Events of the church schism. Church schism of the 17th century in Rus' and the Old Believers

Since the appearance of Kievan scientists and Greeks in Rus', the struggle between two directions: national and western, has begun to manifest itself in Russia every year.

When the power-hungry Nikon becomes patriarch, Kyiv and Greek clergy appear in large numbers in Moscow.

During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich in Muscovite Rus', there was a struggle of three directions: defenders of national antiquity, Grecophiles (supporters of the Greek form of Orthodoxy) and Westerners.

In the fifties of the 17th century. In Moscow, a learned brotherhood is formed from monks who arrived from Little Russia. One of the monks, Simeon of Polotsk, gains access to the royal court. Researchers of the activities of Little Russian monks indicate that they introduced into Orthodoxy a number of ideas alien to it, which they borrowed from Catholicism. The views of Simeon of Polotsk on the transubstantiation of the Gifts and the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son were also developed by his student Sylvester Medvedev.

The people of Kiev and the Greeks are introducing into church reform a stream of Western churchliness that is alien to Russian national Orthodoxy.

This current evokes energetic protests from those who initiated church reforms and who wanted to carry them out while respecting Russian traditional Orthodoxy.

Nikon’s opponents turned out to be the most gifted and intelligent people of the era, like Archpriest Avvakum, like Spiridon Potemkin, an expert in the “Lutherian heresy” who knew Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Polish and German languages, like Fedor the deacon, Neronov, Lazar Vonifatiev. They went into schism not out of poverty of mind, but because they were convinced followers of Orthodoxy, ready to give their lives for the faith of their ancestors.

The real reason for the schism was not “poverty of mind,” but Nikon’s blind, slavish admiration for Greek ritual and disregard for the traditions of the Russian Church.

Nikon, after removing the old inspectors, called on “skilled men” from among the foreigners. The main role among them was played by the Greek Paisius Ligarid and Arseny the Greek.

Arseny the Greek changed his religion three times, at one time he was even a Muslim.

A native of the island of Chios, Lygarides was educated in Rome at the Greek Gymnasium founded by Pope Gregory XIII. Ligarid wrote “Apology for Peter Arcudius,” known for his propaganda of union with Catholicism in southwestern Russia. Other works of Ligarid were written in the Catholic spirit.

For Paisius Ligarid's favor towards Latinism, Patriarch Nektarios excommunicated him from the Orthodox Church.

These are the “skilled men” Nikon put in charge of correcting the sacred books.

It is not surprising that this caused strong indignation both among the former inspectors and among the clergy and people.

To the surprise and horror of all social strata of Muscovite Rus', Greek clergy, infected with Latinism, became leaders in the correction of ancient liturgical rites and ancient liturgical books.

The Greeks invited by Nikon began to make corrections based on new Greek books, some of which were published in Venice and other Catholic countries of Europe. Having received the new books, the priests saw in them not only the correction of typos, but also many new words that were translated differently in the old books. So it was no longer a question of correcting errors, but of completely new translations of the holy books.

Russian life before Nikon Orthodox Church walked in the spirit of conciliarity. All controversial and unclear issues were resolved by common consent at church councils. The power-hungry Nikon looked less like a Russian patriarch and more like the head of the Catholic Church.

Thanks to Nikon's erroneous actions, the symphony between the tsarist government and the church was disrupted, thanks to the friendly cooperation of which over the centuries Rus' gathered national forces and overthrew the Tatars. After the turmoil, when the state was actually ruled by the father of the young Tsar Michael, Patriarch Filaret, the relative weight of church power increased greatly. Under Tsar Alexei, the centuries-old balance between royal and ecclesiastical power was disrupted.

Yu.F. Samarin writes in the book “Feofan Prokopovich and Stefan Yavorsky”: “From all the deeds and words of the Nikonovs that have come down to us, his dual desire is discernible: to unconditionally separate church possessions, their management and legal proceedings in them from any subordination to the supreme power, to isolate them in the state , in other words, civil rights elevate the clergy, as an estate, to the level of essential rights of the Church itself, and at the same time, in the area of the Church, concentrate all power in their hands, establish a monarchical principle: these two goals tended towards one main one: to elevate the Church to the level of an independent state within the state. Therefore, all previous institutions (by which the Kings introduced the management of church estates into the general government controlled, subordinating him to his supervision, although not at all constraining him, the Monastic Order, etc.). Nikon considered it unlawful interference in church legal proceedings; the schedule of church property prescribed by the Tsar aroused indignation in him.” It should also be noted that Nikon was the main culprit in stopping the work of the Zemsky Councils during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. “We have no doubt,” says S. Platonov, “that the main culprit in changing the government’s view of councils was Patriarch Nikon. Being present at the council of 1648 in the rank of archimandrite, he himself saw the famous cathedral; much later, he expressed his negative attitude towards him in a very harsh note. In the second half of 1652 Nikon became patriarch. At this time, the Little Russian question had already been submitted to the councils for judgment. When the council settled this issue in 1653, new cases were no longer transferred to the councils. A temporary worker and a hierarch at the same time, Nikon not only shepherded the Church, but was in charge of the entire state. Under his rule, the end of zemstvo councils came.”

Metropolitan Macarius speaks of Nikon’s pride and lust for power during his patriarchate. “Nikon, with all his intelligence, did not know how to place himself at such a height as he should have in relation to his royal friend, he did not know how to restrain his unbridled pride and lust for power, and stubbornly remained faithful to the principle that he expressed even when he was elected to the patriarchal see, i.e. That is, so that the king himself listens to him in everything, like the Patriarch. In his friendship with the Tsar, Nikon wanted to be the dominant figure and allowed himself to do things that could not help but offend the Tsar and, repeating themselves often, would inevitably lead to clashes and quarrels, mutual cooling of friends and finally lead to a break.” Even such a biased defender of Nikon as Professor Zyzykin, in his study “Patriarch Nikon”, writes: “Of course, Nikon antagonized himself with his uncompromisingness, straightforwardness, and severity.” And Klyuchevsky characterizes Nikon as follows: “Of the Russian people of the 17th century, I do not know a larger, more unique person than Nikon. But you won’t understand it right away: it’s quite complex nature and, above all, the character is very uneven. In quiet times, in everyday life, he was heavy, capricious, hot-tempered and power-hungry, most of all proud.” All who objectively approach the negative role that Nikon unwillingly played in the history of the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church cannot but agree with the following conclusion of Yu. Samarin: “In general, in this complex and great litigation between the Tsar and the Patriarch, truth and falsehood , the real guilt of Nikon and the slander erected against him, the important and the insignificant are so mixed up and confused that, probably, it will never appear in all its clarity and severity. Perhaps there were not sufficient reasons for the overthrow of Nikon; perhaps he could obtain permission from dispassionate judges; but no less than that, Nikon’s desire, the idea that he pursued, but did not have time to implement, and which his contemporaries and accusers could not see clearly and clear of minor circumstances, this idea cannot but be condemned as contrary to the spirit of the Orthodox Church. Nikon wanted for the Church independence from the state in the state itself, for the Patriarch unlimited, autocratic power; in general, his plan tended towards establishing a private national papism in Russia.”

