The court case of Patriarch Nikon characterization. Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action. Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action

In the middle of the 17th century, the reform of the Russian Orthodox Church began, which entailed a number of serious changes in the political and spiritual life of Russian society.

Prerequisites:

The social crisis of the mid-17th century and the difficult economic situation of the country in one form or another affected the relationship between the state and the church - a large landowner who had judicial and tax privileges and had enormous political weight and ideological influence. The authorities' attempt to limit the rights of the church (for example, with the help of the Monastic Order) met with decisive resistance on its part and even strengthened its political claims. Crisis phenomena also struck the church itself. Low level vocational training the clergy, its vices (drunkenness, money-grubbing, debauchery, etc.), discrepancies in the holy books and differences in rituals, distortions of some church services undermined the authority of the church. To restore its influence in society, it was necessary to restore order, unify rituals and sacred books according to a single model. At the end of the 1640s. In Moscow, a circle of “zealots of ancient piety” arose, uniting people concerned both with the state of affairs in the church and with the penetration of secular principles into the spiritual life of society. Soon, differences began among members of the circle regarding the choice of sample. Some - S. Vonifatiev, the future Patriarch Nikon, F. Rtishchev - believed, like the Tsar himself, that Russian church books and rituals should be edited according to Greek standards. Others - I. Neronov, Archpriest Avvakum Petrov - saw the essence of the reform in a return to intact Russian antiquity, the decisions of the Stoglavy Council, and considered it possible to correct church books only from ancient Slavic manuscripts. The spiritual crisis experienced by Russian society exacerbated the problem of the church meeting the requirements of the time. The crisis was expressed in the secularization of consciousness, which manifested itself in its rationalization and individualization among some of the townspeople and the upper classes of society. Thus, it was in the 17th century that artisans began to have personal marks; before that, they felt themselves to be participants in a collective creation and did not “sign” their products. Thus, the connection between a person’s personal efforts and the results of his work, and even his social status, was increasingly understood. It is no coincidence that it was during this era that the saying appeared: “Trust in God, but don’t make a mistake yourself.” The country's foreign policy interests also required reform. Russia tried to unite all Orthodox churches and peoples under its auspices. The Russian Tsar dreamed of becoming the heir of the Byzantine emperors both in matters of faith and in their territorial possessions. He also hoped to achieve the power and splendor of imperial state power. Here the influence of the theory of the “Third Rome” was felt. To achieve foreign policy goals, it was necessary to bring the rituals into unity with the Greek models adopted in the Ukrainian, as well as Serbian and other Orthodox churches in the territories that were planned to be annexed to Russia or taken under its control.

Progress of reforms.

After Nikon was elected patriarch, the reform began to be implemented. In 1653, he sent out a “memory” (circular) to all Moscow churches about replacing the sign of the cross from two to three fingers. With the blessing of the king, he unleashed repression against disobedient people. Nikon's intransigence, haste and violent methods of carrying out reform caused deep protest among the population and became one of the factors of the split. After Nikon’s departure from Moscow in 1658 and disgrace caused both by the patriarch’s excessive lust for power, fueled by his main idea “... the priesthood of the kingdom is greater,” and by the machinations of the boyars who did not want to obey the “artistic” patriarch, the patriarch continued the transformation of the church. the king himself. Cathedral 1666-1667 finally deposed Nikon. At the same time, the “schismatics” were declared heretics, legitimizing repression against them.

Church rituals and liturgical books were changed in accordance with the latest Greek models. These patterns have undergone changes over the centuries (even the form of the sign of the cross has changed), while the Russian Church has preserved the rituals in the form in which they received them from Byzantium. It was ordered to cross yourself not with two fingers, as before, but with three; the reading of the creed became different; the name of Christ began to be written “Jesus”, and not “Isus”, as tradition required; Greek icons were prescribed; a four-pointed cross, previously considered “Latin”, was introduced. A reform of the Church Slavonic language took place, vocabulary, grammar, and accents changed. In an effort to turn Russia into the promised land, Nikon began on the river. Istr construction of the Resurrection Monastery (named after the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem) - the New Jerusalem, which was to become the spiritual center of world Orthodoxy. The relationship between state and church. Nikon, believing that “the priesthood is higher than the kingdom,” became in 1652-1658. actual co-ruler of the sovereign. All issues discussed by the Boyar Duma were first reported to the patriarch. These measures turned out to be temporary and remained a thing of the past after Nikon’s removal, but the secular government made some concessions later. In 1667, the secular court against clergy was abolished, and in 1677 the Monastic Order was abolished. At the same time, there was a rapid economic strengthening of the church. New monasteries were built to which many villages were assigned

Consequences.

The reform strengthened the church hierarchy and the centralization of the church. The victory of the reformers created a spiritual atmosphere in society that promoted a critical attitude towards tradition and the perception of innovations, which became the psychological prerequisite for the global transformations of Peter 1. The reform and the trial of Nikon became the prologue to the liquidation of the patriarchate and the complete subordination of the church to the state. One of the spiritual consequences of the reform and schism was the deformation of the idea “Moscow is the third Rome.” For a long time, the symbol of the Third Rome was dual and contained the image of Jerusalem - the center of holiness and pagan Rome - the political and cultural capital of the world. In the 16th century, Moscow simultaneously claimed both special sanctity and political power. As a result of the split, the idea of the New Jerusalem, which was one of the cores of Russian history and culture, went into the subconscious of society. The second part of the idea was picked up by Peter 1, who created “Great Russia” with a new political center-- St. Petersburg, built in the image of imperial Rome.

