Material from the site

Moscow Cathedral 1666-1667 - anticanonical and heretical cathedral. Composition of the cathedral 1666-1667 was very motley and rabble. Half of it consisted of strangers who accidentally came to the cathedral, who came to Russia only to profit from her rich alms. What kind of rogues and adventurers were not here! There were Greeks, Georgians, Bulgarians, Athonites, Sinaiites, Amasiists, Chionists, Iconists, Chiists, Trapezoans, Khokhols. Almost all of them did not know not only Russian Orthodoxy, did not understand and did not know the Russian spirit, national Russian feelings, did not know Russia itself, its history, its suffering, but did not even know the Russian language. What is Russia to them! What is the piety of the Russian people to them? They needed the wealth of this, in their opinion, wild, but hospitable country. They were ready to curse everything, to recognize everything as heresy - not only Russian books and fingers, not only prosphora and seals on them with the eight-pointed cross of Christ, but also Russian beards and Russian clothes. Yes, due to their ignorance, due to their ignorance of the Russian language, they, in fact, did not understand what, whom, for what they were cursing and anathematizing, what and against what they were signing. All they needed was fat food and generous alms. And they don't care about anything else. […]

This new cathedral went down in history with the loud name of the Great Moscow Cathedral. In its composition, it was indeed exceptional for the Russian Church. The cathedral consisted of three patriarchs (Moscow, Alexandria and Antioch), twelve metropolitans (5 Russian and 7 foreign), nine archbishops (7 Russian and 2 foreign) and five bishops (2 Russian, 2 Little Russian and 1 Serbian) - a total of 29 hierarchs, of which 14 are foreign, including two Little Russian ones. Based on this composition of the council alone, it was possible to provide for council decisions on the reform of Patriarch Nikon. The Russians were weak-willed and slavish: they could neither object nor express independent, free opinions at the council. The foreign hierarchs, especially the patriarchs, behaved boldly and commandingly, as if they were called to correct and enlighten the Russian Church, to lead her out of the darkness of delusions and heresies. But, in essence, all the affairs of the cathedral were controlled by three persons: the Jesuit Paisius Ligarid, the Greek Dionysius, Nikon’s clerk, who proved himself at the council of 1660 as a well-known forgery, and the Latin-speaking Simeon of Polotsk, whom even Epiphanius Slavinetsky denounced as heretics. Actually, these only three figures "enlightened" unfortunate Russia at the council, all the rest of the participants in the council only agreed with them and attached their signatures to their decisions. The meetings of the council continued intermittently for more than six months: some definitions of the council are marked with the month of August.

The Russian bishops who made up the council of 1666 presented to all three patriarchs their conciliar deeds and reasonings. The patriarchs approved them as "true and right". While the patriarchs and bishops sat in the royal and patriarchal chambers, the confessors and defenders of the Russian Church languished: some in monasteries under strong guards, others in gloomy prisons, others (for example, Archpriest Avvakum) - shackled, on chains. Clerics were sent to them from the cathedral for interrogation: do they recognize the true apostolic Eastern Church? Are the Eastern Patriarchs and the Russian Tsar considered Orthodox, and “do they think the new books are right”? The imprisoned confessors answered that they themselves belonged to the true Orthodox Church and that it was she who was being protected from Nikon's innovations and heresies. The tsar is also recognized as Orthodox, but only he, added Archpriest Avvakum, in his innocence trusted Nikon and unknowingly accepted his tarnished books. Avvakum expressed confidence that Alexei Mikhailovich, with the help of God, would repent of this mistake of his. As for the Eastern patriarchs and Russian bishops, as well as the new books, they, the defenders of antiquity, replied that they recognized them as "confused and unorthodox." We hold Orthodoxy, declared the imprisoned sufferers who were before Nikon, and the faith and books of our Russian patriarchs: Job, Hermogenes, Philaret, Joasaph and Joseph, and the former great saints and miracle workers of the Russian Church, who sat at the holy Stoglavy Cathedral (in 1551). The followers of these miracle workers, Habakkuk, Lazarus, Epiphanius and others, were taken to the cathedral. Here they were not only admonished and scolded, but also beaten. However, no means could win them over to their side. They remained with the faith and rituals of their Russian miracle workers. The Cathedral cursed them for this.

The eastern patriarchs, together with the entire council, issued rulings on all ecclesiastical issues that caused unrest and turmoil in the Russian Church. All these definitions were a repetition of what was stated in the acts of the council of 1666, in the book "The Rod of Government" and in the work of Archimandrite Dionysius. The council recognized Nikon's books, which Nikon himself suspected, "right corrected"; he fixed the tripartite constitution as an unchanging dogma of faith: we will “keep him forever and motionless,” the council determined. He recognized the two-fingeredness as a terrible heresy and decided to “extirpate” from all Moscow books the “scripture” about him, as composed by some “hidden heretic of the Armenian heresy.” The Council recognized as lawful the burning of Russian books on Mount Athos for the doctrine of double-fingeredness set forth in them. The council spoke about “hallelujah” more than once; it recognized the extreme “hallelujah” as “very sinful”, since, according to its interpretation, the unity of the Holy Trinity is not confessed in it. With a "great oath," the council commanded to speak the Creed "without the adjunct of" true ". The decrees of the famous Moscow Cathedral - "Stoglavy" (1551), which was attended by such great Russian saints as Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow, Gury and Varsanofy Kazan wonderworkers, the new council recognized as illegal, reckless and ignorant and imputed that "cathedral is not a cathedral and an oath not for an oath and for nothing, as if it were not. Recognized the cathedral as "slutty" and the life of St. Euphrosynus of Pskov, which tells that the Mother of God herself instructed this reverend father in a manifestation to him to aggravate the hallelujah.

The Russian Church has always accepted the Latins through a new baptism, since they are baptized in a pouring manner. The Council of 1620, which was chaired by the Moscow Patriarch Filaret, also decided to receive them in this order. The new Council, 1667, canceled this decision: it determined to accept the Latins only in the "third rank", i.e. under the reading of permissive prayers, to anoint those joined who are not anointed with chrism in the Latin Church. In a special reasoning attached to the acts of the council, it is proved that the baptism performed by a heretic is “equally honorable” with the Orthodox and that it is possible to baptize in a pouring way. Baptism pouring Latin is performed by the Holy Spirit, so the council recognized it as "pleasant." Concerning this conciliar decision, the sub-chancellery of Poland reported to the papal cardinal in Warsaw that the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch gave by this "proof of their desire to enter into holy union" with Rome. The decision of the council of 1667 on Latin baptism is indeed set forth in the spirit of Latinism. In the spirit of the Roman Catholic Church, the council also issued a definition regarding the measure of influence on schismatics and heretics. When asked whether it was appropriate to punish them by city law, the council replied: “Yes, it is appropriate,” and gave a number of measures that were punished under the Byzantine emperors: they were imprisoned, exiled, beaten with beef sinews, cut off their ears, noses, cut out their tongues cut off their hands. All these cruelties and murders were approved and blessed by the great council of 1667.

In conclusion, the council issued the following general definition on the issue of the reforms of the former Patriarch Nikon: “In the name of the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, we collectively command all of you, the archimandrite and abbot, and all the monk, archpriest and elder of the priests and all the local and non-local priests, the clergy and to every rank of Orthodox Christians, great and small, husband and wife”, in a word, to all members of the Russian Church, in which doubts arose about the correction made under Nikon, “without any exception and without any distinction between them in any sense.” What does the council command and what does it bequeath to preserve invariably?

Firstly, he commands to submit in everything, without any doubt and contradiction to the holy Eastern and Apostolic Church of Christ.

Secondly, he bequeaths to unfailingly keep the following commands:

a) accept the newly corrected books and correct all the Church's doxology according to them;

b) the holy Symbol of the verb without the adjective "true";

Dedicated to the 350th anniversary of the church schism. On October 10, 2017, in Moscow, at the St. Philaret Orthodox Christian Institute, an event took place that crowned the discussion of this sad anniversary - a scientific conference " Councils of 1666-1667 and their consequences for Russian church life».

It should be noted that nowhere, except for the St. Philaret Institute, there were no events dedicated to the 350th anniversary of this tragic, truly turning point period in our history. They were not in such educational and scientific centers of the Russian Orthodox Church as the Moscow Theological Academy or St. Tikhon Humanitarian University. And this despite the fact that Lately The leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church repeatedly declares the need to overcome the consequences of the church schism in the middle of the 17th century, which is impossible without understanding its causes.

The main Old Believer agreements did not respond to the tragic anniversary of the Great Moscow Cathedral, although it was this council that led to the final separation of the Old Believers from the official church. Therefore, during the conference, gratitude was repeatedly expressed to its organizers for the opportunity to discuss this still topical topic. I would also like to thank the historian of Russian literature and the Old Believers Mikhail Alexandrovich Dzyubenko who initiated this important event.

The conference was attended by teachers and students of the St. Philaret Institute, representatives of the Old Believers, priests of the Russian Orthodox Church, specialists in the history of the Russian Church and ancient Russian culture. Conference host, head of the department of church history disciplines of the St. Philaret Institute Konstantin Petrovich Obozny, greeted its participants and noted that the consequences of the Councils of 1666-1667, which were anti-Christian in their spirit, have not yet been overcome and continue to influence our society.

The case of the former Patriarch Nikon is still hidden

First message made, candidate historical sciences, specialist in the field of Church history and church law. She drew attention to the fact that " for all its importance for the Russian history of the Cathedral of 1666-1667, it has not yet been truly studied. There is no stable relationship with him. The decisions of the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 on the recognition of its decisions “as if they were not former” are not a way out, and once still unresolved issues related to the Council of 1666-1667 will still be raised". The report was devoted to source study issues that arise in the study of the acts of the Council of 1666-1667 and have not been the subject of research until now.

Is it one Cathedral or two Cathedrals? There are different opinions of scientists on this matter. When referring to the acts of the Council of 1666-1667, one has to use printed publications. To what extent were these deeds known and applied in the ROC before the appearance of these printed publications? Only two handwritten lists of the acts of the Council are known. One created Simeon of Polotsk, written in Slavic in Latin letters. It has not yet been published, it is now available on the Internet on the website of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. The second list from the Synodal Library is now in the State Historical Museum. Many gaps are left in both lists, both manuscripts do not have the signatures of the participants in the Councils, although the names of the participants are in the text of the manuscripts.

There are two typographical editions of the second half of the 19th century: the publication in " Materials for the initial history of the split"and a separate publication of the brotherhood of the saint Petra metropolitan. In both, the text is fairly accurately reprinted, complete with spaces. There is still no scientific edition of the acts of the Council of 1666-1667. The conclusion follows from the analysis of the deeds, and for the first time this was noticed in the middle of the 19th century by Metropolitan Macarius(Bulgakov) that they were compiled later than the Council, since they mention later events, for example, whether or not those condemned at it repented after the Council. The Acts of the Council end Instruction on godliness» with instructions on the practice of performing rites: baptism, weddings, confession and burial. It was compiled in accordance with the Little Russian breviary Petra Mogila and, probably, was edited by the participants of the Council from among the clergy of the Kiev Metropolis. The “Instruction” was to be copied by all the priests against receipt; they were supposed to have it with them for guidance in their future pastoral activities. However, neither his handwritten lists nor individual printed editions are known.

Under this part of the conciliar decisions there are signatures of the participants in the Council, they are published in the publication of the brotherhood of Metropolitan Peter. Most of the signatures are reproduced, which was practiced at that time (now they would say they are forged), but there are also genuine signatures in Greek and Arabic. The members of the Council are listed in the text " Missal”, published in 1667-1668. Also in this "Missbook" are separate decisions of the Council of 1666-1667, in particular, on the abolition of Stoglav, the incorrectness of the life of the saint Euphrosyne and " Tale of the white hood". The publishers of the Missal assumed that there would soon be an official publication of the decisions of the Council of 1666-1667. V late XIX century, in the publication of the acts of the Council by the brotherhood of Metropolitan Peter, it was also reported that an official publication was being prepared. However, there is still no official publication of the acts of the Council of 1666-1667, as well as a scientific one.

There are editions of handwritten copies of the Missal, which are often incorrectly called decisions of the Council. They contain the first 36 points of the decision of the Council. There is also a decision to cancel the Council of 1620, assembled at the initiative of the patriarch Filaret and forbidding pouring baptism. Much less is known about this than about the cancellation of Stoglav's decisions. An unprecedented situation was emerging - Patriarch Filaret was revered as the father of the first tsar of the Romanov dynasty, and at the same time, the acts of his Council were canceled. Before editions Subbotin acts of the Council of 1666-1667 in the second half of the 19th century, only the first 36 points of its decisions were known, which were included in the Missal. This was in accordance with the general state policy - the classification of laws and decisions on the split. Preparatory materials for the Council, draft handwritten drafts of decisions, scrolls of materials for judicial decisions of the Council have never been published, with the exception of the article E. M. Yukhimenko about the case Ephraim Potemkin.