Nikon’s behavior after the Refusal of the Patriarchate, after the Tsar did not satisfy one of his demands, resembles the behavior not of the Patriarch, but of an obstinate woman. Then he renounces the Patriarchate, although no one forced him to do so and blesses the election of a new Patriarch, then he asks the Tsar for forgiveness for his course of action, then he goes to the Resurrection Monastery and the Tsar again hears rumors that Nikon does not want “to be among the patriarchs ”, then he appears at the Assumption Cathedral “I came down from the throne without being persecuted by anyone, now I have come to the throne uninvited by anyone.”

The Tsar tolerated all this strange behavior of the Patriarch for a long time (from July 1658 to the autumn of 1659) and only in the fall he ordered a spiritual council to be convened. And the Spiritual Council decided that since Nikon left his flock without permission, he should be deprived of the Patriarchate. For... From the beginning of the Moscow state, no one has caused such dishonor as was committed by the former Patriarch “Nikon”; for his own whim, without our command and without the Council, he left the Conciliar Church and renounced the patriarchate...”

The radical break in ritual, which Nikon started just forty years after the Great Troubles, was completely out of time. It was presented in unacceptable, rude ways, which could not but cause opposition from the clergy and the people.

The position of the Russian Church was not at all such that it was necessary to go to such crude, cruel pestilences as the despotic Nikon did. “The differences that have arisen between Greek and Russian liturgical books and Greek and Russian rituals,” writes Prof. Golubinsky, - did not represent anything significant and important that related to faith or constituted a violation of the positive institutions of the Universal Church. The existence of differences in rituals and worship among private Local Churches was allowed in accordance with the tradition expressed by Holy Pope Gregory the Double in the words: “with the unity of faith, the Church is not harmed by different customs.” One cannot but agree with Solovyov that a necessary and important matter, such as correcting liturgical books, due to Nikon’s difficult and unpleasant character and unreasonable behavior, led to very sad results.

Most historians have always emphasized the wild fanaticism of the Old Believers, their ridiculous predilection for double-fingering and other minor rituals. As if all the truth and progressiveness were on Nikon’s side. This, of course, is a biased interpretation of the schism, interpreting it from the position of people who are oriented towards Western, and not towards Russian original culture. The people did not defend letters and various minor rituals; they were outraged that Nikon violated the ancient traditions of Orthodoxy. Hundreds of years, since the time of St. Vladimir, many generations of Russian people performed rituals in a certain way: they crossed themselves with two fingers and suddenly it turned out that they did all this by mistake and incorrectly, and that only the Greeks did it correctly. Even if this was the case, then such things cannot be declared to the people in such a categorical form, as Nikon did. And it is absolutely impossible to confirm the correctness of such a statement with severe torture and executions. Chanting prayers, hundreds of people burned themselves so as not to carry out Nikon’s decrees, which, in their opinion, distorted the ancient, true forms of Orthodoxy.

Ancient Rus', right up to the church schism, was spiritually united. Everyone believed the same and belonged to the same spiritual culture. And tsars, and boyars, and nobles, and peasants - all members of medieval Rus'. Medieval Rus' was a unique state. The upper and lower classes were links of a single national whole. The church schism caused the first crack. Peter's reforms caused many other cracks in the national consciousness.

The difference in education, in everyday life, between different layers of Russian society was quantitative, not qualitative, as it became after Peter’s reforms. The schism fragmented the spiritual unity of the Russian people at one of the most difficult moments in its history. At the moment when Russia came face to face with the problem of cultural connections with Europe, a religious split arose among the people.

Not only Nikon, but also Tsar Alexei is to blame for the schism. The main fault of Tsar Alexei is not at all in the political sphere, and not in the fact that he did not want to borrow what he needed from the West, but in the fact that he supported Nikon’s intention to change traditional Russian rites to Greek ones. The point is that after Nikon’s deposition, which he fully deserved, Tsar Alexei did not heed the voice of the people and did not raise before the new Patriarch the question of the need to revise the reforms introduced by Nikon.

The deposition of Nikon did not lead to a return to the ancient pre-Nikon path. At the Council of 1667, the decisions of the famous Council of the Hundred Heads during the time of St. Macarius and Ivan the Terrible, which set out how the fundamentals of Orthodoxy should be understood, were recognized as incorrect. The Council, which was also attended by Greeks, recognized the decisions of the Stoglavy Council as illegal and almost heretical. All the arguments of the “schismatics” about the correctness of the decisions of the Stoglavy Council were ignored. The Council recognized the corrections made in the new church books, made according to the new Greek books, as correct and declared everyone who did not read such books “schismatics” and anathematized. Avvakum, Deacon Theodore, Monk Epiphanius and a number of other supporters of the decisions of the Hundred-Glav Council were anathematized.

It was a fatal decision that could only deepen religious unrest. The cancellation of the decisions of the Stoglavy Council and the recognition of its decisions as false undermined faith in the truth of religious authority and all other Councils. If all the highest hierarchs of the Church who participated in the Council of the Hundred Heads made mistakes in matters of faith, then, consequently, the participants in the Council of 1667 may also make mistakes. The convicted “schismatics” did not submit to these erroneous decisions and wrote: “We hold the Orthodoxy that existed before Patriarch Nikon and we hold written and printed books published by the five patriarchs: Job, Hermogenes, Philaret, Joseph and Joseph of Moscow of all Russia and at the same time the council that was under Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, to be fair, Guriy, our Kazan miracle worker, was there too, we live and die with these books.”

The Great Council of 1667 acted completely wrongly by declaring the schismatics heretics. After all, their differences with the church did not relate to dogmas, but only to rituals. The anathema against the schismatics, proclaimed by the so-called “Great Council,” only spoiled the whole matter.

