345 years ago, in 1667, following the results of the Great Moscow Council, the Russian Church was divided into two parts: supporters of the liturgical reforms of Patriarch Nikon, carried out a decade earlier, and Old Believers who did not accept these changes. 15 years later, in April 1682, the most famous of the Old Believer leaders and spiritual writers, Archpriest Avvakum, was burned in Pustozersk. Today, the history of persecution of Old Believers is long behind us, and the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized the unfoundedness of the reform of the mid-17th century. The secretary of the Commission for Old Believer parishes and interaction with the Old Believers, the head of the Patriarchal Center for Old Russian Liturgical Tradition, priest Ioann Mirolyubov, talks about this and much more.
It is important to note that the events of church history of that period are directly related to secular and political history. In the 17th century, Russia was still on the threshold of secularization, and therefore everything that happened in the Church inevitably affected the processes taking place in the state. Moreover, the church reform that was carried out three and a half centuries ago is often not quite fairly associated only with the name of Patriarch Nikon, while responsibility for it and its consequences lies entirely with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who in essence was the main initiator reforms, and after Nikon left the patriarchal throne, he became their main successor.
In general, one of the main reasons for these tragic events was the gradual secularization of the church consciousness of that time. It was in this regard that the purely theological, eschatological aspect of the postulate “Moscow is the Third Rome” put forward a century earlier was replaced by its political reading. The Russian Tsar imagined himself to be the direct heir of the Roman and Byzantine emperors, and not so much in the sacred, but precisely in the political understanding of their role. Hence the geopolitical adventures of Alexei Mikhailovich, who decided that after successes in the reunification of Russia and Ukraine, as well as in the colonization of Siberia, other successes in foreign policy would follow. They didn't follow. A number of the tsar's bloody military campaigns ended in failure. The same is true with Patriarch Nikon. This man, in turn, decided that he could lay claim to the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, for which he organized a church reform in order to unify liturgical practices with the Greeks and Ukrainians, whose hierarchs carried out similar changes somewhat earlier, even during the years of Ukraine’s rule under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth .
The reformers claimed that they were correcting church books and rituals in strict accordance with ancient Greek models. Although later, professors of theological academies Kapterev and Dmitrievsky came to the conclusion that the “right” was carried out exclusively on new Greek and Ukrainian publications, often published in Catholic printing houses. This could not help but be noticed by opponents of the reform, most of whom were very well-read people, although they had not received a systematic theological education. Which ultimately led to the tragedy of separation, which I can characterize in the vivid words of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill:
“The church schism dealt a severe blow to national identity. The breakdown of traditional church and everyday foundations and spiritual and moral values divided the once united people not only in church terms, but also in social terms. The national body, which at that time completely coincided with the church body, was inflicted a wound, the disastrous consequences of which live on for centuries. The division of Russian society caused by the church schism became a harbinger of further fractures that led to a revolutionary catastrophe.”
Indeed, in those years a monstrous blow was dealt to the Russian cultural code. And further events, when under Peter I the Russian Church practically became a servant of the state, including losing the patriarchate, and Russian society itself was divided into the people and the elite, who dressed exclusively in foreign clothes, and often did not know their native language at all. Of course, all this could not but affect the entire Russian culture.
And what was the tragedy of Archpriest Avvakum, a man who, according to many researchers, is considered the founder of new Russian literature, free figurative speech, confessional prose?
Archpriest Avvakum, like many other clergy of that time, was an integral and consistent person. A good connoisseur of contemporary church literature, he could not help but see signs of the End of Times in the reforms. Let me explain. Starting from the 15th century, eschatological sentiments began to grow in Rus' - expectations of the coming of the Antichrist and the further second coming of Christ. This was due to many circumstances, including the fact that the year 1492 from the Nativity of Christ according to the Orthodox calendar coincided with the year 7000 from the creation of the world. Once again the degree of eschatologism increased in anticipation of 1666. Archpriest Avvakum saw all this, felt it, and when the reform of Patriarch Nikon began, he perceived it in accordance with the spirit of the times. And the fact that the Moscow councils that excommunicated the Old Believers from the Church took place in 1666-1667 once again convinced opponents of the changes that what was happening was pre-apocalyptic. That is why they found it possible to separate from the hierarchs, who not only carried out, to put it mildly, strange reforms, but also blessed cruel punishments against their opponents. In his polemical fervour, Archpriest Avvakum was often extremely harsh, and this was precisely the basis for his execution. Today, many Old Believers venerate Avvakum as a holy martyr.