A certain mystery is the case of the eruption from the rank of patriarch Nikon. It was withdrawn from the conciliar documents, although a trial of it was held at the Council, and it was for this that the ecumenical, as they were then called, patriarchs were summoned to Moscow. Nikon's file was transferred to secret storage and was not returned to the Synodal Library, despite numerous requests.

« There is a need to publish a scientific edition of the acts of the Council, indicating the discrepancies in the lists, the publication of additional and preparatory materials”, - E.V. emphasized at the end of her speech. Belyakova.

——————

Head of the book depository under the Metropolia of the Russian Orthodox Church V.V. Volkov thanked for the informative report and asked the question: “ Are preparations being made for the publication of the Acts of the Council?? E.V. Belyakova replied that this issue was discussed with E.M. Yukhimenko, since many documents on the Cathedral are kept in the State Museum of Fine Arts, but no decision has been made yet.

——————

The priest asked on the basis of what the publication of the acts of the Council of 1666-1667, carried out in 2014 in St. Petersburg by the publishing house " quadrivium". E.V. Belyakova replied that this was a reprint of the text published by the brotherhood of Metropolitan Peter in order to make it accessible to the modern reader.

——————

During the discussion of the report, the question would be asked: “ Are the acts of the Council of 1666-1667 today a canonical source or have they become purely historical documents?? E.V. Belyakova replied that when the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918 discussed the issue of revoking the oaths of the Council of 1666-1667 on the old rites and their adherents, the acts of the Council of 1666-1667 were requested from the synodal library. These acts were considered at meetings, and therefore were recognized as canonically valid. " This is the only example known to me of an official reference to these acts.", - said E.V. Belyakova.

——————

After that, the Rector of the SFI, Professor Priest Georgy Kochetkov. He expressed his conviction that the theme of the conference is very important, relevant, not only about the past, but works for the future. According to Fr. George, in the history of the Russian Church there were two interrelated events that had a very negative impact on the subsequent life of the Church and the people. This is a struggle against non-possessors and the subsequent struggle against the Old Believers. The departure from the gospel principles of love and brotherly love ultimately led to the revolution of 1917, so repentance is indispensable. The same applies to the events of the middle of the XVII century.

Report Alexander Sergeevich Lavrov(University of Paris - Sorbonne) was devoted to the textual criticism of the work of the archpriest " The Tale of Those Who Suffered in Russia for Ancient Church Pious Traditions". This is an important historical source about the first persecution of the Old Believers. The attention of the researcher was attracted by a previously unpublished list of the 18th century, which mentions an important and previously unknown circumstance: the son of a noblewoman Feodosia Morozova Ivan Glebovich named godson of the king himself Alexey Mikhailovich. In this list, in connection with the premature and mysterious death of the young courtier Ivan, there is a statement by Archpriest Avvakum that “ the tsar did not save his godson Ivanushka". Since all the property of the deceased Ivan Glebovich Morozov was inherited by the tsar, this was a very strong and dangerous accusation.

The mentioned list of the 18th century "Tales ..." was written by some illiterate scribe who did not know the historical and even geographical circumstances of the events described at all. Apparently, he did not understand what Ivanushka Avvakum said, and therefore left such a dangerous statement. In the already published and earlier lists of the Tale ..., the writers of which were well aware of the realities of that time, the accusation of Archpriest Avvakum against the tsar in connection with the death of Ivan Glebovich Morozov, apparently, was omitted. At the end of his report, A. S. Lavrov expressed regret that the texts of Archpriest Avvakum had not yet been collected and published in full.

The Antichrist tried to delight Kievan Rus

Representative, teacher of the St. Petersburg State Pedagogical University. Herzen, author famous books on the history of the church schism, spoke about how the Council of 1666-1667 was perceived by the Old Believers. Long before the tragic events of the middle of the 17th century, the first voices were heard warning of danger. Western Russian theologian and preacher of the late 16th century Stefan Zizany at the request of the prince Konstantin Ostrozhsky made a translation from Greek of the 15th catechumen of the saint Cyril of Jerusalem dedicated to the coming of the Antichrist, with comments. Entitled " Kirilov's book"It was published in Belarusian and Polish in Vilna in 1596.

In his comments, Zizanius warned that in 1492 the eighth millennium from the creation of the world began, and that it was during this period, according to the then widespread opinions, that the Second Coming of Christ should occur. As a sign " end times» Zizanius considered an encroachment on Orthodoxy by the Roman papal throne, which, in his opinion, was the throne of the Antichrist. Around 1622, an anti-Catholic essay appeared in the Kiev Metropolis Zakharia Kopystensky « palinodium". The preface outlines the pattern of successive falling away of Christians to the Antichrist.

According to Zakharia Kopystensky, falling away has successive stages in time. In 1000 (1054), papal Rome fell away from Orthodoxy, ended " connection» Satan for 1000 years. Around the same time, in 988, Russia was baptized by Prince Vladimir, Russia entered the Church, taking the place of fallen Rome. Adding the apocalyptic number 666 to this date gave the year 1666. In 1600 (1596), after the Union of Brest-Litovsk, the Antichrist made an attempt to rapture Kievan Rus- the legacy of the baptist of Russia, Prince Vladimir. As a result of these events, the Orthodox of Western Russia actually lost the trichine hierarchy. According to the prophecy of Palinodia, the further development of events related to the Antichrist will occur in 1660 and finally in 1666, but what exactly will happen is not indicated.

Another Ukrainian polemicist, an Athos monk John Vishensky, argued that thanks to several falling aways in history, the Antichrist is already triumphant over the world and the end of the world is near. He expressed the idea of ​​the possibility of preserving the Orthodox faith when falling into heresy " lords and priests". In Russia, the Kiril Book was published in 1644 in Moscow, and the works of Western Russian polemicists were also distributed in manuscript form. The fateful year 1666 came. The council was awaited by both supporters of reforms and opponents. The rank-and-file clergy in the mass was against it, complete chaos reigned in worship. There were hopes that, together with the condemnation of Nikon, the Council would cancel all his innovations, restore peace and the former godliness in the Church. The king agreed to convene the Council on November 2, 1665, only after the death of Spiridon Potemkin- a generally recognized authority and one of the leaders of the zealots of piety. After that, all the leaders of the Old Believer opposition who were at large were arrested. In February 1666, all Russian bishops and prominent representatives of the clergy gathered in Moscow according to royal letters. Among the participants of the Council there was not a single bishop of the pre-Nikonian appointment. In fact, it was created pocket» the hierarchy, of which the patriarch was a prominent representative Joachim stating:

I don’t know either the old faith or the new one, but whatever the bosses tell me, I’m ready to do and listen to them in everything.

Before the Council, the tsar demanded that each bishop confirm in writing that they consider the Greek hierarchs, Greek church ranks to be Orthodox and recognize the decisions of the Moscow Council of 1654, which was under Patriarch Nikon and decided to bring Russian liturgical rites and rites into line with Greek ones. All the bishops called to the Council confirmed this.

The first part of the Council, which opened on April 29, 1666, was held only with the participation of Russian hierarchs and was less radical than the Great Moscow Cathedral of 1666-1667, which was held later with the participation of the Greeks. After unsuccessful attempts to win over the archpriest Habakkuk and his associate deacon Theodora they were cut and anathematized as heretics. Although the Council of 1666 did not formally curse the old rites, it completely banned their use in the Church and recognized the newly printed books and the rites introduced during Nikon's reforms as the only correct ones. The second part of the Council of 1666-1667 opened in Moscow on November 28, 1666 with the participation of the Eastern Patriarchs invited by the Tsar to Moscow. Of the 29 bishops present at the Council, 12 were foreigners.

Patriarch Nikon was convicted and defrocked, a new patriarch was elected Joasaph. However, the church unrest did not end, but intensified even more, because, having condemned Nikon, the Council approved his reforms. Therefore, in April 1667, the Council again turned to the problem of " church rebels and church ritual. The leaders of the Old Believers were re-summoned to the cathedral and condemned. Someone repented, many remained with their convictions. After a long conversation with the eastern patriarchs, Archpriest Avvakum was exiled to Pustozersk.

On May 13, 1667, at the Council, the pre-Nikon rites and rites used in Russia since its baptism were solemnly cursed. All who use them were cursed and anathema " with Judas the traitor, and with the Jews who crucified Christ, and with Arius, and with other damned heretics". The resolutions of the famous Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551 on double-fingering and a special alleluia, which was attended by many subsequently glorified Russian saints, were canceled and declared written " not wisely, simplicity and ignorance". The entire centuries-old tradition of Russian holiness was desecrated and cursed. At the end of its work, the Council of 1666-1667 decided to accept Catholic pouring baptism as true, which contradicted not only the Local Council of 1620, which was under Patriarch Filaret, but also the whole practice of the ancient Church going from apostolic times. A priest who dared to accept a Catholic through baptism had to be defrocked. Catholics, in fact, were declared orthodox and orthodox.

The Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667 led to a final schism in the Russian Church and blessed the genocide of the Russian people unleashed by the secular and spiritual authorities. This was followed by an outflow of the population to the outskirts of Russia and abroad, to neighboring countries. By our time, the meaninglessness and far-fetchedness of many resolutions of the Great Moscow Cathedral of 1666-1667 is obvious. As the historian wrote at the beginning of the 20th century N. F. Kapterev:

A new conciliar review of this whole matter is needed so that the Russian Church remains united as before, as it was before Nikon's patriarchate.

After the speech of K. Ya. Kozhurin, the question was asked: “ Was there a historical connection between the non-possessors and the Old Believers? The speaker replied that the leader of the opponents of the reform Grigory Neronov had a connection with the places where the Trans-Volga elders labored. Nilova hermitage for a long time kept the old rites.

——————

Father Ioann Mirolyubov noted that the theory of the gradual conquest of the world by Antichrist formed the basis of the priestless ideology and arose before the schism. At the same time, in the printed editions of the Cyril Book, the texts of Cyril of Jerusalem and the comments of Stefan Zizaniy are not separated from each other, they are not quoted in any way, and the reader of that time considered everything printed in this book, including Zizaniy’s opinions, to be patristic teachings belonging to the saint Kirill.

The mutual influence of the Old Believers and the New Believers is an indisputable fact

The next speaker was a historian of Russian literature and the Old Believers.

Although the clergy of the dominant confession “fought the schism,” and the Old Believers fought the “Nikonian heresy,” there was always grassroots interaction and mutual influence at the family and household level,” he said. This issue has been little studied, although it is of great interest.

Further, the speaker gave a number of examples of such mutual influence. So, veneration of the image of the Virgin " unexpected joy” arose in the New Believer church after the publication of the book “ Fleece irrigated» Dmitry Rostovsky, a well-known opponent of the Old Believers. Despite this, it subsequently passed into the environment of the Old Believers. The list of the icon "Unexpected Joy" is in the Rogozhsky cemetery. Revered by the Old Believers and the icon " Joy to all who mourn”, which became famous in the official church in the second half of the 17th century, after the schism. There was also an opposite effect. Dnieper icon of the Mother of God- this is an old-fashioned Korsun icon. She was revered on Vetka, Irgiz, Kerzhents, her veneration was very common in Guslitsy. But the same icon was also revered by adherents of the ruling church.

The ideological interchange between the official church and the Old Believers was very intense at the beginning of the 20th century. Between 1905 and 1917, the Synodal Church was preparing to convene a Local Council, which had not met for more than two hundred years. The question of the revival of the parish community, Orthodox brotherhoods was raised. At the same time, the experience of modern Old Believers, which preserved both catholicity and a living parish community, was invariably discussed.

The Old Believers, who after 1905 received the opportunity to legally create parochial schools, studied the experience in this area of ​​the dominant confession. However, mutual influence was not always beneficial. So, in 1911, the Old Believer archbishop (Kartushin), the first hierarch of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, made an attempt to prevent the laity from attending the bishops' councils, and one council passed without the participation of the laity. This caused a sharp rebuke from the laity of the Old Believers in the press, who wrote that the Old Believer Church was beginning to adopt the Nikonian experience, the hierarchy was striving to separate from the laity, who were left only with the opportunity to pray in churches. And from the next year, cathedrals again began to be held with the participation of the laity. In conclusion, M. A. Dzyubenko emphasized that the issue of mutual influence of the Old Believers and " nikonian» is still little developed and is of great interest.

