A split in the Russian Orthodox Church occurred during the reign. Is the Russian Orthodox Church in danger of splitting? Comments from clergy. Klyuchevsky on Nikon reform

The Russian Orthodox Church seems to have played it out. They were forgiven for homosexual scandals involving the clergy, expensive foreign cars smashed in street races by reckless Msheloimites in robes, and condescendingly marveled at the flirtations of the highest hierarchs with the Vatican. The last straw, perhaps, was the recent appeal of Patriarch Kirill to the Pope in connection with the threat of seizing the churches of the UOC (MP) in Ukraine - he would have also sought support from the anathematized schismatic Philaret! And now, having lost their reverent attitude towards themselves, the patriarchal entourage is jealously looking closely to see if the President of Russia is throwing two fingers at himself?

Valery KOROVIN, member of the commission for the harmonization of interethnic and interreligious relations of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation

– Long before the memorable March meeting with the president, Metropolitan Cornelius was officially present at state celebrations, at the reading of presidential messages, and met with the first person of the state as part of various delegations. But their full-format meeting took place only recently and demonstrated the complete legitimation of the Old Believers by the authorities. The Old Believers again became full-fledged elements of Russian society, without any reservations, omissions or negative connotations. In the state it is customary to look at the first person, at some kind of official go-ahead - so, their meeting became a sign that the Orthodox tradition is now accepted by the state in its entirety. The schism of the Russian church was a drama that crippled Russian statehood for several centuries. But if in the atheistic period this was unimportant, then today, when the Orthodox tradition becomes the basis of the existence of society, the misunderstanding should have been completely eliminated. And I can say with confidence - it no longer exists.

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin unexpectedly went to the center of the Old Believers - Rogozhskaya Sloboda, meeting there with the Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church (ROC), Metropolitan Korniliy. This meeting was the second in a row, the first took place at the end of March. The event can be considered a sensation. Before this, for three and a half centuries there was no trace of any contact between the Russian leadership and the Old Believers. The Old Believers harbored a grudge against the authorities for the persecution, and the latter, in turn, did not forgive them for their intractability and inflexibility. And only this spring the parties reconciled - to the surprise and, they say, even partly to the indignation of the top of the Russian Orthodox Church (MP).

This is understandable. In Russia it’s like: where the nose goes, the tail goes. Lenin and Stalin don't believe in God? That means we are like them. They know better, from above. Former communists Yeltsin and Putin are baptized - and so will we! Whatever they say, we will believe in, even in a bright future, even in the kingdom of heaven, even, God forgive me, in the transmigration of souls. And for sure the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) is aware that the flock of former completely convinced atheists that they have inherited can easily form a line behind their beloved civil leader and follow him forever - even to the Old Believers, even to the Baptists, even to the nudists. How their flock, not intimidated by the lecturers of the Knowledge Society, rushed after the “renovationists” at the dawn of Soviet power. And now: Putin will often visit the Old Believers, and who knows, whether in this regard the Cathedral of Christ the Savior will not be empty, despite the miracles imported from Italy itself?

By the way, did you notice how confidentially the president and the metropolitan talked - they showed it on TV? Surely Putin in his soul approves of their asceticism, which is alien to most of the high priests of the Russian Orthodox Church. They don’t drink, don’t smoke, work hard and don’t drive along the capital’s roads in BMWs. And even more so, they do not associate with the Roman Curia, trying to preserve expensive Ukrainian real estate. In Old Believer churches they still do not recognize electricity and burn candles, as hundreds of years ago - there is something about this from eternity, the present. By the way: the 400th anniversary of Archpriest Avvakum is coming and the Old Believers are asking the president to celebrate the anniversary at the state level. And how can I refuse, because Avvakum is the father of Russian literature. But one can only imagine the reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church, because for them Avvakum is a heretic and schismatic. What will the sudden favor of the Russian president towards the Old Believer Church turn out to be?