But over the years, has the attitude of the Russian Church towards the Old Believers and the history of the Schism changed?
Indeed, although admitting mistakes is not easy, we would not be genuine Christians if we did not learn to do so. Already at the end of the 18th century, there were cases when bishops in regions where Old Believers predominantly lived blessed priests to serve according to old books and liturgical rites. In 1800, this practice became official - Edinoverie parishes - churches of the pre-schism tradition - appeared in the Russian Church. But at that time, the clergy perceived this form as something intermediate - a kind of easy stage for the Old Believers to transition to “normal” Orthodoxy, while the old books and rituals themselves (including the well-known double-finger) were considered erroneous, although acceptable. The next important step was the development of church historical science at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, when a number of eminent historians convincingly showed the inconsistency of the reform carried out. Today, we can say with confidence that in the 17th century something like a “church revolution” took place, during which ancient Russian liturgical traditions were forcibly replaced by newer ones, evolutionarily developed among the Greeks and Little Russians over several centuries. The result of the recognition of this fact was the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971, which abolished the “as if not former” curses imposed “out of bad judgment” on “old Russian rituals and on Orthodox Christians who adhere to them.”
And now, in the bosom of the Russian Church, the pre-schism liturgical tradition is actively developing, ancient znamenny singing is being revived, and the ancient Russian style has long been dominant in icon painting and church architecture. At the same time, of course, not all disagreements with the Old Believers have been resolved, but there is hope that in the course of a long and meaningful dialogue based on mutual respect and the desire to forget personal grievances of past centuries, the unhealed wound of the Church Schism will gradually begin to heal.
Mikhail Tyurenkov
345 years ago, in 1667, following the results of the Great Moscow Council, the Russian Church was divided into two parts: supporters of the liturgical reforms of Patriarch Nikon, carried out a decade earlier, and Old Believers who did not accept these changes. 15 years later, in April 1682, the most famous of the Old Believer leaders and spiritual writers, Archpriest Avvakum, was burned in Pustozersk.
Today, the history of persecution of Old Believers is long behind us, and the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized the unfoundedness of the reform of the mid-17th century. The secretary of the Commission for the Affairs of Old Believer Parishes and for Interaction with the Old Believers, the head of the Patriarchal Center of Old Russian Liturgical Tradition, priest Ioann MIROLYUBOV, spoke with “Culture” about this and much more.
culture: Father John, what are the main reasons for the church tragedy of the second half of the 17th century?
O. John: It is important to note that the events of church history of that period are directly related to secular and political history. In the 17th century, Russia was still on the threshold of secularization, and therefore everything that happened in the Church inevitably affected the processes taking place in the state. Moreover, the church reform, which was carried out three and a half centuries ago, is often not quite rightly associated only with the name of Patriarch Nikon, while responsibility for it lies entirely with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Which, in essence, was the main initiator of the reforms.
One of the main reasons for these tragic events was the gradual secularization of the church consciousness of that time. The Russian Tsar imagined himself to be the direct heir of the Roman and Byzantine emperors, and not so much in the sacred, but precisely in the political understanding of their role. Hence the geopolitical adventures of Alexei Mikhailovich, who decided that after successes in the reunification of Russia and Ukraine, as well as in the colonization of Siberia, other successes in foreign policy would follow. They didn't follow. A number of bloody military campaigns ended in failure. The same is true with Patriarch Nikon. This man, in turn, decided that he could lay claim to the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, for which he organized a reform in order to unify liturgical practices with the Greeks and Ukrainians.
