Church split. What caused the church schism in the middle of the 17th century
During the Church Schism of the 17th century, the following key events can be distinguished:
1652 - Nikon's church reform
1654, 1656 - church councils, excommunication and exile of opponents of the reform
1658 - gap between Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich
1666 - church council with the participation of the ecumenical patriarchs. The deprivation of Nikon of the patriarchal dignity, the curse of the schismatics.
1667-1676 - Solovetsky uprising.
Separation from the Russian Orthodox Church of part of the believers who did not recognize the church reform of Patriarch Nikon (1653 - 1656); religious and social movement that arose in Russia in the 17th century. (See the scheme "Church Schism") In 1653, wishing to strengthen the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Nikon set about implementing a church reform designed to eliminate discrepancies in books and rituals that had accumulated over many centuries, and to unify the theological system throughout Russia. Some of the clergy, led by archpriests Avvakum and Daniel, suggested that the reform be based on ancient Russian theological books. Nikon, on the other hand, decided to use Greek samples, which, in his opinion, would facilitate the unification of all Orthodox churches in Europe and Asia under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate and thereby increase his influence on the tsar. The patriarch was supported by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and Nikon began to reform. The Printing House began issuing revised and newly translated books. Instead of the old Russian, Greek ritualism was introduced: the two-finger was replaced by the three-finger, the four-pointed cross instead of the eight-pointed was declared a symbol of faith, and so on. The innovations were secured by the Council of the Russian Clergy in 1654, and in 1655 they were approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople on behalf of all the Eastern Orthodox Churches. However, the reform, carried out hastily and forcibly, without preparing the Russian society for it, caused a strong confrontation among the Russian clergy and believers. In 1656, the defenders of the old rites, whose recognized leader was Archpriest Avvakum, were excommunicated from the church. But this measure did not help. There was a current of Old Believers who created their own church organizations. The schism acquired a massive character after the decision of the Church Council of 1666-1667. about executions and exiles of ideologues and opponents of the reform. The Old Believers, fleeing persecution, went to the distant forests of the Volga region, the European north, to Siberia, where they founded schismatic communities - sketes. The response to the persecution was also the actions of mass self-immolation, posting (starvation). The movement of the Old Believers also acquired a social character. The old faith became a sign in the struggle against the strengthening of serfdom. The most powerful protest against church reform manifested itself in the Solovetsky uprising. The rich and famous Solovetsky Monastery openly refused to recognize all the innovations introduced by Nikon, to obey the decisions of the Council. An army was sent to Solovki, but the monks shut themselves up in the monastery and put up armed resistance. The siege of the monastery began, which lasted about eight years (1668 - 1676). The monks' stand for the old faith served as an example for many. After the suppression of the Solovetsky uprising, the persecution of schismatics intensified. In 1682 Habakkuk and many of his supporters were burned. In 1684, a decree followed, according to which the Old Believers were to be tortured, and in case of not subjugation, they were to be burned. However, these repressive measures did not liquidate the movement of supporters of the old faith; their number in the 17th century constantly grew, many of them left the borders of Russia. In the XVIII century. there has been a weakening of the persecution of schismatics by the government and the official church. At the same time, several independent trends emerged in the Old Believers.
In the future, Alexei Mikhailovich saw the unification of the Orthodox peoples of Eastern Europe and the Balkans. But, as mentioned above, in Ukraine they were baptized with three fingers, in the Muscovite state - with two. Consequently, the tsar faced the problem of an ideological plan - to impose his own rites on the entire Orthodox world (which had long since accepted the innovations of the Greeks) or to obey the dominant three-fingered sign. The Tsar and Nikon went the second way.
As a result, the root cause of Nikon's church reform, which split Russian society, was political - the power-hungry desire of Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich for the idea of a world Orthodox kingdom based on the theory of "Moscow - the third Rome", which received a rebirth in this era. In addition, the eastern hierarchs (i.e., representatives of the higher clergy), who frequented Moscow, constantly cultivated in the minds of the tsar, the patriarch and their entourage the idea of the future supremacy of Rus' over the entire Orthodox world. The seeds fell on fertile ground.
As a result, the "ecclesiastical" reasons for the reform (bringing into uniformity the practice of religious worship) occupied a secondary position.
The reasons for the reform were undoubtedly objective. The process of centralization of the Russian state - as one of the centralization processes in history - inevitably required the development of a single ideology capable of rallying the broad masses of the population around the center.
