Church reform Nikon. Church schism and reforms of Patriarch Nikon

the most representative in terms of the number of participants in the entire previous history of the Russian Orthodox Church; took place in 2 stages: meetings, at which only Russians were present. clergy (29 April - September 1666), and a Council with the participation of both Russian and Greek. clergy (28 Nov. 1666 - Feb. 1667).

Until now In time, a complex set of documents has survived, reflecting the period of preparation for the Council, its holding and accompanying events. Official processing of the materials of the Council is the Book of Conciliar Acts, certified by the signatures of the Greek. and Russian participants (GIM. Sin. No. 314) and published immediately after the end of the cathedral meetings (Sluzhebnik. M., 1668). This document was created during the Council or immediately after its completion, but it cannot be considered the minutes of the meetings. The Book of Acts includes grouped partly by topic, partly by chronology, decisions of the Council (they are presented as separate meetings, but this is hardly an accurate reproduction of the real chronology), questions of the East. To the patriarchs and their answers, some additional texts, for example. Op. Athanasius Patellaria on the rite of the liturgy. The Book of Acts does not contain a presentation of the meetings dedicated to the trial of Patriarch Nikon, and a description of the election of Patriarch Joasaph II; there is no mention of the question of the relationship between royal and high-hierarchal power, which caused heated discussions at the Council, etc.

The 1st meeting of the Council, held in the royal dining chamber, was opened by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the response speech was made by the Novgorod Metropolitan. Pitirim. Subsequent meetings took place in the Patriarchal Cross Chamber; the Tsar was not present at them. A separate meeting of the Council was dedicated to the Bishop of Vyatka. Alexander, the only bishop who doubted the correctness of the reforms. Alexander repented, and the decision to remove him from office was canceled. During the Council, most of the Old Believers agreed to accept the reforms; almost all of them were sent “under the leadership” to various monasteries. Apparently, the repentance of many of them at the Council was feigned; in particular, Nikanor, after returning to the Solovetsky Monastery, immediately renounced his renunciation of the Old Believers, pronounced at the Council. Only 4 people. (Archpriest Avvakum, Deacon Fyodor, Priest Lazarus and Patriarchal Subdeacon Fyodor) refused to submit to the cathedral court, to recognize the legitimacy of the reforms, the authority of the judges and the purity of the Greek. Orthodoxy. They were subjected to conciliar condemnation: the clergy were defrocked, then all were anathematized. The Council approved the reforms begun by Patriarch Nikon, but did not condemn the old books and rituals approved by the Stoglavy Council of 1551 and other decrees of the Russian Church. Official the position was that they were condemned for their persistence in disobedience to the Council and the bishops of the Russian Church.

In conclusion, the fathers of the Council adopted the “Spiritual Instruction” addressed to all clergy, in which they expressed their general definition regarding the schism. The “Instruction” begins with a listing of the “wines” of the Old Believers, followed by an order to perform divine services only according to newly corrected books, and speaks of the need to receive communion and confession (against the leaders of the Old Believers, who taught that one should not accept sacraments from “Nikonian” priests). The “Instructions” contain a “decree on the celebration of the liturgy,” instructions on the celebration of marriage, funeral services, and a number of disciplinary orders. At the end it is said that all clergy must have the “Manual” and act in accordance with it, otherwise they will be subject to severe punishment. The cathedral adopted a number of resolutions on deanery: against drunkenness of clergy, on maintaining order in churches, on not giving communion to unworthy people, against the transfer of monks without special permission from monastery to monastery, etc., etc.

2nd stage B.M.S.

2 Nov In 1666, the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were solemnly greeted in Moscow. Bells rang throughout the city, 3 meetings were organized: at the Intercession Gate, at Execution Place on Red Square, at the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral. 4 Nov A ceremonial reception took place at the Tsar's, the next day Alexei Mikhailovich talked privately with the Patriarchs for 4 hours. 7 Nov in the presence of Russian clergy and senior government. officials Alexey Mikhailovich addressed the Patriarchs with a solemn speech and handed over for review the documents prepared for the Council. 20 days were allotted for reading, Paisius Ligarid was the translator.

12 foreign bishops took part in the work of this stage of the B.M.S.: Patriarchs Paisios of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch; representatives of the K-Polish Patriarch - Metropolitans Gregory of Nicaea, Cosmas of Amasia, Athanasius of Iconium, Philotheus of Trebizond, Daniel of Varna and Archbishop. Daniil Pogoniansky; from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and Palestine - Archbishop. Mount Sinai Ananias and Paisius Ligarid; from Georgia - Met. Epiphanius; from Serbia - bishop. Joachim (Djakovic); from Little Russia - Chernigov bishop. Lazar (Baranovich) and Bishop of Mstislav. Methodius (locum tenens of the Kyiv Metropolis). Rus. participants of the Council: Metropolitans Pitirim of Novgorod, Lavrenty of Kazan, Jonah of Rostov, Pavel Krutitsky, Theodosius, Metropolitan. at the Moscow Archangel Cathedral; Archbishops Simon of Vologda, Filaret of Smolensk, Hilarion of Ryazan, Joasaph of Tver, Arseny of Pskov, and later they were joined by the newly installed bishop of Kolomna. Misail. By the end of the meetings of the Council, a new Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', Joasaph II, was elected. Thus, the documents of the Council were signed by 17 Russians. bishops. A large number of Russian and foreign archimandrites, abbots, monks and priests also took part in the Council.

The cathedral was opened on November 28. in the sovereign's dining room. The first question to be raised was the fate of Patriarch Nikon and the Russian Patriarchal Throne. Summoned to the Council, Nikon November 29 declared that he was not placed on the Patriarchal throne by these Patriarchs and they themselves do not live in their capital cities, so they cannot judge him. Previously, Nikon especially insisted that only the K-Polish Patriarch could judge him, since it was he who installed him (in fact, Nikon’s installation as Patriarch was carried out by Russian bishops). However, the trial has already begun. Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) has 8 meetings dedicated to the “Nikon case”: 3 preliminary (November 7, 18 and 28), 4 judicial (November 30, December 1, 3 and 5) and the final one in the Miracle Monastery, when The verdict was announced (Dec. 12). At the Council, Nikon was charged with: 1) slandering the Tsar, who, according to the Patriarch, violated church canons and interfered in the affairs of the Church, as well as slandering other persons; 2) in willful and illegal abandonment of the Patriarchal throne and flock; 3) in the illegal dethronement of the Kolomna bishop. Paul; 4) following the Catholic. custom, which was expressed in Nikon’s command to carry a cross in front of him; 5) in the illegal establishment of a mon-rei outside the Patriarchal region on lands taken from the mon-rei of other dioceses. By decision of the Council, Nikon was deprived of the Patriarchal and holy ranks and exiled to Ferapontov Monastery. The mon-ri founded by him came under the control of the diocesan bishops.

14 Jan In 1667, the participants of the Council had to sign a conciliar act prepared by the Greeks on the deposition of Nikon. Metropolitan of Krutitsky Pavel and Ryazan Archbishop. Hilarion refused to sign the conciliar verdict, disagreeing with the provision it contained about the priority of secular power over ecclesiastical power. During the ensuing dispute, Paul and Hilarion received support from many. rus. hierarchs who presented extracts from the writings of the Fathers of the Church on the superiority of the priesthood over the kingdom and disputed the arguments of the opposing side, which were put forward by Paisius Ligarid. After lengthy debates, a formula was developed expressing the principle of the symphony of the priesthood and the kingdom: “The Tsar has priority in civil affairs, and the Patriarch in church affairs, so that in this way the order of the church institution can be preserved intact and unshakable forever.” This provision was included in the verdict, which was signed by all members of the Council. Russian insubordination hierarchs of the east The latter caused extreme irritation to the patriarchs. 24 Jan a decision was made to impose penance on Paul and Hilarion, while it was noted: if the 4 Ecumenical Patriarchs make a common decision, it is not subject to revision.