The Old Believers were one of the most complex and contradictory consequences of the reform, a split in society and the church. According to some data, more than a third of the Orthodox population remained in the old faith. The nature of Old Belief. The “schism” was a religious-psychological phenomenon that contained, to one degree or another, socio-political components. The emergence of the Old Believers was not caused by the religious formalism of the “dark masses,” but by the fact that, without separating ritual from dogma, the people saw in the reform an attack on the faith of their fathers. The old faith was identified by the people with the idea of Holy Rus', with the hope of finding “Truth” - social justice, embodying the idea of “Moscow - the third Rome”, and most importantly - saving the immortal soul and getting into the kingdom of heaven. As a result of the reform, according to the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev, “a suspicion awoke among the people that the Orthodox kingdom, the Third Rome, had been damaged, a betrayal of the true faith had occurred. The Antichrist took possession of state power and the highest church hierarchy.” In pre-revolutionary official historiography, the Old Believers were interpreted as the result of ignorance and fanaticism of the masses. Democratic historian A.P. Shchapov assessed it as popular opposition to everything state system Russia, thereby giving the split a social character. During Soviet times, the “class” point of view was dominant. So N.I. Pavlenko emphasized that the lower classes were indifferent to the ritual side of the reform and supported the Old Believers only because they fought against the noble state. The boyars, supporters of the old faith, saw in it a symbol of antiquity, a means of “protest against the emerging absolutism.” In the conditions of the social crisis of the second half of the 17th century, expectations of the imminent end of the world intensified, which explained both the behavior of the early Old Believers and the combination in this movement of such different interests and worldviews social groups. The fight against "new products". The ideological leaders of the Old Believers I. Neronov, Archpriest Avvakum and others called for the rejection of the innovations of Nikon and the church authorities, who had “given themselves to the devil,” and to fight for Orthodox traditions and the “true faith.” At the same time, religious content was also manifested in socio-political protests. The zealots of the “old faith” went to S. Razin and raised an uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery in 1668-1676. Many fled from a world “captured by the Antichrist.” The flight took different shapes- from solitude in forest hermitages and participation in the development of Siberia, the mass base of which was the Old Believers, to voluntary self-immolations by entire communities (in the burnt-out areas of the late 17th century, according to official data, at least 20 thousand people died). New trends in the spiritual life of Old Believers. But it was not just about preserving the old. On the eve of the New Age, in the new conditions of the spiritual crisis of Russian society, the Old Believers acquired some socio-psychological features that were uncharacteristic of traditional Orthodoxy. Since the tsar and the church were discredited, there was a “loss” of external authority, an intercessor before God, and the role of morality of each believer as a bearer of an internal ideal increased. The Old Believers acutely felt personal responsibility not only for their salvation, but also for the fate of the Church and society. Their faith became more active, their spiritual life intensified. The Old Believers began to rely on themselves, on their inner faith, which had a positive effect on their moral character, contributed to moderation in needs, hard work, honesty, etc. These trends were characteristic not only of Russia; in that era they also manifested themselves in the European Reformation, which was incomparable with religious belief in the religious sense. And it is no coincidence that it was the Old Believers at the end of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. has done exceptionally much for the development of Russian entrepreneurship. The founders of the largest dynasties of Russian industrialists and merchants - the Morozovs, Ryabushinskys, Guchkovs, Tretyakovs, Shchukins, etc. - belonged to the Old Believers. In the 17th century, powerful folk performances took place, quite complex in nature and composition of participants. However, lacking a constructive program and being “rebellious” in form, they were doomed to failure. The state, overcoming enormous difficulties, is trying to find forms that meet the challenges of the time, taking measures, on the one hand, aimed at achieving social stability, strengthening the administrative apparatus, the service class, and on the other, leading to periodic spontaneous uprisings of the lower classes. Like transformations in other areas of life, the church reform of the 17th century was characterized by inconsistency, ill-conceivedness and led to unexpected and contradictory results.

Nowadays there is a lot of talk about the fact that the main problem of Orthodox-Catholic relations is the problem of proselytism. Meanwhile, main problem lies on the theological-dogmatic plane.

The notorious dogma of papal primacy transformed the church and political consciousness of Catholicism. The replacement of the true Head of the Church, Christ, with an “infallible viceroy” lowered this consciousness “from heaven to earth.” The Church began to be perceived not as a divine-human organism, but as a “political party” consolidated around the Pope and the Vatican State, which acts in their interests. It should be noted that Orthodoxy does not at all deny the socio-political aspect of earthly life; the whole question is in the hierarchy of values. This transformation has not only theological and philosophical, but also political consequences. Catholicism acts quite consistently; it will never deviate from the logic of protecting and promoting its confessional interests. The Vatican will engage in proselytism among the Orthodox, despite any protests, and will actively defend its political interests, which, of course, include the neutralization of its confessional opponents, the largest of which is the Russian Orthodox Church.