“The abrupt abruptness of the changes partly explains, if not the appearance of the schism itself, then the speed and breadth of its spread.” The persecution of the “schismatics” began during the lifetime of Tsar Alexei. At first the persecution was random. But, nevertheless, by following Nikon along the wrong path, betraying his high Christian view that one cannot force one to believe, the Quiet Tsar made a fatal mistake. Deepened by his successors, this mistake led to the most tragic consequences. It marked the beginning of a departure, first from religious traditions, and then from national political ideals.

After the death of Tsar Alexei, during the reign of his son Fyodor and the reign of Princess Sophia, the persecution of schismatics expanded.

In 1681, the sale and distribution of ancient books and works justifying the old Orthodoxy was prohibited, and searches and persecution of Old Believers began. In 1682, by order of Tsar Fedor, the most prominent leader of the schism, Avvakum, was burned. But this only increased resistance. Even the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery refused to serve according to the new books and for 10 years they fought off the royal governors sent to take the Solovetsky Monastery. Nikita Pustosvyat's speech in 1682 in defense of ancient true rituals was already regarded as a state crime and his head was cut off. Under Sophia, a law was passed that definitively prohibited schism. Those who sheltered the Old Believers were whipped, and “schismatics” who seduced supporters of Orthodoxy reformed to the Greek model were executed.

The state followed the church on the wrong path. The guardians of the ancient, true Russian Orthodoxy had to flee to the deep forests, where they began to found their monasteries and go into exile in foreign lands: to Livonia, Poland and the Crimea.

At the same time as the Old Believers were beheaded, the government allowed the Jesuits to preach Catholicism. In 1685, the Jesuits opened a school in Moscow and began to preach Catholicism among foreigners and Russians. Together with the Jesuits, Protestants of various persuasions who lived in the German settlement intensified their activities.

The previously united religiously Russian people began to split into pieces. And this thereby prepared favorable soil for the destruction of all the foundations of Russian national life, so that if we talk about the abyss on the edge of which, according to Western historians, Rus' was located on the eve of the accession to the throne of Peter I, then this abyss was not political and social order Muscovite Rus', not in backwardness from the West, but in a departure from the ancient understanding of Orthodoxy and traditional rituals that existed for seven centuries, established since the time of St. Vladimir.

Chapter 1 Conclusions

According to our conviction, which we came to while working on this chapter, the Providence of God in the Russian Schism of the 17th century is obvious, and most importantly, ultimately, extremely useful: a living church-obedient trunk of the Church remained. Let us say in the words of the Old Believers: “What is usually called the Old Believers, or schism, in essence is nothing more than a part of the once great and flourishing Church, living, growing, spiritualized from time immemorial.” This is undoubtedly true, but this small part broke away and almost withered, and the great Church still lives and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

There is every reason to believe that by God’s providence the tragedy of the Schism prepared the Russian Church for terrible the last times: apostasy, all kinds of heresies, rejection of the highest Truth. Thus, by legitimizing three-fingeredness (the most important controversial issue of the Schism; so to speak, the “dogmatic rite” around which the main struggle flared up), Patriarch Nikon perhaps providentially affirmed the main, trinitarian dogma of Orthodoxy, which at the present time is rejected by numerous Christian sects.

Closely adjacent to this is probably one of the most current problems modern Christianity - the problem of ecumenism.

It is also obvious that the tragedy of the Old Believers providentially points to the necessity and inevitability of the dynamics of the rules, order, nature of life and development of the Church, which goes far beyond the limits of ritual and deepens the disclosure or helps preserve the dogmas of the Church in new conditions.

In the events of the Schism, God's Providence is clearly seen not only in the preservation (through cleansing of deadness) of grace in the Church. In our opinion, the great tragedy of the Russian people and the Church indicates to descendants that all pride must be suppressed in the Church - whether expressed in disobedience, or self-will, or heretical thinking.

In the second chapter we will consider the influence of the church schism on Russian culture of the 17th century.

Topic 8. Church schism of the 17th century

Introduction

Causes and essence of the Schism

Nikon's reforms and the Old Believers

Consequences and significance of church schism

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The history of the Russian Church is inextricably linked with the history of Russia. Any time of crisis, one way or another, affected the position of the Church. One of the most difficult times in Russian history - Time of Troubles- Naturally, it also could not but affect her position. The ferment in the minds caused by the Time of Troubles led to a split in society, which ended in a split in the Church.

It is well known that the schism of the Russian Church in the middle of the 17th century, which divided the Great Russian population into two antagonistic groups, Old Believers and New Believers, was perhaps one of the most tragic events in Russian history, and undoubtedly the most tragic event in the history of the Russian Church - was caused not by dogmatic differences, but by semiotic and philological differences. It can be said that the basis of the schism is a cultural conflict, but it is necessary to make a reservation that cultural - in particular, semiotic and philological - disagreements were perceived, in essence, as theological disagreements.

Events related to Nikon's church reform are traditionally given great importance in historiography.

At turning points in Russian history, it is customary to look for the roots of what is happening in its distant past. Therefore, turning to such periods as the period of church schism seems especially important and relevant.

Causes and essence of the Schism

In the middle of the 17th century, a reorientation began in the relationship between church and state. Researchers assess its causes differently. In historical literature, the prevailing point of view is that the process of formation of absolutism inevitably led to the deprivation of the church of its feudal privileges and subordination to the state. The reason for this was the attempt of Patriarch Nikon to place spiritual power above secular power. Church historians deny this position of the patriarch, considering Nikon a consistent ideologist of the “symphony of power.” They see the initiative in rejecting this theory in the activities of the tsarist administration and the influence of Protestant ideas.

The Orthodox schism became one of the leading events in Russian history. The schism of the 17th century was caused by the difficult times of the time and imperfect views. The great turmoil that covered the state at that time became one of the reasons for the church schism. The church schism of the 17th century influenced both the worldview and cultural values of the people.

In 1653-1656, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and the patriarchate of Nikon, a church reform was carried out aimed at unifying religious rituals and correcting books according to Greek models. The tasks of centralizing church administration, increasing the collection of taxes levied on the lower clergy, and strengthening the power of the patriarch were also set. The foreign policy goals of the reform were to bring the Russian church closer to the Ukrainian one in connection with the reunification of Left Bank Ukraine (and Kiev) with Russia in 1654. Before this reunification, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, subordinate to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, had already undergone a similar reform. It was Patriarch Nikon who began the reform to unify rituals and establish uniformity in church services. Greek rules and rituals were taken as a model. Church reform, in fact, had a very limited character. However, these minor changes produced a shock in the public consciousness and were received extremely hostilely by a significant part of the peasants, artisans, merchants, Cossacks, archers, lower and middle clergy, as well as some aristocrats.