The reformers claimed that they were correcting church books and rituals in strict accordance with ancient Greek models. Although later, professors of theological academies Kapterev and Dmitrievsky came to the conclusion that the “right” was carried out exclusively on new Greek and Ukrainian publications, often published in Catholic printing houses. This could not help but be noticed by opponents of the reform, most of whom were very well-read people, although they had not received a systematic theological education. Which ultimately led to the tragedy of separation, which I can characterize in the vivid words of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill: “The church schism dealt a severe blow to national self-awareness. The breakdown of traditional church and everyday foundations and spiritual and moral values divided the once united people not only in church terms, but also in social terms. The national body, which at that time completely coincided with the church body, was inflicted a wound, the disastrous consequences of which live on for centuries. The division of Russian society caused by the church schism became a harbinger of further fractures that led to a revolutionary catastrophe.”
Indeed, in those years a monstrous blow was dealt to the Russian cultural code. And further events, when under Peter I the Russian Church practically became a servant of the state, including losing the patriarchate, and Russian society itself was divided into the people and the elite, who dressed exclusively in foreign clothes, and often did not know their native language at all - all this could not but affect Russian culture.
culture: And what was the tragedy of Archpriest Avvakum, a man who, according to many researchers, is considered the founder of new Russian literature, free figurative speech, confessional prose?
O. John: Archpriest Avvakum was an integral and consistent person. A good connoisseur of contemporary church literature, he could not help but see signs of the End of Times in the reforms. Let me explain. Starting from the 15th century, eschatological sentiments began to grow in Rus' - expectations of the coming of the Antichrist and the further second coming of Christ. This was due to many circumstances, including the fact that the year 1492 from the Nativity of Christ according to the Orthodox calendar coincided with the year 7000 from the creation of the world. Once again the degree of eschatologism increased in anticipation of 1666. Archpriest Avvakum saw all this, felt it, and when the reform of Patriarch Nikon began, he perceived it in accordance with the spirit of the times. And the fact that the Moscow councils that excommunicated the Old Believers from the Church took place in 1666-1667 once again convinced opponents of the changes that what was happening was pre-apocalyptic. That is why they found it possible to separate from the hierarchs, who not only carried out, to put it mildly, strange reforms, but also blessed cruel punishments against their opponents. In his polemical fervour, Archpriest Avvakum was often extremely harsh, and this was precisely the basis for his execution. Today, many Old Believers venerate Avvakum as a holy martyr.
culture: But over the years, the attitude of the Russian Church towards the Old Believers and the history of the Schism has changed. What is it like today?
O. John: Indeed, although admitting mistakes is not easy, we would not be genuine Christians if we did not learn to do so. Already at the end of the 18th century, there were cases when bishops in regions where Old Believers predominantly lived blessed priests to serve according to old books and liturgical rites. In 1800, this practice became official: Edinoverie parishes appeared in the Russian Church - churches of the pre-schism tradition. But at that time, the clergy perceived this form as something intermediate - a kind of easy stage for the Old Believers to transition to “normal” Orthodoxy, while the old books and rituals themselves (including the well-known double-finger) were considered erroneous, although acceptable. The next important step was the development of church historical science at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, when a number of eminent historians convincingly showed the inconsistency of the reform carried out. Today, we can say with confidence that in the 17th century something like a “church revolution” took place, during which ancient Russian liturgical traditions were forcibly replaced by newer ones, evolutionarily developed among the Greeks and Little Russians over several centuries. The result of the recognition of this fact was the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971, which abolished the “presumably not former” curses imposed “out of bad judgment” on “old Russian rituals and on Orthodox Christians who adhere to them.”
And now, in the bosom of the Russian Church, the pre-schism liturgical tradition is actively developing, ancient znamenny singing is being revived, and the ancient Russian style has long been dominant in icon painting and church architecture. At the same time, of course, not all disagreements with the Old Believers have been resolved, but there is hope that in the course of a long and meaningful dialogue based on mutual respect and the desire to forget personal grievances of past centuries, the unhealed wound of the Church Schism will gradually begin to heal.
RUSSIAN SCHISM IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. CHURCH AND STATE IN THE 17TH CENTURY
1. Reasons for church reform
The centralization of the Russian state required the unification of church rules and rituals. Already in the 16th century. a uniform all-Russian code of saints was established. However, significant discrepancies remained in the liturgical books, often caused by copyist errors. Eliminating these differences became one of the goals of the system created in the 40s. XVII century in Moscow, a circle of “zealots of ancient piety”, consisting of prominent representatives of the clergy. He also sought to correct the morals of the clergy.