Ecumenism imposed by the atheistic authorities of the Russian Orthodox Church led to the emergence of a kind of “inferiority complex” in the Orthodox environment around the natural apostolic duty of the Orthodox Church - mission among all peoples (by unacceptable ecumenism the author understands dogmatic relativism, and not a logical missionary, social and political dialogue with heterodoxy) . We were brought up with a fear of defending the truth that the Orthodox Church is the one and only true Church, that the concepts of Orthodoxy and Christianity are identical, as the great theologian Hieromartyr Hilarion (Trinity) wrote about.

Meanwhile, Orthodoxy, more than ever, needs an offensive strategy, expansion (we must stop being afraid of this word). At the turn of this century, this problem was raised by the great theologian, “restorer” of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia Anthony (Khrapovitsky).

In his work “Patriarch Nikon and Russia” he not only carried out the historical rehabilitation of this great hierarch, but also demonstrated by his example the offensive strategy of Orthodoxy: “The internal content of Russian life was created by the metropolitans of Kyiv, Moscow and all Rus': the last and greatest of these The hero of the spirit was Patriarch Nikon: According to the conviction of Patriarch Nikon, the calling of Russia was to plant the kingdom of God on earth, in order to make Russia the world center of Christian culture, enlightenment and highest piety. Therefore, he set the task of his life to weaken Russian church provincialism. This was a bright era in Russian history. There was a wonderful circle of church reformers in Moscow. In the minds of these people the broadest plans for church and social, even, one might say, world restructuring and transformation were ripening. These were the brightest dreamers who thought of making all foreigners in Russia Christians, freeing the Greeks and Slavs from the Turks, and organizing the Church on strictly canonical principles. On the basis of such ideal enterprises, the friendship of two virgin souls, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon, flared into a high flame. The Tsar and the Patriarch were two people who deeply and tenderly loved each other. The friendship of the tsar and the patriarch corrected the holy books, restored the decorum of public prayer, annexed Little Russia to Russia: it defeated the Poles and Swedes, and if Nikon had remained patriarch until the end of his life, the original Russian regions, the northwestern and the southwestern region, the Slavs would have been liberated much earlier and there would have been no reason for last war, nor for the collapse of Russia, and after this prosperity would have been preserved throughout the world, at the head of which would have been Russia. In general, Russia would truly be elevated to the level of greatness of the third Rome and the growth of our Fatherland both spiritually and politically it would be immeasurable" (1936).

The most important part of the “Orthodox project” has always been the issue of the return of the countries of the Cyril and Methodius area - Western Rus' and Eastern Europe into the fold of Eastern Christian civilization, a “cultural Orthodox counter-offensive” to the West. Church thought also wrestled with these issues and developed strategic and tactical lines. The Orthodox tradition knows brilliant examples of such a counter-offensive. We are talking about both Moscow Slavophilism and the phenomenon of Carpatho-Russian spiritual and national revival.

Orthodox mission was carried out through the education and support in the bosom of Galician, Transcarpathian, Kholmsky and Belarusian Greek Catholics, these believers artificially torn away from Orthodoxy several centuries ago, powerful cultural forces that prepared the return to the bosom of the paternal Orthodox faith not of individuals, but of entire regions and peoples. It was in this way that the Belarusian and Kholm Uniates were returned.

However, the Russian national catastrophe of 1917 suspended the process of returning Galician and Carpathian Rus. Meanwhile, Carpatho-Russian encyclopedists made a huge contribution to our culture. The Galician and Carpatho-Russian revival was artificially suppressed in Austria-Hungary through the first genocide in the twentieth century, when more than 60 thousand people who identified themselves as Russians and sympathized with Orthodoxy were exterminated in Galicia in concentration camps and directly in cities and villages. The ideological justification for this genocide was carried out by the puppet “Austro-Ukrainian” party led by the Uniate Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky - the ideological forerunners of the current “Rukhovites”.

This publication is an attempt to tell about two outstanding scientists and publicists of their time, who determined the spiritual climate in the Galician and Carpathian Russian territories. This is Denis Zubritsky and Adolf Dobryansky-Sachurov. Their legacy is a direct refutation of all kinds of separatist theories that have become the ideology of the current Ukrainian state.

DENIS IVANOVICH ZUBRITSKY

The largest Galician-Russian historian Denis Zubritsky was born in 1777 in the village of Batyatichi, Zholkovsky district of the current Lviv region. He began his systematic study of Galician-Russian history with research in the field of Carpatho-Russian folklore, publishing his article “On Galician Folk Songs” in 1823. In 1829, Zubritsky became a member of the Stavropegian Institute in Lviv, which grew out of the famous Assumption Orthodox Brotherhood - the center of Russian culture. In 1830, Denis Ivanovich became the manager of the Stavropegian printing house and organized the Stauropegian archive.

First historical work Zubritsky’s “Greek-Catholic Stavropegic Church in Lvov and the Institute connected with it” was published in German in Lvov in 1830. At that time it was a unique work, which collected everything that was known about the Stavropegian brotherhood and about Galician Rus' in general. In 1836 at Polish language His book “Historical Research on Russian-Slavic Printing Houses in Galicia” is published.

At the same time, active scientific and public cooperation between Zubritsky and Russia begins. In 1838, in the Journal of the Ministry public education“The scientist’s work “On Slavic-Russian printing houses in Galicia and Ladomeria” is published, which deals, first of all, with the printing house of the Holy Dormition Orthodox Brotherhood in Lvov, founded by Ivan Fedorov. In this printing house only at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries. In was published. more than 300 titles of Orthodox apologetic literature.