I was unable to attend the conference. Sergey Lvovich Firsov, Professor of St. Petersburg state university. Therefore, the organizers of the conference handed out the text of his report to those who wished. It reported on the work of the Department for Common Faith and Old Believers of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-1918. The Metropolitan was the head of the department. Anthony(Khrapovitsky). The main issue was the arrangement of the life of the Edinoverie in the new conditions, the issues of the Edinoverie episcopate, the organization of Edinoverie dioceses.

One of the most important issues discussed at the meetings of the Department was also the question of the oaths of the Great Moscow Cathedral of 1667, without the official permission of which it turned out to be impossible to find mutual language with supporters of "ancient piety" who wish to be children of the Russian Orthodox Church, while preserving the traditions of church piety of the 17th century. The issue was much and actively discussed, the chairman of the Department, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), supporting a positive solution to the issue, stated that the revocation of the oaths of the Council should not be embarrassed: “Although this Council, wishing to bring the Russian Church into complete unity with the "ranks and rituals, but since this measure failed, and the goal is not achieved, then it must be canceled, leaving the oath only to the detractors of the Church<…>.

Some members of the Council, when discussing this issue, argued that the oaths of the Council of 1667 " have as their subject only opponents of the Church and say nothing about the "old" rites". At one of the last meetings of the Department in September 1918, during an exchange of opinions, they came to the conclusion that the oaths of the Council of 1656, which condemned two-fingeredness and cursed those who were baptized with two fingers, should be immediately removed by the decision of the Council of the Russian Church, and the issue of the oaths of the Council of 1667 should be postponed until the Council from the presence of the Eastern Patriarchs. It was proposed to turn to the Old Believers with a statement that the recognition of common faith " The Orthodox Church equally honors and accepts the old rites and books of the first five Russian Patriarchs"and call on the Old Believers" to peace, unity, mutual love and oblivion of past strife". However, it was possible to put these ideas into practice already at a different time, at the 1971 Council, which adopted the decision “ On the abolition of oaths on the old rites and on those who adhere to them».

——————

The teacher delivered a message Religious persecution of the Old Believers as a factor in the internal colonization of Russia: the view of the populists". In the 70s and 80s of the 19th century, the Old Believers, especially the bezpopovtsy, became the object of close attention of the populists.

The revolutionary populists believed that the Old Believers-bezpopovtsy, who radically reject the Russian state as anti-Christ, could become allies in revolutionary transformations. But in general, in the Old Believer environment, the attitude towards revolutionary practice was negative. Moderate populism believed that the Old Believers' bezpriest's consents implemented a non-capitalist social model based on the principles of people's rule and community, as a federation of self-governing communities.

——————

According to Fr. John Mirolyubov, who spoke after the report, populists, studying the Old Believers, " understood something, didn’t understand something, but understood something completely wrong».

——————

Employee of the Institute of the Russian Language. V. V. Vinogradov, read a report on the topic “ Appeal to the experience of the Old Believers in the discussion of church reforms».

New Believer publicists wrote a lot about the Old Believers in the course of disputes about the church community, as a model for the revival of which the idealized pre-Nikon church life was offered. And the Old Believer communities were perceived as its living fragments. But " the desire to return to antiquity in practice will inevitably lead to reforms in the present, create something new, and this is good”, - this is how A. G. Kravetsky formulated the main idea of ​​his report.

Report Ekaterina Alexandrovna Alekseeva, an employee of the St. Philaret Institute and the organizer of the conference, was dedicated to the Old Believer Consecrated Cathedrals and all-Russian congresses the beginning of the 20th century and was based on the publications of the Old Believer magazine " Church».

Edinoverie parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church should receive official status

Archpriest John Mirolyubov heading Patriarchal Center of Old Russian Liturgical Tradition, made a message dedicated to current state. He noted that historically, unity of faith arose from below, as the desire of ordinary Old Believers to gain unity with the Russian Church, while preserving their favorite pre-Nikon church rites and rituals. However, the bishops of that time believed that the pre-Nikonian rites were corrupted, heretical. Therefore, the common faith of the beginning of the 19th century was perceived by the bishops exclusively as a missionary project, the purpose of which was the gradual bringing " dissenters”to the only correct new rite. Therefore, the activities of the parishes of the same faith were surrounded by many restrictions.

By the time of the Council of 1917-1918, academic science had proved that the old rite was completely Orthodox. At the Council, decisions were adopted that for the first time equalized the rights of the parishes of the old and new rites. A decision was made on the episcopate of the same faith. At this time it was 600 congregational parishes and 20 monasteries. Gradually, 20 bishops of the same faith were installed. However, all of them, except for one, were repressed. When the last bishop of the same faith was arrested in 1937, by the decision of the patriarch Sergius(Stragorodsky), the parishes of the same faith were transferred to the management of local bishops, and this situation has been preserved to this day. In 1971, oaths were removed from the old rites. The Old Believers did not react to this, but some kind of psychological wall fell, contacts became more active.

By the anniversary of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Russia in 1988, only two parishes of the same faith remained on the territory of the USSR - one in the Nizhny Novgorod region, and one in Ukraine. At present, there are about 35 parishes of the same faith. It is difficult to say more precisely, since there are no criteria by which a parish can be considered one of the same faith. The philosophy and tasks of common faith are changing. Missionary activity, if carried out, is at the individual level.

——————

The main task of Edinoverie today is the rehabilitation of the pre-Nikonian church tradition within the Russian Orthodox Church.

——————

In the modern parish of the same faith, people from the Old Believers are a minority. Basically, these are believers of the Russian Orthodox Church, who gravitate towards the ideals of Holy Russia, to the ancient Russian icon, singing, worship. Among them there are quite a few people with a humanitarian education who have chosen common faith quite consciously. Gradually, the attitude towards common faith is also changing at the general church level. In 2000, a conference was held dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the common faith. A commission for the affairs of Old Believer parishes was created, and the Patriarchal Center for the Old Russian Liturgical Tradition was established. Books are being published on the pre-Nikonian singing tradition and divine services, and choir directors are being trained who are proficient in znamenny singing.

However, there are also unresolved problems. The Commission for Old Believer Parishes does not have any control levers. There are no clear criteria by which one can determine whether a parish is of the same faith or not. Edinoverie parishes are not mentioned in the charter of the ROC, there is no "Regulation" about them. Due to the absence of a co-religious episcopate, the fate of congregations of the same faith depends entirely on the attitude of the local bishop, which can be very different. The possibilities of the center of the Old Russian tradition are very limited, we have only recently been able to get our own premises.

Revision of the acts of the Councils or anathema to them?

By the end of the conference, an exchange of views began in the form of a round table.

Historian and publicist Gleb Stanislavovich Chistyakov drew attention to the fact that Last year a lot of materials are published about the 100th anniversary of the revolution, but almost nothing is heard about the 350th anniversary of the church schism, which is also one of the most tragic events in our history. Almost no one knows that at the meeting held in Moscow on April 23-26, 2015, a document containing a detailed theological analysis of the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667 was adopted. It consists of eight denunciations, which show not only the canonical and ritual absurdity of his many decisions, but also the obvious heresies contained in them, already condemned by the Church. He then read out some excerpts from that document.

——————

After that, the speaker read out the statements of several contemporary well-known church leaders about the Great Moscow Cathedral. So, the representative of the Russian Old Orthodox Church, Fr. believes that the ROC should convene a new Council and reject the erroneous decisions of the Council of 1666-1667, just as iconoclastic councils were rejected at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

——————

Bishop of Alternative Orthodoxy Gregory(Lurie) (ROAC) does not see why these decisions of 1666-1667. needs to be reviewed and revised. He notes:

In my opinion, they should simply be anathematized, since they completely represent a completely false view of Orthodoxy. If it is necessary to say officially out loud about the anathematization of this council, then we, the AS ROAC (Bishops' Conference of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church - ed.), are ready for this.

——————

Thus, the Metropolitan of Tulchinsky and Bratslav Jonathan(Eletskikh) and professor at the Moscow Theological Academy A. Osipov believe that, although the decisions of the Council of 1666-1667 contain shortcomings, it makes no sense to cancel them, since individual " strange and eccentric decisions of this Council no one shares these days.

——————

Philosopher-bezpopovets M. Shakhov draws attention to the fact that the decisions of the Council, containing oaths to the old rite, were irrevocable for three centuries, and decisions concerning Patriarch Nikon were canceled by the tsarist authorities fifteen years later.

——————

Famous scientist-Old Believer () A. V. Muravyov recalls that, from the point of view of the Old Believers, the Council of 1666-1667, by its decisions, brought itself outside the boundaries of the true Church into a heretical community.

——————

Domestic publicists spoke harshly about the great Moscow Cathedral. Portal editor-in-chief Cavpolit» M. Shevchenko noted:

The dense fabric of Russian life was torn, which had been shaped for centuries through the events of the most difficult history, which up to that moment was no different, in fact, from European history. Alexei Mikhailovich thus inflicted a terrible insult on the Russian Orthodox people and Russian Orthodox self-consciousness.

——————

TV channel host Tsargrad» Egor Kholmogorov stated:

The society and the Russian Orthodox Church must decisively and fundamentally reassess these events. Here it is necessary not only to talk about reconciliation, but to clearly state that the decisions of the Great Moscow Council were a serious mistake.

——————

The more we learn about the Great Moscow Cathedral, the more questions arise: is it a Cathedral at all? Or is it the trial of Archpriest Avvakum, interspersed with conferences? There was no secretary, no complete publication of decisions.

Will the ROC officially cancel the decisions of the Great Moscow Cathedral? Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, where there is a procedure for the abolition of previously adopted canonical documents, in Orthodox tradition they simply cease to be guided without any official abolition. According to Fr. John, most likely it will be the same with the acts of the Great Moscow Cathedral.

——————

Publicist A. V. Shishkin drew attention to the fact that the so-called cancellation of oaths at the 1971 Russian Orthodox Church Council is a much belated response to requests from fellow believers that have been received since the beginning of the 19th century to cancel the oaths of the great Moscow Cathedral. This is neither a recognition of the correctness of the Old Believers, nor a repentance before them. The wording " consider oaths as if they were not former” is meaningless, since the Great Moscow Cathedral changed the entire subsequent history of Russia. Also, this is a departure from answering the question: Whether the decisions of the Council were right or wrong? If they are recognized as erroneous, then another question will inevitably arise: Is the New Believer Church the true Church of Christ, the pillar and affirmation of the truth?(1 Tim. 3:15)?”

——————

O. Georgy Kochetkov objected:

I believe that in spirit and meaning the decision of the Council of 1971 was directed to all Old Believers, and shortly after this Council, Metropolitan Nicodemus(Rotov) met with the leaders of the Old Believers, but after his death, everything calmed down. If the decisions of the Great Moscow Council are canceled, then this may shake the faith of ordinary people in their Church, one must be careful. Our unity is in Christ, and not in ritual and not in singing, which have changed greatly in different eras. For the sake of love for the Church and the people, we must go towards each other.

——————

Igumen (Sakharov) noted:

The Filaret Institute's initiative to discuss issues related to the Great Moscow Cathedral is commendable. Such an event cannot be imagined, for example, in the auditorium of the Moscow Theological Academy. Our clergy have no piety before this Council, which, of course, became the tragedy of the Russian people and state. What to do? A quick healing of a split is not possible. Realistic, consistent steps forward are needed to reduce the amount of evil. Untruth and evil must be recognized as such.

The Great Moscow Cathedral should be forced out to the periphery of ecclesiastical law with a complete expulsion in the future. An example would be the attitude to the well-known declaration of the Metropolitan Sergius(Stragorodsky), who is not officially condemned, but the patriarch Alexei II stated that we are no longer guided by this document. Repentance for the persecution of the Old Believers is necessary, an example gives Church Abroad you have to follow him. And then as the Lord pleases to arrange.

——————

Father Evgeny Chunin(RPSC) remarked:

The assessment of the Great Moscow Cathedral is still ambiguous even among specialists, all the more impossible is a single attitude towards it among the people. It is necessary to gradually get rid of untruth, first of all, from the undoubted and conscious lie in relation to the Old Believers. A bunch of myths about the Old Believers, about the old faith, has been spreading from the time of the Great Moscow Cathedral to the present day. And they are already implemented in mass consciousness. It is necessary to work painstakingly to correct the situation, to set small specific tasks.

Father Eugene thanked the organizers of the conference, saying in conclusion that the topic was relevant and it is necessary to return to this topic again.