Despite the punishment of Metropolitan. Paul and Archbishop Hilarion, precisely with the position of the Russian that emerged during this dispute. The episcopate should be bound by that part of the decisions of the Council that treats the issue of church court. The Council decided to abolish the Monastic Order and abolish the jurisdiction of the clergy over secular officials. The exclusive jurisdiction of clergy in all cases was established to ecclesiastical judges; in case of committing serious crimes (for example, participation in robbery), the clergy was to be punished with strict church punishment and, after defrocking, was subjected to secular court. The previously existing practice in Russia of secular trials of clergy in matters of a strictly ecclesiastical nature contradicted the norms of canon law. The struggle for its abolition began at the Stoglavy Council; the decisions of the Council of 1667 in this part were the restoration and development of the resolutions of the Council of 1551. In 1668, to organize such a court in the Patriarchal region, the Patriarchal Spiritual Order was created; corresponding bodies appeared in others. dioceses. In general, however, after the B.M.S. only the first steps were taken; for the final approval of the adopted norms and their implementation, the convening of the Council in 1675 was required.

Subsequent meetings of the B.M.S. were held in the Patriarchal Cross Chamber without the participation of the tsar. The election of a new All-Russian Patriarch took place. 31 Jan the fathers of the Council submitted to the king the names of 3 candidates: Joasaph, Archimandrite. Trinity-Sergius Monastery, Philaret, archim. Vladimir Monastery, Savva, cellarer of the Chudov Monastery. The king gave preference to Joasaph, who was “even then in extreme old age and in everyday illness.” This choice indicated that Alexei Mikhailovich did not want to see an active and independent person at the head of the Russian Church.

The most important issue discussed at the B.M.S. was the problem associated with the activities of opponents of the reform. The unrepentant leaders of the Old Believers (Habakkuk, Lazar and two Fyodors) were again brought to the Council, who again refused to submit to the Council. Resolutions on the Old Believers were drawn up on the basis of texts proposed by Dionysius the Greek, who considered the peculiarities of Russian. church life is a consequence of lack of enlightenment and ignorance. The Council commanded all children of the Russian Church to adhere to the corrected books and rituals, the old Russian ones. the rituals were called unorthodox, about the fathers of the Stoglavy Council, which codified the original Russian. liturgical tradition, in the decree of B.M.S. it was written that they “wisdomed their ignorance recklessly, as if they wanted it themselves.” The fathers of B.M.S. condemned everyone who did not obey the conciliar command (meaning the Old Believers) to “anathema and curse... as heretics and disobedients.” (The anathema towards the Old Believers was abolished at the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971.) Despite the extremely harsh nature of the resolution of 1667, in its essence and direction it was a continuation of the actions of the 1st (“Russian”) stage of the Council. “Spiritual Instruction”, adopted in 1666 Russian. hierarchs in the absence of eastern ones, although it did not contain criticism of the old rituals, nevertheless provided for severe “executions” against opponents of the reforms. This is not surprising, since at all stages of its work the Council saw one of its most important tasks in the fight against schism.

In addition to affirming the correctness of the liturgical reform begun by Nikon, B.M.S. adopted a number of resolutions aimed at further bringing Russians closer together. church life from Greek Even allowing in some cases deviations from the rituals accepted in the East. Orthodox Churches, the Patriarchs did not hide the fact that it was Greek. procedures should serve as a model to follow. In this regard, the text is very characteristic, in which it is proposed to excommunicate from the Church those who begin to reproach those who speak Greek. clothes. In accordance with this, the decisions of the Russian Federation were canceled. Church Councils that went beyond the Greek. traditions. Thus, the decisions of the Council of 1503, which prohibited widowed priests and deacons from serving (by the decision of the B.M.S., widowed priests and deacons could be prohibited from serving only if they led an unworthy life), the decisions of the Council of 1620 were canceled. on the rebaptism of Catholics when they join the Orthodox Church. Church (in accordance with the resolution of the K-Polish Council of 1484, B.M.S. established the rite of joining Catholics to Orthodoxy through Confirmation), a number of resolutions of the Stoglavy Council, “The Tale of the White Cowl” was condemned. Undoubtedly, some of these kinds of decisions restored those violated in Russian. based on the norms of canon law, but this was done in a harsh, often offensive form for Russians.

In the acts of the Council it was repeatedly emphasized that the schism is a consequence of the ignorance of both lay people and the parish clergy. Therefore, the Council developed a number of measures to combat this evil. The clergy had to teach their children to read and write, so that when they took holy orders they would not be “rural ignoramuses.” The priests were to be guided in their activities by the “Spiritual Instruction”, compiled in 1666, and a number of detailed instructions in the acts of the Council of 1667. At Christmas 1668, in the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral, on behalf of the Patriarchs, the word “On the seeking of Divine wisdom” was read, which contained proposals for the creation of schools in Rus', in which Greek would be studied. language. Tsar and Russian The bishops supported this project. To refute the opinions of the Old Believers, Simeon of Polotsk, on behalf of the Council, wrote an extensive work, “The Rod of Government,” which was immediately published and recommended by the Council for reading and enlightenment of Christians. However, several years later the book was condemned for its Catholic content. doctrines (“bread-worshipping heresy”, the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary). The Old Believers immediately reacted sharply negatively to this work, calling it “The Rod of Contortion.”

B.M.S. ordered each of the bishops to convene diocesan councils of the clergy twice a year - the deeds stated that the lack of practice of regularly convening such councils led to the loss of pastoral care by the bishops for their flock and gave rise to a schism. A resolution was adopted to increase the number of episcopal departments. In 1666, the Russian Church consisted of 14 very large and therefore difficult to manage dioceses; the bishops did not have the opportunity to personally monitor the spiritual state of their flock. The Council demanded the opening of at least 10 new dioceses and indicated that in the future a consistent increase in their number would be required. Under Alexei Mikhailovich, this resolution was not implemented in full; B.M.S. decided to create only 2 dioceses: the Kolomna See, closed by Nikon, was restored and the Belgorod See was created. Active work on reforming the church structure of Rus' began only under Tsar Theodore Alekseevich, but it proceeded with great difficulty, in particular because the increase in the number of departments implied the loss of part of the income of the “old” bishops. The acts of the Council also spoke about dividing the territory of the Russian Church into a number of metropolitan districts according to the Greek model, but this project was not implemented. B.M.S. adopted a determination on the need to gather a Council in Moscow 2 or, at most, once a year to discuss and resolve current church affairs. However, due to the remoteness of many dioceses from the center and bad roads, this was almost impossible to accomplish. In subsequent years, the practice developed of “successive” bishops participating in the Councils staying in Moscow for six months, sometimes for a year.

B.M.S. adopted a number of definitions on deanery: he ordered the maintenance of order in churches, prohibited the transfer of monks from one monastery to another and unauthorized life in the world, established a fairly long period of novitiate, after which tonsure was allowed, condemned atrocities during weddings, etc. Important decisions were made regarding icon painting: the Council forbade depicting the Lord of Hosts, since God the Father is invisible and does not have a specific physical appearance. The Holy Spirit in the form of a dove was allowed to be painted only when depicting Baptism. In general, it was noted that it is possible to depict God on icons only “in the phenomena” described in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and church tradition. B.M.S. again considered the actively debated in 1618-1625. the question of “enlightening fire” - immersing lighted candles in water in the rite of blessing the water. The command of the Councils of the beginning was repeated. 17th century: candles should not be immersed in water either in the rite of Baptism or in the rite of the Epiphany.

Certain decisions of the B.M.S. reflected the strengthening of the system of serfdom. The Council ordered the deprivation of dignity and monasticism and the return to their owners of those serfs who accepted ordination or monastic tonsure without the permission of the owner (runaway serfs and peasants). A serf peasant, ordained with the permission of the owner, became free, but had to serve on the estate of his owner; his children born before his ordination remained serfs. It was separately stipulated that persons who tonsured serfs who did not have a certificate of release into monasticism could be defrocked.

B.M.S. was an important milestone in the development of the Russian Church. On the one hand, the codification of liturgical reforms and the determination declared at all stages of the Council to continue the fight against the Old Believers made the problem of the existence of a schism one of the most painful for both the Church and the Russian Federation. government for several centuries ahead. On the other hand, the insufficiency of the spiritual education that existed in Russia, revealed in connection with the schism, prompted church and secular authorities after some time to take measures to create a system of spiritual and higher secular education; pl. The definitions of the Council, having restored canonical norms, effectively served to correct the shortcomings of Russian. church life.