In 1837, “Essay on the history of the Russian people in Galicia and the church hierarchy in the same kingdom” was published. At the same time, the famous “Chronicle of the Stavropegian Brotherhood” was published, published in Russia in the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education” in 1849-50. under the title “Chronicle of the Lviv Stavropegian Brotherhood.” The work is a unique description of the history of the creation and activities of the largest church Holy Dormition brotherhood in the defense of Orthodoxy and Russian culture from the Latin-Polish genocide.

In 1843, Zubritsky completed work on the “Chronicle of the City of Lvov”, but the Austrian censor did not allow the manuscript to pass, erasing from it those places in which the author showed the facts of the oppression of the Galician Russians under Polish rule (it is impossible to hide the fact that the St. Petersburg censorship often took the side liberals and separatists; thus, the works of A.S. Khomyakov were banned - they were first published in Russian only after his death). Zubritsky's work was printed with banknotes. In 1862, at the request of Professor M. Pogodin, Zubritsky’s daughter Stanislava sent the “Chronicle” to Moscow with handwritten additions by the author. For unknown reasons, Pogodin did not publish the full version of the Chronicle. After Pogodin’s death, this copy was purchased by the Petrograd Public Library

The Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities did everything in its power to popularize Zubritsky’s works in Russia. In 1845, the “Critical-Historical Tale of the Bygone Years of Chervonnaya or Galician Rus to the End of the 15th Century” was published in Moscow, and in 1847-48. - “The beginning of the union.” B1852-55 Zubritsky’s main work, “The History of the Ancient Galich-Russian Principality,” was created.

In a letter to the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities dated January 6 (18), 1853, Zubritskoy outlined his views on the main problems of Galician-Russian history: “Meanwhile, I was thinking about compiling a folk history that would be understandable for Galicians, and the first question was: in what dialect write it? It was terrible to write in nonsense from the Polish and common vernacular; it also meant strengthening the discord in the Russian language; it was impossible to use Church Slavonic, because our Russian clergy, who make up a large part of the local reading Russian public, brought up and trained in schools in German, Polish and Latin, do not understand that dialect, and at the department of Church Slavonic they study privately, somehow read holy books. Consequently, for the first time in my life I decided to write in the sonorous Russian language, used in Russian literature and the only pure Russian language, although, however, I myself still speak it poorly. I reasoned that it was better to be bad, how absurd. And so I began to write in 1849, when there were barely 10 people in Galicia who understood the real Russian word. But I must add, however, that now even students are trying to write purely in Russian, although, however, there is also a party of old ignoramuses who condemn this desire. The second question was: Where to start and how to present this History so that it meets the needs and known concepts of Galich readers. There was almost a general opinion among my less educated compatriots that our Russian people, and the so-called Moscow or Russian people they called, were two alien peoples, different from each other. It was necessary to destroy this prejudice, it was necessary to prove that in ancient times, despite the many principalities, all of Rus' constituted one single entity, that princes of the same kind ruled in Moscow and Novgorod, in Kyiv and Galich. In this intention, it was necessary for me to present to my readers a genealogical picture of the princes of the Rurik generation, who owned the entire Russian land, and in this way to offer them, so to speak, the origin of both the Russians in general, and the Galich princes in particular from the same ancestor: I set about compiling The pedigree, to the first part of the attached map, managed to at least certify the Galicians that their princes were of the same family as the Moscow and other Rurikovichs.” (F.F. Aristov “Carpathian Russian Writers”, M. 1916, pp. 36-37).

In 1852, the first two volumes of “The History of the Ancient Galich-Russian Principality” were published. In 1862, “Galician Rus' in the 16th century” by Zubritsky was published in the “Readings of the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities.” “The history of the ancient Galich-Russian principality was banned” in Austria, subscribers were subjected to pressure from the authorities. However, difficulties with the dissemination of “History” also arose in St. Petersburg, where the German and Polish lobbies were active, openly “surrendering” Russian movement in Galicia.

Zubritsky was a member of many scientific societies in Russia - a corresponding member of the Petrograd Archaeographical Commission, an honorary member of the Kyiv Temporary Commission for the Analysis of Ancient Acts, an honorary member of the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities. He conducted extensive correspondence with Russian scientists - Pogodin, Maksimovich, Bodyansky, etc., sent Russia for publication large number documents from the archives of the Stavropegian Institute in Lvov, Lvov Uniate Consistory.

Zubritsky's correspondence is of great interest. His closest respondent in Russia was Mikhail Pogodin. In letters to Pogodin, Zubritsky writes a lot about the policy of the Austrian authorities to destroy Russian identity and culture. For example, in a letter dated May 5 (17), 1852 (see “Letters to M. P. Pogodin from the Slavic lands”, Moscow, 1880, issue 3, p. 587 and F. F. Aristov, p. 41 ) Zubritsky writes: “I wrote as much as I could in purely Russian, and this language is suspected in our country of sympathizing with the Muscovite region. The quiet and humble journal “Galitskaya Zorya” himself received an admonition not to dare to use Moscow words under threat of prohibition.”

In a letter to V. Ganke, Zubritsky wrote: “You approve of what I used in Galich history. I wrote in Russian, because both German and Russian alone are a Literary language.”