——————

Cathedral 1666–1667

The tsar expected great results (both in the sense of convincing controversy on the merits of the issue, and in the sense of the authority of decisions and decrees) from the upcoming great council; Patriarchs Paisios of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch went to Russia to participate in it. Invited to the conciliar trial of the former Patr. All four Orthodox patriarchs were Nikon; they all knew, of course, that the “correction” of the Russian liturgy according to the Greek model, which was already being carried out, would be discussed, they knew, probably in general terms, and about the measures by which it was carried out. The impending trial of Nikon and the trial of the Russian rite probably forced them to think: should they go to Moscow? Trouble about their arrival in Moscow, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich began back in 1662, but then "all the eastern patriarchs refused to go to Moscow or send their deputies." Patriarchs Dionysius of Constantinople and Nektarios of Jerusalem refused (under plausible pretexts) to come in 1666. Both of them tried to reconcile the tsar with Nikon before, both knew that Paisios Ligarid Metr. Gazsky, both knew and wrote that he had forged patriarchal letters. Later, Dositheus Patr. Ierusalimsky characterized Ligarid in a letter to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich as follows: "a heretic from heretics", which are not "neither alive nor dead"; cit. on .

"Former Patriarch<Никон>tried to write out from the East a clergyman who enjoyed a loud reputation. It was Paisius Ligarid, who called himself the Metropolitan of Gaz. Like many like him in this era, this doctor of theology was just a lowly adventurer, once a student, and then a professor at the Collegio Greco, set up in Rome by the Jesuits; he became an ardent orthodox<в смысле: православным>a year after that<…>; he was removed for frequent covetousness, but retained his pension from the Vatican. The arrival of this person<…>first filled Nikon's soul with joy. The former patriarch naively believed that he would find a protector in Ligarid. The pensioner of the Vatican quickly dissuaded him: having examined with an experienced eye which side it would be more profitable for him to take, on August 15, 1662, he wrote a note in which he made Nikon guilty in all respects and encouraged Alexei to turn to the eastern patriarchs for help against the rebel. Since Moscow did not know the biography of the newcomer at all, this proposal caused a sensation. And it was the beginning of all actions to convene and hold a cathedral fatal to the fate of Russia.

"Patr. Nectarios of Jerusalem, having learned that Paisios was seeking the title of patriarchal exarch and was already called that in Moscow, announced through his messenger that this was imposture. Then Nikon, having learned, in different ways, mainly through the Greeks, who served both ours and yours, about the various tricks of his enemy, whenever it seemed necessary to him, used this information.<…>In the papers of the Order of Secret Affairs, a letter from Patr. Dionysius of Constantinople,<…>in which he recommends, as his deputy at the council, Paisius Ligarida, calling him "holy and prudent, prudent and knowledgeable" in church affairs. The king wanted to check<…>did Patr. Dionysius Metropolitan Gazsky to be his representative at the council. And then, it was revealed that Dionysius did not give such an order to Paisius and did not send any letters. "Paisius Ligarid is not the throne of Constantinople, I do not call him Orthodox," Dionysius wrote. Cursed Ligarida in his time and patr. Constantinople Methodius; all that was said was enough to make sure (but, unfortunately for himself, too late) of his complete lack of conscience and the defendant at the cathedral ex-patr. Nikon. Paisios - "a generally recognized bribe taker, deprived of his place as a metropolitan in Gaza, and excommunicated from the church,<…>previously used the position that he had previously achieved in Moscow in order to engage in a business close to fraud. “He turned out to be a master of all trades: he lured huge sums from Alexei Mikhailovich, allegedly for the needs of his Gaz flock, was engaged in trade, speculation with copper money, as well as very ugly tricks. All this got away with him under the guise of the prominent role he played in the Nikon case.

“Another Greek bigwig of the cathedral of 1666-1667, who shamelessly made money, first serving Nikon, then the tsar, and several times traveling on behalf of the tsar to the Eastern patriarchs, deacon Meletios, was also smart, dexterous, well-read, talented, but unprincipled and dishonest adventurer. In Moscow, he was later very thoroughly suspected and even directly accused of forging patriarchal charters. In addition to ecclesiastical diplomacy and making money on travel and serving the tsar and patriarch, he, along with Ligarid, made big money by usury.<…>. A friend of these ecclesiastical adventurers, Ligarides and Meletios, was the Greek deacon Agafangel, a man of a much smaller scale. In his free time from church affairs, he was engaged in the wine trade, brewing and organizing gambling dens.

About the fact that Mr. Paisius Ligarid of Gaz was banned from serving by his (Jerusalem) patriarch, Patr. Nikon, Archimandrite of the Kostamonite Monastery of Athos Theophanes. Nikon began to talk about this, without hiding the source of his knowledge; “Theophanes paid dearly for his sympathy for Nikon and enmity for Paisius. He was arrested and handed over to the enemy, Paisios, "who eva and punished him and calmed him from every bad thing, and he behaved disobediently to him." Theophanes was exiled to the Cyril Monastery ”- the participation in the cathedral of its main organizer, Paisius, was so dear to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Justifying Ligarid, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, greatly risking his own prestige, declared to the cathedral that he “lives truly ... and he has a letter set and testified, but (about) his excommunication from the Jerusalem patriarch there was no letter”; cit. on . Probably, all or much about Paisius Ligarides and his friends was known to the patriarch. Macarius (former friend, consultant and co-servant of Nikon - see p. 167); Patr. Paisius of Alexandria knew all this without a doubt (“he was notified of this by a special letter from Jerusalem, but hid this fact from<…>Cathedral in Moscow"); but, being more accommodating, or more in need of money, both went to Moscow.

They went up the Volga, then by land from Simbirsk on 400 wagons with 500 horses. Such an impressive size of the convoy of two guests of the Russian Tsar is explained not only by the tradition of the Greeks - alms-gathering hierarchs - to bring dozens of merchants - "servants and relatives" with them. Probably, it was coordinated with the embassy order in Moscow, and it was meant to raise, thus, the prestige of the patriarchs.

Remarkable are their (as well as the bailiffs accompanying them) letters from the road (from Russian territory) to Moscow. These letters contain, for example, estimates of the number of opponents of reforms in the Russian cities and regions that they saw, rarely found in documents of that time. Yes, Patr. Macarius wrote to the future Moscow Patr. Joasafu from the Makaryevsky Zheltovodsky Monastery (under Nizhny Novgorod): “In this country there are many schismatics and opponents, not only among the ignorant, but also among the priests; command them to humble them and punish them severely.” Sometimes the patriarchs themselves “humbled and severely punished schismatics and opponents”, probably “knowing well their own worth” and not waiting for orders and not being afraid of shouting from Moscow. So, from Simbirsk, the bailiffs wrote that the patriarchs ordered "to imprison the archpriest" (; in other sources - the priest) Nikifor for the sign of the cross and for not serving according to the new service books. In such actions of the patriarchs, the Moscow authorities, carefully protecting and even, if possible, trying to increase the authority of the approaching future supreme judges as a former patriarch. Nikon and his opponents - the Old Believers, and the old rites themselves, did not see anything unacceptable or reprehensible.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was very worried about the possibility of someone's influence on the approaching patriarchs, dangerous for the royal plans and goals. “Extraordinary measures were taken so that the eastern patriarchs, before personal negotiations with the tsar, had no contacts in Russia with anyone other than trusted people of the autocrat. They were not even supposed to know why they were invited to Russia. Archbishop Joseph of Astrakhan<…>the king sent instructions<…:>“And they, the patriarchs, will teach you to ask what business they were ordered to Moscow for?” the order read. .<Царь требовал, чтобы архиепископ лгал патриархам в глаза, причем они, конечно, это знали;…>The archbishop had to make sure that the lay and clergy accompanying the patriarchs did not talk about anything with the patriarchs and their retinue "and were dangerous in everything"<то есть осторожны. >Bailiffs from archery commanders and clerks<…>should be<…>“to watch and take care of it tightly, so that no one approaches the patriarchs with any letters, and also from them, the patriarchs, there were no letters in the parcel to anyone.” Deacon Meletios was supposed to spy on Paisios and Macarius with the help of agents recruited in the retinue of the patriarchs.<…>The royal instruction recommended Meletius to bribe his nephew<фактически, сына>Macarius, Archdeacon Paul, to follow his uncle's correspondence<фактически, отца>and, if necessary, intercepted letters, as well as try to bribe the nephew of the Patriarch Paisius. Chief spies were supposed to be paid more than the best military scouts - up to 30 gold! By the time the patriarchs had almost reached Vladimir, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was even more worried.<…>Streltsy colonel A.S. was sent to Paisius and Macarius. Matveev (confidant of the tsar, future head of government).<Видимо, царь не доверял Мелетию - собственному давнему агенту;…>During the patriarchal service in passing cathedrals, Matveev was supposed to allow noble people to be blessed by governors, clerks and other ranks only in his presence.<…>Observation of the patriarchs turned out to be useful, although not in the aspect that Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich assumed. Paisius and Macarius from the very beginning behaved freely, so freely that they accepted the exiles into their retinue.<…Царь требовал от дьякона Мелетия, чтобы патриархи>“They didn’t quarrel with us, the great sovereign, they didn’t take those thieves, Ivashka Lavrentiev and Ivashka Turkin, with them to Moscow.” The patriarchs not only did not fulfill the wish of the sovereign, but in addition to I. Lavrentiev and I. Turkin, they brought with them to Moscow 20 more people who were not in the retinue. This blatant impudence (like many others) the Moscow authorities also did not notice, and because of it they did not “quarrel” with the patriarchs. The patriarchs arrived in Moscow on November 2 .

It is interesting how the tsar's bailiffs and clerk should have and could "watch and take care that no one approaches the patriarchs from anyone with any letters, and also from them, the patriarchs, there would be no letters in the parcel to anyone"? Search all Russians and Greeks who want to talk to the patriarchs or even just get a patriarchal blessing? Seize all letters to the patriarchs found during searches? Although it would be very "scandalous", it is still possible; but how to forbid or prevent the patriarchs themselves from writing to whom they want? It was impossible; consequently, it remained to search their messengers as well, and seize the patriarchal letters from them. And the patriarchs tolerated this? I do not know what to answer; perhaps they tolerated (after all, the Moscow government tolerated their unparalleled impudence); while their letters to the king are filled with expressions of love and gratitude. How many lies and insincerity in everything connected with Nikon's reforms! How powerful is money!

And why, in fact, was Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich so afraid of the patriarchal correspondence? And with whom did the patriarchs' correspondence disturb him most? First, of course, with the ex-patriarch Nikon; secondly, probably with Constantinople. But, probably, the possibility of correspondence with the defenders of the old rites, who could try to open the eyes of the patriarchs both to the senselessness of the liturgical reform and to the methods of its implementation, could also inspire some anxiety in him. However, such an attempt would be obviously hopeless due to the mutual ignorance of the patriarchs and the Old Believers of languages).

However, with the patriarchal authority of Macarius and Paisius, things were not at all the way the Moscow authorities desired, and even their very right to participate in the Moscow Cathedral was very doubtful. Outraged by their intention to judge Nikon, known in the East as a Greekophile, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Parthenius and the council convened by him achieved from the Turkish government the removal (canonically quite correct) of them from their chairs for leaving their flocks without the permission of the authorities, and the appointment of other hierarchs in their places. In this way, in Moscow, Paisius and Macarius were, in fact, ex-patriarchs under jurisdiction (and, moreover, fleeing from court); their thrones were canonically correctly occupied by other persons.

I wrote that the Turkish authorities "correctly" removed Patriarchs Paisios and Macarius from their sees; this may seem strange. The point here is that in the Ottoman Empire, the highest clerics of non-Sunni confessions represented the civil interests of their flock before the government and were, thus, in a certain sense, state officials and, therefore, naturally, were approved in this capacity by the state in their chairs. Christians did not elect and did not have secular leaders and advocates; their interests before the local authorities were defended by their bishops, before the central ones - by the Patriarch of Constantinople. So, the departure of Patriarchs Paisios and Macarius, not sanctioned by both the Turkish authorities and the Patriarch of Constantinople, was: 1) a clear disregard for the spiritual and civil affairs and interests of their flocks - and these are thousands of Christians; 2) a major state offense; 3) misconduct before the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom they, by their departure without his permission, placed in a very uncomfortable position before the authorities. Of course, they foresaw the consequences of their journey (and, partly for this reason, they were in no hurry to return to their flocks, who received other bishops), and these consequences, of course, frightened them, but the royal money attracted more - it means that a lot of them were foreseen; in this the patriarchs were not mistaken.