Publisher: ZORSA. 1861. T. 2; MDIR. 1876. T. 2: (Acts relating to the council of 1666-1667); DAI. T. 5. P. 439-510; SGGD. T. 4; The case of Patriarch Nikon: according to the documents Moscow. Synod. (formerly Patriarchal) library / Ed. Archaeogr. commission St. Petersburg, 1897; Acts of the Moscow Councils of 1666 and 1667. M., 19053.

Lit.: Subbotin N. AND . The Case of Patriarch Nikon: East. research regarding the XI volume of “History of Russia” by prof. Solovyova. M., 1862; Gibbenett N. East. research affairs of Patr. Nikon. St. Petersburg, 1882-1884. 2 t.; Macarius. IRC. Book 7; Kapterev N. F. About the essay against the schism of the Iveron archimandrite Greek Dionysius, written before the Council of 1667 // PO. 1888. No. 7. P. 1-32; No. 12. P. 33-70; aka. Judgments of the Great Moscow Council of 1667 on the power of the royal and patriarchal // BV. 1892. Oct. pp. 46-74; aka. Tsar and Church Councils XVI-XVII centuries. M., 1906 (same in BV. 1906. No. 10, 11, 12); aka. Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Serg. P., 1912. T. 2 (department of publication of the same materials, see BV. 1910. No. 12. 1911. No. 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10); Sharov P. Great Moscow Cathedral of 1666-1667 // TKDA. 1895. Jan. pp. 23-85; Feb. pp. 177-222; Apr. pp. 517-553; June. pp. 171-222; Poloznev D. F. To the chronicle of the Moscow Councils of the 2nd half. XVII century // Readings on the history and culture of ancient and modern Russia: Materials of the conference. Yaroslavl, 1998. pp. 103-106; Stefanovich P. WITH . Parish and parish clergy in Russia in the 16th - 17th centuries. M., 2002.

O. V. Chumicheva

Wednesday, 05 Sep. 2012

The 17th century was marked for the Russian people by another difficult and treacherous reform. This is a well-known church reform carried out by Patriarch Nikon. Patriarch Nikon (in the world Nikita Minin) served the conquerors of Rus' very diligently. It was he who figured out how to deceive the millennia-old traditions of the Rus and wean them from Vedic laws and customs. It was truly a Jesuit operation...

Many modern historians admit that this reform, apart from strife and disasters, brought nothing to Russia.

Nikon is scolded not only by historians, but also by some churchmen because, allegedly, at the behest of Patriarch Nikon, the church split, and in its place two emerged:

• the first is the church renewed by reforms, brainchild of Nikon (prototype of the modern Russian Orthodox Church),
• the second is the old church that existed before Nikon, which later received the name of the Old Believer Church.

Yes, Patriarch Nikon was far from being the “lamb” of God, but the way this reform is presented by history suggests that the same church is hiding the true reasons for this reform and the true orderers and executors.

There is another silencing of information about the past of Rus'.

The great scam of Patriarch Nikon

Nikon, in the world Nikita Minin (1605-1681), is the sixth Moscow Patriarch, born into an ordinary peasant family, by 1652 he had risen to the rank of patriarch and somewhere from that time he began “his” transformations. Moreover, upon assuming his patriarchal duties, he secured the tsar’s support not to interfere in the affairs of the Church. The king and the people pledged to fulfill this will, and it was fulfilled. Only the people weren’t actually asked; the people’s opinion was expressed by the tsar (Alexey Mikhailovich Romanov) and the court boyars. Almost everyone knows what the notorious church reform of the 1650s - 1660s resulted in, but the version of the reforms that is presented to the masses does not reflect its entire essence.

The true goals of the reform are hidden from the unenlightened minds of the Russian people. A people who have been robbed of the true memory of their great past and trampled upon all their heritage have no choice but to believe in what is handed to them on a silver platter. It’s just time to remove the rotten apples from this platter and open people’s eyes to what really happened.

The official version of Nikon’s church reforms not only does not reflect its true goals, but also presents Patriarch Nikon as the instigator and executor, although Nikon was just a “pawn” in the skillful hands of the puppeteers who stood not only behind him, but also behind Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself .

And what’s also interesting is that despite the fact that some churchmen blaspheme Nikon as a reformer, the changes that he made continue to operate to this day in the same church! That's double standards!

Let's now see what kind of reform this was.

The main reform innovations according to the official version of historians:

• The so-called “book right”, which consisted of rewriting liturgical books. Many textual changes were made to the liturgical books, for example, the word “Iesus” was replaced with “Jesus.”
• The two-finger sign of the cross has been replaced by the three-finger one.
• Prostrations have been cancelled.
• Religious processions began to be carried out in the opposite direction (not salting, but counter-salting, i.e. against the sun).
• I tried to introduce a 4-pointed cross and succeeded for a short period of time.

Researchers cite many reform changes, but the above are especially highlighted by everyone who studies the topic of reforms and transformations during the reign of Patriarch Nikon.

As for the “book right”. During the baptism of Rus' at the end of the 10th century. The Greeks had two charters: Studite and Jerusalem. In Constantinople, the Charter of the Studios was first widespread, which was passed on to Rus'. But the Jerusalem Charter, which by the beginning of the 14th century began to become increasingly widespread in Byzantium. ubiquitous there. In this regard, over the course of three centuries, the liturgical books there also changed imperceptibly. This was one of the reasons for the difference in the liturgical practices of Russians and Greeks. In the 14th century, the difference between Russian and Greek church rites was already very noticeable, although Russian liturgical books were quite consistent with the Greek books of the 10th-11th centuries. Those. There was no need to rewrite the books at all! In addition, Nikon decided to rewrite books from Greek and ancient Russian charateans.

How did it really turn out?

But in fact, the cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Arseny Sukhanov, is sent by Nikon to the East specifically for sources for the “right”, and instead of these sources he brings mainly manuscripts “not related to the correction of liturgical books” (books for home reading, for example , words and conversations of John Chrysostom, conversations of Macarius of Egypt, ascetic words of Basil the Great, works of John Climacus, patericon, etc.).

Among these 498 manuscripts there were also about 50 manuscripts even of non-church writing, for example, the works of Hellenic philosophers - Troy, Afilistrate, Phocleaus “on sea animals”, Stavron the philosopher “on earthquakes, etc.).

Doesn't this mean that Arseny Sukhanov was sent by Nikon to look for “sources” to divert attention? Sukhanov traveled from October 1653 to February 22, 1655, that is, almost a year and a half, and brought only seven manuscripts for editing church books - a serious expedition with frivolous results. “Systematic Description of Greek Manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” fully confirms the information about only seven manuscripts brought by Arseny Sukhanov. Finally, Sukhanov, of course, could not, at his own peril and risk, obtain works of pagan philosophers, manuscripts about earthquakes and sea animals far away, instead of the necessary sources for correcting liturgical books. Consequently, he had the appropriate instructions from Nikon for this...

But in the end it turned out even more “interesting” - the books were copied from new Greek books, which were printed in Jesuit Parisian and Venetian printing houses. The question of why Nikon needed the books of “pagans” (although it would be more correct to say Slavic Vedic books, not pagan ones) and ancient Russian charatean books remains open. But it was with the church reform of Patriarch Nikon that the Great Book Burn in Rus' began, when entire carts of books were dumped into huge bonfires, doused with resin and set on fire. And those who resisted the “book law” and reform in general were sent there!

The Inquisition, carried out in Rus' by Nikon, did not spare anyone: boyars, peasants, and church dignitaries were sent to the fires. Well, during the time of Peter I, the impostor, the Great Book Garb gained such power that at the moment the Russian people do not have almost a single original document, chronicle, manuscript, or book left. Peter I continued Nikon's work in erasing the memory of the Russian people on a wide scale. Siberian Old Believers have a legend that under Peter I, so many old printed books were burned at the same time that after that 40 pounds (equivalent to 655 kg!) of melted copper fasteners were raked out of the fire pits.

During Nikon’s reforms, not only books, but also people burned. The Inquisition marched not only across the expanses of Europe, and, unfortunately, it affected Rus' no less. Russian people were subjected to cruel persecution and execution, whose conscience could not agree with church innovations and distortions. Many preferred to die rather than betray the faith of their fathers and grandfathers. The faith is Orthodox, not Christian. The word Orthodox has nothing to do with the church!