Essence
Church schism and its consequences. The growing Russian autocracy, especially in the era of the formation of absolutism, demanded further subordination of the church to the state. By the middle of the XVII century. it turned out that in the Russian liturgical books, which were copied from century to century, many clerical errors, distortions, and changes had accumulated. The same thing happened in church ceremonies. In Moscow, there were two different opinions on the issue of correcting church books. Supporters of one, to which the government was also attached, considered it necessary to correct the books according to the Greek originals. They were opposed by "zealots of ancient piety." The circle of zealots was headed by Stefan Vonifatiev, the tsar's confessor. The work of carrying out church reform was entrusted to Nikon. Power-hungry, with a strong will and vigorous energy, the new patriarch soon dealt the first blow to "ancient piety." By his decree, the correction of liturgical books began to be made according to the Greek originals. Some rituals were also unified: the sign of the cross was replaced with a three-fingered one, the structure of the church service changed, etc. Initially, opposition to Nikon arose in the spiritual circles of the capital, mainly from the side of "zealots of piety." Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel wrote objections to the king. Not having reached the goal, they began to spread their views among the lower and middle strata of the rural and urban population. Church Cathedral 1666-1667 declared a curse on all opponents of the reform, brought them to trial by the "city authorities", who were to be guided by the article of the Code of 1649, which provided for the burning at the stake of anyone "who lays blasphemy on the Lord God." In different parts of the country, bonfires blazed, on which zealots of antiquity died. After the council of 1666-1667. disputes between supporters and opponents of the reform gradually acquired a social connotation and marked the beginning of a split in the Russian Orthodox Church, the emergence of religious opposition (Old Believers or Old Believers). The Old Believers are a complex movement, both in terms of the composition of the participants and in essence. The general slogan was a return to antiquity, a protest against all innovations. Sometimes in the actions of the Old Believers, who evaded the census and the performance of duties in favor of the feudal state, one can unravel social motives. An example of the development of a religious struggle into a social one is the Solovetsky uprising of 1668-1676. The uprising began as a purely religious one. The local monks refused to accept the newly printed "Nikonian" books. Monastery Cathedral 1674 issued a decree: "stand and fight against government people" to death. Only with the help of a defector monk, who showed the besiegers a secret passage, the archers managed to break into the monastery and break the resistance of the rebels. Of the 500 defenders of the monastery, only 50 survived. The crisis of the church also manifested itself in the case of Patriarch Nikon. Implementing the reform, Nikon defended the ideas of Caesaropapism, i.e. superiority of spiritual authority over secular. As a result of Nikon's power-hungry habits, in 1658 there was a gap between the tsar and the patriarch. If the reform of the church carried out by the patriarch met the interests of the Russian autocracy, then Nikon's theocracy clearly contradicted the tendencies of growing absolutism. When Nikon was informed of the tsar's anger at him, he publicly resigned from his rank in the Assumption Cathedral and left for the Resurrection Monastery.
Consequences
The result of the split was a certain confusion in the people's worldview. The Old Believers perceived history as "eternity in the present", that is, as a stream of time in which everyone has his own clearly marked place and is responsible for everything he has done. The idea of the Last Judgment for the Old Believers had not a mythological, but a deeply moral meaning. For the New Believers, the idea of the Last Judgment was no longer taken into account in historical forecasts and became the subject of rhetorical exercises. The attitude of the New Believers was less connected with eternity, more with earthly needs. They were emancipated to a certain extent, they accepted the motive of the transience of time, they had more material practicality, a desire to cope with time in order to achieve quick practical results.
In the struggle against the Old Believers, the official church was forced to turn to the state for assistance, willy-nilly taking steps towards subordination to secular power. Alexey Mikhailovich took advantage of this, and his son Peter finally dealt with the independence of the Orthodox Church. Petrovsky absolutism was built on the fact that he freed state power from all religious and moral norms.
The state persecuted the Old Believers. Repressions against them expanded after the death of Alexei, during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich and Princess Sophia. In 1681, any distribution of ancient books and writings of the Old Believers was prohibited. In 1682, on the orders of Tsar Fedor, the most prominent leader of the schism, Avvakum, was burned. Under Sophia, a law was issued that finally banned any activity of schismatics. They showed exceptional spiritual stamina, responded to repressions with actions of mass self-immolation, when people burned entire clans and communities.