In addition: “The nephew of the Patriarch of Constantinople Athanasius<…>claimed that he was sent by his uncle and the council of all the eastern bishops to reconcile Nikon with the tsar. “Athanasius Metropolitan of Iconium and Cappadocia was sent to the reigning city of Moscow to the Pious Tsar from the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople with a scripture wrestling about His Holiness Patriarch Nikon” . From this, probably, "scripture", the tsar knew about the scandalous fact of the deprivation of the Patriarchs Macarius and Paisius of their chairs, but carefully concealed it; despite this, he became known to all the defendants at the council, including, which was especially undesirable to the king, the former patris. Nikon. The tsar was able to achieve the restoration of the patriarchs in the sees (for which he had to pay the Turkish government to remove the unyielding Patriarch Parfeniy from the see of Constantinople) only after the end of the council, pseudo-legalizing his decisions, thus, only retroactively. In essence, however, this pseudo-legalization did not matter, since during the meetings of the council, its leaders and authorities Macarius and Paisius were not patriarchs, and this fact, no matter what, and no matter what, belated actions could not change.

Athanasius Metropolitan Iconius, who exposed the falsity of Ligarid's letters, was accused (probably unfairly; this accusation is typical for the whole atmosphere of the cathedral) of forging his documents, and after the council, in which the king desired his participation, he was sent to imprisonment in the Zheltovodsky monastery and died there. Also, “and many condolences to Blessed Nikon, torments and bonds and prison imprisonment of the dejection of the former.” At the cathedral, Nikon “calmly remarked: he heard that untrue patriarchs arrived in Moscow, that is, people deprived of their patriarchal thrones; and demanded that his judges swear on the gospel that this was not the case.<…Патриархи>refused.<…>Paisius and Macarius could not fulfill Nikon's demand to present their written credentials. They didn't have that kind of power."

It is not clear what authority he means: from the episcopal synods of his patriarchates, or from the Patriarch of Constantinople; there were none of those. There were also no authoritative and plenipotentiary representatives of the Sees of Constantinople and Jerusalem. That, the other, and the third did not exist, of course, not by chance: the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, their bishops, and even the bishops of the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, subordinate to Paisius and Macarius, did not want to even minimally participate in the trial of Nikon. But something else is also possible: Patriarchs Paisios and Macarius, wishing that as few people as possible who were not privy to their affairs knew about their departure, which was not authorized by the authorities and the Patriarch of Constantinople, did not notify anyone about it and did not seek any authority (probably knowing what to find they won’t succeed anyway), that is, simply put, they quietly fled from their dioceses, from their flocks and co-servants. Which option is better? I do not know what to say.

Nephew of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Met. Athanasius of Iconium and Cappadocia (his predecessor was St. Basil the Great - one of the most revered saints in Russia) died in custody in the Zheltovodsky Monastery! - it was so important for Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich that he - one of the most authoritative participants in the cathedral - did not return to the East and tell his uncle and everyone who was interested in the trial of Nikon, what his own eyes saw. This unprecedented case shows us the king in a very special light. I do not know the details of this exciting drama, but one might think that the whole East was shocked.

The appearance of the arriving patriarchs was also not very suitable for an authoritative cathedral. I had to literally dress them up, put on shoes and equip them. “Eastern guests-judges were not only bought, but also dressed up. Costumed in the literal sense - the income and expense books of the Patriarchal order, the Armory and the Workshops tell us in detail how all the items of their precious clothing and other things were made for the Greeks, which were necessary to give the leading participants in a large church cathedral a look worthy of Moscow: armchairs, crosses, panagias , staves, books (written, according to the conditions of the game, in Greek, one of which was hastily bound upside down, which no one noticed), caskets, shoes, etc.” . But if not with these items necessary for the cathedral, then what were the 400 patriarchal carts loaded with (I don’t think that 500 horses were carrying them empty)?

Probably goods; and the patriarchs did not want to take expensive clothes, utensils and books with them on a long journey, saving space and fearing to expose these valuables to the dangers of a long journey in barbarian countries; they were probably sure that all this would be provided to them in Moscow. They knew Moscow well and the value of themselves and their urgently needed services there, and they were not mistaken. It is also possible that they "played along" with the tsar, "not knowing" why he was inviting them to Moscow. It would be very interesting to study the pre-Council correspondence for this special purpose: did Moscow ask the patriarchs not to bring all this? It is also possible, however, that they simply did not have the expensive books, robes and utensils they needed to participate in the cathedral.

The Old Believers perfectly understood what kind of people the leaders of the cathedral were. “Sharply condemning the Greek Patriarchs Paisius and Macarius for their hostile attitude towards the Old Believers,<дьякон>Fedor accuses them of insincerity and greed,” to put it mildly. Prot. Avvakum, with his usual harshness, spoke of them in such a way that one does not want to quote.

The main consultants of the Patriarchs Macarius and Paisius, on whom they, not knowing the Russian language, were completely dependent, were Greeks who knew the Russian language well, including Archim. Dionysius from Moscow book references, a sodomite, as his opponents knew and spoke about at the cathedral. (Perhaps such a reputation explains the very small royal reward for his labors). By the time of the council, Paisius Ligarides, described above, had long ago (in 1657) been banned from the priesthood by his Jerusalem patriarch, and he carefully concealed this from the Russians, probably fearing the tsar's wrath and hoping to quietly buy himself patriarchal forgiveness. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, not sparing money, tried to get forgiveness for him, but only in 1670, the Jerusalem Patr. Dositheus yielded to the repeated request and gifts (“bundles of sables for 1300 rubles at the Moscow price”) of the tsar, and allowed Ligarid from the ban (which was absolutely necessary for the tsar).

In this way, the main organizer of the cathedral was a false metropolitan during the council, just as the main authorities of the council were false patriarchs, and the Russian tsar and all the Russian hierarchs who were participants in the council knew and hid this! Of course, knowing perfectly well their true position, the patriarchs and Ligarides clearly understood that the “compromising evidence” was on them and, therefore, their further destinies were completely in the hands of the king! - who could at any moment "expose" them and "punish for deceit". About their slightest independence (until the legal and official return to them of their titles, and themselves - to the chairs they left) there could be no question or thought - they were puppets in his hands.

Having allowed Ligarida, Patr. Dositheus, however, remained at his former opinion of him. He expressed it in a letter to Ligarid as follows:<то есть исполняются>Aesopian fables, which say how a goat scolded a wolf from a high place, for you are not so much great as stupid, inhuman and shameless, only the place where you stay is the royal court. And in less than 2 months, Ligarid again and until the end of his days († 24.8.1678) was the same Patr. Dositheus is forbidden in the priesthood. “On May 4, 1672, Paisius was sent from Moscow<…>, providing a rich salary and twelve carts for the export of his property.<…>He left Moscow only in February 1673 (moreover, he received another permission to leave, half of the previous one), but settled in Kiev, not wanting to leave the Russian borders.<…>Letters from Paisius were not published abroad, and he himself was ordered to guard "by all means firmly." An accomplice in dark deeds frightened the tsar, moreover, from Istanbul, the translator-agent Panagiot warned the sovereign "so that he does not order the Metropolitan of Gaz from Moscow to be released, so that he does not commit any business in Tsaregrad and in other places from his innocence" ". Indeed, dark, very dark deeds were started by the Russian Tsar and carried out in 1666–1667. Good and his "simple" assistant in these dark deeds - two boots of steam.

All the "simple-hearted" Greek rogues and Russian bishops - their allies - went over to the side of the king immediately after the disgrace of the former patron and breadwinner of many of them - Patr. Nikon, and by hook or by crook, at the cathedral and outside it, tried to "drown" their first benefactor. "Cunning, greedy for money and impudent people were valuable agents for Alexei Mikhailovich when he had to deal with the Greek patriarchs. They knew well how and to whom to bow, they were experts in behind-the-scenes affairs and casuistry, and in a difficult situation they could always tell the king the right word or the right maneuver. With the corruption of the main authorities of the conciliar sessions and their complete dependence on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and the intimidation and humility of the Russian bishops discussed above, it is not surprising that, according to Kapterev, "The cathedral became a weapon in the hands of the king." This is very mildly said.

Wonderful expression: "under the terms of the game"! - this is not a frivolous inaccuracy for the sake of a red word and not a vulgar mockery, but a correct reflection of one aspect of the entire activity of the cathedral in 1666-1667. Indeed, it was largely a game: pseudo-patriarchs - the authorities of the cathedral, pseudo-metropolitan - the organizer of the cathedral, pseudo-ignorance of the goals of coming to Moscow, and then - the obligatory goals of the council, pseudo-independent reasoning in the meetings of the council, pseudo -the erudition of the decisions of the cathedral, compiled by such corrupt pseudo-experts in the history of the Russian Church, like Dionysius, etc. It is striking - what this cathedral looked like: the Stalinist courts of the 1930s! Both there and there, for the convicts, this game had one ending: death or life imprisonment in incredibly cruel conditions; Which is better: an earthen prison in Pustozersk or a logging site in Kolyma?

Precisely because they became “weapons in the hands of the king”, they were, like a weapon, he needed and clearly realized this, the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch (in fact, ex-patriarchs, deprived of canonical power even in their former patriarchates and who, of course, did not have even the slightest legitimate authority in Russia) behaved demonstratively imperiously at the council, disregarding the well-known church canons and their true position, which they themselves, of course, knew very well. So, for objecting to them, they banned the Russian metropolitans Pavel Sarsky and Podonsky (locum tenens of the Moscow patriarchal throne) and Hilarion of Ryazan from the priesthood, who were not at all subordinate to them either in the present or in the past. Such a brazen abuse of power was, of course, possible only with the permission, or even at the request of the tsar, and taught all the Russian hierarchs who still remembered Pavel Kolomensky a lesson of obedience that had an excellent effect.

The author of the project of the anti-Old Believer part of the resolutions of the cathedral is Athonite “Dionysius showed contempt for the Russian rite not only in words, but also in deeds. When on Great Saturday 1667, during the solemn patriarchal service in the presence of the tsar, the Russian clergy went with the shroud "salting" (according to the movement of the sun), Dionysius quite unexpectedly led the Greek patriarchs and the rest of the Greek clergy in the opposite direction, towards the Russian procession. There was confusion and a rather sharp dispute between the Russian and Greek bishops. Finally, the tsar himself intervened in the conflict between the Russians and the Greeks, suggesting that the Russians follow the guests as well. What a vivid picture of the situation, and the characters, and the roles of the characters!

The Greek translator Dimitry, who served Nikon, was afraid of torture and stabbed himself to death. The patriarchs' cross, presented to Nikon, was ordered by the patriarchs to be taken away by force, which was done; the whole cathedral saw this ugly scene. She (as well as the treatment of Nikon in general) was not left without a theoretical justification. In the Rules Concerning the Power of the Tsar and the Power of the Church<…>compiled by Paisius Ligarides and the Russian advisers to the tsar,<написано:>“The king is like God in his power<;…>He is the vicar of God on earth.<…Следует>patriarch be obedient to the king<;…Считаем патриарха,>acting contrary to church charters or contrary to the king, foolish and acting madness from his throne, be very repulsive and remote. That is, the patriarchs directly and unequivocally justified the overthrow of the patriarch by the tsar! Previously, nothing like this was written in official documents (although in fact, of course, this happened in Byzantium, and in the West, and in Russia); cathedral 1666–1667 set a record of obsequiousness.

Russian examples of such an overthrow: 1) led. book. Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy and Met. Cyprian; 2) led. book. Vasily Vasilyevich and Metropolitan Isidore; 3) Tsar Ivan the Terrible and Met. Philip; 4) Tsar Dimitry Ivanovich and Patr. Job; 5) “By order<царя>Vasily Shuisky<…патр. Игнатий>was forcibly removed from the throne of the All-Russian patriarchs and imprisoned in the Kremlin Chudov Monastery on May 26, 1606, without the obligatory investigation of his activities by the court of bishops in such cases. Such a clear violation of canon law, the domestic bishops tried to eliminate at the council, convened<…>at the end of June of the same year.<…>The participants in the council had no choice but to sanction the removal of Ignatius the Greek from the highest spiritual authority that had already taken place. At the same time, they did not bring any specific accusations against the deposed patriarch of violating dogmas or deviating from the ritual practice adopted at that time. The record of obsequiousness was accompanied by a record of deceit: Nikon was accused of "reproaching" the tsar. But he did this by trusting (verbally) Ligarides and (in letters from the New Jerusalem Monastery) the patriarchs. This confidence on the part of an almost exiled person could have stopped less corrupt, unscrupulous and obsequious judges. Trusting them, Nikon, like all people, judged others by himself. Not to mention the fact that his "reproaches" were well deserved by the king.

