriests Avvakum and Lazar, deacon Fedor and former monk Epiphanius were exiled and kept in the Pustozersk prison. The exiles were followed by the mass execution of the surviving participants of the Solovetsky Uprising (more than 50 people were executed). Patriarch Joachim insisted on such a severe punishment. Cruel punishments, including executions, were more often practiced under Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682). This caused a new uprising of schismatics during the Moscow uprising of 1682. The failure of the “rebellion” of supporters of the old faith led to the execution of their leaders. The hatred of the ruling class and the official church for the schism and schismatics was expressed in legislation. According to the decree of 1684, schismatics were to be tortured and, if they did not submit to the official church, executed. Those schismatics who, wishing to be saved, submitted to the church and then returned to the schism again, were to be “executed by death without trial.” This marked the beginning of mass persecution.

4. Analysis of the topic studied.

The church reform of Patriarch Nikon had a huge impact on the internal life of the country and laid the foundation for such a socio-religious movement in the 17th century. like a split. But one also cannot deny its certain role in the foreign policy of the Russian state. Church reform was intended to strengthen relations with some countries and opened up opportunities for new, stronger alliances in politics. And the support of Orthodox churches in other countries was also very important for Russia.

Nikon defended the principle of independence of the church from state power. He tried to achieve complete non-interference between the tsar and the boyars in internal church affairs, and to have power himself equal to that of the tsar.

This, naturally, could not go unnoticed. The real reason for Nikon's quarrel with the tsar was Nikon's excessively increased influence and constant interference in the domestic and foreign policy of the state. A long-term struggle of the autocracy began for the complete subordination of the church to the state.

What led to such serious changes in the Russian Church? The immediate cause of the Schism was the book reform, but the reasons, real and serious, lay much deeper, rooted in the foundations of Russian religious self-awareness.

It is not surprising that, striving for the unification of the Russian church liturgical sphere, and complete equality with the Eastern Church, Patriarch Nikon decisively took up the task of correcting liturgical books according to Greek models. This is what caused the greatest resonance. The Russian people did not want to recognize the “innovations” that came from the Greeks. The changes and additions made by scribes to the liturgical books, and the rituals inherited from their ancestors, were so ingrained in the minds of people that they were already accepted as the true and sacred truth.

It was not easy to carry out reform in the face of resistance from a large part of the population. But the matter was complicated mainly by the fact that Nikon used church reform, first of all, to strengthen his own power. This also served as the reason for the emergence of his ardent opponents and the split of society into two warring camps.

To eliminate the unrest that had arisen in the country, a Council was convened (1666-1667). This council condemned Nikon, but still recognized his reforms. This means that the patriarch was not such a sinner and traitor as the Old Believers tried to make him out to be.

The same Council of 1666-1667. summoned the main propagators of the Schism to his meetings, subjected their “philosophies” to the test and cursed them as alien to spiritual reason and common sense. Some schismatics obeyed the maternal admonitions of the Church and repented of their errors. Others remained irreconcilable.

Thus, the religious Schism in Russian society became a fact. The split troubled the public life of Rus' for a long time. The siege of the Solovetsky Monastery, which became a stronghold of the Old Believers, lasted for eight years (1668 – 1676). After the monastery was captured, the perpetrators of the rebellion were punished; those who expressed submission to the church and the king were forgiven and left in their previous position. Six years after that, a schismatic revolt arose in Moscow itself, where the archers under the command of Prince Khovansky took the side of the Old Believers. The debate on faith, at the request of the rebels, was held right in the Kremlin in the presence of the ruler Sofia Alexandrovna and the patriarch.

It is difficult, and probably impossible, to say unambiguously what caused the split - a crisis in the religious or in the secular sphere. Surely, both of these reasons were combined in the Schism. Since society was not homogeneous, its various representatives, accordingly, defended different interests. The response to their problems in the Schism was found by different segments of the population: serf peasants, who gained the opportunity to express protest to the government, standing under the banner of the defenders of antiquity and part of the lower clergy, dissatisfied with the power of the patriarchal power and seeing in it only an organ of exploitation, and even part of the higher clergy, who wanted to stop the strengthening Nikon authorities. And at the end of the 17th century, denunciations that revealed certain social vices of society began to occupy the most important place in the ideology of the Schism.

Some ideologists of the Schism, in particular Avvakum and his comrades, moved on to justify active anti-feudal actions, declaring popular uprisings as heavenly retribution of the royal and spiritual authorities for their actions.

Most likely, the true reason for the Schism of the Russian Orthodox Church was the desire of its main characters on both sides to seize power by any means. The consequences that affected the entire course of life in Russia did not bother them; the main thing for them was momentary power.

5. List of used literature.

The history of homeland. School Student's Handbook. Ed.

S. V. Novikova, M., philological society “Slovo”, 1996

Kozlov O. F. “The Nikon Case.” " Questions of history", No. 1, 1976

Platonov S. F. Textbook of Russian history. St. Petersburg, “Science”, 1994

4. Borisov N.S. "Church leaders of medieval Rus'

XVIII-XVII centuries." M.; Moscow State University Publishing House; 1988

5. Buganov V.I., Bogdanov A.P.

"Rebels and truth-seekers in the Russian Orthodox Church"

M.; Politizdat, 1991

6. " Russian Orthodoxy: milestones of history"

Shchapov Ya.N., Volkov M.Ya. and others M.; Politizdat, 1989

The concept “ church reform Patriarch Nikon", « reform Church", which supposedly... is the brightest her became a fighter Patriarch Nikon, analysis churchly-civil... process threatening socio-political consequences character. It took place...