Version 1

Change of church officialdom - Patriarch Kirill and his retinue will be replaced by Cornelius and his Old Believers

“The Old Believers are the true Orthodoxy, which came to our land through Prince Vladimir,” Metropolitan Korniliy admonished Putin, looking into his eyes. – We sacredly preserve these traditions. We hope that this is not only the past, but also the future of our state.” Why not, really? How everything here, however, is one to one: the sacred Korsun, which is also the Crimean Chersonese, and Prince Vladimir, who was baptized there, who overshadowed Holy Rus' with two, and not at all three, fingers. Here it is, continuity, here are our roots, from the most epic antiquity. And those who began to overshadow themselves with scruples in pursuit of royal favor and well-fed wealth are now drowning in worldly vanity, sharing parishes and flocks with schismatics. And they stubbornly pretend that there was no reunification of Crimea with Russia. And who, in this case, falls out of Russian history as a foreign link - the humble followers of Habakkuk or the vain Nikonians, who at all times yearned for special attention to worldly power? What in the empire, what in the USSR, what now. So isn’t it wiser to bring the humble closer and throw away the greedy?

Version 2

By getting closer to the Old Believers, the state will force the Russian Orthodox Church to compete and thereby improve its health

It is known that the president is a parishioner of the Russian Orthodox Church (MP). It is also known that Putin is extremely reluctant to fire people from his circle, and even gives those who have made mistakes a chance to correct their mistakes. He breaks up with his subordinates only in the most extreme cases. Yes, lately a lot of unsightly things have been following Kirill’s retinue. But he’s not a stranger, patriarch, my word. So why change it, what if it gets better? We need to give it a chance. This chance is a voluntary-forced rapprochement with the Russian Orthodox Church. Surely Kirill closely monitors the president’s trips to Rogozhskaya Sloboda and carefully monitors what else Putin promised Cornelius. Be it the return of temples or facilitating the repatriation of our Old Believers from South America - with the provision of land plots free of charge. You'll see that Kirill will draw the right conclusions and return to his former position as the head of state. And my own flock at the same time.

Version 3

The Russian Orthodox Church is facing a split: some of the clergy will flock to Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church

During a visit to the Rogozhskaya Sloboda, Putin was given a sign from above, some have already explained. A dove, a symbol of the Holy Spirit, appeared before him. And the day before, parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) addressed the president with an open letter, in which they reported that “the situation is becoming extremely dangerous for the church and for the state” - in connection with the draft ecumenical declaration adopted at the Council of Bishops on the relationship “with the rest of the Christian world” . And also another declaration signed by Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis during last year’s meeting in Havana. The matter smells of schism, believers warn. Therefore, experts note that part of the flock, from those who trust the head of state, but have lost faith in the Russian Orthodox Church, may end up, following the president, in Rogozhskaya Sloboda. And then it really is a new split?

Mikhail Starikov

The 17th century was a turning point for Russia. It is noteworthy not only for its political, but also for its church reforms. As a result of this, “Bright Rus'” became a thing of the past, and it was replaced by a completely different power, in which there was no longer a unity of people’s worldview and behavior.

The spiritual basis of the state was the church. Even in the 15th and 16th centuries, there were conflicts between non-covetous people and the Josephites. In the 17th century, intellectual disagreements continued and resulted in a split in the Russian Orthodox Church. This was due to a number of reasons.

Black Cathedral. The uprising of the Solovetsky monastery against newly printed books in 1666 (S. Miloradovich, 1885)

Origins of the schism

During the Time of Troubles, the church was unable to fulfill the role of “spiritual doctor” and guardian of the moral health of the Russian people. Therefore, after the end of the Time of Troubles, church reform became a pressing issue. The priests took charge of carrying it out. This is Archpriest Ivan Neronov, Stefan Vonifatiev, the confessor of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and Archpriest Avvakum.

These people acted in two directions. The first is oral preaching and work among the flock, that is, closing taverns, organizing orphanages and creating almshouses. The second is the correction of rituals and liturgical books.

There was a very pressing question about polyphony. In church churches, in order to save time, simultaneous services to various holidays and saints were practiced. For centuries, no one criticized this. But after troubled times, they began to look at polyphony differently. It was named among the main reasons for the spiritual degradation of society. This negative thing needed to be corrected, and it was corrected. triumphed in all the temples unanimity.