Orthodoxy means Glory and Rule. Rule - the world of the Gods, or the worldview taught by the Gods (Gods used to be called people who had achieved certain abilities and reached the level of creation. In other words, they were simply highly developed people). The Russian Orthodox Church received its name after the reforms of Nikon, who realized that it was not possible to defeat the native faith of the Rus, all that remained was to try to assimilate it with Christianity.

The correct name of the Russian Orthodox Church MP in the outside world is “Orthodox Autocephalous Church of the Byzantine sense.”

Until the 16th century, even in Russian Christian chronicles you will not find the term “Orthodoxy” in relation to the Christian religion. In relation to the concept of “faith”, such epithets are used as “God’s”, “true”, “Christian”, “right” and “immaculate”. And even now you will never come across this name in foreign texts, since the Byzantine Christian church is called - orthodox, and is translated into Russian - correct teaching (in defiance of all the other “wrong” ones).

Orthodoxy - (from the Greek orthos - straight, correct and doxa - opinion), a “correct” system of views, fixed by the authoritative authorities of a religious community and mandatory for all members of this community; orthodoxy, agreement with the teachings preached by the church.

Orthodox refers primarily to the church in Middle Eastern countries (for example, the Greek Orthodox Church, Orthodox Islam, or Orthodox Judaism).

Unconditional adherence to some teaching, firm consistency in views. The opposite of orthodoxy is heterodoxy and heresies. Never and nowhere in other languages ​​will you be able to find the term “Orthodoxy” in relation to the Greek (Byzantine) religious form.

The substitution of imagery terms for an external aggressive form was necessary because THEIR images did not work on our Russian soil, so we had to mimic existing familiar images.

The term “paganism” means “other languages.” This term previously served the Russians simply to identify people speaking other languages.

Changing the two-finger sign of the cross to the three-finger one. Why did Nikon decide to make such an “important” change in the ritual? For even the Greek clergy admitted that nowhere, in any source, is it written about baptism with three fingers!

Replacement of two fingers with three fingers

Great people, undeservedly forgotten, lost in the pages of our history,

come to life in Nikolai Dostal’s painting,

to tell your truth about a distant, dark time.

The director did not specifically invite famous artists to play the main roles, familiar faces only in episodes.

After long and large-scale castings, the bet was placed on talented theater artists:

Valeria Grishko, Dmitry Tikhonov, Yulia Melnikova. In the role of Archpriest Avvakum - Alexander Korotkov.

Regarding the fact that the Greeks previously had two fingers, the historian N. Kapterev provides undeniable historical evidence in his book “Patriarch Nikon and his opponents in the matter of correcting church books.”

For this book and other materials on the topic of reform, they even tried to expel Nikon Kapterev from the academy and tried in every possible way to impose a ban on the publication of his materials. Now modern historians say that Kapterev was right that double-fingered fingers have always existed among the Slavs. But despite this, the rite of three-fingered baptism has not yet been abolished in the church.

The fact that two fingers have existed in Rus' for a long time can be seen at least from the message of the Moscow Patriarch Job to the Georgian Metropolitan Nicholas: “Those who pray, it is appropriate to be baptized with two fingers...”.

But double-finger baptism is an ancient Slavic rite, which the Christian Church initially borrowed from the Slavs, modifying it somewhat.

It is quite clear and indicative: for every Slavic holiday there is a Christian one, for every Slavic God there is a saint. It is impossible to forgive Nikon for such a forgery, as well as the churches in general, who can safely be called criminals. This is a real crime against the Russian people and their culture. And they erect monuments to such traitors and continue to honor them. In 2006, a monument to Nikon, the patriarch who trampled on the memory of the Russian people, was erected and consecrated in Saransk.

The “church” reform of Patriarch Nikon, as we already see, did not affect the church, it was clearly carried out against the traditions and foundations of the Russian people, against Slavic rituals, not church ones.

In general, the “reform” marks the milestone from which a sharp decline in faith, spirituality and morality begins in Russian society. Everything new in rituals, architecture, icon painting, and singing is of Western origin, which is also noted by civilian researchers.

The “church” reforms of the mid-17th century were directly related to religious construction. The order to strictly follow the Byzantine canons put forward the requirement to build churches “with five peaks, and not with a tent.”

Tent-roofed buildings (with a pyramidal top) were known in Rus' even before the adoption of Christianity. This type of building is considered originally Russian. That is why Nikon, with his reforms, took care of such “trifles”, because this was a real “pagan” trace among the people. Under the threat of the death penalty, craftsmen and architects managed to preserve the shape of the tent in temple buildings and secular ones. Despite the fact that it was necessary to build domes with onion-shaped domes, the general shape of the structure was made pyramidal. But not everywhere it was possible to deceive the reformers. These were mainly the northern and remote areas of the country.

Since then, churches have been built with domes; now, thanks to the efforts of Nikon, the tented form of buildings has been completely forgotten. But our distant ancestors perfectly understood the laws of physics and the influence of the shape of objects on space, and it was not without reason that they built with a tent top.

This is how Nikon cut off the people’s memory

Also in wooden churches the role of the refectory is changing, turning from a room that is secular in its own way into a purely cultic one. She finally loses her independence and becomes part of the church premises. The primary purpose of the refectory is reflected in its very name: public meals, feasts, and “brotherhood gatherings” dedicated to certain solemn events were held here. This is an echo of the traditions of our ancestors. The refectory was a waiting area for those arriving from neighboring villages.

Thus, in terms of its functionality, the refectory contained precisely the worldly essence. Patriarch Nikon turned the refectory into a church child. This transformation was intended, first of all, for that part of the aristocracy that still remembered ancient traditions and roots, the purpose of the refectory and the holidays that were celebrated in it.

But not only the refectory was taken over by the church, but also the bell towers with bells, which have nothing to do with Christian churches at all.

Christian clergy called worshipers by striking a metal plate or wooden board - a beat, which existed in Rus' at least until the 19th century. Bells for monasteries were too expensive and were only used in rich monasteries. Sergius of Radonezh, when he called the brethren to a prayer service, beat the beater.

Nowadays, free-standing wooden bell towers have survived only in the north of Russia, and even then in very small numbers. In its central regions they were long ago replaced by stone ones.

“Nowhere, however, in pre-Petrine Rus' were bell towers built in connection with churches, as was the case in the West, but were constantly erected as separate buildings, only sometimes attached to one side or another of the temple... Bell towers, which are in close connection with the church and are included in its general plan, appeared in Russia only in the 17th century!” writes A.V. Opolovnikov, a Russian scientist and restorer of monuments of Russian wooden architecture.

It turns out that bell towers at monasteries and churches became widespread thanks to Nikon only in the 17th century!

Initially, bell towers were built wooden and served a city purpose. They were built in the central parts of the settlement and served as a way to notify the population about a particular event. Each event had its own chime, by which residents could determine what happened in the city. For example, a fire or a public meeting. And on holidays, the bells shimmered with many joyful and cheerful motifs. Bell towers were always built wooden with a hipped top, which provided certain acoustic features to the ringing.

The church privatized its bell towers, bells and bell ringers. And with them our past. And Nikon played a major role in this.

Replacing Slavic traditions with alien Greek ones, Nikon did not ignore such an element of Russian culture as buffoonery. The appearance of puppet theater in Rus' is associated with buffoon games. The first chronicle information about buffoons coincides with the appearance of frescoes depicting buffoon performances on the walls of the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral. The chronicler monk calls the buffoons servants of devils, and the artist who painted the walls of the cathedral considered it possible to include their image in church decorations along with icons. Buffoons were associated with the masses, and one of their types of art was “glum,” that is, satire. Skomorokhs are called “mockers,” that is, scoffers.

Mockery, mockery, satire will continue to be firmly associated with buffoons. The buffoons ridiculed primarily the Christian clergy, and when the Romanov dynasty came to power and supported church persecution of the buffoons, they began to mock government officials. The worldly art of buffoons was hostile to the church and clerical ideology.