All these events became the causes of the church schism. The Church split into Nikonians (the church hierarchy and the majority of believers accustomed to obey) and Old Believers, who initially called themselves Old Lovers; supporters of the reform called them schismatics. The Old Believers did not disagree with the Orthodox Church in any dogma (the main tenet of the doctrine), but only in some rituals that Nikon abolished, therefore they were not heretics, but schismatics. Having met resistance, the government began repressing the “old lovers.”

The Holy Council of 1666-1667, having approved the results of church reform, removed Nikon from the post of patriarch, and cursed the schismatics for their disobedience. The zealots of the old faith ceased to recognize the church that excommunicated them. In 1674, the Old Believers decided to stop praying for the Tsar’s health. This meant a complete break between the Old Believers and the existing society, the beginning of a struggle to preserve the ideal of “truth” within their communities. The split has not been overcome to this day. The Russian schism is a significant event in the history of the church. The split in the Orthodox Church was a consequence of the difficult times that the great power was going through. The Time of Troubles could not but affect the situation in Russia and the history of the schism of the church. At first glance, it may seem that the reasons for the split lie only at the basis of Nikon’s reform, but this is not so. Thus, just emerging from the time of troubles, before the beginning of the history of the split, Russia was still experiencing rebellious sentiments, which was one of the reasons for the split. There were other reasons for Nikon’s church schism that led to protests: the Roman Empire ceased to be united, and the current political situation also influenced the emergence of an Orthodox schism in the future. The reform, which became one of the causes of the church schism of the 17th century, had the following principles: 1. The causes of the church schism arose, in particular, due to the ban on Old Believer books and the introduction of new ones. So, in the latter, instead of the word “Jesus” they began to write “Jesus”. Of course, these innovations did not become the main help for the emergence of Nikon’s church schism, but together with other factors they became provocateurs of the church schism of the 17th century. 2. The reason for the schism was the replacement of the 2-finger cross with the 3-finger cross. The reasons for the split were also provoked by the replacement of knee bows with waist bows. 3. The history of the schism had another help: for example, religious processions began to be held in the opposite direction. This little thing, along with others, pushed the beginning of the Orthodox schism. Thus, the prerequisite for the emergence of Nikon’s church schism was not only reform, but also unrest and the political situation. The history of the split had serious consequences for people.

Nikon's reforms and the Old Believers

The essence of the official reform was to establish uniformity in liturgical rites. Until July 1652, that is, before Nikon was elected to the patriarchal throne (Patriarch Joseph died on April 15, 1652), the situation in the church and ritual sphere remained uncertain. Archpriests and priests from the zealots of piety and Metropolitan Nikon in Novgorod, regardless of the decision of the church council of 1649 on moderate “multiharmony,” sought to perform a “unanimous” service. On the contrary, the parish clergy, reflecting the sentiments of the parishioners, did not comply with the decision of the church council of 1651 on “unanimity”, and therefore “multivocal” services were preserved in most churches. The results of the correction of liturgical books were not put into practice, since there was no church approval of these corrections (16, p. 173).

The first step of the reform was the sole order of the patriarch, which affected two rituals, bowing and making the sign of the cross. In the memory of March 14, 1653, sent to churches, it was said that from now on believers “it is not appropriate to do throwing on the knee in church, but bow to the waist, and also cross yourself with three fingers naturally” (instead of two) . At the same time, the memory did not contain any justification for the need for this change in rituals. Therefore, it is not surprising that the change in bowing and signing caused bewilderment and dissatisfaction among believers. This dissatisfaction was openly expressed by provincial members of the circle of zealots of piety. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel prepared an extensive petition, in which they pointed out the inconsistency of the innovations with the institutions of the Russian Church and, to substantiate their case, cited in it “extracts from books about folding fingers and bowing.” They submitted the petition to Tsar Alexei, but the Tsar handed it over to Nikon. The patriarch's order was also condemned by archpriests Ivan Neronov, Lazar and Loggin and deacon Fyodor Ivanov. Nikon decisively suppressed the protest of his former friends and like-minded people (13, p. 94).

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

Changes in rituals were carried out on the basis of Greek books contemporary to Nikon and the practice of the Church of Constantinople, information about which the reformer received mainly from the Antiochian Patriarch Macarius. Decisions on changes of a ritual nature were approved by church councils convened in March 1655 and April 1656.

In 1653 - 1656 The liturgical books were also corrected. For this purpose it was collected a large number of Greek and Slavic books, including ancient manuscripts. Due to the presence of discrepancies in the texts of the collected books, the printers of the Printing House (with the knowledge of Nikon) took as a basis the text, which was a translation into Church Slavonic of a Greek service book of the 17th century, which, in turn, went back to the text of liturgical books of the 12th - 15th centuries. and largely repeated it. As this basis was compared with ancient Slavic manuscripts, individual corrections were made to its text; as a result, in the new service book (compared to the previous Russian service books), some psalms became shorter, others became fuller, new words and expressions appeared; triple “hallelujah” (instead of double), writing the name of Christ Jesus (instead of Jesus), etc.

The new missal was approved by the church council in 1656 and was soon published. But the correction of its text in the indicated way continued after 1656, and therefore the text of the service books published in 1658 and 1665 did not completely coincide with the text of the service book of 1656. In the 1650s, work was also carried out to correct the Psalter and other liturgical books. The listed measures determined the content of the church reform of Patriarch Nikon.

Consequences and significance of church schism

The schism and formation of the Old Believer Church were the main, but not the only indicator of the decline in the influence of the official church on the masses in the last third of the 17th century.

Along with this, especially in cities, the growth of religious indifference continued, due to socio-economic development, the increasing importance in people's lives of worldly needs and interests at the expense of church-religious ones. Misses from church services and violations of other duties established by the church for believers (refusal of fasting, failure to appear for confession, etc.) became commonplace.