The remaining Old Believers brought a kind of stream into Russian spiritual and cultural thought, did a lot to preserve antiquity. They were more literate than the Nikonians. The Old Believers continued the ancient Russian spiritual tradition, which prescribes a constant search for truth and a tense moral tone. The schism hit this tradition when, after the fall of the prestige of the official church, secular authorities took control of the education system. There has been a change in the main goals of education: instead of a person - a carrier of a higher spiritual principle, they began to train a person who performs a narrow circle of certain functions.
1. Causes of church reform.
2. Reform of Patriarch Nikon.
3. Schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.
4. The fate of Nikon.
1. Reasons for reform churches were rooted in the social crisis of the mid-seventeenth century. The crisis also affected the church itself. The low level of professional training of the clergy, its vices, as well as discrepancies in the sacred books and differences in rituals, distortions of some church services undermined the authority of the church. To restore its influence, it was necessary to restore order, to unify the rites and sacred books according to a single model.
The spiritual crisis experienced by Russian society exacerbated the problem of the church's compliance with the requirements of the time. The crisis expressed itself in the secularization of consciousness. There was an individualization of the consciousness of the townspeople and part of the upper classes of society. The rationalization of the consciousness of some sections of Russian society began. The foreign policy interests of the country also demanded reform. Russia tried to unite under its auspices all Orthodox churches and peoples. For these purposes, it was necessary to bring the rites into unity with the Greek models adopted in the Ukrainian, as well as Serbian and other Orthodox churches in the territories that were planned to be annexed.
3 . Split It was a religious-psychological phenomenon, containing, to some extent, socio-political components. One of the most complex and controversial consequences of the reform and schism was the Old Believers. Nikon's opponents - the Old Believers - refused to recognize the reforms. The most prominent supporter of the split was Archpriest Avvakum, talented publicist and preacher. After 14 years of imprisonment, Avvakum was burned alive for "blasphemy against the royal house."
The emergence of the Old Believers was not caused by the religious formalism of the masses, but by the fact that, without separating the rite from the dogma, the people saw in the reform an attack on the faith of the fathers. The old faith was identified by the people with the idea of Holy Rus' (the concept of "Moscow is the third Rome"). In the conditions of the social crisis of the second half of the XVII century. Expectations of the end of the world intensified, which explained both the behavior of the early Old Believers and the combination in this movement of social groups so different in their interests and worldview.
Without affecting the foundations of Christian doctrine, innovations Patriarch Nikon split the Russian church and society. The split reflected fanaticism, totalitarianism, and the stubborn self-confidence of the Russian soul. Changing the rites of the Old Believers, led by Archpriest Avvakum evaluated as a betrayal by the Church and the authorities of the ideal of Holy Rus'. Nikon's reforms were perceived by them as a betrayal of God and faith, and therefore, as the beginning of the Last Judgment and the end of Rus'. The split intensified the ideological and social contradictions of the 17th century.
The unity and integrity of the Church were violated, the sacred nature of power was questioned, and the dependence of the Church on the state increased. The split, which included representatives of all (including the highest) classes (Old Believers) became one of the causes of numerous social movements (the Solovetsky uprising, the war of Stepan Razin, etc.). An influential movement of Old Believers is being formed, which exists to this day.
Church Cathedral 1666-1667 cursed the Old Believers. Severe persecution of dissenters began. Supporters of the split were hiding in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, the Volga region, and the Urals. Here they created sketes, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, in the event of the approach of the royal detachments, they arranged self-immolation.
4 . However, the fate of Nikon himself was tragic. Possessing considerable ambition and ambition, the patriarch encroached on the royal power, desired that the power of the patriarch be higher than the secular power of the king. At first, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who supported Nikon in everything, when he realized what the patriarch was trying to achieve, stopped communicating with him. Frustrated, Nikon left Moscow and waited for the tsar to ask his forgiveness and call him to Moscow. Instead, Alexei Mikhailovich convened in Moscow the most influential Church Council of the ecumenical patriarchs. Cathedral 1666 - 1667 in addition to the curse of the Old Believers, he condemned and deprived Nikon himself of the patriarchal dignity. Nikon ended his life in exile in the New Jerusalem Monastery built by him near Volokolamsk.
The church schism is one of the most tragic, ugly and painful phenomena in the history of the Church, which was the result of this forgetfulness, the impoverishment of love between brothers in Christ. Today we will talk a little about it.
“If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but have no love, then I am a ringing brass or a resounding cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries, and have all knowledge and all faith, so that I can move mountains, but do not have love, then I am nothing. And if I give away all my possessions and give my body to be burned, but I have no love, there is no profit for me in that, ”the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, instructing them in the main law of Christian life, the law of Love for God and other people.