But the conflict situation did not disappear after that, but only worsened. The essence of the problem was the difference between the Moscow and Greek rites. And this concerned, first of all, digitized. The Greeks were baptized with three fingers, and the Great Russians - with two. This difference resulted in a dispute about historical correctness.

The question was raised about the legality of the Russian church rite. It included: two fingers, worship on seven prosphoras, an eight-pointed cross, walking in the sun (in the sun), a special “hallelujah,” etc. Some clergy began to argue that the liturgical books were distorted as a result of ignorant copyists.

Subsequently, the most authoritative historian of the Russian Orthodox Church, Evgeniy Evsigneevich Golubinsky (1834-1912), proved that the Russians did not distort the ritual at all. Under Prince Vladimir in Kyiv they were baptized with two fingers. That is, exactly the same as in Moscow until the middle of the 17th century.

The point was that when Rus' adopted Christianity, there were two charters in Byzantium: Jerusalem And Studio. In terms of ritual, they differed. The Eastern Slavs accepted and observed the Jerusalem Charter. As for the Greeks and other Orthodox peoples, as well as the Little Russians, they observed the Studite Charter.

However, it should be noted here that rituals are not dogmas at all. Those are holy and indestructible, but rituals can change. And in Rus' this happened several times, and there were no shocks. For example, in 1551, under Metropolitan Cyprian, the Council of the Hundred Heads obliged the residents of Pskov, who practiced three-fingered, to return to two-fingered. This did not lead to any conflicts.

But you need to understand that the middle of the 17th century was radically different from the middle of the 16th century. People who went through the oprichnina and the Time of Troubles became different. The country faced three choices. The path of Habakkuk is isolationism. Nikon's path is the creation of a theocratic Orthodox empire. Peter's path was to join the European powers with the subordination of the church to the state.

The problem was aggravated by the annexation of Ukraine to Russia. Now we had to think about the uniformity of church rites. Kyiv monks appeared in Moscow. The most notable of them was Epiphany Slavinetsky. Ukrainian guests began to insist on correcting church books and services in accordance with their ideas.

Mashkov Igor Gennadievich. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon

The schism of the Russian Orthodox Church is inextricably linked with these two people

Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

The fundamental role in the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church was played by Patriarch Nikon (1605-1681) and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1629-1676). As for Nikon, he was an extremely vain and power-hungry person. He came from Mordovian peasants, and in the world he bore the name Nikita Minich. He made a dizzying career, and became famous for his strong character and excessive severity. It was more characteristic of a secular ruler than a church hierarch.

Nikon was not satisfied with his enormous influence on the Tsar and the boyars. He was guided by the principle that "God's things are higher than the king's." Therefore, he aimed at undivided dominance and power equal to that of the king. The situation was favorable to him. Patriarch Joseph died in 1652. The question of electing a new patriarch arose urgently, because without the patriarchal blessing it was impossible to hold any state or church event in Moscow.

Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich was an extremely pious and pious man, so he was primarily interested in the speedy election of a new patriarch. He precisely wanted to see Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod in this position, since he valued and respected him extremely.

The king's desire was supported by many boyars, as well as the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch. All this was well known to Nikon, but he strived for absolute power, and therefore resorted to pressure.

The day of the procedure for becoming a patriarch has arrived. The Tsar was also present. But at the very last moment Nikon announced that he refused to accept signs of patriarchal dignity. This caused a commotion among everyone present. The tsar himself knelt down and with tears in his eyes began to ask the wayward clergyman not to renounce his rank.

Then Nikon set the conditions. He demanded that they honor him as a father and archpastor and let him organize the Church at his own discretion. The king gave his word and consent. All the boyars supported him. Only then did the newly-crowned patriarch pick up the symbol of patriarchal power - the staff of the Russian Metropolitan Peter, who was the first to live in Moscow.

Alexei Mikhailovich fulfilled all his promises, and Nikon concentrated enormous power in his hands. In 1652 he even received the title of "Great Sovereign". The new patriarch began to rule harshly. This forced the king to ask him in letters to be softer and more tolerant towards people.