Development in the 17th century. The sprouts of a new culture were opposed by the patriarchal conservative “old times.” The “zealots of antiquity” from various social circles relied on the principle of the inviolability of orders and customs that were bequeathed by generations of their ancestors. However, the church itself taught in the 17th century. a clear example of a violation of the principle she defends: “Everything old is sacred!” The church reform of Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich testified to the forced recognition by the church of the possibility of some changes, but only those that would be carried out within the framework of the canonized orthodox “old times”, in the name and for the sake of strengthening it. The material for innovation was not the results of further progress of human culture, which went beyond the culture of the Middle Ages, but the same transformable elements of medieval “antiques”.

The new could only be established as a result of the rejection of the intolerance instilled by the church towards “changes in customs”, towards innovations, especially towards the borrowing of cultural values created by other peoples.”

Signs of something new in the spiritual and cultural life of Russian society in the 17th century. appeared in a variety of ways. In the field of social thought, new views began to develop, and if they did not directly relate to the general ideological foundations of medieval thinking, which was based on theology, then they went far ahead in the development of specific problems of social life. The foundations of the political ideology of absolutism were laid, the need for broad reforms was realized, and a program for these reforms was outlined.

In the spotlight of thinkers of the 17th century. questions of economic life came to the fore more and more. The growth of cities, merchants, and the development of commodity-money relations brought forward new problems that were discussed by a number of public figures of that time. In the very measures of government policy, carried out by such figures as B.I. Morozov or A.S. Matveev, an understanding of the growing role of monetary circulation in the country’s economy is clearly visible (14, p. 44).

One of the most interesting monuments of socio-political thought of the second half of the 17th century. are the works of Yuri Krizanich, a Croatian by origin, who worked in Russia on correcting liturgical books. On suspicion of activities in favor of the Catholic Church, Krizhanich was exiled in 1661 to Tobolsk, where he lived for 15 years, after which he returned to Moscow and then went abroad. In the essay “Dumas are political” (“Politics”), Krizhanich came up with a broad program of internal reforms in Russia as necessary condition its further development and prosperity. Krizanich considered it necessary to develop trade and industry and change the order of government. Being a supporter of wise autocracy, Krizanich condemned despotic methods of government. Plans for reforms in Russia were developed by Krizhanich in inextricable connection with his ardent interest in the destinies of the Slavic peoples. He saw their way out of their difficult situation in their unification under the leadership of Russia, but Krizhanich considered a necessary condition for the unity of the Slavs to be the elimination of religious differences by converting them, including Russia, to Catholicism (7).

In society, especially among the metropolitan nobility and townspeople of large cities, interest in secular knowledge and freedom of thought increased noticeably, which left a deep imprint on the development of culture, especially literature. In historical science, this imprint is designated by the concept of “secularization” of culture. The educated layer of society, though narrow at that time, was no longer satisfied with reading religious literature alone, in which the main ones were the Holy Scriptures (the Bible) and liturgical books. In this circle, handwritten literature of secular content, translated and original Russian, is becoming widespread. Entertaining artistic narratives, satirical works, including criticism of church orders, and works of historical content were in great demand.

Various works appeared that sharply criticized the church and clergy. It became widespread in the first half of the 17th century. “The Tale of the Hen and the Fox,” which depicted the hypocrisy and money-grubbing of the clergy. Wanting to catch a chicken, the fox denounces the chicken’s “sins” with the words of “sacred scripture”, and having caught it, sheds the guise of piety and declares: “And now I myself am hungry, I want to eat you, so that I can be healthy from you.” “And thus the belly of the chickens died,” concludes “The Legend” (3, p. 161).

Never before have attacks on the church reached such distribution as in the literature of the 17th century, and this circumstance is very indicative of the beginning crisis of the medieval worldview in Russia. Of course, the satirical mockery of the clergy did not yet contain criticism of religion as a whole and was so far limited to exposing the unseemly behavior of the clergy that outraged the people. But this satire debunked the aura of “holiness” of the church itself.

In court circles, interest in the Polish language, literature in this language, Polish customs and fashion increased. The spread of the latter is evidenced, in particular, by the decree of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1675, which ordered that the nobles of the capital’s ranks (stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles and tenants) “not adopt foreign German and other customs, and do not cut the hair on their heads , and they also didn’t wear dresses, caftans and hats from foreign samples, and that’s why they didn’t tell their people to wear them.”

The tsarist government actively supported the church in the fight against schism and heterodoxy and used the full power of the state apparatus. She also initiated new measures aimed at improving the church organization and its further centralization. But the attitude of the royal authorities to secular knowledge, rapprochement with the West and foreigners was different from that of the clergy. This discrepancy gave rise to new conflicts, which also revealed the desire of the church leadership to impose its decisions on the secular authorities.

Thus, the events that followed the reform of church government in the second half of the 17th century showed that, while defending its political interests, church power turned into a serious obstacle to progress. It hindered Russia's rapprochement with Western countries, the assimilation of their experience and the implementation of necessary changes. Under the slogan of protecting Orthodoxy and its strength, the church authorities sought to isolate Russia. Neither the government of Princess Sophia - V.V. Golitsyn, nor the government of Peter I agreed to this. As a result, the question of the complete subordination of church power to secular power and its transformation into one of the links in the bureaucratic system of an absolute monarchy was put on the agenda.

Conclusion

The schism of the last third of the seventeenth century was a major social and religious movement. But the hostility of the schismatics to the official church and the state was by no means determined by differences of a religious and ritual nature. It was determined by the progressive aspects of this movement, its social composition and character.

The ideology of the split reflected the aspirations of the peasantry and partly the townspeople, and it had both conservative and progressive features.

Conservative features include: idealization and protection of antiquity; preaching national isolation; hostile attitude towards the dissemination of secular knowledge; propaganda of accepting the crown of martyrdom in the name of the “old faith” as the only way to save the soul;

The progressive sides of the ideological split include: sanctification, that is, religious justification and justification of various forms of resistance to the power of the official church; exposing the repressive policies of the royal and church authorities towards Old Believers and other believers who did not recognize the official church; assessment of these repressive policies as actions contrary to Christian doctrine.

These features of the movement’s ideology and the predominance of peasants and townspeople who suffered from feudal-serf oppression among its participants gave the split the character of a social, essentially anti-serfdom movement, which was revealed by popular uprisings in the last third of the seventeenth century. So the struggle of the royal and church authorities at that time was primarily a struggle against the popular movement, hostile to the ruling class of feudal lords and its ideology.