The spread of printing made it possible to establish uniformity of texts, but first it was necessary to decide on which models to base corrections on.
Political considerations played a decisive role in resolving this issue. The desire to make Moscow (“Third Rome”) the center of world Orthodoxy required rapprochement with Greek Orthodoxy. However, the Greek clergy insisted on correcting Russian church books and rituals according to the Greek model.
Since the introduction of Orthodoxy in Rus', the Greek Church has experienced a number of reforms and differed significantly from the ancient Byzantine and Russian models. Therefore, part of the Russian clergy, led by “zealots of ancient piety,” opposed the proposed transformations. However, Patriarch Nikon, relying on the support of Alexei Mikhailovich, decisively carried out the planned reforms.
2. Patriarch Nikon
Nikon comes from the family of the Mordovian peasant Mina, in the world - Nikita Minin. He became Patriarch in 1652. Nikon, distinguished by his unyielding, decisive character, had enormous influence on Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his “sobin (special) friend.”
The most important ritual changes were: baptism not with two, but with three fingers, replacement of prostrations with waist ones, singing “Hallelujah” three times instead of twice, the movement of believers in the church past the altar not with the sun, but against it. The name of Christ began to be written differently - “Jesus” instead of “Iesus”. Some changes were made to the rules of worship and icon painting. All books and icons written according to old models were subject to destruction.
4. Reaction to reform
For believers, this was a serious departure from the traditional canon. After all, a prayer pronounced not according to the rules is not only ineffective - it is blasphemous! Nikon’s most persistent and consistent opponents were the “zealots of ancient piety” (previously the patriarch himself was a member of this circle). They accused him of introducing “Latinism,” because the Greek Church since the Union of Florence in 1439 was considered “spoiled” in Russia. Moreover, Greek liturgical books were printed not in Turkish Constantinople, but in Catholic Venice.
5. The emergence of a schism
Nikon's opponents - the "Old Believers" - refused to recognize the reforms he carried out. At the church councils of 1654 and 1656. Nikon's opponents were accused of schism, excommunicated and exiled.
The most prominent supporter of the schism was Archpriest Avvakum, a talented publicist and preacher. A former court priest, a member of the circle of “zealots of ancient piety,” he experienced severe exile, suffering, and the death of children, but did not give up his fanatical opposition to “Nikonianism” and its defender, the tsar. After 14 years of imprisonment in an “earth prison,” Avvakum was burned alive for “blasphemy against the royal house.” The most famous work of historical ritual literature was the “Life” of Avvakum, written by himself.
6. Old Believers
The Church Council of 1666/1667 cursed the Old Believers. Brutal persecution of schismatics began. Supporters of the split hid in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, Trans-Volga region, and the Urals. Here they created hermitages, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, when the royal punitive detachments approached, they staged a “burn” - self-immolation.
The monks of the Solovetsky Monastery did not accept Nikon’s reforms. Until 1676, the rebellious monastery withstood the siege of the tsarist troops. The rebels, believing that Alexei Mikhailovich had become a servant of the Antichrist, abandoned the traditional Orthodox prayer for the Tsar.
The reasons for the fanatical persistence of the schismatics were rooted, first of all, in their belief that Nikonianism was the product of Satan. However, this confidence itself was fueled by certain social reasons.
Among the schismatics there were many clergy. For an ordinary priest, innovations meant that he had lived his entire life incorrectly. In addition, many clergy were illiterate and unprepared to master new books and customs. The townspeople and merchants also widely participated in the schism. Nikon had long been in conflict with the settlements, objecting to the liquidation of the “white settlements” belonging to the church. The monasteries and the patriarchal see were engaged in trade and crafts, which irritated the merchants, who believed that the clergy was illegally invading their sphere of activity. Therefore, the posad readily perceived everything that came from the patriarch as evil.
Among the Old Believers there were also representatives of the ruling classes, for example, Boyarina Morozova and Princess Urusova. However, these are still isolated examples.
The bulk of the schismatics were peasants, who went to monasteries not only for the right faith, but also for freedom, from lordly and monastic exactions.
Naturally, subjectively, each Old Believer saw the reasons for his departure into schism solely in his rejection of the “Nikon heresy.”