Especially for the patriarchs, Dionysius compiled a treatise against the old Russian rites, which became the basis for the decisions of the council on this issue. The main idea of ​​the treatise is the inability of the Russians not only to develop, but also to preserve, without the help and control of the Greeks, Orthodoxy, also received from the Greeks. For example: “Besides, the Russian metropolitans go to Constantinople to consecrate<…>for the sake of Greek elegance, bishops do not go to Russia.<…>For this reason, these charms began to exist here: about the addition of fingers, and the adjunction in the symbol, and alleluia, and so on.<…>This land remains not orana<…>and be darkened by dark obscuration.<…>This disagreement and heresies have grown from certain heretics, who have left the Greeks and do not question them about anything for the sake of my then superstitious wisdom. And only now, especially under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, "this land of Great Russia is beginning to be enlightened again and to be restored to Orthodoxy"; cit. on . "Some super-wise heretics" - probably the fathers of the Stoglavy Cathedral. At the same level of culture and truthfulness, Dionysius explains the incomprehensible silence about the Russian “heresies” of the Greek patriarchs of pre-Nikonian times: they did not know the Russian language, were almost under arrest in Moscow, did not leave their homes, and did not notice Russian “innovations”. In the sign of the cross with two fingers, Dionysius exposed Arianism, Macedonianism, Sabellianism and Apollinarianism; in a purely alleluia - Hellenic polytheism and Jewish monotheism (simultaneously); in the prayer "Lord Icyce Christ the Son of God, have mercy on me" - Arianism; in a two-fingered priestly blessing - Luthor and Calvin heresy. The council was asked to believe all this nonsense, paid for from the Russian state (that is, the sovereign's) treasury.

And the cathedral believed this nonsense completely; its rulings stated:<…Стоглавый>the cathedral<…>and what is written about the sign of the honest cross, that is, about the laying of two fingers, and about the august hallelujah, and about other things, which are written foolishly, with simplicity and ignorance in the Book of Stoglav, and the oath to the south without deliberation and unjustly put,<то есть анафему Стоглава на не-двуперстие и не-двоение аллилуиа>we<…(имена и титулы)>we resolve and destroy, and that cathedral is not a cathedral, and an oath is not an oath, but we are sane, as if it were not. Zane toy Macarius Metropolitan<председатель Стоглавого собора>and even with him, wise with her ignorance, recklessly, as if lusting after herself, not agreeing with the Greek and with the ancient charate Slovenian books, below with the ecumenical holy patriarchs about that, and below asking them ”; cit. on . Thus, Greek books, in contrast to the "Slovenian", again, as in the council of 1654 (see p. 126), were not required to be "ancient charate" - they and any are good - an unchanging standard for centuries! Theodorite's word about two-fingeredness "is lied by some superstitious and hidden heretics"! - where and when did these hidden heretics live and make up this word? - unknown. Life of St. Euphrosyne of Pskov (in which the strict alleluia is substantiated and affirmed) "is written from sleepy dreams." The legend about the white hood is "false and unrighteous", and its author is "a letter from the wind of his head." The reason for the “delusions” of the Stoglavy Cathedral is indicated in the fact that it was assembled without the blessing of the Eastern Patriarchs - could the Russian national feeling be more humiliated? The Stoglavy Cathedral "is imputed to nothing, as if it never happened" - it would be easier, more accurate and more honest to say that the entire past of the Russian Church "is imputed to nothing, as if it never happened."

Slightly digressing from the main topic, I will quote, by the way, a review of the Stoglavy Cathedral of the later, already published by the Synod, polemical book “Rebuke”: “They are hundred-headed fathers, such a folding of fingers is legitimizing, they did it out of ignorance. This cathedral is not only one-headed, but also one-headed, not worthy of being named: after all, not a single chapter - having a clean brain, able to reason sensibly about the proposed things - was not based on single fables ”; cit. on . This was written and published by Russian bishops, who on the days of memory of the holy participants in the Stoglavy Cathedral prayed to them personally and publicly.

In 1667, the Greeks, without restraint, took revenge on the Russians for their autocephaly and patriarchy, for reproaches (quite fair, that the Greeks knew very well) about Florence Cathedral, pouring baptism and a penchant for union, for the theory of the third Rome and the exaltation of Russian Orthodoxy, and the Russian tsar ordered this from them and generously paid for it, and only therefore their tongues and feathers were untied to such an extent. As a result of the council, Russia turned out to be the guardian not of Orthodoxy (as almost all Russian people believed before the council), but of many liturgical errors and gross superstitions. All Russian bishops confirmed this spitting on Russian history and holiness; the clerics capable of resisting (the defendants at the council) were already in the ranks of the authorities' opponents, only the silently submissive signatories remained in the ranks of its supporters.

Demonstrating vicious pettiness, the council recommended resolving all everyday issues (about vestments, etc.) “according to the order of the Eastern Church<… >as if in the holy catholic Church there was unanimity and agreement in everything, as in the sacred service, and in sacred robes and in other church ranks, there should be agreement, and in all the robes we wear.<…>If anyone begins to reproach those who wear Greek clothes, such, if he will be from the sacred rank, let him be ejected, if from the worldly, let him be excommunicated ”; cit. on . For the first and probably the last time in church history, defrocking and excommunication threatened clerics and laity who “reproached” certain types of clothing. The cathedral even forbade writing on the icons of the Russian metropolitans Peter and Alexy in white klobuks! - which they probably actually wore and in which they are depicted on all old Russian icons; the first step towards the soon-to-be-followed rewriting of icons in order to falsify sign composition.

The final resolution of the council:<…>we command all<…>submit to the holy Eastern Church. Is there anyone who will not listen<…>if it comes from the sacred rank, we cast it out and expose it to all sacred rites and curse it. But if from the worldly rank, we excommunicate and alienate from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and betray the curse and anathema, like a heretic and disobedient.<…>And if he remains in his stubbornness until his end, then let him be excommunicated even after death, and part of him and his soul with Judas the traitor and with the crucified Christ the Jews and with Arius and with other damned heretics. Let iron, stone and wood be destroyed and corrupted, but let that one be not allowed and not corrupted forever and ever, amen ”; cit. on .

Such previously unheard-of curses in Russia are explained, of course, by the hostility of the Greeks to the Russian barbarians, who dared to think and pray in their own way, to denounce their teachers in the wrong, and even to claim leadership in the Orthodox world, hostility, the autocephaly of the Russian Church that accumulated over the 2 immediately, at the request, under control, with the approval and at the expense of the Russian Tsar, who considered such an outpouring useful for his great plans and even believed (probably only in part) in the correctness of the cursers. No wonder Bishop Andrew. Ufimsky already in the XX century. called this cathedral "Russian robber" by analogy with the "robber" Monophysite episcopal council in the 5th century, which adopted (with gross violations of procedural norms) heretical decrees, subsequently (in the same century) disavowed by the Church at the IV Ecumenical Council.

As for the disobedient, the council recommended "punishing the wicked and the city law, and executing them with various languishing and various torments," skillfully, helpfully and in a timely manner prompting the tsar and the Russian government (who, as laymen, might not have known such details from church history) that according to the decision of the 5th Ecumenical Council, heretics “cut off the tongues of the heretics, cut off the ov’s hands, the ov’s ears and noses, and dishonored them by bargaining, and then exiled the former into captivity until their death.” And “the pious Empress Theodora commanded the patriarch John the iconoclast to make a foolish vengeance:<…>blind him and exile him, and follow him to the worst places”; cit. on. The Greek hierarchs did not spare Russian eyes, tongues, hands, ears and noses; the namesake members of the Greek bodies they probably would have spared. They did not regret partly according to their own understanding, and partly because their main organizer, prompter, employer and cashier, the Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, did not regret them. Well, he knows better - they probably reasoned; barbarians are barbarians; let each other cut; our business is pure - teacher's, we write the truth. The Russian hierarchs - participants in the council did not spare the defeated opponents either; their ruthlessness is so disgusting and so sad that I cannot write about it. It was not said about executions by death, but it was clear to everyone (including the Greeks) that they would not have to wait long.

Thus, the ex-patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who pretended to be real patriarchs and were recognized as such by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, many Eastern hierarchs who came with them to Moscow, the Moscow Patriarch and all Russian bishops approved in 1667 new rites (Greek), the old (Russians) proclaimed heresy and blessed the tsar to torture and execute the Old Believers, as he deems necessary and correct. There is not a single word in the resolutions of the council in defense of even a small variety in the rite (in the spirit of the above-quoted letter from Patriarch Paisius of Constantinople), or any national peculiarities of worship, or humanity, or even a reasonable-political attitude towards the defenders of the old rite. It was completely and without exception forbidden to pray to God “otherwise”; an unprecedentedly cruel oaths were imposed on those who adhered to traditional Russian rites. One can speak of the schism of the Russian Church that finally took shape from that moment on.

Going a little beyond the boundaries of the topic indicated in the title of the book, I note that the assertion that the Old Rite is a heresy is characteristic of all church literature polemical against the "schismatics" before the establishment of the Edinoverie in the 1790s. and, in part, later. To prove this would mean going too far beyond these boundaries. But it is impossible not to notice the hard-to-explain bitterness and blindness of the anti-Old Believer polemics and polemicists; so, one of the most cultured writers of the era of imp. Peter I called the two-finger "demonic" (); like him, almost all of his contemporaries, colleagues in polemics, spoke out. The later followers of Dionysius and Demetrius - Russian anti-Old Believer polemists - with considerable ingenuity expanded and embellished the list of reproach on the "banner" of the old rite - two-fingered. It was called: “1) Arianism, 2) Macedonianism, 3) Nestorianism, 4) Armenianism, 5) Latinism, 6) heresy, 7) schismatics, 8) schismatic superstition, 9) Aryan abyss and evil division, 10) the gate that brings down to hell, 11) wickedness, 12) non-Orthodoxy, 13) evil sophistication, 14) foulness, 15) a magic sign, 16) palmistry, 17) an army fig, 18) a nasty legend, 19) yeast of stinking schismatic kvass, 20) damned, 21) demon-settling, 22) devilish legend, 23) enemy trend. And also: "soul-destructive superstition, malicious division, Saveliev's heresy". Sermons containing these names were delivered and polemical treatises were published in large editions even when the common faith had long been established, and the priests of the same faith and their flocks prayed with two fingers with the blessing and under the control of the Synod.

It is remarkable that if two-fingeredness is a demonic addition, then those who were baptized in Great Russia before Nikon's patriarchate (that is, including Nikon himself, and - it was terrible to think, say and hear! - Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself) were baptized in demonically marked (instead of consecration) by the fingers of a priest and, therefore, not consecrated, but defiled water, and, therefore, - unbaptized! That's what he said back in the 1650s. to the judges interrogating him, the Nizhny Novgorod Old Believer Abraham. This is not sophism, but a careful attitude to the ceremony, and there was nothing to object to. Coming up with this nickname, its author is Dimitri Mitr. Rostov - probably took into account this subtlety; he was also born before the patriarchate of Nikon (in 1651), but not in Great Russia, but near Kiev, and therefore considered his baptism (in which water was named nominally, that is, in his opinion, consecrated) beyond suspicion.

We should not forget that: 1) Half of the participants in the council (moreover, an authoritative half with a decisive vote), organized to decide who decided and decided the future fate of the Russian Church, did not know the Russian language and were forced to be content with the explanations of Dionysius, the tsar's "appointee" ; even Paisius Ligarid "did not know Russian,<…и>bought himself a smart and educated translator<Симеона Полоцкого>» . 2) The defendants - opponents at the council of the tsar, obedient Russian hierarchs and Greek patriarchs - were divided into two hostile camps: ex-Patriarch Nikon with his very few (at the council and in Russia) selflessly devoted supporters to him (these are the few , who unselfishly loved and respected him during his patriarchate), and the defenders of the old rite, very few in number at the cathedral, but knowing behind their backs the open or hidden support of several bishops and the majority of the lower Russian clergy and common people.

This enmity contributed to the tragedy of the history of the Russian Church: if on the eve or during the council the defenders of the old rite and Nikon had reconciled, then the camp of supporters of Russian piety would have found a head - a fearless and unbending man, a persecuted bearer of the patriarchal rank - and strengthened a hundredfold. And his internal development, as well as the further struggle of the state, the intimidated servile hierarchy and corrupt visiting teachers against him, would have had completely different results (especially if Nikon had decided, would have managed and would have had time to ordain bishops from among his supporters, which, of course, the authorities , would try to prevent it, up to its and their physical liquidation). And such a reconciliation was not impossible, since by 1666 the disgraced ex-patriarch had already completely cooled off towards the traitor Greeks, their books and rituals, and, one might think, towards the former "sobin" friend (in essence, also a traitor); what was missing was small first steps on each side, such as reminders of former friendships, the introduction of unanimity, common theocratic ideas, and antipathy to Western influence; the first steps were, of course, to be followed by the second - mutual repentance and forgiveness, and then the third - compromises and agreements on a number of issues. But mutual hatred (fueled, of course, on the one hand, by the memory of Pavel Kolomensky and other victims of persecution, and on the other, by the slander of Nikon by the Old Believers, who exhausted the entire ancient Russian lexicon of slander against him, by spitting in the eyes, etc.) was not overcome on either side, and the first steps were not taken. Such a reconciliation was not impossible and would not have been fruitless later, when Nikon lived in exile; but even then, his and the Old Believers' long-standing mutual hatred was stronger than the bringing factors together.