The events of those times showed that, while defending its political interests, church power turned into a serious obstacle to progress. It interfered with Russia's rapprochement with Western countries. Learning from their experience and making the necessary changes. Under the slogan of protecting Orthodoxy, the church authorities sought to isolate Russia. Neither the government of Princess Sophia nor the reign of Peter I agreed to this. As a result, the issue of complete subordination of church authority and its transformation into one of the links in the bureaucratic system of an absolute monarchy was put on the agenda.

separation from the Russian Orthodox Church of a part of believers who did not recognize the church reform of Patriarch Nikon (1653 - 1656); religious and social movement that arose in Russia in the 17th century. (See diagram “Church Schism”)

In 1653, wanting to strengthen the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Nikon began implementing church reform designed to eliminate discrepancies in books and rituals that had accumulated over many centuries, and to unify the theological system throughout Russia. Some of the clergy, led by archpriests Avvakum and Daniel, proposed to rely on ancient Russian theological books when carrying out the reform. Nikon decided to use Greek models, which, in his opinion, would facilitate the unification under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate of all Orthodox churches in Europe and Asia and thereby strengthen his influence on the tsar. The Patriarch was supported by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and Nikon began reform. The Printing Yard began publishing revised and newly translated books. Instead of the Old Russian one, Greek rituals were introduced: two fingers were replaced by three fingers, a four-pointed cross was declared a symbol of faith instead of an eight-pointed one, etc. The innovations were consolidated by the Council of the Russian Clergy in 1654, and in 1655 approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople on behalf of all Eastern Orthodox churches.

However, the reform, carried out hastily and forcefully, without preparing Russian society for it, caused strong confrontation among the Russian clergy and believers. In 1656, the defenders of the old rites, whose recognized leader was Archpriest Avvakum, were excommunicated from the church. But this measure did not help. A movement of Old Believers arose, creating their own church organizations. The schism acquired a massive character after the decision of the Church Council of 1666-1667. about the executions and exiles of ideologists and opponents of the reform. Old Believers, fleeing persecution, went to the distant forests of the Volga region, the European north, and Siberia, where they founded schismatic communities - monasteries. The response to persecution was also mass self-immolation and starvation.

The Old Believers movement acquired and social character. The old faith became a sign in the fight against the strengthening of serfdom.

The most powerful protest against church reform manifested itself in the Solovetsky uprising. The rich and famous Solovetsky Monastery openly refused to recognize all the innovations introduced by Nikon and to obey the decisions of the Council. An army was sent to Solovki, but the monks secluded themselves in the monastery and put up armed resistance. The siege of the monastery began, which lasted about eight years (1668 - 1676). The monks' stand for the old faith served as an example for many.

After the suppression of the Solovetsky uprising, the persecution of schismatics intensified. In 1682, Habakkuk and many of his supporters were burned. In 1684, a decree followed, according to which the Old Believers were to be tortured, and if they did not conquer, they were to be burned. However, these repressive measures did not eliminate the movement of supporters of the old faith; their number in the 17th century. constantly grew, many of them left Russia. In the 18th century There has been a weakening of the persecution of schismatics by the government and the official church. At the same time, several independent movements emerged in the Old Believers.

The religious and political movement of the 17th century, which resulted in the separation from the Russian Orthodox Church of some believers who did not accept the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, was called a schism.

Also at the service, instead of singing “Hallelujah” twice, it was ordered to sing three times. Instead of circling the temple during baptism and weddings in the direction of the sun, circling against the sun was introduced. Instead of seven prosphoras, the liturgy began to be served with five. Instead of the eight-pointed cross, they began to use four-pointed and six-pointed ones. By analogy with Greek texts, instead of the name of Christ Jesus in newly printed books, the patriarch ordered to write Jesus. In the eighth member of the Creed (“In the Holy Spirit of the true Lord”), the word “true” was removed.

The innovations were approved by church councils of 1654-1655. During 1653-1656, corrected or newly translated liturgical books were published at the Printing Yard.

The discontent of the population was caused by the violent measures with which Patriarch Nikon introduced new books and rituals into use. Some members of the Circle of Zealots of Piety were the first to speak out for the “old faith” and against the reforms and actions of the patriarch. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel submitted a note to the king in defense of double-fingering and about bowing during services and prayers. Then they began to argue that introducing corrections according to Greek models desecrates the true faith, since the Greek Church apostatized from the “ancient piety”, and its books are printed in Catholic printing houses. Ivan Neronov opposed the strengthening of the power of the patriarch and for the democratization of church government. The clash between Nikon and the defenders of the “old faith” took on drastic forms. Avvakum, Ivan Neronov and other opponents of reforms were subjected to severe persecution. The speeches of the defenders of the “old faith” received support in various layers of Russian society, from individual representatives of the highest secular nobility to peasants. The sermons of the dissenters about the advent of the “end times”, about the accession of the Antichrist, to whom the tsar, the patriarch and all the authorities supposedly had already bowed down and were carrying out his will, found a lively response among the masses.

The Great Moscow Council of 1667 anathematized (excommunicated) those who, after repeated admonitions, refused to accept new rituals and newly printed books, and also continued to scold the church, accusing it of heresy. The council also stripped Nikon of his patriarchal rank. The deposed patriarch was sent to prison - first to Ferapontov, and then to the Kirillo Belozersky monastery.

Carried away by the preaching of the dissenters, many townspeople, especially peasants, fled to the dense forests of the Volga region and the North, to the southern outskirts of the Russian state and abroad, and founded their own communities there.

From 1667 to 1676, the country was engulfed in riots in the capital and in the outskirts. Then, in 1682, the Streltsy riots began, in which schismatics played an important role. The schismatics attacked monasteries, robbed monks, and seized churches.

A terrible consequence of the split was burning - mass self-immolations. The earliest report of them dates back to 1672, when 2,700 people self-immolated in the Paleostrovsky monastery. From 1676 to 1685, according to documented information, about 20,000 people died. Self-immolations continued into the 18th century, and isolated cases late XIX century.

The main result of the schism was church division with the formation of a special branch of Orthodoxy - the Old Believers. By the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century, there were various movements of the Old Believers, which were called “talks” and “concords”. The Old Believers were divided into priestly and non-priestly. The priests recognized the need for the clergy and all church sacraments; they were settled in the Kerzhensky forests (now the territory Nizhny Novgorod region), areas of Starodubye (now Chernihiv region, Ukraine), Kuban ( Krasnodar region), the Don River.

Bespopovtsy lived in the north of the state. After the death of the priests of the pre-schism ordination, they rejected the priests of the new ordination, and therefore began to be called non-priests. The sacraments of baptism and penance and all church services, except the liturgy, were performed by selected laymen.