Church reform and its main reason

With the coming to power of a new Orthodox ruler in the church rite, at first everything remained as before. Vladyka himself crossed himself with two fingers and was a supporter of unanimity. But he began to often talk with Epiphany Slavinetsky. After a very short time, he managed to convince Nikon that it was still necessary to change the church ritual.

During Lent of 1653 a special “memory” was published, in which the flock was attributed to adopt triplicate. Supporters of Neronov and Vonifatiev opposed this and were exiled. The rest were warned that if they crossed themselves with two fingers during prayers, they would be subjected to church damnation. In 1556, a church council officially confirmed this order. After this, the paths of the patriarch and his former comrades diverged completely and irrevocably.

This is how a split occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church. Supporters of the “ancient piety” found themselves in opposition to official church policy, while the church reform itself was entrusted to the Ukrainian by nationality Epiphanius Slavinetsky and the Greek Arseniy.

Why did Nikon follow the lead of the Ukrainian monks? But it is much more interesting why the king, the cathedral and many parishioners also supported the innovations? The answers to these questions are relatively simple.

The Old Believers, as the opponents of innovation came to be called, advocated the superiority of local Orthodoxy. It developed and prevailed in North-Eastern Rus' over the traditions of universal Greek Orthodoxy. In essence, “ancient piety” was a platform for narrow Moscow nationalism.

Among the Old Believers, the prevailing opinion was that the Orthodoxy of Serbs, Greeks and Ukrainians was inferior. These peoples were seen as victims of error. And God punished them for this, placing them under the rule of the Gentiles.

But this worldview did not inspire sympathy among anyone and discouraged any desire to unite with Moscow. That is why Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich, seeking to expand their power, sided with the Greek version of Orthodoxy. That is, Russian Orthodoxy took on a universal character, which contributed to the expansion of state borders and the strengthening of power.

Decline of the career of Patriarch Nikon

The excessive lust for power of the Orthodox ruler was the reason for his downfall. Nikon had many enemies among the boyars. They tried with all their might to turn the king against him. In the end, they succeeded. And it all started with little things.

In 1658, during one of the holidays, the tsar's guard hit the patriarch's man with a stick, paving the way for the tsar through a crowd of people. The one who received the blow was indignant and called himself “the patriarch’s boyar son.” But then he received another blow to the forehead with a stick.

Nikon was informed about what had happened, and he became indignant. He wrote an angry letter to the king, in which he demanded a thorough investigation of this incident and punishment of the guilty boyar. However, no one started an investigation, and the culprit was never punished. It became clear to everyone that the king’s attitude towards the ruler had changed for the worse.

Then the patriarch decided to resort to a proven method. After mass in the Assumption Cathedral, he took off his patriarchal vestments and announced that he was leaving the patriarchal place and going to live permanently in the Resurrection Monastery. It was located near Moscow and was called New Jerusalem. The people tried to dissuade the bishop, but he was adamant. Then they unharnessed the horses from the carriage, but Nikon did not change his decision and left Moscow on foot.

New Jerusalem Monastery
Patriarch Nikon spent several years there until the patriarchal court, at which he was deposed

The throne of the patriarch remained empty. The Bishop believed that the sovereign would be afraid, but he did not appear in New Jerusalem. On the contrary, Alexey Mikhailovich tried to get the wayward ruler to finally renounce patriarchal power and return all regalia so that a new spiritual leader could be legally elected. And Nikon told everyone that he could return to the patriarchal throne at any moment. This confrontation continued for several years.

The situation was absolutely unacceptable, and Alexey Mikhailovich turned to the ecumenical patriarchs. However, they had to wait a long time for their arrival. Only in 1666 did two of the four patriarchs arrive in the capital. These are Alexandrian and Antiochian, but they had powers from their other two colleagues.

Nikon really did not want to appear before the patriarchal court. But still he was forced to do it. As a result, the wayward ruler was deprived of his high rank. But the long conflict did not change the situation with the split of the Russian Orthodox Church. The same council of 1666-1667 officially approved all church reforms that were carried out under the leadership of Nikon. True, he himself turned into a simple monk. They exiled him to a distant northern monastery, from where the man of God watched the triumph of his politics.