There were no bishops among the schismatics. There was no one to ordain new priests. In this situation, some of the Old Believers resorted to “rebaptizing” the Nikonian priests who had gone into schism, while others abandoned the clergy altogether. The community of such schismatic “non-priests” was led by “mentors” or “readers” - the most knowledgeable believers in the Scriptures. Outwardly, the “non-priest” trend in the schism resembled Protestantism. However, this similarity is illusory. Protestants rejected the priesthood on principle, believing that a person does not need an intermediary in communication with God. The schismatics rejected the priesthood and the church hierarchy forcibly, in a random situation.
The ideology of the schism, based on the rejection of everything new, the fundamental rejection of any foreign influence, secular education, was extremely conservative.
7. Conflict between the church and secular authorities. Fall of Nikon
The question of the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities was one of the most important in the political life of the Russian state in the 15th-17th centuries. The struggle between the Josephites and non-covetous people was closely connected with it. In the 16th century The dominant Josephite trend in the Russian church abandoned the thesis of the superiority of church power over secular power. After Ivan the Terrible's reprisal against Metropolitan Philip, the subordination of the church to the state seemed final. However, the situation changed during the Time of Troubles. The authority of the royal power was shaken due to the abundance of impostors and a series of perjuries. The authority of the church, thanks to Patriarch Hermogenes, who led the spiritual resistance to the Poles and suffered martyrdom from them, becoming the most important unifying force, increased. The political role of the church increased even more under Patriarch Filaret, the father of Tsar Michael.
The powerful Nikon sought to revive the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities that existed under Filaret. Nikon argued that the priesthood is higher than the kingdom, since it represents God, and secular power is from God. He actively intervened in secular affairs.
Gradually, Alexey Mikhailovich began to feel burdened by the power of the patriarch. In 1658 there was a break between them. The Tsar demanded that Nikon should no longer be called the Great Sovereign. Then Nikon declared that he did not want to be a patriarch “in Moscow” and left for the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery on the river. Istra. He hoped that the king would yield, but he was mistaken. On the contrary, the patriarch was required to resign so that a new head of the church could be elected. Nikon replied that he did not renounce the rank of patriarch, and did not want to be patriarch only “in Moscow.”
Neither the tsar nor the church council could remove the patriarch. Only in 1666 a church council was held in Moscow with the participation of two ecumenical patriarchs - Antioch and Alexandria. The council supported the tsar and deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank. Nikon was imprisoned in a monastery prison, where he died in 1681.
The resolution of the “Nikon case” in favor of the secular authorities meant that the church could no longer interfere in state affairs. From that time on, the process of subordinating the church to the state began, which ended under Peter I with the liquidation of the patriarchate, the creation of the Holy Synod headed by a secular official and the transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church into a state church.
Where did it all start?
The need for church reform in Russia began to be discussed back in the 1640s. Then a “circle of zealots of piety” appeared in Moscow, whose participants advocated the unification of church texts in worship. There were significant discrepancies in church books, often due to copyist errors. But the members of the circle could not come to a consensus on the question of which books to make changes on the basis of. One part proposed to take ancient Russian church books as a model, and the other part proposed to take Greek books as a basis.
Several factors played a role in resolving this dilemma. By that time, the already centralized Russian state demanded the unification of all church rules and rituals. And the state’s desire to strengthen its international position among Orthodox countries played in favor of choosing unification on the model of Greek books. In addition, the theory of Moscow as the Third Rome, which was put forward under Ivan the Terrible by the Pskov elder Philotheus, was popular in government circles. According to this theory, after the Christian schism of 1054, Constantinople became the center of the Orthodox Church, and after its fall in 1453, Moscow has the right to this status. But to confirm this status, the support of the Greek Church was necessary. And for this it was necessary to conduct worship according to Greek rules.
Historians also pay attention to the state’s desire to stabilize the internal political situation with the help of this reform. Establishing uniformity in the rules of church life, in the opinion of the authorities, became an important tool for maintaining national unity in the state, which had recently come to its senses after troubled times and foreign intervention. In addition, in 1654, by decision of the Pereyaslav Rada, Ukraine joined the Russian state, where the Orthodox liturgy was conducted according to Greek canons. Unification contributed to the unification of Little Russia with Russia.