The trial of the Old Believers of the new cathedral of 1666-1667 The Russian Council of 1666 took place between April 29 and July 2. In November, the patriarchs arrived: Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch. They were greeted as peacekeepers. But, unfortunately, they got into processing not in Russian, but in purely

The judgments of the Council of 1667 on the relationship between church and state The Council could not pass over in silence the fundamental question put forward by Patr. Nikon to justify his behavior: - the question of the delimitation of the competencies of the tsar and the patriarch. And in this matter, as in all

The trial of the Old Believers of the new cathedral of 1666-1667 The Russian Council of 1666 took place between April 29 and July 2. In November, the patriarchs arrived: Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch. They were greeted as peacekeepers. But, unfortunately, they got into processing not in Russian, but in purely

Council of 1666 Before the opening of the cathedral and without discussion among themselves, each of the 10 hierarchs - the alleged participants (including the Metropolitan of Serbia Theodosius) - had to answer personally to the king in writing (he "summoned each of them to him one by one") to the orders set by him

Chapter VIII The Heresy of Nestorius and the Third Ecumenical Council. Heresy of Eutychius and the Fourth Council. The Fifth Ecumenical Council As soon as the controversy about Pelagianism subsided in the West, a strong unrest began in the East over the false teaching of Nestorius. Presbyter Nestorius of Antioch was elected in 428

Cathedral of St. Michael the Archangel (Archangel Cathedral) The Cathedral of St. Michael the Archangel (Archangel Cathedral) in the Kremlin was the tomb of the Grand Dukes and Russian tsars. In the old days it was called the Church of St. Michael on the Square. The current cathedral was built

The trial of the Old Believers of the new cathedral of 1666-1667 The Russian Council of 1666 took place between April 29 and July 2. In November, the patriarchs arrived: Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch. They were greeted as peacekeepers. But, unfortunately, they got into processing not in Russian, but in purely

Entry 1666 If you encounter inattention and neglect from someone else, do not be offended, do not be offended by this, but tell yourself: I am worthy of it; glory to Thee, Lord, for thou hast vouchsafed me, indecent, according to my deeds, to receive dishonor from fellow men like me. Himself

Record 1667 Do not eat your fill, do not sleep your fill, work diligently, pray with all your heart; be heartily obedient to your parents and superiors, be kind to everyone, be pleased with everyone, and you will be pleased with yourself, healthy and

February 12 - The Council of the Ecumenical Teachers (or the Council of the Three Hierarchs) The Council of the Ecumenical Teachers and Hierarchs is a holiday of the Orthodox Church, dedicated to the memory of the great Cappadocians Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and the Patriarch of Constantinople John Chrysostom,

Judgment on the Russian Church 1666-1667. Having deposed Nikon, the council elected a new patriarch in his place - Joasaph, who had previously been archimandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Then the council set about solving cases caused by book corrections and the curses of Nikon and Greek

The condemnation of Nikon did not end the activities of the Moscow Cathedral. The Council of 1667 confirmed the definitions of the Council of 1666, approved Nikon's book corrections, pronounced an anathema on the schismatics for their blasphemy and censure of Orthodox Church and new rites. Stoglav's oath of three fingers and three hallelujahs was revoked. The council completely agreed with the view of the deposed patriarch on the Monastic order. All ecclesiastical matters were withdrawn from the civil jurisdiction of the Monastic order, ecclesiastical persons, on the same grounds, were subordinated to the court of diocesan bishops on civil claims. Clerics were not ordered to be "involved in secular courts" not only in civil cases, but (before the defrocking) even in criminal cases; the laity serving in the church and church administration were also subject to the court of their diocesan bishops. As a result of such an order, instead of the Monastic Order, spiritual courts were organized at the episcopal chairs, the so-called Spiritual Orders (of the judges of the clergy).

The council insisted on strengthening the education of the clergy, for, the fathers of the council reasoned, ignoramuses are being appointed to the priesthood, who "are able to pasture cattle, much more than people." It was ordered to make a stricter choice of candidates for church places, and clergy to be more attentive to the education of their children, so that the latter would be more worthy heirs of their father's places.

The Council noticed that the parishes passed in the spiritual families by inheritance; it got to the point that which of the members of the clergy did not have children for the heritage of the parish, he sold his place to strangers. The Council rebelled against such illegal practices. To strengthen the authority of the clergy, the cathedral ordered him to wear decent attire, not to participate in drunken wedding trips, and so on. The Council abolished the ancient prohibition of serving widowed clergy, as a result of which there were fewer unemployed clergy. With regard to monasticism, the council took measures against an exorbitant increase in the number of monks; it was not ordered to be tonsured without the permission of the authorities and due trial, husbands without the consent of their wives, and wives without the consent of their husbands, serfs without their release, it was forbidden to tonsure outside the monastery in worldly houses, even sick before death. Strict rules were pronounced against the vagrancy of monks and nuns, their living in worldly houses, etc. Several harsh denunciations were voiced against the holy fools and idle saints, who wandered with "loose hair and naked."

The decision of the patriarch on the acceptance of the Latins into Orthodoxy through rebaptism has been cancelled. And anathemas were uttered against the old rite!!! What is the beginning of the final split.

With regard to the old Russian rite, the Greek organizers and participants in the council showed some kind of malicious intransigence. They not only insisted on the imposition of oaths and anathema on all those who used the two-fingered and the old charter, but decided to put under the ban all elements of the old Russian church tradition and remove from Russia that aura of unshakable fidelity to Orthodoxy, which she was proud of after the Florentine Council and the birth of the theory about the Third Rome.

The initiative to debunk the ancient Russian church glory, apparently, belonged to Archimandrite Dionysius, and perhaps, in part, to Ligarid. Russian hierarchs, of course, could not have come up with such an idea, and the Greek patriarchs knew too little Russian church history to condemn ancient Russian traditions and conciliar resolutions. Ligarides conducted almost all negotiations with the patriarchs, and the Greek Dionysius, during the Russian council of 1666, composed a treatise to condemn the Russian sign of the cross and old books. As N.F. Kapterev showed, the text of Dionysius’ work formed the basis of those parts of the conciliar acts of 1666 that condemned Russian liturgical and ritual features. According to Dionysius, the Russians started liturgical heresies ever since they broke their dependence on Constantinople. Until then, “piety and Orthodoxy will shine more here in Russia,” wrote this Greek, illiterate in the history of worship. After the Russian Church broke with Constantinople, “these delusions [heresies] began here: about the laying of fingers, and an adjective in the symbol, and hallelujah, and so on,” and the whole Russian land “was clouded with dark obscuration.”

Dionysius showed contempt for the Russian rite not only in words, but also in deeds. When, on Great Saturday 1667, during a solemn patriarchal service in the presence of the tsar, the Russian clergy walked with the shroud “along the salt” (according to the movement of the sun), Dionysius quite unexpectedly led the Greek patriarchs and the rest of the Greek clergy in the opposite direction, towards the Russian procession. There was confusion and a rather sharp dispute between the Russian and Greek bishops. Finally, the tsar himself intervened in the conflict between the Russians and the Greeks, suggesting that the Russians follow the guests, leaving the old Russian custom of salting, which, by the way, the Russians, of course, inherited from the early Byzantine rite.

The following Russian ecclesiastical writings were banned by resolutions of the council:

1) The Tale of the White Klobuk, in which it was written that after the betrayal of Orthodoxy by the Greeks at the Council of Florence and the fall of Constantinople, the protection of the church became the duty of the Russian people and which spoke of the historical role of Russia, the Third Rome, where “the glory of the Holy Spirit of the rise” .

2) Resolutions of the Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551, which officially confirmed the correctness of those features that separated the Russian rite from the modern Greek. This condemnation of the Stoglavy Council, apparently, seemed to the Greeks especially important, since it is repeatedly repeated in Acts.

3) Life of Rev. Euphrosyne, which justified the now forbidden double hallelujah.

The pettiness of the Greeks reached such an extreme that the cathedral even forbade writing on icons the faces of the Russian metropolitans Peter and Alexei in white klobuks.

These resolutions were a kind of historical and philosophical revenge for the Greeks. They took revenge on the Russian church for the reproaches about the Council of Florence and destroyed with these decrees the entire justification for the theory of the Third Rome. Russia turned out to be the guardian not of Orthodoxy, but of gross liturgical errors. Russia's mission to protect Orthodoxy was declared an untenable claim. All understanding of Russian history was changed by the decisions of the cathedral. The Orthodox Russian kingdom, a harbinger of the coming kingdom of the Holy Spirit on earth, was turning into just one of many monarchies - a simple state, although with new imperial claims, but without a special God-sanctified path in history.

Reading these acts of the council, the historian cannot get rid of the unpleasant feeling that both the persons who compiled the text of the resolutions of this semi-Greek-half-Russian assembly and the Greek patriarchs who adopted them formulated these decisions with the deliberate intention of insulting the past of the Russian Church. So, for example, the paragraph relating to the condemnation of the Stoglavy Cathedral says that the decision to fix the sign of the cross with two fingers and the solemn hallelujah in Russia was “written not rationally by simplicity and ignorance.” Metropolitan Macarius himself, who was the soul of the cathedral of 1551, was also accused of ignorance, since he did not reckon with the Greeks: with ancient charatey Slovenian books. Below with the ecumenical [i.e. Greek] most holy patriarchs about this, you advise and ask them below.”

With this absurd statement, the Greek patriarchs and their advisers, Dionysius and Ligarides, themselves signed their complete ignorance in matters of historical liturgy. They were completely unaware of the fact that the two-fingered sign and other ritual disagreements of the Russian Church from the Greek of the 17th century were much older than the modern Greek ones and dated back to the early Byzantine models introduced in Russia by the Greeks themselves as early as the 11th century. The very same conclusions of the council have now become evidence not of Russian backwardness, but a sad monument to Greek arrogance and their forgetfulness of their own old tradition. The constant mention that the actions of the council were the work of the Greeks - “we, the two patriarchs [they apparently did not take into account the Russian Patriarch Joasaph] are interpreting this rule” - fortunately, at least partially removes the responsibility from the Russian episcopate for all the absurdity and malice these ordinances.

The condemnation of the supporters of the Old Rite was formulated in no less insulting and canonically illogical phrases that hit not only Russian traditionalists, but also Patriarch Paisios of Constantinople and the council he convened in Constantinople. After all, Patriarch Paisios, referring to the unification of the rite, clearly wrote back in 1655: “We should not even now think that our Orthodox faith is being perverted if someone has a slightly different rite in points that do not belong to the number of essential members of the faith, only would he agree with the catholic church in the important and chief.

Instead of following these wise words of the Constantinopolitan decision of 1654, Patriarchs Paisios of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch showed even more narrowness and bias towards ritual distinctions than the Russian defenders of the old typikon. They not only came out in defense of Nikon's "reforms", but at a meeting on May 13, 1667, they condemned the adherents of the old rite so severely that they themselves raised ritual details to dogmatic heights. They called the Russian traditionalists, who refused these innovations, rebels and even heretics, and excommunicated them from the church with cruel and gloomy decrees:

At the second stage of the Great Moscow Cathedral of 1666-1667, an analysis of the cases of representatives of the church rebellion took place. The persuasion of the schismatics lasted for weeks and months. Only on June 17 did they appear before the cathedral: Avvakum, deacon Theodore, monk Epiphanius, a Solovetsky monk who had already left the Solovetsky monastery in 1658 and now submitted to the tsar a book of exposés of the new rite; Nicephorus, Lazarus. Lazar had already once appeared before the court of the patriarchs in December 1666, but then he stunned them with a proposal to determine the correctness of the old and new rites by God's judgment at the stake. On August 26, their fate was sealed: all four were sentenced to exile in the far north of Russia, in Pustozersk. In addition, two of them were to undergo an additional “execution” of cutting out their tongues. They were Epiphanius and Lazarus. The king spared Avvakum out of old friendship and at the insistence of the queen. Nicephorus escaped this punishment due to his advanced age. The next day, August 2, the punishment was carried out. On the same day, four were taken from Moscow to Pustozersk. In Pustozersk, Avvakum did not stop corresponding with his followers, including the noblewoman Morozova. But in order to stop relations between the Pustozero center and Moscow, the archery half-head Elagin was sent to Pustozersk. After another refusal of the schismatics to accept the triplets, Archpriest Avvakum, priest Lazar, deacon Fedor and Epiphanius were taken and taken to the place of execution, to the chopping block. But Avvakum was again spared, and half-heartedly ordered Epiphanius, Lazarus and Theodore “to cut their tongues for their speeches, and flog their hands for the cross.”
After this “Pustozerskaya execution”, the regime of all four was completely changed. Before that, they lived in the huts of local residents, constantly communicated with each other and met with local residents and travelers. Now they were placed, each individually, in dugout log cabins dug into the ground, the exit from which was clogged and filled up so that the prisoners could not come out of them and communicate. In 1682 Avvakum was burnt down.

"Solovki seat".

Church Cathedral 1666-1667 became a turning point in the history of the split. But most of the schismatics did not accept his decrees. Some of the monasteries took the side of the Old Believers, in particular, the Solovetsky Monastery. When newly printed books were sent to the monastery, they were hidden, without binding, in the state chamber, and then at a general meeting it was decided not to accept the current service books at all. At the church council of 1666-1667. one of the leaders of the Solovetsky schismatics, Nikandr, chose a line of conduct other than Avvakum. He pretended to agree with the decisions of the council and received permission to return to the monastery, but upon his return he threw off the Greek hood, put on the Russian one again and became the head of the monastery brethren. The famous "Solovki Petition" was sent to the tsar, outlining the credo of the old faith. In another petition, the monks threw down a direct challenge to the secular authorities: "Command, sovereign, to send us your royal sword and from this rebellious life, relocate us to this serene and eternal life." In 1668, Ignatius Volokhov appeared under the walls of the monastery with a hundred archers, and instead of submissively bowing his heads under the sword, he was met with shots. It was impossible for such an insignificant detachment as Volokhov had to overcome the besieged, who had strong walls, plenty of supplies, 90 guns. "The siege -" Solovetsky Sitting " dragged on for eight years from 1668 to 1676. At first, the authorities could not send large forces to the White Sea because of the movement of Stenka Razin. After the suppression of the rebellion, a large streltsy detachment appeared under the walls of the Solovetsky Monastery, shelling began In the besieged monastery, disagreements began between moderates and supporters of decisive action. Most of the monks hoped for reconciliation with the royal power. A minority, led by Nikandr, and lay people - "Balti", led by centurions Voronin and Samko, demanded "for the great sovereign to put aside piety", and about the tsar himself they said such words that "not only to write, but also to think is terrible." In the monastery they stopped confessing, taking communion, refused to recognize priests. These disagreements predetermined the fall of the Solovetsky monastery. The archers could not manage to take it by storm, but the defector monk Feoktist showed them a hole in the wall filled with stones.On the night of January 22, 1676, in a strong met spruce, the archers dismantled the stones and entered the monastery. Some instigators of the uprising were executed, others were sent into exile.

Morozov and the Moscow opposition.

After the Great Moscow Council and the expulsion of Avvakum to Pustozersk, in Moscow, the center of criticism of the editing of books and the new rite became the house of the wealthy and influential noblewoman Feodosia Prokopyevna Morozova, the widow of Gleb Ivanovich Morozov, brother of Boris Morozov, the former temporary worker and tutor of the tsar. Thanks to her kinship and connections, Morozova could afford to occupy an independent position for many years, and her house became a haven for adherents of the old faith. Avvakum also settled here, returning at the beginning of 1664 from Siberian exile, and Morozova herself immediately became his spiritual daughter. For a long time after the Great Moscow Cathedral, Morozova was not touched, she even became a nun at the end of 1670. !671, Morozov began to exhort to accept corrections and three fingers. On November 14, 1671, Archimandrite Joachim of Chudov came to Morozova's house with his employees. In response to their questions, Morozova, now the old woman Theodora, showed a two-fingered sign and simply said: “I believe it.” Theodora (as Morozova was now called) and her sister were put under House arrest. After lengthy persuasion, Theodora was transferred in chains to the Caves Monastery, and her sister, Princess Evdokia, to the Alekseevsky Monastery, where they were both kept under strict guard. Archpriest Avvakum wrote letters to them from his prison in Pustozersk. In the fall of 1674, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich ordered Morozov, Urusova and Danilov to be transported to a particularly strict prison in the Nativity Monastery in Borovsk, where they died of exhaustion.

"Forest Elders"

Monk Kapiton Danilovsky - the founder of the sect of kapitons or forest elders, a schismatic teacher, the forerunner of the Old Believers-bespriests. The capitons believed in the imminent end of the world and the coming of the Antichrist, they did not recognize priests, church sacraments and icons of the new letter. According to the teachings of the Kapitons, only extreme asceticism can save a person’s soul: daily hard work, constant bowing and prayers, strict fasting (vegetarianism, no food on Wednesday, Friday, Saturday), a short sleep sitting, standing or in limbo, wearing a chain of iron or stone. All this should suppress the flesh and purify the soul. The religious movement of the forest elders spread widely in the 1630s-1640s on the territory of the Vologda, Kostroma and Yaroslavl provinces (even before Nikon's reforms). The popularity of Kapiton was so great that after the split of the Russian Church in 1666, supporters of the old faith were even called Kapitons. After the death of Kapiton, the sect was headed by his disciple Prokhor, he was old and died in 1666. Soon the sect broke up.

Popovtsy and bespopovtsy.

At the very beginning, the Old Believers split into two main groups. It is known that the first distributors of the Old Believers were, apart from one bishop, Pavel Kolomensky, only some priests and hieromonks, and for the most part, blacks and laity. But Pavel Kolomensky died back in 1656, when the split was barely beginning. The Old Believers faced a problem, there was nowhere to take the clergy. It was necessary to decide on one of two things: either to remain completely without priests (priests) and give the right to teach and serve as priests to the uninitiated, or to accept priests who were ordained by bishops in the Russian Church and then go into schism. So, indeed, it happened. Many lay people and monks who did not have a holy order allowed themselves to teach others the faith, to perform the sacraments of baptism, repentance, and church services in general; and in some places, even the clergy themselves, who led the schism, bequeathed at their death to the laity to perform all these rites in the future and, thus, laid the foundation for the sect of priestless, or priestlessness. Others, some time later, when their priests, ordained before Patriarch Nikon, died, began to apply for priesthood to the Church, which they considered heretical, or, in their own words, "began to be fed by the priesthood fleeing from the Great Russian Church." This is how Beglopopovshchina was formed out of priesthood. For almost two hundred years, the priests have been accommodating such unworthy priests, receiving them with falsehood under the second rank or under chrismation. In the priestly sect, apart from the priesthood, all the sacraments are performed. In a non-priestly sect, apart from baptism and confession performed by the laity, often even by women, all other sacraments are not performed at all. Rejecting marriage altogether, as if for the termination of the Orthodox priesthood, they demand from all their co-religionists a life of celibacy, but, meanwhile, allow them to indulge in vile depravity.

Division into opinions and agreements.

1. Priests, who in turn were divided into a powerful Belokrinitsky consent, which in 1846 restored its episcopate and in which before the revolution there were more than half of all Old Believers with six or ten million parishioners; on the fugitives who continued to receive priests from the "Russian" church; and finally on the so-called. chapels, who were the remnants of those priests who, during the time of the Old Believer pogrom undertaken by Nicholas I, found themselves without priests and since then, being formally considered priests, have actually been left without priests. 2. Pomortsy or Novopomortsy, who from the end of the 18th century again returned to the principled recognition of the need for marriage and whose mentors blessed the "newlyweds". 3. Old Pomortsy and Fedoseyevtsy, who do not accept marriage, but actually restored the family in their communities. Some of them nevertheless resisted all attempts to restore the family principle in their communities (two - two and a half million). 4. Filippovtsy, who did not recognize marriage (the total number is insignificant, a few tens, maybe a hundred thousand). 5. Self-baptized runners merged with other petty radical sects. (The number of followers could not be counted, but hardly exceeded thousands or a few tens of thousands.) difficult to account for).

IV. Nikon 18. New Patriarch 19. Dreams of an Orthodox Empire 20. The defeat of the Bogolyuts Notes 21. Editing books 22. Russian theocracy 23. Neronov vs. Nikon 24. The gap between Nikon and the king 25. Beginning of secularization V. Schism. 26. Church turmoil of 1658-1666 27. Russian Cathedral of 1666 28. Cathedral of the Patriarchs 1666-1667 29. After the council: the years of last hopes: 1667–1670 30. Executions and prisons: 1670–1676 31. Teaching of the Pustozersky Fathers: Deacon Theodore 32. Teaching of the Pustozersky Fathers: Archpriest Avvakum VI. The growth of the Old Believers and the division into rumors 33. Expansion of the Old Believer "mutiny" In 1671-1682 34. Rise of resistance in the North: 1671–1682 35. Strengthening the "tare faith" in Siberia and the South: 1671–1682 36. The Church and Moscow during the interregnum 37. Cossacks in the struggle for the old faith 38. Delimitation within the Old Believers: Priesthood 39. Identification of bespopovshchina: Fedoseyevites 40. Pomeranian priestlessness and Denisovs 41. Schisms within the priestlessness. Netovshchina 42. Western influences: Christianity Conclusion List of abbreviations Bibliography

Foreign historians also contributed to the study of the Russian schism of the seventeenth century. Of these foreign works, first of all, the excellent book by the French scholar Pierre Pascal on Archpriest Avvakum stands out, in which he widely used printed and archival sources and which has already become a reference book on the early history of the Old Believers. Of the German literature on this issue, the most interesting is the book by Fr. John Chrysostom on "Pomor Answers" by Andrey Denisov, an outstanding Old Believer writer and thinker of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

Here, of course, only the most important works on the history of the schism and the Old Believers are indicated, since only a listing of all even only significant works on this issue would require a separate volume: already before the 1917 revolution, the number of books and articles on the Old Believers exceeded tens of thousands.

Nevertheless, many aspects of this sad gap in Russian Orthodoxy, as noted above, are still not entirely clear, and historians will have to work hard to clarify them. In this book, the author pursued relatively limited goals: to determine in as much detail as possible the roots of the church conflict of the seventeenth century, to trace the growing tension between the nourishment of church and state and the supporters of the Old Rite, and, finally, to clarify the connection between the pre-Nikon movements in Russian Orthodoxy and the later division of the Old Believers into priesthood. and restlessness. As far as possible, the author has tried to avoid using the word schism in this book. In ordinary Russian terminology, this word has become odious and unfair in relation to the Old Believers. The schism was not a split from the church of a significant part of its clergy and laity, but a genuine internal rupture in the church itself, which significantly impoverished Russian Orthodoxy, in which not one, but both sides were to blame: both the stubborn and refusing to see the consequences of their perseverance, the planters of the new ritual, and too zealous and, unfortunately, often also very stubborn and one-sided defenders of the old.

The work on this study was greatly facilitated by the support of two organizations: Harvard University, in particular its center for the study of Russia, and the Guggenheim Foundation in New York. The researcher expresses his deep gratitude to the leaders of both organizations. In addition, he expresses his gratitude to all persons and libraries that have facilitated his work; Professor Dm. helped him especially a lot. Iv. Chizhevsky, with whom the author discussed many problems raised by this book. Dr. V. I. Malyshev informed the author of a number of handwritten materials from the repository of the Pushkin House (A. N. Institute of Russian Literature), and A. Filipenko worked hard on the correspondence of the not always legible manuscript, for which the author expresses his gratitude to them. He dedicates this book with gratitude and love to his wife, who for many years helped him in his work on The Russian Old Believers.

I. A. Kirillov: Moscow The Third Rome, Moscow, 1913 and The Truth about the Old Faith, Moscow, 1916; V. G. Senatov: Philosophy of the history of the Old Believers, vol. 1 and 2, Moscow, 1912.

A. V. Kartashov: “The Meaning of the Old Believers” in the Collection of Articles Dedicated to P. B. Struve, Prague, 1925 and Essays on the History of the Russian Church, Paris, 1959, vol. II.

Pierre Pascal: Avvakum et les debuts du Rascol: la Crise religieuse russe au XVII siecle, Paris, 1938.

Johannes Crysostomos: Die Pomorskie Otvety als Denkmal der Anschaung der russischen Altgläubigen der 1. Viertel des XVIII Jahrhundert, Roma, 1959, Orientalia Christiana Nr. 148.