Traditions that are deeply woven into the life of the people are especially difficult to eradicate. The Russian people took the split very intensely, and if it were not for the political will of the leaders of that time, we would still be crossing ourselves with two fingers. For the sake of formal, seemingly trifles, high-ranking people went to their death. Thus they paid with the lives of Theodosius Morozov and Some people still do not accept Nikon’s changes, which caused a split in the Orthodox Church. Such people lead a special way of life and are called Old Believers. What did religious leader Nikon decide to change?

The Russian split was created in the minds of its ideologists long before it actually happened. By the end of the 17th century, the Russian state had strengthened, and the horrors of the Time of Troubles began to be forgotten. In the 15th century, Constantinople fell. turned out to be a prophet. He wrote that Moscow should become the “third Rome.” It would seem that the prophecy was coming true. The minds of the highest religious leaders were captivated by the idea of ​​theocracy. In imitation of Byzantium, they wanted to make the state subordinate to the Church. However, in Russia, as always, this did not happen without extremes. If in Byzantium the state was not formally dependent on the Church, then in Russia Nikon was granted the title of “great sovereign,” which had previously only been given to tsars. The Patriarch sought to create a model characteristic of Catholicism, in which the religious leader would be more important than the secular one. In Byzantium, the authorities simply expressed their subordination to the interests of faith and its ideals.

At a time when the schism of the Russian Church was just beginning, religion was in very great strength. were very magnificent and solemn. However, Nikon planned to change many things in services and prayers according to the model of the Eastern churches. The problem was that the experts were people of different beliefs. Therefore, the result was very serious discrepancies about how to pray and correct old books. The second problem was that it was not ancient Greek books that were used, but relatively new ones.

The most significant changes were in the ritual side. In Rus', people were accustomed to the two-fingered sign, which symbolically reflected the human and divine natures of Christ. The three-fingered sign was just as ancient, but more characteristic of worship in the Eastern churches. It testified to the importance of the Trinity. Before the reform it was considered just an option, after the reform it became mandatory for everyone.

However, Nikon did not stop with this change. Previously, the religious procession was carried out in the direction of the sun, but after the reform the norm became the opposite, that is, it was necessary to walk against the sun. The number of prosphoras on which the liturgy was served changed: instead of seven, they began to use five. The text was also changed. Some words were excluded from there because they were absent in the Greek version.

Some compare Nikon, who provoked a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church, with Peter the Great. Only Peter took everything Western as a model, and Nikon - everything Greek. However, the common feature of both historical figures was uncompromisingness. However, the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church, like any revolution, destroyed its father. was accused of cruelty and arbitrariness, deprived of his rank, and then even sent into exile. However, the reforms themselves were approved in 1666-1667, when it was decided to defrock Nikon.

People who abandoned the reform began to leave their persecutors and live in separate communities, not allowing marriages with “Nikonians.” They lived very well materially, because they were against bad habits and entertainment. They are the most orthodox of all Orthodox Christians. Protest against the reforms was expressed not only by the laity, but also by the entire monastery - Solovetsky. As a result, the monastery was taken with the help of a traitor, and the rebels, for the most part, were physically destroyed.

The Old Believers began to be persecuted, and very cruelly. If an army was sent to their communities, people often locked themselves in churches - and the matter ended in self-immolation. Many, in order not to betray their faith, drowned themselves. Some starved themselves to death, considering themselves not suicide but martyrs. The scale of the persecution was reminiscent of the Western Inquisition.

Was it worth suffering for the immutability of the ritual? It was not only a matter of form, but also of essence. The schismatics defended a unique path of religious development in Russia, and therefore, at a minimum, are worthy of respect.

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 at the end of the 19th 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 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, 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

Church schism(Greek σχίσματα (schismata) - schism) - a violation of intra-church unity due to differences not related to the distortion of the true teaching about and, but for ritual, canonical or disciplinary reasons. The founders and followers of the schismatic movement are called schismatics.