Pereyaslavskaya Rada. January 8, 1654
"Dog Friend" of the Tsar
The church schism is associated with the name of Patriarch Nikon, known in the world as Nikita Minin. The future patriarch was born in 1605 into the family of a Mordovian peasant in the village of Veldemanovo, Nizhny Novgorod province. At the behest of his parents, he became a clergyman and in this field made a brilliant career. At the age of 38, he received the high spiritual rank of hegumen of the Kozheozersky monastery in the Arkhangelsk province, and three years later he became the archimandrite of the Moscow Novospassky monastery. His career took off after in 1646, as abbot of the Kozheozersk monastery, he came to Moscow on monastic affairs and was introduced to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The seventeen-year-old sovereign liked the abbot and left Nikon at court and subsequently contributed to his receiving the rank of Metropolitan of Novgorod. But in 1651 Nikon was returned to Moscow and from that moment his influence on the tsar only grew. A year later, with the support of the sovereign, he became patriarch after the death of Patriarch Joseph. From that time on, church reform proceeded with the full participation and direct leadership of Nikon. Nikon's influence on the tsar was so great that the tsar called him “his own (special) friend.”
Patriarch Nikon
The essence of the reforms
Having received the full support of the tsar, the patriarch boldly carried out church reform. The main ritual changes were as follows:
Baptism not with two, but with three fingers. This innovation especially caused opposition from supporters of the old rituals.
Replacing prostrations with bows;
Writing "Jesus" instead of "Jesus";
The movement of believers in the church past the altar is not in line with the sun, but against it;
Shortening prosphora (liturgical bread) for liturgy;
Pronunciation of “Hallelujah” in church singing three times instead of two.
Changes were also made to some icon painting rules. All books and icons written according to old models were subject to destruction.
Nikon's reforms met with stiff resistance from a certain part of the clergy, which subsequently led to a deep split. The most persistent and consistent opponents of Nikon were the members of the “circle of zealots of piety,” which Nikon himself had previously been a member of. They said that the introduction of “Latinism” was unacceptable, because the Greek Church in Russia was considered “spoiled” since the Union of Florence in 1439, which Orthodox Christians subsequently refused to accept. For believers, Nikon's innovations looked like a serious departure from the traditional canon, blasphemy. Thus, the sign of the cross, performed in a new way, was regarded as disrespect for the Lord himself. After all, three fingers made a “fig for God.”
The emergence of the schism and the Old Believers movement
However, Nikon, with the support of the tsar, consistently and harshly continued to carry out reforms. At the Moscow Council of 1656, those who held the two-fingered sign of the cross were anathematized. Opponents of Nikon's reforms were excommunicated from the church. But the patriarch’s toughness and tenacity only caused bitterness among opponents of the reforms. Pursued by the tsarist troops, they hid on the outskirts of the country, in the inaccessible forests of the North, Siberia and the Urals. Here they created their Old Believer settlements and continued to pray in the old way. Cases are widely known in history when, when the tsar’s punitive detachments approached, they committed self-immolation, called “burning.”
An example of resistance to the pressure of government reforms was the resistance of the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery. They resisted until 1676 and withstood the siege of the tsarist troops. They believed that Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich became a servant of the Antichrist. This is precisely where most historians see the reasons for the fanatical persistence of the supporters of the split. They were sure that Nikon with his teachings was the offspring of Satan.
Siege of the Solovetsky Monastery by the army of governor Ivan Meshcherinov
But historians also see social reasons in this resistance. Most of the schismatics were peasants, who in this way not only followed the right faith, but also freed themselves in monasteries from the extortions of the landowners. Among the schismatics there were also many clergy who could not come to terms with the new rules. For them, recognizing the innovation meant that they had lived their entire previous life incorrectly, which they could not agree with. Among them were townspeople and merchants who competed with monasteries that were actively engaged in trade and crafts. They believed that the clergy was invading their sphere and they accepted everything that came from the patriarch as evil.
Among the Old Believers there were also representatives of the ruling classes, for example, Boyarina Morozova and Princess Urusova. But these are rather isolated cases. But the most famous opponent of Nikonianism was Archpriest Avvakum, a preacher and famous publicist, a former member of the circle of “zealots of piety.” He was a priest at court, but when he abandoned the new religion, he was subjected to severe persecution, experienced exile and suffering, and the death of his children. Nevertheless, Habakkuk did not renounce religion and was subsequently burned alive in an “earth prison” after 14 years of imprisonment. For the Old Believers, the main literary work was the “Life” he wrote.
According to various researchers, in the second half of the 17th century, from 40 to 50% of the country's population of that time became schismatics. This is at least 7-8 million people. In the 18th century, Old Believers numbered about a third of the total population.
Archpriest Avvakum
The disagreement between the Tsar and Nikon
The ambitions and authority of Patriarch Nikon, his uncompromisingness and desire to put church power above secular power, soon began to weigh down Alexei Mikhailovich. Nikon actively intervened in secular affairs, and in 1658 the tsar demanded that the patriarch no longer be called the great sovereign. Then Nikon went to the New Jerusalem Monastery as a sign of protest. He thought that the king would give in, but this did not happen. Moreover, Alexei Mikhailovich demanded that Nikon resign as patriarch. But he could not deprive him of the patriarchate. Neither could a church council. They were able to remove the patriarch only in 1666 at the Moscow Council, where two ecumenical patriarchs participated - Antioch and Alexandria. The council supported the tsar and deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank. He was imprisoned in a monastery prison, where he died in 1681.
The removal of Nikon did not curtail the reforms. The same Church Council officially approved the new rituals and declared the Old Believers heretics. Repressions against adherents of the “old faith” continued with renewed vigor.
Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov (Quiet)
Results and significance of the split
Of course, the church schism became a national tragedy for the Russian people. The spiritual unity of the people has ceased to exist and for the first time in the history of the state, hostility on religious grounds arises. Subsequently, social disunity among the population increased.
The collapse of this royal-patriarchal duet and the further imprisonment of the patriarch marked the beginning of the fact that henceforth church affairs became secondary, and state affairs became primary. This is considered the beginning of the process of subordination of the church to the state. Subsequently, during the time of Peter I, the process continued with the liquidation of the patriarchate and the creation of the Synod, which was headed by a secular official appointed by the tsar.
Some historians see a positive outcome in Nikon’s reforms and the split that followed. Thus, in their opinion, Russia’s international position and its ties with the countries of the Orthodox world were strengthened. In addition, the emerging Old Believer movement contributed to the development of Russian art. They created a number of spiritual centers, their own school of icon painting, and preserved the ancient Russian traditions of book writing and znamenny singing.
For most parishioners and clergy, the anathema divided life in half: before and after. The protest was universal: from the episcopate, white and black clergy to the laity and ordinary people. Not only did the parishioners not hear the usual words of prayer, did not participate in the usual divine services, Russia’s mission to protect Orthodoxy was declared an untenable claim. The entire understanding of Russian history was changed by the resolutions of the council. The Orthodox Russian kingdom, a harbinger of the coming kingdom of the Holy Spirit on earth, was turning into simply one of many monarchies - a simple state, although with new imperial claims, but without a special path in history sanctified by God.
Before the council, the struggle for the rite took place within the Russian church, and, despite all the harsh words exchanged by both sides, the defenders of the old piety remained part of the church body. Now the anathemas of the council placed them outside the Church, deprived them of the right to use the Sacraments and the consolation of the Church, but at the same time deprived the Church itself of all canonical and moral power over them.
The rejection of reforms was precisely double - both religious and political in nature. During these years, Rus' experienced unprecedented activity in theological consciousness, which splashed out in furious polemics, which, however, more often than not only reopened wounds, exacerbating mutual hostility. Private statements (such as the words of Patriarch Joachim: “Whoever wants, let him be baptized”) could no longer remove the intensity of the opposing passions.