Unfortunately, not all members of the Church and by no means always remembered these words and experienced them in their inner life. The consequence of this forgetfulness, the impoverishment of love between brothers in Christ, was one of the most tragic, ugly and painful phenomena in the history of the Church, called the church schism. Today we will talk a little about him.
What is a split
Church schism (Greek “schism”) is one of the most difficult topics to discuss. Even terminologically. Initially, any disunity in the Church was called a schism: the emergence of a new heretical group, and the cessation of Eucharistic communion between episcopal sees, and simple quarrels within the community between, for example, a bishop and several priests.
Somewhat later, the term "split" acquired a modern meaning. So they began to call the termination of prayer and Eucharistic communion between the Local Churches (or communities within one of them), caused not by the distortion of the dogmatic teaching in one of them, but by the accumulated ritual and cultural differences, as well as discord between the hierarchy.
In heretical groups, the very idea of God is distorted, the Holy Tradition left to us by the Apostles (and Holy Scripture as part of it) is distorted. Therefore, no matter how great a heretical sect is, it falls away from church unity and is deprived of grace. At the same time, the Church itself remains one and true.
With a split, everything is noticeably more complicated. Since disagreements and the cessation of prayerful communion can occur on the basis of a banal riot of passions in the souls of individual hierarchs, Churches or communities that have fallen into schism do not cease to be part of the one Church of Christ. The schism may end either with an even more profound disruption of the inner life of one of the Churches, with subsequent distortion of dogma and morality in it (and then it turns into a heretical sect), or with reconciliation and restoration of communion – “healing.”
However, even a simple violation of church unity and prayerful fellowship is a great evil, and those who start it commit a terrible sin, and overcoming some schisms can take tens, if not hundreds of years.
Novatian schism
This is the first split in the Church, which happened in the III century. "Novatian" it was named after the deacon Novatian, who headed it, who belonged to the Roman Church.
The beginning of the 4th century was marked by the end of the persecution of the Church by the authorities of the Roman Empire, but the last few persecutions, in particular Diocletian's, were the most prolonged and terrible. Many captured Christians could not stand the torture or were so terrified by it that they renounced their faith and sacrificed to idols.
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Cornelius, Pope of Rome, showed mercy to those members of the Church who, out of cowardice, renounced, and by their episcopal authority began to accept many of them back into the community.
Deacon Novatian rebelled against the decision of Pope Cornelius and declared himself an antipope. He declared that only confessors have the right to accept the "fallen" - those who have endured persecution, have not renounced the faith, but for one reason or another survived, that is, did not become a martyr. The self-proclaimed bishop was supported by several members of the clergy and many lay people, whom he led away from church unity.
According to the teachings of Novatian, the Church is a society of saints and all fallen and committed mortal sins after baptism must be cast out of it and in no case can be taken back. The Church cannot forgive serious sinners, so as not to become unclean herself. The doctrine was condemned by Pope Cornelius, Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, and Archbishop Dionysius of Alexandria. Later, the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council spoke out against this way of thinking.
Akakian schism
This schism between the Churches of Constantinople and the Roman Church took place in 484, lasted 35 years, and became the forerunner of the schism of 1054.
The decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (of Chalcedon) caused a prolonged "monophysite turmoil". The Monophysites, illiterate monks who followed the Monophysite hierarchs, captured Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, driving out the Chalcedonian bishops.
In an effort to bring the inhabitants of the Roman Empire to harmony and unity in faith, Emperor Zeno and Patriarch Akakii of Constantinople developed a compromise doctrinal formula, the formulations of which could be interpreted ambiguously and seemed to be trying on Monophysite heretics with the Church.
Pope Felix II was against the policy of distorting the truths of Orthodoxy, even for the sake of achievement. He demanded that Akakios come to the cathedral in Rome in order to give explanations on the document sent by him and the emperor.
In response to Akakiy's refusal and bribing papal legates, Felix II excommunicated Akakiy from the Church in July 484 at a local council in Rome, who, in turn, excommunicated Pope Felix from the Church.
Mutual excommunication was maintained by both sides for 35 years, until it was overcome in 519 by the efforts of Patriarch John II and Pope Hormizda.
The Great Schism of 1054
This schism became the largest in the history of the Church and has not yet been overcome, although almost 1,000 years have passed since the break in relations between the Roman Church and the four Patriarchates of the East.
The disagreements that caused the Great Schism accumulated for several centuries and had a cultural, political, theological and ritual character.