Schism should be distinguished from other forms of apostasy - and self-inflicted gathering (). Following St. , the ancient holy fathers called schismatics those who were divided in opinions about certain church subjects and about issues that allowed for healing.

According to the outstanding commentator on canon law, John Zonar, schismatics are those who think sensibly regarding faith and dogma, but for some reason move away and form their own separate assemblies.

According to the expert on church law, Bishop of Dalmatia-Istra, schisms are formed by those who “think differently about certain church subjects and issues, which, however, can easily be reconciled.” According to St. , a schism should be called “a violation of complete unity with the Holy Church, with the exact preservation, however, of the true teaching about dogmas and sacraments.”

Comparing schism with heresy, St. asserts that “schism is no less evil than heresy.” The saint teaches: “Remember that the founders and leaders of the schism, violating the unity of the Church, oppose, and not only crucify Him a second time, but tear apart the Body of Christ, and this is so serious that the blood of martyrdom cannot atone for it.” Bishop Optat of Milevitsky ( IV century) considered schism one of the greatest evils, greater than murder and idolatry.

In today's sense, the word schism is found for the first time in St. . He was in schism with Pope Callistus (217-222), whom he accused of weakening the requirements of church discipline.

The main reason for the schisms in the Ancient Church was the consequences of persecution: Decius (Novata and Felicissima in Carthage, Novatian in Rome) and Diocletian (Heraclius in Rome, Donatists in the African Church, Melitian in Alexandria), as well as a dispute about the baptism of heretics. Serious disagreements were caused by the question of the order of acceptance into the “fallen” - those who renounced, retreated and stumbled during persecution.

In the Russian Orthodox Church, there were schisms: the Old Believer (overcome by the Edinoverie communities), the Renovationist (overcome) and the Karlovac (overcome on May 17, 2007). Currently, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is in a state of schism.

What happened in 1054: the split of the Ecumenical Church in two or the split of one of its parts, the Roman Local Church?

In theological historical literature there is often a statement that in 1054 there was a split of the One Ecumenical Church of Christ into Eastern and Western. This opinion cannot be called convincing. The Lord created one single Church, and it was about one, and not about two and, especially, not about several Churches that He testified that it would exist until the end of time and that it would not be overcome ().

Moreover, the Messiah made it clear that “every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and every city or house divided against itself cannot stand” (). This means that if the Church had really been divided against itself, then, according to His assurance, it would not have stood. But she will definitely resist (). The fact that there cannot be two, three, one thousand three Churches of Christ is also supported by the image according to which the Church is the Body of Christ (), and the Savior has one Body.

But why do we have the right to claim that it was the Roman Church that broke away from the Orthodox Church in the 11th century, and not vice versa? - There is no doubt that this is so. The true Church of Christ, according to the words of the Apostle, is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (). Therefore, that one of the two Churches (Western, Eastern) that did not stand in the truth, did not preserve it unchanged, and broke away.

Which one couldn't resist? - In order to answer this question, it is enough to remember which particular Church, Orthodox or Catholic, preserves it in the immutable form in which it received it from the apostles. Of course, this is the Ecumenical Orthodox Church.

In addition to the fact that the Roman Church dared to distort, supplementing it with a false insertion about the procession “and from the Son,” it distorted the teaching about the Mother of God (we mean the dogma about the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary); introduced a new dogma about the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, calling him the vicar of Christ on earth; interpreted the doctrine of man, etc., in the spirit of crude jurisprudence.

Split

Archpriest Alexander Fedoseev

A schism is a violation of complete unity with the Holy Church, with the exact preservation, however, of the true teaching about dogmas and sacraments. The Church is unity, and its entire existence is in this unity and unity about Christ and in Christ: “ For we are all baptized into one body by one Spirit" (). The prototype of this unity is the Trinity Consubstantial, and the measure is catholicity (or conciliarity). Schism, on the contrary, is separation, separation, loss and denial of conciliarity.