Episodes of the fight against buffoonery are described in detail by Avvakum in his “Life”. The hatred that the clergy had for the art of buffoons is evidenced by the records of chroniclers (“The Tale of Bygone Years”). When the Amusing Closet (1571) and the Amusing Chamber (1613) were set up at the Moscow court, the buffoons found themselves in the position of court jesters.

But it was during the time of Nikon that the persecution of buffoons reached its apogee. They tried to impose on the Russian people that buffoons are servants of the devil. But for the people, the buffoon always remained a “good fellow,” a daredevil. Attempts to present the buffoons as jesters and servants of the devil failed, and the buffoons were imprisoned en masse, and were subsequently subjected to torture and execution.

In 1648 and 1657, Nikon sought from the tsar the adoption of decrees banning buffoons. The persecution of buffoons was so widespread that by the end of the 17th century they disappeared from the central regions. And by the time of the reign of Peter I they finally disappeared as a phenomenon of the Russian people.

Nikon did everything possible and impossible to ensure that the true Slavic heritage disappeared from the vastness of Rus', and with it the Great Russian People.

Now it becomes obvious that there were no grounds at all for carrying out church reform. The reasons were completely different and had nothing to do with the church. This is, first of all, the destruction of the spirit of the Russian people! Culture, heritage, the great past of our people. And this was done by Nikon with great cunning and meanness.

Nikon simply “planted a pig” on the people, so much so that we, the Russians, still have to remember in parts, literally bit by bit, who we are and our Great Past.

Patriarch Nikon began to introduce new rituals, new liturgical books and other “improvements” into the Russian Church without the approval of the council, without permission. He ascended the Moscow patriarchal throne in 1652. Even before his elevation to patriarch, he became close to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Together they decided to remake the Russian Church in a new way: to introduce new rites, rituals, and books into it, so that it would be in everything like the contemporary Greek Church, which had long ceased to be completely pious.

In the circle of Patriarch Nikon, the most important role began to be played by the international adventurer Arseny the Greek, a man, among other things, of very dubious faith. He received his upbringing and education from the Jesuits, upon arriving in the East he converted to Islam, then again joined Orthodoxy, and then converted to Catholicism. When he appeared in Moscow, he was sent to the Solovetsky Monastery as a dangerous heretic. From here Nikon took him to him and made him his main assistant in church affairs. This caused murmurs among the Russian people. But they were afraid to object to Nikon, since the tsar granted him unlimited rights in church affairs. Relying on friendship and royal power, Nikon embarked on church reform decisively and boldly.

He began by strengthening his own power. Nikon had a cruel and stubborn character, behaved proudly and inaccessibly, calling himself, following the example of the Pope, “extreme saint,” was titled “great sovereign” and was one of the richest people in Russia. He treated bishops arrogantly, did not want to call them his brothers, terribly humiliated and persecuted the rest of the clergy. Everyone was afraid and in awe of Nikon. The historian Klyuchevsky called Nikon a church dictator.

The reform began with the destruction of books. In the old days there were no printing houses; books were copied in monasteries and at episcopal courts by special masters. This skill, like icon painting, was considered sacred and was performed diligently and with reverence. The Russian people loved the book and knew how to cherish it as a shrine. The slightest inventory in a book, an oversight or a mistake was considered a great sin. That is why the numerous manuscripts of old times that have survived to us are distinguished by the purity and beauty of the writing, the correctness and accuracy of the text. It is difficult to find blots or strikethroughs in ancient manuscripts. They contained fewer typos than modern typo books. Significant errors noticed in previous books were eliminated even before Nikon, when the Printing House began operating in Moscow. The correction of the books was carried out with great care and discretion.

It became different under Patriarch Nikon. At the council in 1654, it was decided to correct liturgical books according to ancient Greek and ancient Slavic, but in fact the correction was made according to new Greek books printed in Jesuit printing houses in Venice and Paris. Even the Greeks themselves spoke of these books as distorted and erroneous.

The change in books was followed by other church innovations. The most notable innovations were the following:

• -instead of the two-fingered sign of the cross, which was adopted in Rus' from the Greek Orthodox Church along with Christianity and which is part of the Holy Apostolic tradition, three fingers were introduced.
• -in old books, in accordance with the spirit of the Slavic language, the name of the Savior “Jesus” was always written and pronounced; in new books this name was changed to the Greekized “Jesus”.
• -in old books it is established that during baptism, wedding and consecration of the temple we should walk around the sun as a sign that we are following the Sun-Christ. In the new books, walking against the sun has been introduced.
• -in the old books, in the Creed (8th member), it reads: “And in the Holy Spirit of the True and Life-Giving Lord,” but after corrections the word “True” was excluded.
• -instead of the special, i.e., double hallelujah, which the Russian Church has been doing since ancient times, a three-part (i.e., triple) hallelujah was introduced.
• - the divine liturgy in Byzantium, and then in Ancient Rus', was performed on seven prosphoras; the new “inspectors” introduced five prosphoras, that is, two prosphoras were excluded.

Nikon and his assistants boldly attempted to change church institutions, customs and even the apostolic traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted at the Baptism of Rus'. These changes in church laws, traditions and rituals could not but cause a sharp rebuff from the Russian people, who sacredly kept the ancient holy books and traditions. In addition to the very damage to books and church customs, sharp resistance among the people was caused by the violent measures with the help of which Nikon and the tsar who supported him imposed these innovations. Russian people were subjected to cruel persecution and execution, whose conscience could not agree with church innovations and distortions. Many preferred to die rather than betray the faith of their fathers and grandfathers.

Just one example of how church reform was done.

Since the most famous example of Nikon’s reforms is a change in his constitution, let’s dwell a little on this issue. The entire Russian Church then made the sign of the cross with two fingers: three fingers (thumb and last two) were folded in the name of the Holy Trinity, and two (index and great middle) in the name of the two natures in Christ - divine and human. The ancient Greek Church also taught to fold the fingers in this way to express the main truths of the Orthodox faith. Duality has been going on since apostolic times. His image is contained in mosaics from the 4th century. The Holy Fathers testify that Christ Himself blessed the disciples with just such a sign. Nikon canceled it. He did this without permission, without a council decision, without the consent of the Church and even without consultation with any bishop. In return, he ordered to be marked with three fingers: to fold the first three fingers in the name of St. Trinity, and the last two “to be idle,” that is, not to represent anything with them. Christians said: the new patriarch abolished Christ.

Three fingers was a clear innovation. It appeared among the Greeks shortly before Nikon, and they also brought it to Russia. Not a single holy father and not a single ancient council testifies to triplicity. Therefore, the Russian people did not want to accept him. Not only was the three-fingered symbol a much less expressive and accurate representation of what we believe in, it contained an obvious inaccuracy of confession, for when we apply the sign of the cross to ourselves, it turns out that it is St. The Trinity was crucified on the cross, and not One of Her faces - Jesus Christ according to his humanity.

But Nikon did not consider any arguments. He began his reforms not with God's blessing, but with curses and anathemas. Taking advantage of the arrival in Moscow of the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius and other hierarchs from the East, Nikon invited them to speak out in favor of a new constitution. They wrote the following: “It has been a tradition from the beginning of the faith that the holy apostles and holy fathers, and the holy seven councils, make the sign of the venerable cross with the first three fingers of the right hand. And whoever does not make the cross of Orthodox Christians, according to the tradition of the Eastern Church, holding it from the beginning of the faith even to this day, is a heretic and an imitator of the Armenians. And for this reason, his imams were excommunicated from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and cursed.”

Such a terrible condemnation was first proclaimed in the presence of many people, then stated in writing and published in the book “Tablet” published by Nikon. These reckless curses and excommunications struck the Russian people like thunder. The Russian pious people, the entire Russian church could not agree with such an extremely unfair condemnation proclaimed by Nikon and his like-minded Greek bishops, especially since they spoke an obvious lie, as if both the apostles and St. fathers established triplicity. But Nikon didn’t stop there. He needed to not only destroy, but also spit on the antiquities of Orthodoxy.

In the book “The Tablet” he added new condemnations to those just given. He went so far as to begin to blaspheme double-fingering as supposedly containing the terrible “heresies and wickedness” of the ancient heretics condemned by the ecumenical councils (Arians and Nestorians). In the “Tablet,” Orthodox Christians are cursed and anathematized for confessing the Holy Spirit as True in the creed. In essence, Nikon and his assistants cursed the Russian Church for its completely Orthodox confession of faith and for ancient church traditions.

These actions of Nikon and his like-minded people made them apostates from the Holy Church.

Nikon's activities met with strong opposition from a number of clergy of that time: Bishop Pavel Kolomensky, archpriests Avvakum Petrov, John Neronov, Daniil from Kostroma, Loggin from Murom and others. The leaders of the religious opposition enjoyed great respect among the people for their high personal qualities. They dared to speak the truth in the eyes of the powers that be, did not care at all about their personal benefits, and served the Church and God with all devotion, sincere and fiery love. In oral sermons and letters, they boldly denounced all the perpetrators of church misfortunes, not being afraid to mention first the names of the patriarch and the tsar. What is striking in them is their readiness to undergo suffering and torment for the cause of Christ, for the truth of God.

Faithful and persistent champions of church antiquity were soon subjected to cruel torture and execution. The first martyrs for the right faith were archpriests John Neronov, Loggin, Daniel, Avvakum and Bishop Pavel Kolomensky. They were expelled from Moscow in the very first year of Nikon’s reform activities (1653-1654).

At the council of 1654, convened on the issue of book correction, Bishop Pavel Kolomensky courageously declared to Nikon: “We will not accept the new faith,” for which he was deprived of his see without a council trial. Right at the cathedral, Patriarch Nikon personally beat Bishop Paul, tore off his robe and ordered him to be immediately sent into exile. In a far northern monastery, Bishop Paul was subjected to severe torture and finally secretly killed.

The people said that an executioner and murderer sat on the high priestly throne. Everyone was in awe of him, and none of the bishops dared to speak with a courageous word of reproof. Timidly and silently they agreed to his demands and orders. Those who could not step over their conscience, but were not able to resist, tried to retire. Thus, Bishop Alexander of Vyatka, maintaining personal loyalty to the old faith, chose to leave his see, retiring to one of the monasteries.

Unfortunately, among the Russian clergy of the mid-17th century. There turned out to be a significant number of cowardly people who did not dare to contradict the cruel authorities. Therefore, Nikon’s main opponent was the church people: simple monks and laymen, the best, spiritually strong and devoted sons of Orthodoxy. There were quite a few of them, probably even the majority. The Old Believers were a popular faith from the very beginning.

Nikon remained on the patriarchal throne for seven years. With his lust for power and pride, he managed to alienate everyone from himself. He also had a break with the king. The patriarch interfered in the affairs of the state, even dreamed of becoming higher than the king and completely subordinating him to his will. Alexey Mikhailovich began to feel burdened by his “sobin’s friend” and lost interest in him.

Then Nikon decided to influence the king with a threat, which he had previously succeeded in doing. He decided to publicly renounce the patriarchate, counting on the fact that the tsar would be touched by his renunciation and would beg him not to leave the primate throne. This would be a good reason to restore and strengthen their influence on the king.

At the solemn liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin on July 10, 1658, he announced from the pulpit, addressing the clergy and the people: “I have grown cold from laziness, and you have grown cold from me. From now on I will not be your patriarch; If I think of being a patriarch, then I will be anathema.” Immediately on the pulpit, Nikon took off his bishop's vestments, put on a black robe and a monastic hood, took a simple stick and left the cathedral.

However, Nikon was severely mistaken in his calculations. The king, having learned about the departure of the patriarch, did not stop him. Nikon, having hidden himself in the Resurrection Monastery, which he nicknamed “New Jerusalem,” began to wait for the tsar’s reaction. He continued to behave imperiously and arbitrarily: he performed ordinations, condemned and cursed bishops. But the vain expectation embittered him so much that he even cursed the king and his entire family.

He, of course, could not come to terms with his new position as only a monastery inhabitant. Nikon tried to return to patriarchal power again. One night he suddenly arrived in Moscow at the Assumption Cathedral during a service and sent to notify the Tsar of his arrival. But the king did not come to him. Frustrated, Nikon returned to the monastery.

Nikon's flight from the patriarchal throne brought new disorder into church life. On this occasion, the Tsar convened a council in Moscow in 1660. The council decided to elect a new patriarch. But Nikon at this council burst into abuse and called him “a demonic host”. The Tsar and the bishops did not know what to do with Nikon.

At this time, the secret Jesuit Greek “Metropolitan” Paisius Ligarid arrived in Moscow with forged letters. Then reliable reports were received that Paisius Ligarid was in the service of the Pope and that the Eastern patriarchs had overthrown him and cursed him. But in Moscow they turned a blind eye to this, probably because Paisius Ligarid could be very useful to the tsar. This dexterous and resourceful man was entrusted with Nikon's work. Paisius immediately became the head of Russian church affairs. He stated that Nikon “must be damned as a heretic,” and that for this it is necessary to convene a large council in Moscow with the participation of the Eastern patriarchs. In response, Nikon helplessly scolded the Greek “thief”, “non-Christian”, “dog”, “self-installed”, “peasant”.

To try Nikon and consider other church matters, Tsar Alexei convened a council in 1666, which was continued the following year, 1667. The eastern patriarchates - Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch - arrived at the council. The invitation of these patriarchs was unsuccessful. As it turned out later, they themselves were deposed from their thrones by a council of eastern hierarchs, and therefore did not have the canonical right to decide any church affairs.

The trial of Nikon has begun. The Council found Nikon guilty of unauthorized flight from the pulpit and other crimes. The patriarchs called him “liar”, “deceiver”, “tormentor”, “murderer”, compared with Satan, they said that he “even worse than Satan”, recognized him as a heretic because he ordered not to confess to thieves and robbers before death. Nikon did not remain in debt and called the patriarchs names “impostors”, “Turkish slaves”, “vagrants”, “corrupt people” etc. In the end, the cathedral deprived Nikon of his holy rank and made him a simple monk.

After the change in his fate, Nikon himself changed in relation to his reforms. While still on the patriarchal throne, he sometimes said that “The old missals are good” and on them “one can serve God’s service”. Having left the throne, he began to publish books in the monastery that were consistent with the old printed books. With this return to the old text, Nikon seemed to pass judgment on his own book reform, recognizing it as unnecessary and useless.

Nikon died in 1681, not reconciled either with the tsar, or with the bishops, or with the Church.

The fall of the once powerful Byzantine Empire, the transformation of its capital Constantinople from a pillar of the Christian Orthodox Church into the center of a religion hostile to it, led to the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church had a real chance to lead Orthodox Christianity. Therefore, starting from the 15th century, after the adoption of the Union of Florence, Russia began to call itself the “third Rome”. In order to meet these stated standards, the Russian Orthodox Church was forced to carry out church reform in the 17th century.

Patriarch Nikon is considered to be the author of this church reform, which led to a split among the Orthodox Russian people. But without a doubt, the Russian tsars from the Romanov dynasty contributed to the church schism, which became a disaster for the entire Russian people for almost three centuries, and has not been completely overcome to this day.

Church reform of Patriarch Nikon

The church reform of Patriarch Nikon in the Russian state of the 17th century was a whole set of measures, which consisted of both canonical and administrative acts. They were simultaneously undertaken by the Russian Orthodox Church and the Moscow State. The essence of the church reform was changes in the liturgical tradition, which had been consistently observed since the adoption of Christianity. Learned Greek theologians, when visiting services of the Russian Orthodox Church, repeatedly pointed out the inconsistency of the church canons of the Moscow Church with Greek customs.

The most obvious disagreements were in the tradition of making the sign of the cross, saying hallelujah during prayer, and the order of the procession. The Russian Orthodox Church adhered to the tradition of making the sign of the cross with two fingers - the Greeks were baptized with three fingers. Russian priests carried out the procession according to the sun, and Greek priests - on the contrary. Greek theologians discovered many errors in Russian liturgical books. All these errors and disagreements were to be corrected as a result of the reform. They were corrected, but it did not happen painlessly and simply.

Schism in the Russian Orthodox Church

In 1652, the Council of the Hundred Heads was held, which approved new church rituals. From the moment the council was held, the priests had to conduct church services according to new books and using new rituals. The old holy books, according to which the entire Orthodox Russian people had prayed for several centuries, had to be confiscated. The usual icons depicting Christ and the Mother of God were also subject to confiscation, or destruction, since their hands were folded in two-fingered baptism. For ordinary Orthodox people, and not only others, this was wild and blasphemous! How could you throw away an icon that several generations had prayed for! What was it like to feel like atheists and heretics for those who considered themselves a truly believing Orthodox person and lived their entire lives according to the customary and necessary laws of God!

But by his special decree he indicated that everyone who does not obey the innovations will be considered heretics, excommunicated and anathematized. The rudeness, harshness, and intolerance of Patriarch Nikon led to the discontent of a significant part of the clergy and laity, who were ready for uprisings, going into the forests and self-immolations, just not to submit to reformist innovations.

In 1667, the Great Moscow Council was held, which condemned and deposed Patriarch Nikon for his unauthorized abandonment of the see in 1658, but approved all the reforms of the church and anathematized those who opposed its implementation. The state supported the church reform of the Russian Church as amended in 1667. All opponents of the reform began to be called Old Believers and schismatics, and were subject to persecution.

Preamble
The essence of Nikon’s church reform is in 17 main points:
- at least somehow, if only not in the old way

Nikon wanted not just to correct some errors of the scribes, but to change all the old Russian church rites and rituals in accordance with the new Greek ones. “The tragedy of the split-creative reform was that an attempt was made to “rule the straight along the crooked side.” Archpriest Avvakum conveyed the order of Patriarch Nikon to “correct” the books to the “inspector”, a student of the Jesuits, Arseny the Greek: “Rule, Arsen, at least somehow, if only not in the old way" And where in the liturgical books it was previously written “youths” - it became “children”; where it was written “children” - it became “youths”; where there was a “church” - there became a “temple”, where there was a “temple” - there was a “church”... Such outright absurdities also appeared as “the radiance of noise”, “to understand the toes (i.e. with the eyes)”, “to see with the finger”, “cruciform hands of Moses,” not to mention the prayer “to the evil spirit” inserted into the rite of baptism.

1. Double-fingered replaced with triple-fingered
2. The ancient custom of electing clergy by the parish was abolished - he began to be appointed
3. Recognition of secular authorities as the head of the church - following the model of Protestant churches
4. Prostrations canceled
5. Marriages with people of other faiths and relatives are allowed
6. The eight-pointed cross was replaced with a four-pointed one
7. During religious processions they began to walk against the sun
8. The word Jesus began to be written with two and - Jesus
9. The Liturgy began to be served at 5 prosphoras instead of 7
10. Praising the Lord four times instead of three times
11. The word of truth has been removed from the Creed from the words about the Holy Lord
12. The form of the Jesus Prayer has been changed
13. Pouring baptism became acceptable instead of immersion
14. The shape of the pulpit was changed
15. The white hood of the Russian hierarchs was replaced by the kamilavka of the Greeks
16. The ancient form of bishop's staffs has been changed
17. Church singing and canons of writing icons have been changed

1. Two-fingered, ancient, inherited from apostolic times, form of the sign of the cross, was called the “Armenian heresy” and was replaced by three-fingered. As a priestly sign for blessing, the so-called malaxa, or name sign, was introduced. In the interpretation of the two-fingered sign of the cross, two outstretched fingers mean the two natures of Christ (Divine and human), and three (fifth, fourth and first), folded at the palm, mean the Holy Trinity. By introducing tripartite (meaning only the Trinity), Nikon not only neglected the dogma of the God-manhood of Christ, but also introduced the “divine-passionate” heresy (that is, in fact, he argued that not only the human nature of Christ, but the entire Holy Trinity suffered on the cross). This innovation, introduced into the Russian Church by Nikon, was a very serious dogmatic distortion, since the sign of the cross has at all times been a visible symbol of faith for Orthodox Christians. The truth and antiquity of the double-fingered constitution is confirmed by many testimonies. These also include ancient images that have survived to our time (for example, a 3rd century fresco from the Tomb of St. Priscilla in Rome, a 4th century mosaic depicting the Miraculous Fishing from the Church of St. Apollinaris in Rome, a painted image of the Annunciation from the Church of St. Mary in Rome, dating from the 5th century century); and numerous Russian and Greek icons of the Savior, the Mother of God and saints, miraculously revealed and painted in ancient times (all of them are listed in detail in the fundamental Old Believer theological work “Pomeranian Answers”); and the ancient rite of acceptance from the Jacobite heresy, which, according to the Council of Constantinople in 1029, the Greek Church contained back in the 11th century: “Whoever does not baptize with two fingers like Christ, let him be cursed”; and ancient books - Joseph, Archimandrite of the Spassky New Monastery, the cell Psalter of Cyril of Novoezersky, in the original Greek book of Nikon the Montenegrin and others: “If anyone is not marked with two fingers, like Christ, let him be cursed”3; and the custom of the Russian Church, adopted at the Baptism of Rus' from the Greeks and not interrupted until the time of Patriarch Nikon. This custom was conciliarly confirmed in the Russian Church at the Council of the Stoglavy in 1551: “If anyone does not bless with two fingers, like Christ, or does not imagine the sign of the cross with two fingers; may he be cursed, as the Holy Fathers rekosha.” In addition to what was said above, evidence that the two-fingered sign of the cross is a tradition of the ancient Ecumenical Church (and not just the Russian local one) is also the text of the Greek Helmsman, where the following is written: “The ancient Christians formed their fingers differently to depict the cross on themselves than the modern ones, then Some people depicted him with two fingers – the middle and index fingers, as Peter of Damascus says. The whole hand, says Peter, means one hypostasis of Christ, and the two fingers mean His two natures.” As for triplicate, not a single piece of evidence in its favor has yet been found in any ancient monuments.

2. The prostrations accepted in the pre-schism Church were abolished, which are an undoubted church tradition established by Christ Himself, as evidenced in the Gospel (Christ prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, “fell on His face,” that is, made prostrations) and in the patristic works . The abolition of prostrations was perceived as a revival of the ancient heresy of non-worshippers, since prostrations in general and, in particular, performed during Lent are a visible sign of veneration for God and His saints, as well as a visible sign of deep repentance. The preface to the Psalter of 1646 edition said: “For this is cursed, and such wickedness is rejected from heretics, who do not bow down to the ground, in our prayers to God, in the church on appointed days. The same about this, and not without a decree from the charter of the holy fathers, such wickedness and heresy, hedgehog inflexibility, took root in many people during the Holy Great Lent, and for this reason no pious son of the apostolic church can hear. Such wickedness and heresy, let us not have such evil in the Orthodox, as the holy fathers say.”4

3. The three-part eight-pointed cross, which from ancient times in Rus' was the main symbol of Orthodoxy, was replaced by a two-part four-pointed one, associated in the minds of Orthodox people with Catholic teaching and called the “Latin (or Lyatsky) kryzh.” After the reform began, the eight-pointed cross was expelled from the church. The hatred of the reformers towards him is evidenced by the fact that one of the prominent figures of the new church, Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov, called him “Brynsky” or “schismatic” in his writings. Only from the end of the 19th century did the eight-pointed cross begin to gradually return to New Believer churches.

4. The prayer cry - the angelic song “Hallelujah” - began to be quadrupled among the Nikonians, since they sing “Hallelujah” three times and the fourth, equivalent, “Glory to Thee, O God.” This violates the sacred trinity. At the same time, the ancient “extreme (that is, double) hallelujah” was declared by the reformers to be “the abominable Macedonian heresy.”