Patriarch Nikon no longer had anything to do with the persecution of Old Believers - from 1658 until his death in 1681, he was first in voluntary and then in forced exile.

At the end of the 18th century, the schismatics themselves began to make attempts to get closer to the church. On October 27, 1800, in Russia, by decree of Emperor Paul, Edinoverie was established as a form of reunification of the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church.

The Old Believers were allowed to serve according to the old books and observe the old rituals, among which the greatest importance was attached to double-fingering, but the services and services were performed by Orthodox clergy.

In July 1856, by order of Emperor Alexander II, the police sealed the altars of the Intercession and Nativity Cathedrals of the Old Believer Rogozhskoe cemetery in Moscow. The reason was denunciations that liturgies were solemnly celebrated in churches, “seducing” the believers of the Synodal Church. Divine services were held in private prayer houses, in the houses of the capital's merchants and manufacturers.

On April 16, 1905, on the eve of Easter, a telegram from Nicholas II arrived in Moscow, allowing “to unseal the altars of the Old Believer chapels of the Rogozhsky cemetery.” The next day, April 17, the imperial “Decree on Tolerance” was promulgated, guaranteeing freedom of religion to the Old Believers.

In 1929, the Patriarchal Holy Synod formulated three decrees:

— “On the recognition of old Russian rituals as salutary, like new rituals, and equal to them”;

— “On the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals, and especially to double-fingeredness”;

— “On the abolition of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667, which they imposed on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christians who adhere to them, and to consider these oaths as if they had not been.”

The Local Council of 1971 approved three resolutions of the Synod of 1929.

On January 12, 2013, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, the first liturgy after the schism according to the ancient rite was celebrated.

The material was prepared based on information from open sources V

The religious and political movement of the 17th century, which resulted in the separation from the Russian Orthodox Church of a part of the believers who did not accept the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, was called a schism.

The reason for the schism was the correction of church books.

The need for such a correction has been felt for a long time, since many opinions were included in the books that disagreed with the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

The members of the Circle of Zealots of Piety, which was formed in the late 1640s and early 1650s and existed until 1652, advocated for the elimination of discrepancies and correction of liturgical books, as well as the elimination of local differences in church practice. The rector of the Kazan Cathedral, Archpriest Ivan Neronov, Archpriests Avvakum, Loggin, Lazar believed that the Russian Church had preserved ancient piety, and proposed unification based on ancient Russian liturgical books. The confessor of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Stefan Vonifatiev, the nobleman Fyodor Rtishchev, who were later joined by Archimandrite Nikon (later the patriarch), advocated following Greek liturgical models and strengthening their ties with the Eastern Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. In 1652, Metropolitan Nikon was elected patriarch. He entered into the administration of the Russian Church with the determination to restore its full agreement with, destroying all the ritual features that distinguished the former from the latter. The first step of Patriarch Nikon on the path of liturgical reform, taken immediately after assuming the Patriarchate, was to compare the text of the Creed in the edition of printed Moscow liturgical books with the text of the Symbol inscribed on the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius. Having discovered discrepancies between them (as well as between the Service Book and other books), Patriarch Nikon decided to begin correcting the books and rites. Conscious of his “duty” to abolish all liturgical and ritual differences with the Greek Church, Patriarch Nikon began to correct Russian liturgical books and church rituals according to Greek models.

About six months after his accession to the patriarchal throne, on February 11, 1653, Patriarch Nikon indicated that in the publication of the Followed Psalter the chapters on the number of bows in prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian and on the two-fingered sign of the cross should be omitted. 10 days later, at the beginning of Lent in 1653, the Patriarch sent out a “Memory” to Moscow churches about replacing part of the prostrations at the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian with waist ones and about using the three-fingered sign of the cross instead of the two-fingered one. It was this decree on how many prostrations should be made when reading the Lenten prayer of Ephraim the Syrian (four instead of 16), as well as the order to be baptized with three fingers instead of two, that caused a huge protest among believers against such a liturgical reform, which over time developed into a church schism.

Also during the reform, the liturgical tradition was changed in the following points:

Large-scale “bookishness on the right”, expressed in the editing of the texts of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, which led to changes even in the wording of the Creed - the conjunction-opposition was removed "A" in the words about faith in the Son of God “begotten, not made”, they began to talk about the Kingdom of God in the future ("there will be no end"), and not in the present tense ( "no end"). In the eighth member of the Creed (“In the Holy Spirit of the true Lord”) the word is excluded from the definition of the properties of the Holy Spirit "True". Many other innovations were also introduced into historical liturgical texts, for example, by analogy with Greek texts in the name"Jesus" in newly printed books one more letter was added and it began to be written.

At the service, instead of singing “Hallelujah” twice (extreme hallelujah), it was ordered to sing three times (three times). Instead of circling the temple during baptism and weddings in the direction of the sun, circling against the sun was introduced, rather than with salting. Instead of seven prosphoras, the liturgy began to be served with five. Instead of the eight-pointed cross, they began to use four-pointed and six-pointed ones.

In addition, the subject of criticism of Patriarch Nikon was Russian icon painters, who deviated from Greek models in the writing of icons and used the techniques of Catholic painters. Next, the patriarch introduced, instead of the ancient monophonic singing, polyphonic partes singing, as well as the custom of delivering sermons of his own composition in the church - in ancient Rus' They saw such sermons as a sign of conceit. Nikon himself loved and knew how to pronounce his own teachings.

The reforms of Patriarch Nikon weakened both the Church and the state. Seeing what resistance the attempted correction of church rites and liturgical books encountered from zealots and their like-minded people, Nikon decided to give this correction the authority of the highest spiritual authority, i.e. cathedral Nikon's innovations were approved by the Church Councils of 1654-1655. Only one of the members of the Council, Bishop Pavel of Kolomna, tried to express disagreement with the decree on bowing, the same decree that the zealous archpriests had already objected to.

Nikon treated Paul not only harshly, but very cruelly: he forced him to condemn him, took off his bishop's robe, tortured him and sent him to prison. During 1653-1656, corrected or newly translated liturgical books were published at the Printing Yard.