The question of the nature and meaning of church divisions and schisms was raised with all its severity already in the memorable baptismal disputes of the 3rd century. The saint then with inevitable consistency developed the doctrine of the complete lack of grace of any schism, precisely as a schism: “ We must beware of deception, not only obvious and obvious, but also that which is covered with subtle slyness and cunning, as in the enemy’s invention of a new deception: to deceive the unwary by the very name of a Christian. He invented heresies and schisms to overthrow faith, pervert truth, and dissolve unity. Whoever cannot be kept on the old path by blindness is led astray and deceived by the new path. It delights people from the Church itself and, when they were apparently already approaching the light and getting rid of the night of this age, a new darkness again spreads over them, so that they, not adhering to the Gospel and not preserving the law, nevertheless call themselves Christians and, wandering in darkness, they think they are walking in the light"(Book on the Unity of the Church).

In a schism, both prayer and alms are fueled by pride - these are not virtues, but opposition to the Church. For them, schismatics, ostentatious goodness is only a means to tear people away from the Church. The enemy of the human race is not afraid of the prayer of a proud-hearted schismatic, for the Holy Scripture says: “ Let his prayer be a sin" (). The devil finds their schismatics, vigils and fasts funny, since he himself does not sleep or eat, but this does not make him a saint. Saint Cyprian writes: “ Is it possible for someone who does not adhere to the unity of the Church to think that he keeps the faith? Is it possible for someone who resists and acts contrary to the Church to hope that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul, discussing the same subject and showing the sacrament of unity, says: one body, one Spirit, just as the calling is fast in the one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God" ()? It is characteristic that schismatics consider all other schisms, except their own, to be disastrous and false, arising under the influence of passions and pride, and they accept their own schism, which is not much different from others, as the only happy exception in the entire history of the Church.

The schismatics, shedding crocodile tears over the “violation” of the canons of the Church, in fact long ago threw under their feet and trampled all the canons, because the true canons are based on the belief in the unity and eternity of the Church. The canons are given to the Church, outside the Church they are invalid and meaningless - so the laws of the state cannot exist without the state itself.

Hieromartyr Clement, Bishop of Rome, writes to the Corinthian schismatics: “ Your division has corrupted many, plunged many into despondency, many into doubt and all of us into sadness, and your confusion still continues" The unrepentant sin of schism is even more terrible than the sin of suicide (a suicide destroys only himself, and a schismatic destroys both himself and others, therefore his eternal fate is worse than that of a suicide).

« The Church is one, and she alone has all the fullness of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit. Whoever, no matter how, departs from the Church - into heresy, into schism, into an unauthorized gathering, he loses the communion of God's grace; We know and are convinced that falling away into schism, heresy, or sectarianism is complete destruction and spiritual death“- this is how the holy martyr expresses the Orthodox teaching about the Church.

People susceptible to distortion of faith even try to use the word “schism” less. They say: “official Church” and “unofficial”, or “different jurisdictions”, or prefer to use abbreviations (UOC-KP, etc.). Saint: " Orthodoxy and schism are so opposed to each other that the patronage and defense of Orthodoxy should naturally constrain the schism; condescension to schism should naturally embarrass the Orthodox Church».

The history of the Orthodox Church in the countries of the post-Soviet space in recent years is full of important and dramatic events, many of which continue to have a powerful influence on the current state of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Soviet Union has collapsed, social stratification of society is growing, and problems related to information inequality are growing. The Russian Orthodox Church has preserved its unity throughout the entire territory of the former Soviet Union, creating new forms of church structure. Over the past decade, autonomous Local Churches have been formed, which reflects the new political realities of the modern world. It is appropriate to talk about radical changes in the CIS countries related to the understanding of the unity of the Church today. We are talking primarily about the canonical and social aspects of Orthodox ecclesiology.

Negative phenomena, of course, include the processes of rapid politicization of religious life in the countries of the former Soviet camp. The involvement of nationalist political parties in it created the basis for the subsequent formation of political-religious structures hostile to Orthodoxy such as the UGCC, UAOC, UOC-KP, IOC, etc. But no less dangerous are internal contradictions, disagreements and disciplinary-psychological splits within the church. parish life.