5. In the confession of the Orthodox faith - the Creed, a prayer listing the main dogmas of Christianity, the word “true” is removed from the words “in the Holy Spirit of the true and life-giving Lord” and thereby casts doubt on the truth of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. A translation of a word "?? ??????”, standing in the original Greek Creed, can be twofold: both “Lord” and “true”. The old translation of the Symbol included both options, emphasizing the equality of the Holy Spirit with the other persons of the Holy Trinity. And this does not at all contradict Orthodox teaching. The unjustified removal of the word “true” destroyed the symmetry, sacrificing meaning for the sake of a literal copy of the Greek text. And this caused fair indignation among many. From the combination “born, not created,” the conjunction “a” was removed - the same “az” for which many were ready to go to the stake. The exclusion of “a” could be thought of as an expression of doubt about the uncreated nature of Christ. Instead of the previous statement “There will be (that is, no) end to His kingdom,” “there will be no end” is introduced, that is, the infinity of the Kingdom of God turns out to be related to the future and thereby limited in time. Changes in the Creed, sanctified by centuries of history, were perceived especially painfully. And this was the case not only in Russia with its notorious “ritualism,” “literalism,” and “theological ignorance.” Here we can recall a classic example from Byzantine theology - the story with only one modified “iota”, introduced by the Arians into the term “consubstantial” (Greek “omousios”) and turning it into “common-essential” (Greek “omiousios”). This distorted the teaching of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, enshrined in the authority of the First Council of Nicea, about the relationship between the essence of the Father and the Son. That is why the Ecumenical Councils prohibited, under pain of anathema, any, even the most insignificant changes in the Creed.

6. In Nikon’s books, the very spelling of the name of Christ was changed: instead of the former Jesus, which is still found among other Slavic peoples, Jesus was introduced, and only the second form was declared the only correct one, which was elevated to a dogma by New Believer theologians. Thus, according to the blasphemous interpretation of Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov, the pre-reform spelling of the name “Jesus” in translation supposedly means “equal-eared,” “monstrous and meaningless”5.

7. The form of the Jesus Prayer, which, according to Orthodox teaching, has a special mystical power, was changed. Instead of the words “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner,” the reformers decided to read “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” The Jesus Prayer in its pre-Nikon version was considered a universal (universal) and eternal prayer, based on the Gospel texts, as the first apostolic confession on which Jesus Christ created His Church6. It gradually came into general use and even into the Church Rules. Saints Ephraim and Isaac the Syrian, Saint Hesychius, Saints Barsanuphius and John, and Saint John the Climacus have indications of it. Saint John Chrysostom speaks about it this way: “I beg you, brothers, never violate or despise this prayer.” However, the reformers threw this prayer out of all liturgical books and, under threat of anathemas, forbade it to be said “in church singing and in general meetings.” They later began to call her “schismatic.”

8. During religious processions, the sacraments of baptism and weddings, the new believers began to walk against the sun, while, according to church tradition, this was supposed to be done in the direction of the sun (posolon) - following the Sun-Christ. It should be noted here that a similar ritual of walking against the sun was practiced by different peoples in a number of harmful magical cults.

9. When baptizing infants, the New Believers began to allow and even justify dousing and sprinkling with water, contrary to the Apostolic decrees on the need for baptism in three immersions (50th canon of the Saints). In connection with this, the rites of Catholics and Protestants were changed. If, according to the ancient church canons, confirmed by the Council of 1620, which was under Patriarch Filaret, Catholics and Protestants were required to be baptized with full threefold immersion, now they were accepted into the mainstream church only through anointing.

10. The New Believers began to serve the Liturgy on five prosphoras, arguing that otherwise “the body and blood of Christ cannot exist” (according to the old Service Books, it was supposed to serve on seven prosphoras).

11. In churches, Nikon ordered to break down “ambons” and build “lockers”, that is, the shape of the pulpit (pre-altar elevation) was changed, each part of which had a certain symbolic meaning. In the pre-Nikon tradition, four pulpit pillars meant the four Gospels; if there was one pillar, it meant the stone rolled away by an angel from the cave with the body of Christ. Nikon's five pillars began to symbolize the pope and five patriarchs, which contains an obvious Latin heresy.

12. The white hood of the Russian hierarchs - a symbol of the purity and holiness of the Russian clergy, which distinguished them among the ecumenical patriarchs - was replaced by Nikon with the “horned cap kamilavka” of the Greeks. In the eyes of Russian pious people, the “horned klobutsy” were compromised by the fact that they were repeatedly denounced in a number of polemical works against the Latins (for example, in the story about Peter Gugniv, who was part of the Palea, Cyril’s Book and Makary’s Chet Minea). In general, under Nikon, all the clothing of the Russian clergy was changed according to the modern Greek model (in turn, heavily influenced by Turkish fashion - wide sleeves of cassocks like oriental robes and kamilavkas like Turkish fezzes). According to the testimony of Pavel of Aleppo, following Nikon, many bishops and monks wished to change their robes. “Many of them came to our teacher (Patriarch Macarius of Antioch - K.K.) and asked him to give them a kamilavka and a hood... Those who managed to acquire them and on whom Patriarch Nikon or ours entrusted them, their faces opened and shone. On this occasion, they vied with each other and began to order kamilavkas for themselves made of black cloth in the same shape that we and the Greek monks had, and the hoods were made of black silk. They spat in front of us on their old hoods, throwing them off their heads and saying: “If this Greek robe had not been of divine origin, our patriarch would not have put it on first.”7 Regarding this insane disregard for his native antiquity and groveling before foreign customs and orders, Archpriest Avvakum wrote: “Oh, oh, poor things! Rus', for some reason you wanted German actions and customs!” and called on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: “Breathe in the old way, as you used to do under Stefan, and say in Russian: “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!” And leave Kireleison alone; That's what they say in Hell; spit on them! You, Mikhailovich, are a Russian, not a Greek. Speak in your natural language; do not humiliate him in church and at home, and in proverbs. As Christ taught us, this is how we should speak. God loves us no less than the Greeks; Saint Cyril and his brother gave us the letter in our own tongue. What do we want better than that? Is it the language of angels? No, they won’t give it now, until the general resurrection.”9

13. The ancient form of bishop's staffs was changed. On this occasion, Archpriest Avvakum wrote with indignation: “Yes, he, the evil Nikon, started in our Russia with his like-minded people the most evil and unpleasing thing - instead of the rod of St. Peter the Wonderworker, he again acquired the holy rods with the cursed snakes that destroyed our great-grandfather Adam and the whole world , which the Lord himself cursed from all livestock and from all the beasts of the earth. And now they sanctify and honor this cursed snake above all cattle and beasts and bring it into the sanctuary of God, into the altar and into the royal doors, as if a certain consecration and the entire church service with those rods and with the cursed serpents made act everywhere, like some kind of precious treasure, they command to wear those snakes in front of their face for display to the whole world, and they form the consumption of the Orthodox faith”10.

14. Instead of ancient singing, a new one was introduced - first Polish-Little Russian, and then Italian. New icons began to be painted not according to ancient models, but according to Western ones, which is why they became more similar to secular paintings than to icons. All this contributed to the cultivation in believers of unhealthy sensuality and exaltation, previously not characteristic of Orthodoxy. Gradually, ancient icon painting was completely replaced by salon religious painting, which slavishly and unskillfully imitated Western models and bore the loud name of “icons of the Italian style” or “in the Italian taste,” about which the Old Believer theologian Andrei Denisov spoke in the following way in “Pomeranian Answers”: “Current painters , that (that is, the apostolic - K.K.) changed the sacred tradition, they paint icons not from the ancient likenesses of the holy miraculous icons of Greek and Russian, but from self-judgment: the appearance of the flesh is made white (thickened), and in other designs they are not like the ancient saints having icons, but like Latin and others, those in the Bibles are printed and painted on canvases. This pictorial new publication gives us doubts...”11 Archpriest Avvakum characterizes this kind of religious painting even more sharply: “By the permission of God, in our Russian land icon paintings of incomparable isugraphs have multiplied... They are painting the image of Emmanuel of the Savior; the face is puffy, the mouth is red, the hair is curly, the arms and muscles are thick, the fingers are puffy, the thighs are also thick at the feet, and the whole body is belly and fat like a German, except for the sword that is not written on the thigh. Otherwise, everything was written according to carnal intent: because the heretics themselves loved the fatness of the flesh and refuted the things above... But the Mother of God is pregnant at the Annunciation, just like the filthy filth. And Christ on the cross is blown out of proportion: the fat little guy is standing cute, and his legs are like chairs.”12

15. Marriages were allowed with people of other faiths and persons in degrees of kinship prohibited by the Church.

16. In the New Believer Church, the ancient custom of electing clergy by the parish was abolished. It was replaced by a resolution appointed from above.

17. Finally, subsequently the New Believers destroyed the ancient canonical church structure and recognized the secular government as the head of the church - following the model of the Protestant churches.