The discontent of the population was caused by the violent measures with which Patriarch Nikon introduced new books and rituals into use. Some members of the Circle of Zealots of Piety were the first to speak out for the “old faith” and against the reforms and actions of the patriarch. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel submitted a note to the king in defense of double-fingering and about bowing during services and prayers. Then they began to argue that introducing corrections according to Greek models desecrates the true faith, since the Greek Church apostatized from the “ancient piety”, and its books are printed in Catholic printing houses. Archimandrite Ivan Neronov opposed the strengthening of the power of the patriarch and for the democratization of church government. The clash between Nikon and the defenders of the “old faith” took on drastic forms. Avvakum, Ivan Neronov and other opponents of reforms were subjected to severe persecution. The speeches of the defenders of the “old faith” received support in various layers of Russian society, from individual representatives of the highest secular nobility to peasants. The sermons of the dissenters about the advent of the “last time”, about the accession of the Antichrist, to whom the tsar, the patriarch and all the authorities had supposedly already bowed and were carrying out his will, found a lively response among the masses.

The Great Moscow Council of 1667 anathematized (excommunicated from the Church) those who, after repeated admonitions, refused to accept new rituals and newly printed books, and also continued to scold the Church, accusing it of heresy. The council also deprived Nikon himself of the patriarchal rank. The deposed patriarch was sent to prison - first to Ferapontov, and then to the Kirillo Belozersky monastery.

The main result of the schism was church division with the formation of a special branch of Orthodoxy - Old Believers. By the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century, there were various movements of the Old Believers, which were called “talks” and “concords”. The Old Believers were divided into clericalism And. lack of priesthood Popovtsy

recognized the need for the clergy and all church sacraments, they were settled in the Kerzhensky forests (now the territory of the Nizhny Novgorod region), the areas of Starodubye (now the Chernigov region, Ukraine), Kuban (Krasnodar region), and the Don River. Bespopovtsy lived in the north of the state. After the death of the priests of the pre-schism ordination, they rejected the priests of the new ordination, so they began to be called bespopovtsy

. The sacraments of baptism and repentance and all church services, except the liturgy, were performed by selected laymen. Until 1685, the government suppressed riots and executed several leaders of the schism, but special law there was no mention of persecution of schismatics for their faith. In 1685, under Princess Sophia, a decree was issued on the persecution of detractors of the Church, instigators of self-immolation, harborers of schismatics, even death penalty

(some by burning, others by sword). Other Old Believers were ordered to be whipped and, having been deprived of their property, exiled to monasteries. Those who harbored Old Believers were “beaten with batogs and, after confiscation of property, also exiled to a monastery.”

During the persecution of the Old Believers, a riot in the Solovetsky monastery was brutally suppressed, during which 400 people died in 1676. In Borovsk, two sisters died in captivity from hunger in 1675 - noblewoman Feodosia Morozova and princess Evdokia Urusova. The head and ideologist of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum, as well as priest Lazar, deacon Theodore, and monk Epiphanius were exiled to the Far North and imprisoned in an earthen prison in Pustozersk. After 14 years of imprisonment and torture, they were burned alive in a log house in 1682.

Gradually, the majority of the Old Believers' consensus, especially the priesthood, lost their oppositional character in relation to the official Russian Church, and the Old Believers themselves began to make attempts to get closer to the Church. Preserving their rituals, they submitted to the local diocesan bishops. This is how Edinoverie arose: on October 27, 1800, in Russia, by decree of Emperor Paul, Edinoverie was established as a form of reunification of Old Believers with the Orthodox Church. The Old Believers, who wished to return to the Synodal Church, were allowed to serve according to the old books and observe the old rituals, among which the greatest importance was attached to double-fingering, but the services and services were performed by Orthodox clergy.

The priests, who did not want to make reconciliation with the official Church, created their own church. In 1846, they recognized as their head the retired Bosnian Archbishop Ambrose, who “dedicated” the first two “bishops” to the Old Believers. From them came the so-called Belokrinitsky hierarchy. The center of this Old Believer organization was the Belokrinitsky monastery in the town of Belaya Krinitsa in the Austrian Empire (now the territory of the Chernivtsi region, Ukraine). In 1853, the Moscow Old Believer Archdiocese was created, which became the second center of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy. Part of the community of priests, who began to be called fugitive popovism

(they accepted “fugitive” priests - those who came to them from the Orthodox Church), did not recognize the Belokrinitsky hierarchy.

Soon, 12 dioceses of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy were established in Russia with the administrative center - an Old Believer settlement at the Rogozhskoye cemetery in Moscow. They began to call themselves the “Old Orthodox Church of Christ.”

The revolutionary events of the early twentieth century gave rise in the church environment to considerable concessions to the spirit of the times, which then penetrated into many church heads who did not notice the replacement of Orthodox conciliarity with Protestant democratization. The ideas that many Old Believers were obsessed with at the beginning of the twentieth century had a pronounced liberal-revolutionary character: “equalization of status”, “cancellation” of the decisions of the Councils, “the principle of electing all church and ministerial positions”, etc. - stamps of the emancipated time, reflected in a more radical form in the “widest democratization” and “widest access to the bosom of the Heavenly Father” of the renovationist schism. It is not surprising that these imaginary opposites (Old Believers and Renovationism), according to the law of dialectical development, soon converged in the synthesis of new Old Believer interpretations with renovationist false hierarchs at their head.

Here is one example. When the revolution broke out in Russia, new schismatics appeared in the Church - renovationists. One of them, the renovationist Archbishop of Saratov Nikolai (P.A. Pozdnev, 1853-1934), who was banned, became in 1923 the founder of the hierarchy of the “Old Orthodox Church” among the Beglopopovites who did not recognize the Belokrinitsky hierarchy. Its administrative center moved several times, and since 1963 it has settled in Novozybkov, Bryansk region, which is why they are also called "Novozybkovites"...

In 1929, the Patriarchal Holy Synod formulated three decrees:

- “On the recognition of old Russian rituals as salutary, like new rituals, and equal to them”;

- “On the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals, and especially to double-fingering”;

- “On the abolition of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667, imposed by them on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christians who adhere to them, and to consider these oaths as if they had not been.”

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church MP in 1971 approved three resolutions of the Synod of 1929. The Acts of the Council of 1971 end with the following words: “The Consecrated Local Council lovingly embraces all who sacredly preserve the ancient Russian rites, both members of our Holy Church and those who call themselves Old Believers, but sacredly professing the saving Orthodox faith."

The well-known church historian Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, speaking about the acceptance of this act of the Council of 1971, states: “After the act of the Council, filled with the spirit of Christian love and humility, the Old Believer communities did not take a counter step aimed at healing the schism, and continue to remain out of communion with the Church.” .