The main feature of disciplinary-psychological splits, from which all other parachurch movements are derived, is their emergence in the era of the collapse of socialism and in the midst of the death of mass atheism. Since there is no scientific literature yet that specifically treats the activities of church schisms and new sects, it seems appropriate to briefly characterize a number of features that distinguish them from traditional sectarianism.

First of all, disciplinary and psychological splits spread mainly not in rural areas, but in large cities, with a dense cultural and educational infrastructure. As studies have shown, church schisms find the most fertile soil among specialists with secondary and higher education. Hence the active professional orientation of the newest schisms: they try to religiously comprehend and “sanctify” the activity of man as a specialist. It is the specialty that is the area of ​​the most intense sectarian and schismatic self-awareness and self-determination. Therefore, new sectarians are often grouped according to professional characteristics - of course, associations of this kind can also include ordinary amateurs who show interest in this profession. Associations of a schismatic type are created among writers, historians, doctors, and physicists who are trying to give a religious interpretation of the facts in their subject area.

Some people like to justify schismatics, saying that they were allegedly forced to retreat from the Church by some difficult circumstances - some of them were treated poorly or unfairly, offended, etc. But these excuses are not worth a damn. This is what St. said about them. , in a letter to the schismatic Novat: “ If, as you say, you separated from the Church involuntarily, then you can correct this by returning to the Church of your own free will" Priest once said: “ I would rather sin with the Church than be saved without the Church" Florensky wanted to say that only in the Church is salvation and that by leaving the Church, a person commits spiritual suicide. Schisms were born with shouts of victory, and died with dull groans, but the Church still lived! Condemned to death by schismatics, she exists, she is full of spiritual powers, she remains the only source of grace on earth.

In order to prevent the emergence of heresies, the Russian Orthodox Church has always tried, through exhortation and persuasion, to return those who have fallen away to the path of true faith, genuine Christian piety, and has tried again and again to gather its lost sheep, who have lost the voice of their shepherd. We must not forget about the great danger to the spiritual health of every person emanating from a possible fall into heresy through schism, since a heretical worldview penetrates much more deeply into the soul and infects it with the sores of sin, which are very difficult to get rid of.

The Holy Fathers recognize the possibility and necessity of healing the schism in the spirit of church economy. The saint in the Rules from the First Canonical Epistle indicates the peculiarities of accepting repentants from schisms:

« For example, if someone, having been convicted of sin, is removed from the priesthood, does not submit to the rules, but himself retains the position and priesthood, and with him some others retreat, leaving the Catholic Church, this is an unauthorized gathering. To think about repentance differently than as existing in the Church is a schism... To accept the baptism of schismatics, as not yet alien to the Church; and those in unauthorized gatherings should be corrected by decent repentance and conversion, and re-joined to the Church. Thus, even those in church ranks, having retreated along with the disobedient, when they repent, are often accepted again into the same rank».

St. very aptly defines the schism. : " Christ will judge those who cause schisms - those who do not have love for God and who care more about their own benefit than about the unity of the Church, who, for unimportant and random reasons, cut and tear apart the great and glorious body of Christ and, as much as depends on them, destroy it, saying about peace and those who make war" (Five Books Against Heresies, 4.7).

As we can see from the statements of the holy fathers and a small analysis of the problem of schisms, they need to be healed, or even better, prevented. It is quite obvious that, in addition to the personal charisma of the next dissenter, a big role is played by the low spiritual education of his followers, political unrest in the state, and personal motives. The time has come to develop a large-scale project to prevent church schisms, covering all possible aspects of this problem. It is absolutely necessary to create some body, a church structure with extensive powers, capable of providing the proper level of monitoring of the spiritual state of believers and promptly nipping in the bud schismatic movements in the ranks of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Schism is a real danger not only to the integrity of the Church, but first of all to the spiritual health of schismatics. Such people voluntarily deprive themselves of saving grace and sow division within the unity of Christians. The split cannot be justified from any point of view: neither political, nor national, nor any other reasons can be considered as a sufficient reason for the split. There can be neither sympathy nor understanding for the schism and its leaders - church division must be fought and eliminated - so that something worse does not happen.