Greek was spoken and written in the East, while Latin was in use in the West. Many terms in the two languages differed in shades of meaning, which very often served as a cause of misunderstanding and even hostility during numerous theological disputes and Ecumenical Councils trying to resolve them.
Within several centuries, the authoritative ecclesiastical centers in Gaul (Arles) and North Africa (Carthage) were destroyed by the barbarians, and the popes of Rome remained the only most authoritative of the ancient episcopal sees in the West. Gradually, the consciousness of their exceptional position in the West of the former Roman Empire, the mystical conviction that they are the "successors of the Apostle Peter" and the desire to extend their influence beyond the boundaries of the Roman Church led the popes to form the doctrine of primacy.
According to the new doctrine, the Roman pontiffs began to claim sole supreme power in the Church, which the patriarchs of the East could not agree with, who adhered to the ancient church practice of conciliar resolution of all important issues.
There was only one theological disagreement at the time of the rupture of communion - the addition to the Creed, the filioque, accepted in the West. One single word, once arbitrarily added to the prayer by the Spanish bishops in the struggle against the Arians, completely changed the order of the relationship of the Persons of the Holy Trinity to each other and greatly confused the bishops of the East.
Finally, there was a whole series of ritual differences that were most striking to the uninitiated. The Greek clergy wore beards, while the Latin ones shaved smoothly and cut their hair under the “crown of thorns”. In the East, priests could create families, while in the West, compulsory celibacy was practiced. The Greeks used leavened bread for the Eucharist (communion), while the Latins used unleavened bread. In the West, strangled meat was eaten and fasted on the Saturdays of Great Lent, which was not done in the East. There were other differences as well.
The contradictions escalated in 1053, when the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius learned that the Greek rite in southern Italy was being replaced by the Latin one. In response, Cerularius closed all the churches of the Latin rite in Constantinople and instructed the Bulgarian Archbishop Leo of Ohrid to write a letter against the Latins, in which various elements of the Latin rite would be condemned.
In response, Cardinal Humbert of Silva-Candide wrote the Dialogue, in which he defended the Latin rites and condemned the Greek ones. In turn, St. Nikita Stifatus created the treatise "Antidialog", or "The Sermon on Unleavened Bread, the Sabbath Fast and the Marriage of the Priests" against the work of Humbert, and Patriarch Michael closed all the Latin churches in Constantinople.
Then Pope Leo IX sent legates to Constantinople, led by Cardinal Humbert. With him, the pope sent a message to Patriarch Michael, which, in support of the papal claims to full power in the Church, contained lengthy extracts from a forged document known as the Gift of Constantine.
The patriarch rejected papal claims to supreme power in the Church, and the enraged legates threw a bull on the throne of Hagia Sophia, anathematizing the patriarch. In turn, Patriarch Michael also excommunicated the legates and the pope, who had already died by that time, but this meant nothing - the break in communion assumed an official character.
Schisms like this, like the Akakian Schism, have happened before, and no one thought the Great Schism would last so long. However, over time, the West increasingly deviated from the purity of Christ's teachings into its own moral and dogmatic fabrications, which gradually deepened the schism to heresy.
New dogmas about the infallibility of the pope and the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary were added to the filioque. The morality of the West has also become even more distorted. In addition to the doctrine of papal supremacy, the doctrine of holy war with the infidels was invented, as a result of which the clergy and monks took up arms.
The Church of Rome also made attempts to forcibly subjugate the Eastern Churches to the power of the pope, to plant a parallel Latin hierarchy in the East, to conclude various unions, and to actively proselytize in the canonical territory of the Eastern Churches.
Finally, not only priests, but also the highest hierarchs of the Roman Church began to violate their own vows of celibacy. A striking example of the "infallibility" of the Roman pontiffs was the life of Pope Alexander VI Borgia.
Adding to the sharpness of the schism is the fact that the Roman Church, which remained the single most authoritative cathedra in the West, influenced almost all of Western Europe, North Africa and the colonies formed by Western European states. And the ancient Eastern Patriarchates for many centuries were under the rule of the Turks, who destroyed and oppressed the Orthodox. Therefore, there are significantly more Catholics than Orthodox Christians in all the Local Churches taken together, and people who are unfamiliar with the problem get the impression that the Orthodox are in schism with their spiritual monarch, the Pope.
Today, the Local Orthodox Churches cooperate with the Roman Catholic Church on a number of issues. For example, in the social and cultural spheres, however, they still do not have prayerful fellowship. The healing of this schism is possible only if the Catholics renounce the dogmas they have worked out outside of conciliar unity and renounce the doctrine of the supremacy of the power of the pope in the entire Church. Unfortunately, such a step by the Roman Church seems unlikely...
Old Believer split
This schism occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1650s and 60s as a result of the church reforms of Patriarch Nikon.
In those days, liturgical books were copied by hand and, over time, they accumulated errors that needed to be corrected. In addition to the book right, the patriarch wanted to unify church rites, liturgical charters, canons of icon painting, etc. As a model, Nikon chose contemporary Greek practices and church books, and invited a number of Greek scholars and scribes to conduct a book review.
Patriarch Nikon had a stronger influence on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and was a very powerful and proud man. Carrying out the reform, Nikon preferred not to explain his actions and motives to opponents, but to suppress any objections with the help of patriarchal authority and, as they say today, "administrative resource" - the support of the king.
In 1654, the Patriarch held a Council of Hierarchs, at which, as a result of pressure on the participants, he obtained permission to hold a "book right on ancient Greek and Slavic manuscripts." However, the alignment was not on the old models, but on the modern Greek practice.
In 1656, the Patriarch convened a new Council in Moscow, at which all those who were baptized with two fingers were declared heretics, excommunicated from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and solemnly anathematized on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.
The intolerance of the patriarch caused a split in society. The broad masses of the people, many representatives of the nobility, rebelled against the Church Reform and in defense of the old rites. Some well-known clergymen became leaders of the religious protest movement: Archpriest Avvakum, Archpriests Longin of Murom and Daniel Kostroma, priest Lazar Romanovsky, priest Nikita Dobrynin, nicknamed Pustosvyat, as well as deacon Fyodor and monk Epiphanius. A number of monasteries declared their disobedience to the authorities and closed the gates in front of the royal officials.
Old Believer preachers also did not become "innocent sheep." Many of them traveled around the cities and villages of the country (especially in the North), preaching the coming of the Antichrist into the world and self-immolation as a way to preserve spiritual purity. Many representatives of the common people followed their advice and committed suicide - they burned or buried themselves alive with their children.
Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich did not want such discord either in the Church or in his state. He invited the patriarch to lay down his rank. The offended Nikon left for the New Jerusalem Monastery and was deposed at the council of 1667 under the pretext of unauthorized abandonment of the department. At the same time, the anathema to the Old Believers was confirmed and their further persecution by the authorities was sanctioned, which consolidated the split.
Later, the government repeatedly tried to find ways of reconciliation between the Russian Orthodox Church, the reform that followed, and the Old Believers. But this was difficult to do, since the Old Believers themselves very quickly disintegrated into a number of groups and movements of various doctrines, many of which even abandoned the church hierarchy.
In the late 1790s, Edinoverie was established. The Old Believers, the “priests,” who retained the hierarchy, were allowed to create Old Believer parishes and conduct services according to the old rites if they recognize the primacy of the patriarch and become part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Later, the government and church hierarchs made many efforts to attract new Old Believer communities to the Edinoverie.
Finally, in 1926, the Holy Synod, and in 1971 the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, removed the anathemas from the Old Believers, the old rites were recognized as equally saving. The Church also brought repentance and apologies to the Old Believers for the violence inflicted on them earlier in an attempt to force them to accept the reform.
From that moment on, the Old Believer schism, represented by fellow faith communities, is considered healed, although in Russia there is also a separate Old Believer church and many religious groups of various kinds adhering to the old rites.
In contact with
The career of the Moscow Patriarch Nikon developed very rapidly. In a fairly short period of time, the son of a peasant, who was tonsured a monk, did not become abbot of the local monastery. Then, having made friends with Alexei Mikhailovich, the ruling tsar, he became abbot of the already Moscow Novospassky monastery. After a two-year tenure as Metropolitan of Novgorod, he was elected Patriarch of Moscow.
His aspirations were aimed at turning the Russian Church into the center of Orthodoxy for the whole world. The reforms primarily concerned the unification of rituals and the establishment of the same church service in all churches. As a model, Nikon took the rites and rules of the Greek Church. Innovations were accompanied by mass discontent of the people. The result was the 17th century.
Nikon's opponents - the Old Believers - did not want to accept the new rules, they called for a return to the order adopted before the reform. Among the adherents of the former foundation, Archpriest Avvakum stood out in particular. The disagreements that resulted in the church schism of the 17th century consisted in a dispute about whether to unify service church books according to the Greek or Russian model. They also could not come to a consensus on whether to be baptized with three or two fingers, along the solar procession, or against it to make a procession. But these are only external causes of the church schism. The main obstacle for Nikon was the intrigues of the Orthodox hierarchs and boyars, who were worried that the changes would entail a decline in the authority of the church among the population, and hence their authority and power. With passionate sermons, schismatic teachers carried away a considerable number of peasants. They fled to Siberia, the Urals, the North, and there they formed settlements of the Old Believers. The common people associated the deterioration of their lives with Nikon's transformations. Thus, the church schism of the 17th century also became a kind of popular protest.
Its most powerful wave swept in 1668-1676, when this monastery had thick walls and a large supply of food, which attracted opponents of the reforms. They flocked here from all over Russia. Razintsy also hid here. For eight years, 600 people held out in the fortress. And yet there was a traitor who let the king's troops into the monastery through a secret hole. As a result, only 50 defenders of the monastery survived.
Archpriest Avvakum and his associates were exiled to Pustozersk. There they spent 14 years in an earthen prison, and then were burned alive. Since then, the Old Believers began to set themselves on fire as a sign of disagreement with the reforms of the Antichrist, the new patriarch.
Nikon himself, through whose fault the church schism of the 17th century happened, had an equally tragic fate. And all because he took on too much, allowed himself too much. Nikon finally received the coveted title of "great sovereign" and, declaring that he wanted to be the patriarch of all Rus', and not Moscow, defiantly left the capital in 1658. Eight years later, in 1666, at a church council with the participation of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, who also had all the powers from the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople, Patriarch Nikon was removed from his post. He was sent to what near Vologda, into exile. Nikon returned from there after the death of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The former patriarch died in 1681 near Yaroslavl, and was buried in the city of Istra in Voskresensky according to his own plan once built.
The religious crisis in the country, as well as the dissatisfaction of the people on other issues, required immediate changes in line with the challenge of the times. And the answer to these requirements began in the early 18th century.
Church schism(Greek σχίσματα (schismata) - schism) - a violation of intra-church unity due to differences not related to the distortion of the true teaching about and, but for ritual, canonical or disciplinary reasons. The founders and followers of the schism movement are called schismatics.
The schism should be distinguished from other forms of apostasy - and unauthorized gathering (). Following St. , the ancient holy fathers called schismatics those who were divided in their opinions about certain church subjects and about issues that allow healing.
According to the prominent commentator on canon law, John Zonarus, schismatics are those who think sanely about faith and dogmas, but for some reason move away and form their own separate assemblies.
According to the Bishop of Dalmatia-Istra, an expert on ecclesiastical law, schisms are formed by those who "think differently about certain ecclesiastical subjects and issues, which, however, can easily be reconciled." According to St. , a schism should be called "a violation of complete unity with the Holy Church, with the exact preservation, however, of the true teaching about dogmas and sacraments."
Comparing schism with heresy, St. asserts that "schism is no less evil than heresy." St. teaches: “Remember that the founders and leaders of the schism, violating the unity of the Church, oppose, and not only crucify Him a second time, but tear apart the Body of Christ, and this is so heavy that the blood of martyrdom cannot make amends for it.” Bishop Optatus of Milevity (4th century) considered schism one of the greatest evils, greater than homicide and idolatry.
In today's sense, the word schism occurs for the first time in St. . He was in schism with Pope Callistus (217-222), whom he accused of weakening the requirements of church discipline.
The main reason for the schisms in the Ancient Church was the consequences of the persecutions: Decius (Novatus and Felicissima in Carthage, Novatian in Rome) and Diocletian (Heraclius in Rome, Donatists in the African Church, Melitian in Alexandria), as well as a dispute about the baptism of heretics. Serious disagreements were raised by the question of the order of acceptance into the "fallen" - those who renounced, retreated and stumbled during the persecution.
In the Russian Orthodox Church, there were schisms of the Old Believers (overcome by common faith communities), Renovationist (overcome) and Karlovtsy (overcome on May 17, 2007). At present, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is in a state of schism.
What happened in 1054: the split of the Ecumenical in two or the split of one of its parts, the Roman Local Church?
In the theological historical literature, there is often a statement that in 1054 there was a split of the One Ecumenical Church of Christ into Eastern and Western. This opinion cannot be called convincing. The Lord created one single and it was about one, and not about two, and, moreover, not about several Churches. He testified that it would exist until the end of time and they would not overcome it ().
Moreover, the Messiah made it clear that “every kingdom divided against itself will be desolate; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (). This means that even if the Church were really divided within itself, then, according to His assurance, it would not stand. But she will definitely stand (). In favor of the fact that there cannot be two, three, a thousand and three Churches of Christ, the image according to which the Church is the Body of Christ (), and the Savior has one Body.