However, the problem of the schism is in no way reducible to theology, since it was acutely superimposed on the social stresses that had accumulated among different classes as a result of the infringement of local rights by the central government and the final enslavement of the peasants that took shape precisely during this period. Some of the highest church hierarchs (Bishop Pavel Kolomensky), many members of the middle and lower clergy, entire monasteries (the most famous example of the Solovetsky uprising (“seating”) of 1668-1676), as well as representatives of boyar families (I.A. Khovansky, F.P. Morozova, E.P. Urusova, etc.), townspeople and rural people. The protest took different forms - from disturbances in the system of power itself (streltsy riots, including in connection with the Khovansky conspiracy in 1682) to grassroots unrest that found a powerful resonance in the uprisings led by S.T. Razin, and a century later - E.I. Pugachev, who proclaimed the slogan of the struggle for the “old faith.” The adherents of the “ancient piety” fled from the “den of robbers” (as the Nikonian Church seemed to them) by setting up their own monasteries in uninhabited lands, moving to the extreme borders of Russia.
The church schism in Russia led to the emergence of the “Old Believers.” Passionate sermons about Christian brotherhood, angry denunciations of the arbitrariness of the Nikonian clergy, calls for departure from worldly life, as well as persecution and persecution of “schismatic teachers” by the official church and government attracted the people to the leaders of the schism (Archpriest Avvakum, Ivan Neronov, Lazar, Fedor ) . The Tsar issued a number of decrees that ordered the governors to search for and severely punish the Old Believers. A bloody struggle between the state and the church began with all supporters of the old faith; they were brutally persecuted and burned at the stake.
Thousands of families fell into schism, fled to the north, to the Volga region, where, obeying neither the authorities nor the official church, they created their own church organization, their own communities (monasteries), isolated from the world. The ranks of the Old Believers included people from various social strata. The bulk were peasants. Among the schismatics, drunkenness and tobacco smoking were condemned, and family was revered. A special morality has developed, based on respect for elders, modesty, honesty and work. The essence of the Old Believers is the defense not of rituals, but of the faith itself, which is threatened by innovations focused on foreign, foreign models.
Despite all the predictions, the end of the world did not come, and life in it required the solution of such significant issues as the organization of society, relations with the state, baptism, marriage, which, in turn, forced one to adapt to the existing world, and not just radically deny it like the kingdom of evil. Due to the small number of priests who remained completely faithful to the old piety, and the almost complete absence of churches in which they could perform divine services, the question of the possibility of performing the sacraments of confession and communion became especially acute and important for the Old Believers. Avvakum solved the problem of confession by introducing new and very unusual features into Orthodox practice. In the absence of a priest, he advised confession to pious and knowledgeable laymen in church affairs. His advice for communion was no less unusual, for which he recommended, in the absence of a priest, to use spare gifts received in advance from the pious church. He undoubtedly understood that he was introducing into the life of his absentee flock and in general the followers of the old piety morals and rituals that were very unusual in Orthodox life, which in essence were a much greater deviation from the rules than the “Nikonian” innovations themselves, but he advised them only as a temporary, passing exception due to “the current, truly fiery time.”
The family life of the Old Believers was characterized by isolation caused by their religious isolation from the rest of the Russian population. This isolation contributed to the preservation of patriarchal morals. The tradition of mutual assistance, so necessary in the constant confrontation with the outside world, was favorable to the economic life of the Old Believers peasants. As a rule, among them there were not only beggars, but also poor people. The Old Believers considered it a rule to obtain everything they needed from their household. This economic orientation was supported by the preservation of the ancient collectivist foundations of the peasant community, manifested primarily in mutual labor assistance.
Maintaining fidelity to the ideals of Orthodoxy contributed to what Old Believer communities largely determined in the 19th century. life attitudes of the Moscow merchants. The Old Believers, who became rich people, did not break with their environment and showed considerable generosity in charitable activities, donated large sums in the form of alms to both monasteries and individuals, became trustees of communities, helped peasants pay off their duties and “get on their feet,” and gave money loans to independent owners, providing work for those who did not have the means.
The spiritual life of the Old Believers was not under the constant control of the church, therefore the Old Believers were distinguished by independence in judgments related to both the area of faith and everyday affairs. The peculiarities of the ideology of the Old Believers are reflected in folklore. The search for a region hidden from the Antichrist, where the “correct” faith flourishes, laid the foundation for the legends about Belovodye or the city-monastery of Kitezh, hidden by the right hand of the Lord.
An important feature of the Old Believers is respect for the book. Many communities had libraries of a hundred or more books belonging to the entire community (“cathedral books”).