Zubritsky died on January 4 (16), 1862 at the age of 85. He is considered one of the most outstanding historians, including church historians, of Galician Rus'. His work on the historical apologetics of the Orthodox and Russian autochthony of Galician Rus' laid the foundation for the “Muscovophile” movement, the next stage of which was the massive return of the Carpatho-Russians to Orthodoxy.

ADOLF DOBRYANSKY-SACHUROV

Outstanding Carpathian Russian scientist and public figure, belonging to the galaxy of “Carpatho-Russian awakeners”, the founder of the movement for the return of the Uniates to Orthodoxy.

Dobryansky received two higher educations - philosophical in Kosice (1833) and Jagr (1834) and legal - in Jagr (1836). He was formally a Uniate, however, his true religious views seem very interesting - with his formal Uniate membership, Dobryansky professed Orthodox dogmatics. This was expressed in many facts of his personal life, and social activities, and in articles on theological topics: Being a Uniate himself, he always preferred to attend Orthodox services. He baptized some of his children in Orthodox churches. During his trip to Russia, he visited our churches and monasteries with special feeling. He was also the engine of the religious movement between the Western Slavs, which led to the formation of Orthodox communities between the Viennese and the Czechs, as well as in the south between the Slovinians and the Croats. (F. Aristov. Carpatho-Russian writers M. 1916, pp. 210-211). Dobryansky tried to revise the entire logic of the union - to make it not a bridge from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, but on the contrary - first to defend the Church Slavonic language and the purity of the Eastern rite, and then return to Orthodox dogma, “which is why he considered it useful to advocate for union in conversations with the Catholic Slovinians or Czech Moravians, enticing them to return first to rituals and organization, and then to the dogmas of the Cyril and Methodius Church” (F. Aristov, p. 210). Thus, Dobryansky set the task of returning the entire Slavic world to Orthodoxy, including the traditionally Catholic Czech Republic, Croatia and Slovenia, seriously preparing the ground for this, educating an entire generation of intelligentsia in the Orthodox Slavophile spirit, rightly believing that the very act of transition to Orthodoxy would be effective only when there is a “critical mass” of Orthodox-minded priests and laity, then it will be massive, nationwide, and not isolated.

This is precisely the strategy followed by the famous Galician-Russian priest Markell Poppel, who made a huge contribution to the reunification of Kholmsky Uniates, and Archbishop Joseph (Semashko) of Mogilev, who led the reunification of the Belarusian Uniates delicately, but steadily, for many years.

At the same time, at the university, Dobryansky emerged as an Orthodox Slavophile figure and leader of the Slavic student body. After graduation, he was a civil servant of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While in the Czech Republic, Dobryansky met V.V. Ganka and other figures of the Slavic Renaissance. In 1848, the Magyar authorities made the first attempt to physically eliminate Dobryansky, as a result of which he moved to Lvov, which was under direct Austrian jurisdiction.

In Lviv, Dobryansky becomes an active figure in the Galician-Russian movement, takes part in the work of the “Head Russian Rada”. In 1849, he was appointed civilian commissar under the Russian army - the 3rd corps of General Riediger, one of the ancestors of the current Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy (then Russia sent a military contingent to the allied Austria to suppress the Hungarian uprising). General Ridiger highly valued Dobryansky as a specialist in Carpathian Rus' and a Russian patriot, and the commander of the Russian army in the Carpathians, Count Paskevich, gave him two precious pistols. Adolf Dobryansky was also awarded the Russian Order of St. Vladimir 4th degree and the medal “For the pacification of Hungary and Transylvania.”

After the suppression of the Hungarian uprising, D. was appointed to important administrative positions in Uzhgorod, which allowed him to launch large-scale activities to revive Ugric Rus. He achieved the appointment of Russian officials, introduced the Russian language into office work, Russian inscriptions on the streets, and contributed to the revival of Russian self-awareness among the Carpathian Rusyns. This could not but provoke a reaction from the Magyar forces, who were striving for the complete assimilation of the Carpatho-Russians. Dobryansky was fired from this position. Then official Vienna, in turn, fearing the strengthening of the Magyar element in the empire, granted Dobryansky knighthood in 1858 with the addition of Sachurov to his surname after the name of the village he bought.

In 1861, Dobryansky was elected as a deputy of the Ugric Sejm, but the Magyar authorities sought to annul the voting results. In 1867, he resigned from the civil service in order to devote himself entirely to Carpatho-Russian affairs. In 1865, Adolf Dobryansky was again elected as a deputy of the Ugric Sejm, where he was a deputy until 1868. On November 13 (25), 1868, he delivered his famous speech in the Ugric parliament on the bill on nationalities, in which he asserts the autochthony of Russians in Hungary, their equal participation in the formation of Hungarian statehood and the need to provide them with equal rights.

In 1871, Magyar nationalists in the center of Uzhgorod attack a carriage and inflict serious wounds on Dobryansky’s son Miroslav - the target of the assassination attempt was Adolf Dobryansky himself. After the assassination attempt, Dobryansky could no longer openly attend meetings of Ugro-Russian societies and organizations, the inspiration of which he was. In 1871, the Russian newspaper “Svet” ceased its activities, in 1872 its successor was “Novyi Svet”.

In 1875, D. visited Russia, where he was received by the Tsarevich Alexander Alexandrovich, who supported Dobryansky, K.P. Pobedonostsev, M.N. Katkov, I. Aksakov and many others. others.

The main works of A. Dobryansky-Sachurov:

“Draft of a political program for Austrian Rus'” (1871).

In the “Project” the author proves the need for autonomy for all of Austrian Rus', its transformation into a single subject of the Austrian federal empire. Dobryansky argues that when presenting the program, it is necessary to proceed from the consideration that the Russian people living in Austria are “only part of the same Russian people, Little White and Great Russian, and have the same history, the same legends, the same literature and one folk custom” (pp. 9-10). This national-cultural unity of the Russian people cannot be disrupted even by the separatist activities of the Ukrainian Man party, which, according to the author, when it is convinced of the impossibility of the resurrection of Ukraine within the framework of the Austrian monarchy, will have to work in solidarity with “all our intelligentsia” (F. F. Aristov “ Carpatho-Russian writers", M. 1916, pp. 164-165).

"Patriotic Letters" (1873). In this series of publications published in the Galician-Russian newspaper “Slovo,” Dobryansky critically examines the phenomenon of “Ukrainophilism.” Dobryansky characterizes Russian Ukrainophilism not as a national movement, but as a social movement generated by the dissatisfaction of the Little Russian Cossacks with serfdom. With the abolition of serfdom, Dobryansky considers this issue settled, and the unity of the Russian people restored. Dobryansky considered the historical, linguistic and especially political constructions of “Ukrainian fans” to be absurd and harmful.. In the second part, dedicated to the “Little Russian movement in Austria,” Dobryansky sets the goal: “firstly, to accurately and comprehensively define our Austrian-Russian and all-Russian tasks and, secondly, to find new ways to achieve better and happiest relations,” “from the history of previous centuries, we have long been convinced of the national unity of all Russian industries,” and therefore, even while under the rule of the Habsburgs and fulfilling the duties of Austrian citizens, we must work for implementation of all-Russian tasks” (F. Aristov, p. 167).

“On the western borders of Subcarpathian Rus', from the time of St. Vladimir" (1880). In this work, Dobryansky claims, referring to the Primary Chronicle and ethnographic data, that “ancient Rus' extended all the way to Krakow, which: was built on primordially Russian soil.”

Dobryansky, himself remaining a Greek Catholic, consistently pursued a line aimed at the gradual return of the Uniates to the fold of the Orthodox Church. As part of this strategy, he sought autonomy for Carpatho-Russian Greek Catholics from the diocesan authorities of Hungary and defended the Church Slavonic language and Eastern Christian traditions - appearance and the right to clergy marriage, maximum resistance to Latinization. These issues are addressed in Dobryansky’s “Response of the Ugro-Russian clergy of the Pryashev diocese to their bishop” (1881) and “Appeal to the pope on behalf of the Ugro-Russian clergy of the Pryashev diocese on the issue of wearing beards by Uniate priests” (1881).

In 1881, at the request of the Galician-Russian intelligentsia, Dobryansky moved from his estate in Chertezhny to Lvov to head the Galician-Russian camp.. The peasants of the village of Gnilichki, where Father John Naumovich, an outstanding Galician-Russian educator, served, converted to Orthodoxy. In response, the authorities take countermeasures: they arrest 11 people, including Dobryansky and his daughter Olga Adolfovna (by her husband Grabar), in January 1882. Olga Adolfovna also converted to Orthodoxy. They were charged with treason and sentenced to death. However, after Dobryansky’s bright speech, the defendants were acquitted (all 11 people). When Dobryansky left the courthouse on July 17 (28), 1882, he was greeted by a crowd of thousands of people with shouts of welcome.

However, Dobryansky was forced to move to Vienna. The Vienna period of his life is one of the most fruitful. Dobryansky also reveals himself as an ideologist of Orthodox Pan-Slavism, bearing in mind the following - Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians constitute a single people; ultimately, all Slavic peoples constitute one world, common language for all Slavs are Church Slavonic and Russian, the common religion is exclusively Orthodoxy. Dobryansky's students went even further and put forward the thesis of a single Slavic nation. This idea was outlined in an address from the Viennese Slavic youth dated December 6 (18), 1886:

“: We, representatives of all Slavic tribes, Russians, Serbs and Croats, Czechs and Slovaks, Bulgarians and Slovenes, we are Slavic youth: we confess with you and for you.

There is only one Slavic people of more than 100 million, and it represents a separate and independent Slavic world. We wish for its unification and unity with you.

The Slavic people live their own lives and have their own independent culture, more than a thousand years old.

All the Slavs will unite again in their Slavic people's holy Orthodox Church, bequeathed to them by the Equal-to-the-Apostles Saints Cyril and Methodius, the Illuminator of the Slavs. The Slavs will also abandon the alien Romano-Germanic script and return to their Slavic alphabet.

We all hold high the banner of our highly educated Old Church Slavonic language and, considering it our common heritage, bequeathed to us by our ancestors, we at the same time wish to have in common one living Slavic language.” Under the document there are signatures: 40 Russians, 7 Bulgarians, 26 Serbs, 14 Slovaks, 23 Croats, 24 Slovenes and 66 Czechs. Only 200 signatures. (F.F. Aristov, p. 175).

Dobryansky formulated his views on the common Slavic language in his work “A View on the Question of the Common Slavic Language” (1888). Pointing out that all Slavs, except the Poles, recognize the need for the spiritual unification of all branches of the Slavic people, precisely through common Slavic language, which by general agreement the Russian language should be.

On the other hand, Dobryansky was an ardent advocate of preserving the Church Slavonic language in the worship of the Slavs, and partly in their spiritual literature, due to its historical significance and proximity to the etymological foundations of Slavic speech. In the gradual spread of Cyrillic graphics among the Latinizing Greek-Slavs, he saw one of important conditions their rapprochement with the writing of the Orthodox Slavs, and together, as it were, an external barrier against merging with the peoples of the West, similar to the Julian calendar in timing.

It is not surprising that Dobryansky was an implacable enemy of the linguistic split among the branches of the Russian people. The emergence and spread of a special educated language, as if a pleonastic doublet for the language of Pushkin and Gogol, he considered a treacherous betrayal of both the age-old traditions of the Russian people and the vital interests of both this people and the entire Greek-Slavic world. (F. Aristov, page 215)

At the same time, D. wrote the following works: “Appeal of I. G. Naumovich” (1883), in which he tries to defend Fr. John Naumovich for adherence to “schism”, and contrasts the decline of the Galician-Russian Greek Catholic Church, the root of which he sees in Latinization, with the flourishing state of the Orthodox Churches. “Given this state of affairs, no one would probably be surprised if the Russian Uniates, who not without reason attribute to the dogmatic union the threatening danger of losing the institutions of the Greek Church and, moreover, losing their nationality, in order to prevent such a moral death threatening them, abandoned the union itself , have long since returned to the fold of the Greek-Eastern Church” (F. Aristov, p. 178).

In his work “On the modern religious and political situation of Ugric Rus'” (1885), Dobryansky directly advises his fellow countrymen not to expect help from Rome, “which has always punished the Russian people for their loyalty to it,” and in general from “too proud, but, nevertheless, the decrepit West, which has outlived its age.” Further, Dobryansky argues that if the policy of Latinization continues, the return of Galician and Ugric Russians to Orthodoxy will become inevitable and openly calls on readers to take this step, which in the conditions of the Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire was unheard of audacity: “termination of guardianship in the affairs of the Church (we are talking about the guardianship of foreign power) can only be achieved through the reunification of our church with the Orthodox, Greek-Eastern. If the council of Galician-Ugric-Russian Uniates proposed by Dobryansky, designed to resist Latinization, is not convened, “we will not be to blame if all our people follow the example of twelve million of their brothers (we are talking about the reunification of the Belarusian and Kholmsky Uniates), so that in the reunification with Orthodoxy, find an eternal and lasting path to your salvation.” This book was banned in Austria. (F. Aristov, p. 180)

In the book “The Name of the Austro-Ugric Russians” (1885), the author, based on linguistic, philological and historical analysis, shows the identity of the concepts “Rusyn”, “Russian”, “Russian”, “Russian”. This is a polemical work against the official “Austro-Ukrainian propaganda”, which claimed that the names “Russian”, “Ruthensky” refer only to Galicia and Little Russia, and “Russian” and “Russian” - only to the Great Russians. However, Dobryansky illustrates the frivolity of such statements and again declares the ethnic, linguistic and national-cultural unity of all Russian nationalities: “Dobryansky - Sachurov states that all Russian people of Austria-Ugria and Russia call themselves masculine“Rusin”, “rusnak”, or “russkiy”, in the feminine there is only “russka”, and each of them “claims that he speaks “Russian”, without even suspecting it - if he was not taught this at school that philologists and ethnographers are trying to separate Great, Little, White, Chervono and Black Russians from each other” (F.F. Aristov, p. 181).

Adolf Dobryansky is also the author of an important church-political manifesto-article “On the day of the feast of St. Great Martyr Demetrius" (1886), in which he claims that St. Methodius was the archbishop of the autocephalous Slavic church, but after his death the German clergy and the Moravian government that supported him did not allow the appointment of Methodius' successor, who was to be Agathon-Gorazd. The Ugric Church was also Orthodox until the end of the 12th century; the union was concluded only at the end of the 12th century under King Bela the Third. Thus, the Orthodox Church is autochthonous for the entire Slavic world, for the entire eastern and even central Europe, and Catholicism is imposed by German rule.

Dobryansky proposed the creation of a pan-Slavic federation in the following form - Slavic states join Russia on a federal basis.

In addition, Dobryansky was a respondent to many Slavophile figures in Russia, such as, for example, Chief Prosecutor K. P. Pobedonostsev. At their request, he took a principled position against Russian Western liberals and supporters of the reformation of the Church. He was from Galicia and polemicized with them. We are talking about the works “The Calendar Question in Russia and the West” (1894), “The Fruits of the Teaching of Gr. L. N. Tolstoy" (1896) and "Judgment of an Orthodox Galician on the reform of Russian church government, projected by Russian liberals of our time" (1899). In “The Calendar Question,” Dobryansky not only asserts the correctness of the supporters of the Julian calendar based on a detailed study of the calendar issue in the context of church history, but also claims that the Julian calendar “in terms of simplicity, ease and practicality has still remained unsurpassed,” and also voices very a bold, but deeply Orthodox judgment that the Roman Church “can get rid of the papal yoke only by returning to the sound traditional foundations of the Church of Christ, i.e. through reunification with the Orthodox Church" (F. F. Aristov, p. 200)

Dobryansky’s article “The fruits of the teachings of gr. L. N. Tolstoy” was republished by the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Russian Church in two books. In addition to the brilliant theological and philosophical criticism of Tolstoy from an Orthodox position, D. considers the danger of Tolstoyism in a specific historical and political perspective. Denouncing Tolstoy's pacifism and non-resistance, Dobryansky calls him an enemy of the Slavic idea and argues that Tolstoyism could result in the defeat of the Slavs in the inevitable coming Slavic-German war.

In “The Judgment of an Orthodox Galician,” D. critically examines N. Durnovo’s criticism of the activities of the Holy Synod and Russian theological seminaries. Dobryansky defends the authority of the Holy Governing Synod of the Greek-Russian Orthodox Church, opposes attempts at anti-church agitation, points out the danger of both Catholic and Stundist propaganda, especially emphasizes the danger of the spread in Russia of “that indifferent attitude towards religion that has long been known in Western Europe under the name of “non-confessional” or non-religious” (F. Aristov, p. 206).

Adolf Dobryansky-Sachurov died on March 6 (19), 1901. He was buried in the village of Chertezhnoe in Ugric Rus'. Many people from all over Austrian Rus' arrived at the funeral, which was accompanied by a religious procession.

Church schism- Nikon reforms in action

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

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

Prerequisites for reform

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

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

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

Patriarch Nikon

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

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

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

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

Implementation of the reform

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

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

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

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

The Scriptures predetermined the church schism in Russia

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

People's reaction to church schism

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

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

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

What did the reform lead to?

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

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

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

Patriarch's personality

The future patriarch Nikon was born into a peasant family under the name Nikita Minin. His mother died and his stepmother was cruel. Therefore, having learned to read and write from the parish priest, at the age of 12 he became a novice at the monastery. At $24, he returned home, got married and soon became a priest in one of the Moscow churches.

Nikon suffered family grief - his children died in 1635. After this, he decided to leave worldly life, convincing his wife of this as well. Actually, he received the name Nikon after taking monastic vows in the monastery Solovetsky Monastery. Nikon probably had a difficult character, because... after $4$ years he left the monastery due to a conflict. In $1643, Nikon became abbot Kozheozersky Monastery.

In $1646, Nikon met the Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich, appearing, according to the rule, to bow. The king decided to keep him with him, and the patriarch Joseph ordained Nikon an archimandrite Novospassky Monastery.

At the same time Nikon entered the circle "zealots of ancient piety". It was a group of ecclesiastical and secular persons, headed by the tsar's confessor Stefan Vonifatiev. The goal of the circle of “zealots” was to revive morality, develop education throughout the state, and renew the church. The “zealots” were engaged in the translation of liturgical literature, revived the practice of preaching from the pulpit, as well as unanimity against polyphony, which reduced the duration of the service.

In $1649$ the Patriarch of Jerusalem Paisiy elevated Nikon to the rank of Archbishop of Novgorod. During his stay in Moscow, Nikon became very close to the tsar. Therefore, when Patriarch Joseph died in $1652, the tsar wanted to see only Nikon in this rank, although the “zealots of piety” nominated Stefan Vonifatiev. When accepting the rank, Nikon made the tsar promise not to interfere in church affairs.

Note 1

Moreover, Alexei Mikhailovich gave Nikon the title of great sovereign, placing him on a par with himself.

Reform

Participation in the circle of “zealots of piety” convinced Nikon of the need for church reform. It was necessary to bring rituals and literature into line with Greek models.

In his endeavors, Nikon faced protest from former like-minded people. The fact is that the “zealots” refused to take the updated Greek books as a basis, but proposed corrections according to ancient Russian models. Nikon, who did not receive a proper education due to his background, relied in these matters on Arseniy Grek, whom he made his closest assistant.

So, in $1653, Nikon ordered to make the sign of the cross with three, rather than two, fingers. Other changes followed. The reform was approved by the councils of $1654 and $1656. Thus, in $1654, the cathedral began editing church books, using printed Greek books from the 16th century as a basis. In $1656, those who crossed themselves with two fingers were branded and anathematized.

The people took the reform hard, since for the consciousness of a person in the $17th century. it was too drastic a change. In addition, Russian Orthodoxy was perceived as superior to Greek. In addition, the harshness of the patriarch himself added fuel to the fire.

Nikon's active work included monastery construction. He founded Valdai Iversky Monastery in $1653$. Then he founded monastery on the island of Kiy And Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery in the Moscow region.

Opal

Alexei Mikhailovich entrusted Nikon with too much power, which caused discontent among the boyars. Nikon himself was strongly against Cathedral Code, because it limited church privileges. These facts, coupled with the difficult character of the patriarch and intrigues, led to a quarrel. In $1658 Nikon left Moscow without permission, as an act of protest.

In $1660, Nikon was almost deprived of his dignity, but it was decided to convene a court of the Eastern Patriarchs. Paisius of Alexandria And Macarius of Antioch profits only in $1666$, having opened Great Church Cathedral. Nikon's trial took place on December 12, and his crimes were listed in the defrocking document. Nikon became a simple monk and was exiled to Ferapontov Monastery.

Nikon died in $1681 on the way to the New Jerusalem Monastery, where the Tsar allowed him to return Fedor Alekseevich.