But why do we have the right to assert that it was the Roman Church that broke away from the Orthodox in the 11th century, and not vice versa? - There is no doubt that this is so. The true Church of Christ, according to the apostle, is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (). Therefore, that Church of the two (Western, Eastern), which did not stand in the truth, did not keep it unchanged, and broke away.
Which one did not survive? - In order to answer this question, it is enough to remember which Church, Orthodox or Catholic, keeps it in the same immutable form in which it received from the apostles. Of course, this is the Universal Orthodox Church.
In addition to what the Roman Church dared to distort, supplementing it with a false insertion about the procession “and from the Son”, she distorted the doctrine of the Mother of God (we mean the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary); introduced into circulation a new dogma about the primacy and infallibility of the Roman pope, calling him the vicar of Christ on earth; interpreted the doctrine of man in the spirit of crude legalism, etc.
Split
Archpriest Alexander Fedoseev
A schism is a violation of complete unity with the Holy Church, with the exact preservation, however, of the true teaching about dogmas and sacraments. The Church is a unity, and her whole being is in this unity and unity in Christ and in Christ: For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body»(). The prototype of this unity is the Trinity Consubstantial, and the measure is catholicity (or catholicity). Schism, on the contrary, is separation, isolation, loss and negation of catholicity.
The question of the nature and meaning of church divisions and schisms was posed with all its sharpness already in the memorable baptismal disputes of the 3rd century. St., with inevitable consistency, then developed the doctrine of the complete gracelessness of any schism, precisely as a schism: “ It is necessary to beware of not only obvious and obvious deceit, but also one that is covered with subtle cunning and cunning, as in the invention of a new deception by the enemy: to deceive the unwary by the very name of a Christian. He invented heresies and schisms in order to overthrow the faith, to pervert the truth, to break the unity. Whom by blinding he cannot keep on the old path, he leads astray and deceives him in the new way. It raptures people from the Church itself, and when they were already visibly approaching the light and getting rid of the night of this age, it again spreads new darkness over them, so that they, not adhering to the Gospel and not keeping the law, nevertheless call themselves Christians and, wandering in darkness, they think they are walking in the light» (Book about the Unity of the Church).
In schism, both prayer and almsgiving feed on pride—these are not virtues, but opposition to the Church. Their, schismatics, ostentatious kindness is only a means to tear people away from the Church. The enemy of the human race is not afraid of the prayer of a proud-hearted schismatic, for the Holy Scripture says: His prayer may be in sin»(). The devil laughs at them, schismatics, vigils and fasts, since he himself does not sleep and does not eat, but this does not make him a saint. Saint Cyprian writes: Is it possible for someone who does not adhere to the unity of the Church to think that he keeps the faith? Is it possible for someone who opposes and acts contrary to the Church to hope that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul, discussing the same subject and showing the sacrament of unity, says: there is one body, one Spirit, as if the rank were faster in the one hope of your rank ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God» ()? It is characteristic that schismatics consider all other schisms, except their own, to be disastrous and false, arising under the influence of passions and pride, while their own schism, not much different from the others, is accepted as the only happy exception in the entire history of the Church.
The schismatics, shedding crocodile tears over the "violation" of the canons of the Church, in fact, long ago threw under their feet and trampled all the canons, because the true canons are based on faith in the unity and eternity of the Church. The canons are given to the Church, outside the Church they are invalid and meaningless - so the laws of the state cannot exist without the state itself.
Hieromartyr Clement, Bishop of Rome, writes to the Corinthian schismatics: Your separation has corrupted many, cast many into discouragement, many into doubt, and all of us into sorrow, but your confusion still continues.". The unrepentant sin of a schism is even worse than the sin of suicide (a suicide destroys only himself, and a schismatic destroys himself and others, therefore his eternal fate is harder than that of a suicide).
« The Church is one, and she alone has the fullness of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit. Whoever, no matter how, departs from the Church - into heresy, into schism, into an unauthorized assembly, he loses the communion of the grace of God; we know and are convinced that falling into schism, heresy, or sectarianism is complete destruction and spiritual death.”, - this is how the holy martyr expresses the Orthodox teaching about the Church.
People who are subject to the distortion of faith, even the very word "schism" try to use less. They say: "official Church" and "unofficial", or "different jurisdictions", or they prefer to use abbreviations (UOC-KP, etc.). