Since its formation, the Russian Orthodox Church has been distinguished by extraordinary unity. Periodic attempts to split it into several religious movements and camps were unsuccessful. Even in cases of differences in views on major church issues, followers of one or another group did not experience outright hostility. They tried to prove they were right by referring to church texts and canons. Moreover, they always acted only for the benefit of Christianity in Rus'.
The most serious religious dispute in the Middle Ages was the conflict between two elders - Nil of Sorsky and Joseph of Volotsky. Both of them were considered the most prominent Orthodox figures of that time and wrote many works on the topic of Christianity. In many ways, their fates are very similar, as are their views on the place of the church in the state system. However, one issue on which they strongly disagreed marked the beginning of a long confrontation between their followers.
To describe the situation briefly, Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky actually formed two movements - non-acquisitives and Josephites, who were often later used by the princely authorities in their own interests. However, this situation must be considered consistently.
Brief biography of Nil Sorsky
Despite the fact that Nil Sorsky is a prominent figure in the Russian Orthodox Church of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, very little reliable information about him has survived. Some researchers who carefully studied the life of the elder believe that much was hidden intentionally, and the recording of his sayings at the Council and after it was corrected. We cannot prove or disprove this information, so we will refer to official information.
The biography of Nil Sorsky briefly represents only information about his origin and monastic affairs. Little is known about what he did before his tonsure. Historians claim that the future ascetic was born in 1433 into a fairly wealthy boyar family. Some sources mention that Neil spent a long time rewriting books, which indicates a high level of his education for those times. The church leader very quickly mastered the skill of writing and was even known as a cursive writer. This was very rare in medieval Rus'.
It is believed that Neil received his education at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, where he lived almost from childhood. It is interesting that in addition to Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky spent some time in this monastery. The future opponents knew each other and often spent time together having religious conversations.
Neil took monastic vows in the same monastery, but felt a great desire for travel and pilgrimage. He left his monastery and managed to travel through many lands, where he carefully studied Christian traditions. The years on Mount Athos made a particularly great impression on this Orthodox figure. He had deep respect for the elder monks, largely adopting their views on faith and life in general.
Returning home, he left the monastery, forming his own monastery. In "The Life of Nil Sorsky" this period is described in some detail. The Sorsk Hermitage, as the monks quickly began to call it, was a rather harsh place where no more than twelve monks lived at a time.
The elder died in 1508, never knowing what turn his disagreements with the Monk Joseph of Volotsk would take. Even before his death, the elder bequeathed to leave his body in the desert accessible to animals and birds. Despite his services to the church, Nil Sorsky was never canonized. In ancient chronicles there are prayers and canons addressed to him. However, they never took root, and centuries later they were forgotten.
Biography of Joseph Volotsky
A little more information has been preserved about this elder than Sorsk. Therefore, compiling his biography is much easier.
The future enlightener Joseph Volotsky was born into a noble family. Everyone in his family was very pious and chose the path of salvation for themselves at a fairly early age. And Joseph’s grandfather and grandmother even spent the rest of their lives as monks.
The Monk Joseph of Volotsky was born in the fall of 1439 in a village that belonged to his family for a long time. Little is known about the childhood years of the Orthodox ascetic. In chronicle sources he is mentioned only from the age of seven, when he was sent to be raised in the Volokolamsk monastery. There he showed great ability for science and piety.
From a very early age, Joseph thought about serving God, and life in the monastery helped strengthen him in this decision. At the age of twenty, the young man took monastic vows. It is worth noting that he was distinguished by humility, asceticism and had a craving for writing texts. This set him apart from the general number of monastic brethren.
He found his place in the Borovsk monastery, where he spent more than a dozen years. Initially, the enlightener Joseph Volotsky performed a variety of work, which was assigned to him as monastic obedience. He gained work experience in a bakery, hospital, and kitchen. The young monk also sang in the church choir and wrote Orthodox works. Over time, he completely renounced the bustle of the world.
However, at this time Joseph's father became seriously ill. He was completely exhausted and could not even get out of bed. The son, having asked for a blessing, took his father to his cell, where he accepted monasticism. Joseph spent fifteen long years caring for his father.
After the death of the abbot of the Borovsk monastery, this position passed to the future holy elder. However, he did not manage the monastery for long. Joseph's asceticism and his ideas about monastic life did not please the brothers and the Grand Duke. As a result, the ascetic left the monastery along with seven elders. For several years they moved from one monastery to another and finally decided to found their own monastery. This is how the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery arose.
In the last years of his life, Joseph Volokolamsky (Volotsky) was very ill. He prayed incessantly, but even when his strength left him, he attended the service lying down. The brothers brought him to the temple on a special stretcher and left him in a niche intended for this purpose.
The elder passed away in the fall of 1515.
Canonization of St. Joseph
For his services to the Orthodox Church, Joseph Volotsky was awarded canonization. It occurred 64 years after his death. The relics of the saint are kept to this day in the monastery he founded. In addition, you can also see his chains there. About nine years ago, a monument to the great ascetic Joseph Volotsky was unveiled near the monastery.
How does this saint help? Orthodox Christians often ask this question when reading the troparion to the elder. It is impossible to find this information in ancient chronicles, since only a few years ago Patriarch Kirill blessed the saint to help in a certain area.
So what does Joseph Volotsky help with? This elder needs to pray to those who are waiting for help in the field of Orthodox entrepreneurship. The saint patronizes such people and helps them conduct their affairs.
Types of monastic life
We have already mentioned that the fates of Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky are in many ways similar. Therefore, it is not surprising that each of them at one time became the founder of an Orthodox monastery. However, by their very essence these monasteries were completely different.
The fact is that if we consider monastic life according to a certain typology, it turns out that the monasteries under construction and those already in operation could be of three types:
- Dormitory. This is the most common category of monastic structure in Rus'. It implies the presence of an extensive farm at the monastery, sometimes amounting to several nearby villages. Such a quantity of land required reasonable management, but often led the abbots into temptation. Therefore, in Russian monasteries, morals were not always appropriate for people who dedicated their lives to serving the Lord.
- Loneliness. Rare monks turned into hermits. They chose absolute loneliness and followed it into remote places, where they built very modest housing for themselves. Most often it was a small dugout or something like a hut. There the hermit spent all his time in prayer and serving God. He ate the gifts of the earth, but usually this category of monks lived from hand to mouth, thereby subduing their flesh.
- Skete life. This type of monastic monastery is a cross between the two already described. The monasteries were built like small monasteries with two or three cells. The monks had to earn their living by labor, and devote any free time to prayer. Natural phenomena in the monasteries were manifestations of asceticism and the imposition of certain restrictions on the flesh.
Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky had serious differences in views on the organization of monastic life. Therefore, when founding monasteries, everyone approached this process from the point of view of best serving God.
The views of Nil Sorsky on the life of monks differed significantly from those accepted in the Middle Ages. He believed that monasteries should not have large households. Ultimately, this leads to a desire to expand their land holdings, which is extremely far from the covenants of Christ. The elder was worried that the abbots were trying to accumulate as much gold and wealth in their hands as possible, gradually forgetting about their true purpose. Nil Sorsky also considered loneliness an unsuitable option for serving the Lord. The Enlightener argued that not every monk alone can avoid becoming embittered. Usually a person runs wild, loses his purpose and cannot fulfill the commandment to love his neighbor. After all, there are never people near hermits, so they do not show concern for anyone alive.
The elder considered living in a monastery to be the best option for serving God. Therefore, having returned to his homeland, he hastened to retire into the dense forests. Having gone fifteen miles from the Cyril Monastery, Nil found a secluded place above the Sora River, where he founded his monastery.
Followers of Nil Sorsky adhered to his views on monasticism. All the inhabitants of the monastery worked tirelessly, because this was the only thing they were allowed to do, besides prayers. Monks had no right to engage in worldly affairs. It was believed that only a very sick monk could be released from work. Usually the elder insisted that those who do not want to work should not eat. This view of monastic life was quite harsh. However, many considered the elder a holy man and sought to find peace and wisdom in the territory of the Sorsk Hermitage.
Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery
The views of another Orthodox enlightener of the Middle Ages are difficult to summarize briefly. Joseph Volotsky brought them to life during the construction of his monastery.
In 1479, the elder left the Borovsk monastery, where he spent several decades, and set off on a journey with seven followers. The wise abbot, staying in the surrounding monasteries, passed himself off as a simple novice. However, some monks, communicating with him, noticed unprecedented spiritual experience and depth of knowledge.
It is known that the elder spent a long time in the Kirillo-Belozersk monastery. This is where Joseph Volotsky and Nil Sorsky met. After some time, the monk and seven of his followers stopped near the city of Ruza. The elder decided that this was the place where he needed to establish a monastery. In addition, his father’s ancestral land holdings were nearby.
Joseph turned to the Volotsk prince for help. Boris was a very pious man, so with great pleasure he offered the elder several people who knew the local forests very well and could point out the best places. Some time later, Joseph Volotsky laid the foundation of a temple on the river bank.
Prince Boris favored the elder, so he immediately granted the new monastery land on which several villages were located. A little later, he increased the monastery’s holdings, giving it two more settlements. Subsequently, the prince’s heirs adopted the tradition of supporting the monastery. They often helped the monks with food; the luxurious decoration of the temple was also mainly donated by the princely family.
Initially, the novices and monks of the monastery were commoners and those monks who came with Joseph from the Borovsk monastery. However, over time, noble people who were close to the prince also began to take tonsure.
It is worth noting that the regulations in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery were very strict. Not everyone who came here to fulfill their duty of serving God was able to stay in the monastery. The monks worked very hard every day and spent their free time writing religious books. The abbot believed that only this would help him completely get rid of worldly vanity and open his soul to God. Joseph himself, until his old age, took part in general work along with the other monks. He did not even shy away from hard work, believing that this is what every resident of the monastery should do.
Background to the conflict between the elders
The main disagreements between Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky at the beginning of the 16th century arose due to their attitude towards land ownership. To fully understand the essence of this dispute, you need to take a more detailed look at the Orthodox Church in Rus' of that period.
Monasteries have always been considered an abode of peace and goodness, where a person can come to hide from the bustle of the world. Initially, such places were an example of asceticism and labor, but over time the monasteries began to acquire wealth and lands, which were donated to them by princes and boyars. Often there were villages on their lands, which, together with all the inhabitants, became the property of the abbots. The temples at the monasteries themselves shone with gold and precious stones. All the decorations in them were also gifts from parishioners.
The abbots, who ran the monastery and controlled real wealth, over time ceased to be examples of meekness and humility. They actively intervened in princely politics, influenced the adoption of certain decisions and plunged deeper and deeper into worldly life.
In the fifteenth century, the enrichment of monasteries became widespread. During this period of time, there were ideas about the last years of the world's existence. Therefore, many made wills in favor of church monasteries in the hope of avoiding hellfire. Many priests received their next appointment only through a monetary contribution, which in no way connected with the very idea of Christianity.
All these excesses very seriously worried the leaders of the church. In addition, by the beginning of the sixteenth century, heretical movements began to emerge en masse in Rus'. Their representatives first of all pointed out to the clergy their acquisitiveness and love of money. The situation was becoming critical and required an immediate solution.
Cathedral of 1504
The dispute between Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky occurred at a church council, when the issue of monastic possessions arose on the agenda. Elder Nil believed that the monasteries should completely renounce the ownership of lands and other riches. Using the example of his monastery, he sought to convince those gathered of the need to live only by their labors and not take any donations from the people.
Naturally, this view of monasticism did not suit all church ministers. And Joseph Volotsky acted as a counterbalance to Sorsky. Despite the fact that he adhered to strict views on the monastic rule and life, the monk was confident that the monastery should have wealth and land. But he considered their main purpose to be helping the poor. In difficult times, up to five hundred people could find shelter in the monastery of Abbot Volotsky. They all received shelter and food.
In addition, Elder Joseph spoke at the council about monasteries as centers of literacy in Rus'. It was possible to get an education, read a book or the work of clergy only within the walls of monasteries. Therefore, depriving them of wealth would automatically exclude the possibility of helping people and teaching them.
After the speech of the ascetics, those present were divided into two camps. Later they began to be called non-covetous and Josephites. We will tell you a little more about each group.
Non-acquisitive: the essence of the movement
The philosophy of Nil Sorsky and his speeches at the church council gave impetus to the emergence of such a movement as non-covetous people. The elder, in support of his judgments, cited the fact that when taking monastic vows, monks always took an oath of non-covetousness. Therefore, ownership of any property, including in the form of monastic lands, was considered a direct violation of the vow.
The elder’s followers also had their own attitude towards princely power. It was automatically placed above the church itself. The prince was represented by Nil Sorsky as a wise, fair and worthy person who could well perform the function of a church administrator.
The elder believed that all the lands belonging to the monasteries should be distributed to the princes, so that they could thank their people for their faithful service with the land allotment. In turn, non-possessors hoped to receive from the state in return broad opportunities in terms of resolving religious issues. Nil Sorsky was confident that due to the renunciation of worldly affairs, the monks would be able to devote more time to their direct duty - prayer. At the same time, they could live only by their labor and minor alms. But the monks themselves were obliged to give alms to all the poor, regardless of their condition and position.
Josephites: Key Ideas
The philosophy of Joseph Volotsky was close to many church leaders. The Josephites argued that a healthy Orthodox Church should have at its disposal lands, villages, libraries and material wealth. Followers of Joseph Volotsky believed that such opportunities had a beneficial effect on the development of the monastic movement and Orthodoxy itself.
Thanks to their wealth, the monasteries were able to help everyone in need of food in times of famine and support the poor who came to the monastery for help. In addition, the church received the opportunity to give alms and perform a missionary function. That is, monasteries and other monasteries had to spend all their wealth on helping people, which is fully consistent with the ideas of Christianity.
In addition, the Josephites categorically condemned any heresy. They defended the position of suppressing any dissent, up to and including the physical destruction of heretics.
Milestones of the struggle between two church movements
To describe the situation briefly, Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky first expressed their views on the monastic possessions at the cathedral. This caused fierce debate, but the church ministers still decided in favor of the Josephites. Many historians believe that this only happened because they were in the overwhelming majority.
However, not everyone was happy with this outcome of the situation. The fact is that in the sixteenth century the size of Muscovite Rus' was relatively small. And the number of nobles claiming the favor of the prince in the form of a land plot was constantly increasing. All this forced the head of state to look at church plots with great interest. But still the princes did not dare to take any action towards them.
After the end of the council, the question of heretics remained open. Non-covetous people believed that they should not be destroyed, since every sinner has a chance to repent. The Josephites, in turn, increasingly ardently defended the position of using physical punishment for heresy. A few years after the end of the council, their influence increased, so the church adopted a decision on heretics, proposed by the followers of Elder Volotsky.
For many years the struggle between the two religious movements did not take any serious turn. But soon the behavior of Prince Vasily III began to be condemned by non-covetous people. The reason for the first such attack against the princely authorities was Vasily’s divorce. He could not have children with his legal wife, so he filed for divorce and chose a new wife. Since the only reason for divorce that the church could support was adultery, non-possessors publicly condemned the prince’s act. Vasily III did not dare to take action against representatives of this movement; he hoped that history would be forgotten over time. But soon another unpleasant situation arose for the prince - he imprisoned representatives of a noble family, whom he himself summoned to himself and even greeted quite cordially. The non-covetous Vasily Patrikeev again condemned the complete meanness. The prince decided to imprison him in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, where he soon died.
From that moment on, the Josephites were in favor in power. Subsequently, their representatives more than once had a serious influence on events in the state. For example, it was they who became the ideologists of the introduction of the oprichnina, managed to strengthen in the minds of the people the idea of the divinity of princely power, achieved the introduction of the status of the patriarchate relative to the Moscow Metropolis, and also tried with all their might to glorify Rus' and raise its authority in the international arena.
Follower of John Climacus
Nil Sorsky is a famous figure in the Russian church. Information about him is scarce and fragmentary. Born around 1433, he belonged to a peasant family; his nickname was Maykov. Before entering monasticism, Neil copied books and was a “cursive writer.” More accurate information finds Neil already a monk. Nile took monastic vows at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery.
At this time, the Kirilov Monastery was already receiving special attention from the Moscow Grand Dukes and Tsars, was well established and quickly grew rich, which, in the opinion of young Neil, did not contribute to a lifestyle according to the law of God. This prompted him to leave the monastery.
“Wasn’t my departure from the monastery (Kirillov) for the sake of spiritual benefit? - Neil writes in one of his messages, “To her, for her sake, because I did not see in him the preservation of a way of life, according to the law of God and the tradition of our fathers, but according to my own will and human thought; There were also many who, acting so perversely, dreamed that they were still living a virtuous life.”
He decided to make a pilgrimage to Palestine.
It remains unknown how and in what way Nil Sorsky met and communicated with the followers of John Climacus, but throughout his subsequent life and activities he can be confidently attributed to the preachers of the Sinaite school.
Considering that during his pilgrimage to the East, to Palestine, Constantinople and Athos, Neil spent a particularly long time on Athos, it can be assumed that it was here that he became acquainted with the works of the Sinai. It is especially necessary to note Neil’s acquaintance with the works of John Climacus, with his “Ladder,” references to which are constantly present in his works.
It is known that already in the X-XI centuries. “The Ladder” was translated from Greek into Slavic in Bulgaria. In the XIV century. Another translation was made in Serbia, with the participation of Georgiy Brankovich and under the leadership of Metropolitan Savvaty. Both of these translations were known in ancient Rus'.
If we do not take into account the fact that the Ladder is a scholastic presentation of what was seen in revelation by John Climacus, then the treatise can be perceived as a process of struggle with one’s own passions and vices, a process of spiritual purification on the path of ascension along the Path of God. Moreover, the monk finds his main help in the constant thought of death. Naturally, at the same time, Lestivitsa does not provide a strict and accurate psychological analysis of a person’s gradual internal self-improvement and is perceived as separate descriptions of various phases of mental state, not always clearly demarcated. It can be assumed that this is where the followers of John Climacus developed the so-called “mystical” branch in theology, which, thanks to Nilus of Sora, also appeared in the theology of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Neil was deeply imbued with the idea of direct conversation between man and God. Here are a few fragments from the main work of Nil Sorsky, “From the writings of the Holy Fathers on mental activity, heartfelt and mental preservation, why this is necessary, and how it should be taken care of this”: “...when (when) this ineffable thing happens joy and prayer are cut off from the lips, for then the mouth and the tongue, and the heart (which is) the guardian of thoughts (desires), and the mind, the pilot of feelings, and thought, the fast-flying and shameless bird, will cease... And the mind does not pray with prayer, but above prayer it happens... by spiritual action the soul will move towards the Divine, and will be formed like the Divine by an incomprehensible union, and will be illuminated by a ray (ray) of high light in its movements... I see the light, the world cannot have it, sitting in the middle of the cell on the bed ; within myself I see the Creator of the world, and I talk, and I love... and united to Him, I transcend the heavens... He loves me and He accepts me in Himself... alive in heaven, and in my heart, here and there... and behold, the Lord equally shows me to the angels and does better than them: below, because by those he is invisible in essence, by nature he is unapproachable; I see that everything is there, and my nature has mixed with its being” (that is, merged into one with me in this heavenly “dialogue”). As we note, in a true “conversation” with God, a person, according to the conviction of Nil Sorsky, is capable, from the point of view of the completeness of “union” with Him, to “surpass” (of course, according to the creative will of God) even the angels themselves...”
It is in this vein that Nil Sorsky perceives the phenomenon of “mental prayer” described by him (which, as he says, is “above prayer”) and in the final section (“Charter”) of his work insists that “mental prayer is above all in monastic activity, just as the love of God is the head of all virtues. And the one who shamelessly and boldly strives to come to God in order to converse with Him purely and to infuse Him into himself with compulsion...” At the same time, pointing out the most reliable “middle” path to “conversation” with God, referring to John Climacus.
“Medium: silently staying with one, going with two is much more reliable. For, he says, woe to one when he falls into despondency, or sleep, or laziness, or despair; no, who would raise him up and encourage him at that hour. As proof of this, he cites the verb of the Lord himself: where there are two or three congregations in My name, I am in the midst of them. And the saying of the Wise One: the blessings of two are greater than one, that is, it is good for father and son, with the assistance of the Divine Spirit, to walk together the path of monastic feat...”
In this regard, the closeness of the works of Nil Sorsky to Dostoevsky, which made a very strong impression on him, is understandable.
This circumstance also influenced the further fate of Nil Sorsky, who in the theological dispute on the issue of mental prayer and the Light of Tabor, like all Sinaiites, took the position of hesychasm.
In the 14th century, on Mount Athos, and then throughout the Greek Church, a curious theological and philosophical dispute arose on the issue of “smart” prayer and the Light of Tabor between Barlaam of Calabria, Nikephoros Gregoras, Akindinos, Patriarch John the Cripple, and others on the one hand, and others. Gregory of Sinaite, St. Gregory Palamas, Metropolitan of Thessaloniki (1297-1360), monk David, Theophan of Nikia, Nicholas Kavasila and Patriarchs Kalmit and Philotheus - on the other. The latter belonged to the defenders of the so-called “smart” doing - a special type of prayerful contemplation or so-called hesychasm. The opposing party considered such contemplation to be a non-Christian matter, called the hesychasts omphalopsyches (i.e., pupoums) and recognized the light on Tabor as a light created for the enlightenment of the apostles and which disappeared without a trace. She reasoned according to a syllogism: everything visible was created, the light on Tabor was visible, therefore it was created. The Hesychasts or “Palamites” saw in the Tabor Light a mysterious manifestation of Divine glory, the “Ever-Everlasting Light.” The struggle, in connection with changes on the imperial throne and attempts to unite churches, continued long and stubbornly (councils of 1341 (two), 1347, 1351 and 1352) and ended in the victory of the Gr. Palamas after his death. His teaching was recognized as truly Orthodox at the council of 1368, and he himself was canonized. Most of the documents and works of both sides have not yet been published: of the 60 works related here by St. Gregory Palamas, only one has been published - Θεοφάνης. Views on the struggle of the Varlaamites and Palamites are different: I. E. Troitsky, P. V. Bezobrazov, A. S. Lebedev consider it a struggle between the white clergy and the black, a struggle that appeared in the 13th century, in the so-called case. arsenites; O. I. Uspensky sees in it the struggle of the Aristotelians with the Neoplatonists and brings the hesychasts closer to the Bogomils; K. Radchenko finds here a struggle between Western rationalistic scholasticism and Eastern mysticism. Some things in the teachings of the hesychasts are similar to the teachings of the Western mystics Erigena and Eckart. Their teaching was included in the famous monastic collection “Philokalia.”
Considering this circumstance and the reasons for Neil’s departure from the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, it can be assumed that from his pilgrimage he returned (between 1473 and 1489) to another Kirillov monastery, where since the time of the founder himself there had been a mute protest against the landowning rights of monasticism. The rector of this monastery, the Venerable Kirill, himself more than once refused the villages that were offered to his monastery by pious laymen; the same views were adopted by his closest students, the “Trans-Volga elders.”
But even here Nile, as a follower of the Sinai, could not be content with the dominance of appearance that he encountered in Russian monasticism and in Russian piety in general. He moved fifteen miles from the monastery, to the Sora River, where he founded a monastery, built himself a chapel and a cell, and then, when several brethren “who were of his liking” came to him, he built a church. Thus, a monastic partnership was founded, but on completely different principles than all Russian monasteries.
He devotes himself to a closed, solitary life, being especially interested in book studies. He tries to justify all his actions on the direct instructions of “divine scripture”, as the only source of knowledge of the moral and religious duties of man. Continuing to rewrite books, he subjects the copied material to more or less thorough criticism. He copies “from different lists, trying to find the right one,” and makes a compilation of the most correct one: comparing the lists and finding “many uncorrected things” in them, he tries to correct them “as far as his poor mind can.” If another passage seems “wrong” to him, but there is no reason to correct it, he leaves a gap in the manuscript, with a note in the margins: “It’s not right from here in the lists,” or: “Where in another translation will be found a more famous (more correct) than this “Let it be honored there,” and sometimes leaves entire pages blank. In general, he only writes off what is “possible according to reason and truth...”. All these features, which sharply distinguish the nature of Nil Sorsky’s book studies and his very view of the “scriptures” from the usual ones that prevailed in his time, could not be in vain for him.
The coincidence of the views of Nil of Sorsky and the “Trans-Volga elders” becomes clear, since Nil, as it were, theoretically substantiated their positions from the theological side, becoming the first of the Russian clergy to bring the views of the Sinai to Russia, and the founder of the monastery life.
It can be assumed that it was precisely thanks to the example of his monastic service and the mentorship of Paisiy Yaroslavov that Nil Sorsky was recognized as the head of the Trans-Volga elders. Since these views are not welcomed by the official Orthodox Church, it becomes clear why the church still does not canonize St. Nilus of Sorsky.
Grouped around him, besides Paisius himself, were Vassian Patrikev, Elder Herman († 1533), Gury Tushin († 1526), Cassian, bishop. Ryazan, Trinity abbot Porfiry and other elders of the Trans-Volga monasteries. Led by Nil Sorsky, the elders strove for moral improvement through a critical, conscious study of the Holy Scriptures.
It is no coincidence that Nile’s main work is the monastery charter, in 11 chapters, in which the influence of the “Ladder” of John Climacus is especially clearly visible. The general direction of N. Sorsky's thoughts is strictly ascetic, but in a more internal, spiritual sense than the majority of Russian monasticism of that time understood asceticism. Monasticism, according to Neil, should not be physical, but spiritual, and requires not external mortification of the flesh, but internal, spiritual self-improvement. The soil of monastic exploits is not the flesh, but the thought and the heart. It is unnecessary to intentionally weaken or kill your body: the weakness of the body can hinder the feat of moral self-improvement. A monk can and must nourish and support the body “as needed without mala”, even “calm it down in mala”, forgiving of physical weaknesses, illness, and old age.
Neil does not sympathize with excessive fasting. He is an enemy of all appearance in general; he considers it unnecessary to have expensive vessels, gold or silver, in churches, or to decorate churches: not a single person has yet been condemned by God for not decorating churches. Churches should be free from all splendor; in them you need to have only what is necessary, “found everywhere and conveniently purchased.” Rather than donate in church, it is better to give to the poor. The feat of moral self-improvement of a monk must be rational and conscious. A monk must go through it not due to compulsions and instructions, but “with consideration” and “do everything with reasoning.” The Nile demands from the monk not mechanical obedience, but consciousness in the feat. Sharply rebelling against “arbitraries” and “self-offenders,” he does not destroy personal freedom. The personal will of a monk (and equally of every person) must obey, according to Nile, only one authority - the “divine scriptures”. “Testing” the divine scriptures and studying them is the main duty of a monk. The unworthy life of a monk, and indeed of a person in general, solely depends, in Neil’s opinion, “from the holy scriptures that do not tell us...”. The study of divine scriptures, however, must be combined with a critical attitude towards the total mass of written material: “there is a lot of scripture, but not all is divine.” This idea of criticism was one of the most characteristic in the views of both Nile himself and all the “Trans-Volga elders” - and for the majority of literates of that time it was completely unusual. In the eyes of the latter, any “book” at all was something indisputable and divinely inspired. And the books of Holy Scripture in the strict sense, and the works of the church fathers, and the lives of the saints, and the rules of St. apostles and councils, and interpretations of these rules, and additions to the interpretations that appeared later, finally, even various kinds of Greek “graduate laws”, i.e. decrees and orders of the Byzantine emperors, and other additional articles included in the Helmsman - all this, in the eyes of the ancient Russian reader, was equally unchanged, equally authoritative. Joseph of Volokolamsk, one of the most learned people of his time, directly, for example, argued that the mentioned “graduate laws” “are similar to the prophetic and apostolic and holy ones. father of the scriptures,” and boldly called the collection of Nikon Chernogorets “divinely inspired scriptures.” It is understandable, therefore, that Joseph reproaches Nilus of Sorsky and his disciples that they “blasphemed the miracle workers in the Russian land,” as well as those “who in ancient times and in the local (foreign) lands were former miracle workers, who believed in miracles, and from the scriptures I have squandered their wonders."
Striving for the evangelical ideal, N. Sorsky - like the entire movement at the head of which he stood - does not hide his condemnation of the disorder that he saw in the majority of modern Russian monasticism. From the general view of the essence and goals of the monastic vow, Nile’s energetic protest against monastic property directly followed. Neil considers all property, not just wealth, to be contrary to monastic vows. The monk is denied the world and everything “in it” - how can he then waste time worrying about worldly property, lands, and riches? Monks must feed exclusively on their own labors, and can even accept alms only in extreme cases. They must not “not exactly have no property, but neither desire to acquire it”... What is obligatory for a monk is just as obligatory for a monastery: a monastery is only a meeting of people with the same goals and aspirations, and what is reprehensible for a monk is also reprehensible for the monastery. The noted features were apparently joined by Nile himself in religious tolerance, which appeared so sharply in the writings of his closest disciples.
Despite his book studies and love for a closed, solitary life, Nil Sorsky took part in two of the most important issues of his time: about the attitude towards the so-called “Novgorod heretics” and about monastic estates. In the first case, we can only assume his influence (together with his teacher Paisiy Yaroslavov); in the second case, on the contrary, he acted as the initiator. In the case of the Novgorod heretics, both Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky apparently held more tolerant views than most of the Russian hierarchs of that time, with Gennady of Novgorod and Joseph Volotsky at their head.
In 1489, the Novgorod bishop Gennady, entering into the fight against heresy and reporting it to the Rostov archbishop, asked the latter to consult with the learned elders Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky who lived in his diocese and to involve them in the fight. Gennady himself wants to talk with the learned elders and even invites them to his place. The results of Gennady’s efforts are unknown: it seems that they were not quite what he wanted. At least, we no longer see any relations between Gennady either with Paisius or with Nile; The main fighter against heresy, Joseph of Volokolamsk, does not address them either. Meanwhile, both elders were not indifferent to heresy: both of them were present at the council of 1490, which examined the case of heretics, and almost influenced the very decision of the council. Initially, all the hierarchs “stood strong” and unanimously declared that “everyone (all heretics) deserves to be burned” - and in the end the council limited itself to cursing two or three heretical priests, depriving them of their rank and sending them back to Gennady.
The most important fact in the life of Nil Sorsky was his protest against the landownership rights of monasteries at the 1503 council in Moscow. When the council was already nearing its end, Nil Sorsky, supported by other Kirill-6elozersky elders, raised the issue of monastic estates, which at that time amounted to a third of the entire state territory and were the cause of demoralization of monasticism.
“In his opinion, in general, only that property was recognized as legitimate and pleasing to God, which was acquired by one’s own labor. The monks, condemning themselves to a pious life, were supposed to serve as an example of righteousness for the whole world; on the contrary, owning estates, they not only do not renounce the world, but become participants in all the untruths associated with the patrimonial government of that time. This is how the question of non-covetousness was posed. Ivan III liked this proposal, although for selfish reasons Ivan Vasilyevich extended the issue of owning real estate not only to monastery, but also to bishop’s property. The council, consisting of bishops and monks, naturally armed itself against this proposal with all its might and put forward a whole series of proofs of the legality and benefits of monastic power over estates, proofs compiled mainly by Joseph Volotsky. His work pointed out that monasteries, at their own expense, support the poor, wanderers, commemorate those who gave contributions, and therefore they need candles, bread and incense; the author gave examples from the Old Testament, from Byzantine laws, from conciliar definitions; recalled that the Russian princes, starting from the very first, gave contributions to monasteries, registered villages and, finally, provided the most convincing evidence that if there were no monasteries in villages, then noble and noble people should not be tonsured in them, and in this case there will be nowhere to get metropolitans and other bishops from in Rus'. The cathedral took over. Ivan could not do anything against his decision. From then on, Joseph became a notorious and irreconcilable enemy of the Nile.
The question of heretics was added to the question of monastic property. Nilus, in accordance with his complacency, was indignant at the cruel measures that Joseph preached against heretics, especially because the latter demanded execution of such heretics who brought repentance. Then, of course, with the knowledge of Nile, and perhaps even himself, a witty message was written on behalf of the Belozersk elders, denouncing Joseph.
Joseph burst out with an accusatory message against Nile, reproaching his followers for opinions contrary to Orthodoxy, that, while sympathizing with heretics, he calls them martyrs, does not honor and blaspheme the ancient Russian wonderworkers, does not believe in their miracles, teaches monks to shun community life, does not order them to take care of the splendor of churches and decorate icons with gold and silver. Thus, Joseph wanted to give a criminal meaning, calling them heresy, to the preference that Nile gave to internal piety over external...
Moreover, Nile gave rise to a negative interpretation of his actions by the fact that he was critical of the various lives of saints and threw out from them what he considered a later addition.”
A zealous fighter for the idea of Nil Sorsky was his closest student, Prince Patrikeev, monk Vassian, former boyar Vasily Ivanovich, tonsured forcibly by Ivan Vasilyevich, nicknamed Kosy, grandson of the sister of Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich.
Nil Sorsky himself could see only the beginning of the struggle he had excited; he died in 1508. Before his death, Neil wrote a “Testament”, asking his disciples to “throw his body in the desert, so that animals and birds may eat it, for he has sinned against God many times and is unworthy of burial.” The disciples did not fulfill this request: they buried him with honor.
Despite the fact that Nil Sorsky is not formally canonized; Manuscripts occasionally contain traces of services to him (troparion, kontakion, ikos), but it seems that this was only a local attempt, and even then it was not established. But throughout our ancient literature, only N. Sorsky, in the titles of his few works, retained the name of the “great old man.”
Famous figure of the Russian church. Information about him is scarce and fragmentary. Genus. around 1433, belonged to a peasant family; his nickname was Maykov. Before entering monasticism, Neil was engaged in copying books and was a “cursive writer.” More accurate information finds Neil already a monk. Nile took monastic vows in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, where since the time of the founder there had been a mute protest against the landowning rights of monasticism. The Monk Kirill himself more than once refused villages that were offered to his monastery by pious laymen; the same views were adopted by his closest students (“Trans-Volga elders”; see). Having traveled to the East, to Palestine, Constantinople and Athos, Nile spent a particularly long time on Athos, and it was perhaps to Athos that he owed most of all the contemplative direction of his ideas.
Neil Sorsky. Icon with Life
Upon returning to Russia (between 1473 and 89), Neil founded a monastery, gathered around him a few followers “who were of his kind,” and devoted himself to a closed, solitary life, being especially interested in book studies. He tries to base all his actions on the direct instructions of “divine scripture”, as the only source of knowledge of the moral and religious duties of man. Continuing to rewrite books, he subjects the copied material to more or less thorough criticism. He copies “from different lists, trying to find the right one”, makes a compilation of the most correct one: comparing the lists and finding “much uncorrected” in them, he tries to correct it, “as far as his bad mind can.” If another passage seems “wrong” to him, but there is nothing to correct, he leaves a gap in the manuscript, with a note in the margins: “It is not right from here in the lists,” or: “Where in another translation will be found a more famous (more correct) than this , tamo let it be honored,” and sometimes leaves entire pages blank. In general, he only writes off what is “possible according to reason and truth...”. All these features, which sharply distinguish the nature of Nil Sorsky’s book studies and his very view of the “scriptures” from the usual ones that prevailed in his time, could not be in vain for him. Despite his book studies and love for a closed, solitary life, Nil Sorsky took part in two of the most important issues of his time: about the attitude towards the so-called. "Novgorod heretics" and about monastery estates. In the first case, we can only assume his influence (together with his teacher Paisiy Yaroslavov); in the second case, on the contrary, he acted as the initiator. In the case of the Novgorod heretics, both Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky apparently held more tolerant views than most of the Russian hierarchs of that time, with Gennady of Novgorod and Joseph Volotsky at their head. In 1489, the Novgorod bishop Gennady, entering into the fight against heresy and reporting it to the Rostov archbishop, asked the latter to consult with the learned elders Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky who lived in his diocese and to involve them in the fight. Gennady himself wants to talk with the learned elders and even invites them to his place. The results of Gennady’s efforts are unknown: it seems that they were not quite what he wanted. At least, we no longer see any relations between Gennady either with Paisius or with Nile; The main fighter against heresy, Joseph of Volokolamsk, does not appeal to them either. Meanwhile, both elders were not indifferent to the heresy: both of them were present at the council of 1490. , who examined the case of heretics, and barely influence the very decision of the council. Initially, all the hierarchs “stood strong” and unanimously declared that “everyone (all heretics) deserves to be burned” - and in the end the council limited itself to cursing two or three heretical priests, depriving them of their rank and sending them back to Gennady. The most important fact in the life of Nil of Sorsky was his protest against the landowning rights of monasteries at the council of 1503 in Moscow. When the council was already nearing its end, Nil Sorsky, supported by other Kirill-6elozersky elders, raised the issue of monastic estates, which at that time amounted to a third of the entire state territory and were the cause of demoralization of monasticism. A zealous fighter for the idea of Nil of Sorsky was his closest “student,” the monastic prince Vassian Patrikeev. Nil Sorsky could only see the beginning of the struggle he had excited; he died in 1508. Before his death, Neil wrote a “Testament”, asking his disciples to “throw his body in the desert, so that animals and birds may eat him up, for he has sinned many times against God and is unworthy of burial.” The disciples did not fulfill this request: they buried him with honor. It is unknown whether Nil Sorsky was formally canonized; Manuscripts occasionally contain traces of services to him (troparion, kontakion, ikos), but it seems that this was only a local attempt, and even then it was not established. But throughout our ancient literature, only Nil of Sorsky, in the titles of his few works, retained the name of the “great old man.”
Neil Sorsky. Icon 1908
The literary works of Nil Sorsky consist of a number of messages to students and generally close people, a small Traditions to the disciples, short sketchy Notes, more extensive Charter, in 11 chapters, and dying Wills. They came down in the lists of the 16th - 18th centuries. and all were published (most and the most important ones were extremely faulty). Neil's main work is the monastic charter, in 11 chapters; all the rest serve as a kind of addition to it. The general direction of Nil Sorsky's thoughts is strictly ascetic, but in a more internal, spiritual sense than the majority of Russian monasticism of that time understood asceticism. Monasticism, according to Neil, should not be physical, but spiritual, and requires not external mortification of the flesh, but internal, spiritual self-improvement. The soil of monastic exploits is not the flesh, but the thought and the heart. It is unnecessary to intentionally weaken or kill your body: the weakness of the body can hinder the feat of moral self-improvement. A monk can and must nourish and support the body “as needed without mala”, even “calm it down in mala”, forgiving of physical weaknesses, illness, and old age. Neil does not sympathize with excessive fasting. He is an enemy of all appearance in general; he considers it unnecessary to have expensive vessels, gold or silver, in churches, or to decorate churches: not a single person has yet been condemned by God for not decorating churches. Churches should be free from all splendor; in them you need to have only what is necessary, “found everywhere and conveniently purchased.” Rather than donate in church, it is better to give to the poor. The feat of moral self-improvement of a monk must be rational and conscious. A monk must go through it not due to compulsions and instructions, but “with consideration” and “do everything with reasoning.” The Nile demands from the monk not mechanical obedience, but consciousness in the feat. Sharply rebelling against “arbitraries” and “self-offenders,” he does not destroy personal freedom. The personal will of a monk (and equally of every person) must obey, in Nile’s view, only one authority - the “divine scriptures.” “Testing” the divine scriptures and studying them is the main duty of a monk. The unworthy life of a monk, and indeed of a person in general, solely depends, in Neil’s opinion, “from the holy scriptures that do not tell us...”. The study of divine scriptures, however, must be combined with a critical attitude towards the total mass of written material: “there is a lot of scripture, but not all is divine.” This idea of criticism was one of the most characteristic in the views of both Nile himself and all the “Trans-Volga elders” - and for the majority of literates of that time it was completely unusual. In the eyes of the latter, any “book” at all was something indisputable and divinely inspired. And the books of Holy Scripture in the strict sense, and the works of the church fathers, and the lives of the saints, and the rules of St. apostles and councils, and interpretations of these rules, and additions to the interpretations that appeared later, finally, even various kinds of Greek “city laws”, i.e. decrees and orders of the Byzantine emperors, and other additional articles included in the Helmsman - all this, in the eyes of the ancient Russian reader, was equally unchanged, equally authoritative. Joseph of Volokolamsk, one of the most learned people of his time, directly, for example, argued that the mentioned “gradist laws” “are similar to the prophetic, apostolic and holy father’s writings,” and boldly called the collection of Nikon the Montenegrin (see) “divinely inspired writings” . It is understandable, therefore, that Joseph reproaches Nilus of Sorsky and his disciples that they “blasphemed the miracle workers in the Russian land,” as well as those “who in ancient times and in those (foreign) lands were former miracle workers, who believed in miracles, and from the scriptures I have squandered their wonders." One attempt to have any critical attitude towards the material being written off seemed, therefore, heresy. Striving for the evangelical ideal, Nil Sorsky - like the entire movement at the head of which he stood - does not hide his condemnation of the disorder that he saw in the majority of modern Russian monasticism. From the general view of the essence and goals of the monastic vow, Nile’s energetic protest against monastic property directly followed. Neil considers all property, not just wealth, to be contrary to monastic vows. The monk denies himself from the world and everything “in it” - how can he then waste time worrying about worldly property, lands, and riches? Monks must feed exclusively on their own labors, and can even accept alms only in extreme cases. They must not “not exactly have no property, but neither desire to acquire it”... What is obligatory for a monk is just as obligatory for a monastery: a monastery is only a meeting of people with the same goals and aspirations, and what is reprehensible for a monk is reprehensible for the monastery. The noted features were apparently joined by Nile himself in religious tolerance, which appeared so sharply in the writings of his closest disciples. The literary source of the works of Nil Sorsky was a number of patristic writers, with whose works he became acquainted especially during his stay on Athos; His closest influence was on the works of John Cassian the Roman, Nile of Sinai, John Climacus, Basil the Great, Isaac the Syrian, Simeon the New Theologian and Gregory the Sinaite. Some of these writers are especially often referred to by Nil Sorsky; Some of their works are particularly close in both external form and presentation, for example. , to the main work of Nil Sorsky - “The Monastic Rule”. The Nile, however, does not unconditionally obey any of its sources; nowhere, for example, does he reach those extremes of contemplation that distinguish the works of Symeon the New Theologian or Gregory the Sinaite.
The monastic charter of Nile of Sorsky, with the addition of “Tradition by a disciple” at the beginning, was published by the Optina Hermitage in the book “The Tradition of St. Nile of Sorsky by his disciple about his residence in the monastery” (M., 1849; without any scientific criticism); The messages are printed in the appendix to the book: “Reverend Nilus of Sorsky, the founder of the monastery life in Russia, and his charter on the residence of the monastery, translated into Russian, with the appendix of all his other writings extracted from manuscripts” (St. Petersburg, 1864; 2nd ed. M., 1869; with the exception of the “Appendices”, everything else in this book does not have the slightest scientific significance).
The literature about Nil Sorsky is described in detail in the preface to the study by A. S. Arkhangelsky: “Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev, their literary works and ideas in ancient Rus'” (St. Petersburg, 1882).
A. Arkhangelsky.
NILE SORSKY (in the world Niko-lay Mai-kov) - Russian right-of-glorious mover, spiritual writer, god-word, saint that one.
Information about the life of Nil Sorsky is extremely scarce, the main source is “The Tale of the Nil-Sorsky Ski-t,” preserved in the Rus-co-pi-si of the 17th century. He came from a family of Moscow clerks [his brother An-d-rei Fe-do-ro-vich May-ko (died 1502/1503) was the clerk of the great princes of the Moscow s-kov-skih Va-si-lia II Va-sil-e-vi-cha Dark-no-go and Ivan III Va-sil-e-vi-cha]. I got a good idea about my neck.
Mo-na-she-skiy received his haircut in mo-lo-do-sti in Ki-ril-lo-Be-lo-zer-sky mo-na-sty-re. After 1475, Nil Sorsky went to Kon-stan-ti-no-pol and Athos; perhaps, I visited Pa-le-sti-nu in the same way; in the Athos monasteries he studied the practice of “um-no-go de-la-niya” (see Isi-khazm). By 1489 he returned to Rus', 15 versts from the Kiril-lo-Be-lo-zer-skogo monastery, on the river. So-ra, the main monastery is in collaboration with the principles of the ancient monastery resident. The Sorsky monastery was dedicated in honor of the feast of the Holy Day. Cells in which mo-na-hi lived strictly one by one, stood at a short distance from each other. The foreigners went to work two times a week: from Saturday to Sunday and from Wednesday to Thursday ( if there was a two-year holiday, then the all-night vigil from Wednesday to Thursday was canceled). Most of my time was devoted to prayer, work, reading the Holy Scripture and the works of the Church Fathers -in and; there were no common ceremonies in the monastery, because the establishment forbade mo-na-boorish long-stay outside the cell .
In 1490, Nil Sorsky taught in a church council that condemned the heresy of the “little Jews.” In order to fight the heresy, Nil Sorsky, in collaboration with Nil Po-le-v, created a para-radical list of brief re- Dak-tion “Books on here-ti-kov” (“Pro-sve-ti-te-la”) St. Yo-si-fa Vo-lots-ko-go. Nil Sorsky re-re-pi-sal and from-re-dak-ti-ro-val the 3-volume “So-bor-nik” lives; checking different lists, he corrected mistakes, restored the la-ku-ns in the texts. In 1503, he participated in the church council, at which Ivan III Vasilievich asked a question about se-ku-la-ri -for the churches and mo-na-styr lands. In agreement-but not-with-any-one, Nil Sorsky entered into a po-le-mi-ku with Jo-si-f Vol-lots-kim, who from the flock of the right to the mo-na-sty-ray to rule here-on-mi. The teaching and as-ce-tical practice of Nil Sorsky became the top ideology of non-sty-zha-te-lei.
The main works of Nil Sorsky are “Presentation of teaching by anyone” and the chapter “From the writings of the holy fathers on mental deeds. ..” (known as “Ustav”). “Pre-da-nie...” represents the mo-na-styr-sky ti-pi-con and contains the main. great life in ski-tu. In the chapters “About the mental de-la-nii...” the analysis of the eight sinful passions of man -ka and pre-la-ga-s-spo-s-of-their-overcoming, the main of which is purification by -we-words, i.e. “smart de-la-nie.” The pinnacle of this practice, according to the teachings of Neil Sorsky, is considered “smart prayer”, God’s community. The as-ke-tical views of Nil Sorsky are not ori-ginal-ny-mi, but-on-the-vis-on his co-chi-ne-niya with-sto- It is that it contains a synthesis of the holy father's teaching about the eight passions from the creation of the saint. Gregory of Si-nai-ta about “smart prayer”. Nil Sorsky also has 4 words about the spiritual life of mo-na-ha (one of them is ad-re-so-va-no Vas-sia -well Pat-ri-kee-woo). Above all the goodness, Nil Sorsky established humility. In his “Fore-word”, he asked the ski brethren to throw his body into a ditch or some other place without any honor. Nil Sorsky was buried in the main ski-tank next to the Church of the Presentation of the Lord.
Ka-no-ni-zi-ro-wan in the 1650s; Memorial day according to the calendar of the Russian Right-to-Glorious Church - May 7 (20).
Essays:
Pre-da-nie and Regulations. St. Petersburg, 1912;
Co-bor-nik of Ni-la Sor-sko-go / Comp. T. P. Len-ng-ren. M., 2000-2004. Parts 1-3;
Pre-similar Nil of Sor-sky, In-no-ken-tiy of Ko-mel-sky. Op. / Pre-ready G. M. Pro-khorov. St. Petersburg, 2005.
On the day of death, in the Cathedrals of the Athos venerables and the venerable Russian Svyatogortsev
He came from the boyar family of the Maykovs. He accepted monasticism at the monastery of St. Kirill of Belozersky, where he used the advice of the pious elder Paisius (Yaroslavov), later abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Then the monk wandered for several years with his disciple, the monk Innocent, around the Eastern holy places and, having lived for a long time in the Athos, Constantinople and Palestine monasteries, returned to the Cyril Monastery on Beloozero.
Retiring from there to the Sora River in the Vologda land, he set up a cell and a chapel there, and soon a desert-dwelling monastery grew up around them where the monks lived according to the monastic rules, which is why Saint Nile is revered as the head of the monastic life of the monastery in Russia. According to the covenant of the Monk Nile, in his famous charter drawn up in the image of the East, monks were to feed on the labor of their hands, accept alms only in extreme need, and avoid the love of things and luxury even in church; women were not allowed into the monastery, monks were not allowed to leave the monastery under any pretext, and ownership of estates was denied. Having settled around a small church in honor of the Presentation of the Lord in the forest, in separate cells of one, two and no more than three people, the hermits on the eve of Sundays and other holidays gathered for a day for Divine services, and an all-night vigil, at which two or three were offered for each kathisma readings from the patristic works continued all night. On other days, everyone prayed and worked in their cell. The main feat of the monks was the struggle with their thoughts and passions, as a result of which peace is born in the soul, clarity in the mind, contrition and love in the heart.
In his life, the holy ascetic was distinguished by extreme non-acquisitiveness and hard work. He himself dug a pond and a well, the water of which had healing powers. For the holiness of Elder Nile's life, the Russian hierarchs of his time deeply revered him. Reverend Neil was the founder of the non-covetous movement. He participated at the Council of 1490, as well as at the Council of 1503, where he was the first to vote for the monasteries not to have villages, but for the monks to live by the labor of their hands.
Avoiding the honors and glory of this world, before his death he commanded his disciples to throw his body to be devoured by animals and birds or to bury him without any honors at the site of his feat. The saint died at the age of 76 on May 7th.
Reverence
The relics of Saint Nile, buried in the monastery he founded, became famous for many miracles. The Russian Church canonized him as a saint.
In the legends of the Nilosorsky monastery there is a legend that during a visit to the Beloezersky monasteries, Tsar Ivan the Terrible was in the Nilosorsky monastery and ordered to found a stone one instead of the wooden church built by the Monk Neil. But, appearing to John in a dream vision, Saint Nile forbade him to do this. In return for the unfulfilled enterprise, the sovereign granted the monastery, with his own signature, a document granting the monastics a monetary salary and bread salary. This certificate has been lost.
Proceedings
The Rules compiled by Saint Nile and “The Tradition of His Disciple Who Want to Live in the Wilderness” are the fundamental texts of Russian skete monasticism; the Rules are one of the first monastic rules drawn up in Rus'. In it, the Monk Neil sets out in detail the steps of saving mental activity.
Published in Russian:
- Charter- V History of the Russian Hierarchy.
- The legend of our venerable father Nile of Sorsky by his disciple about his residence in the monastery, ed. Kozelskaya Vvedenskaya Optina Hermitage, Moscow, 1820, 1849 ( Lives and writings of the holy fathers, vol. I).
- The Venerable Nil of Sorsky, the founder of the monastery life in Russia and his charter on the life of the monastery, translated into Russian. With the attachment of all his other writings extracted from the manuscripts, St. Petersburg, 1864.
Prayers
Troparion, tone 4
Having departed from the world of David, / and imputed everything in it as if it were wise, / and settled in a silent place, / you were filled with spiritual joy, Our Father Nile: / and deigning to serve the One God, / you flourished like a phoenix, / and like a fruitful vine You have multiplied the children of the desert. / We also cry out with gratitude: / glory to Him who strengthened you in the ascetic struggle of living in the desert, / glory to Him who chose you as a hermit in Russia, and glory to Him who saves us through your prayers.
Troparion, tone 1
You rejected worldly life and fled from the rebellion of everyday life, venerable and God-bearing Father Nile, you were not lazy in gathering the flowers of paradise from the scriptures of your fathers, and you moved into the desert, you flourished like a sorrel, and you passed from nowhere to the heavenly abodes. Teach us, who honestly honor you, to walk in your royal path and pray for our souls.
Kontakion, tone 8(similar to: Mounted Warlord)
For the love of Christ, having withdrawn from worldly troubles, you settled with a joyful soul in the desert, where you labored well, like an angel on earth, Father Nile, and you lived: with vigil and fasting you exhausted your body eternally for the sake of life. Having now been vouchsafed, in the light of ineffable joy, to stand before the Most Holy Trinity with the saints, pray, pray, falling down, your children, that we may be preserved from all slander and evil circumstances, visible and invisible enemies, and that our souls may be saved..
Kontakion, voice 3
Having endured, you have endured the vain customs and worldly morals of your brothers, you have found deserted silence, reverend father, where by fasting, vigil and unceasing prayer in labor, you have shown us the right path to walk towards the Lord. In the same way, we honor you, all-blessed Nile.
Prayer
Oh, reverend and blessed Father Nile, our godly mentor and teacher! You, for the love of God, withdrawing from worldly troubles, in the impassable desert and in the wilds you deigned to dwell, and like a fruitful vine, having multiplied the children of the desert, you showed yourself to them in word, writing and life the image of all monastic virtues, and like an angel in the flesh, having lived on earth, now in the villages of heaven, where those who celebrate the unceasing voice, dwell, and stand before God from the faces of the saints, to Him you unceasingly bring praise and praise. We pray to you, blessed one, instruct us, who live under your roof, to walk unfailingly in your footsteps: to love the Lord God with all our hearts, to lust after Him alone and to think about Him alone, courageously and skillfully moving forward with the thoughts and excuses of the enemy that drag us down and always win those. Love all the crampedness of monastic life, and hate the red world of this love for the sake of Christ, and plant in your hearts all the virtues in which you yourself have labored. Pray to Christ God, and for all Orthodox Christians living in the world to enlighten the mind and eyes of the heart, to strengthen them in faith, piety, and in keeping their commandments for salvation, to save them from the flattery of this world and to grant them and us remission of sins and to this, according to His false promise, He will add everything that we need to our temporary life, so that in the desert and in the world we will live a quiet and silent life in all piety and honesty, and we will glorify Him with our lips and hearts together with His beginningless Father and the Most Holy and By His good and life-giving Spirit always, now, and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.
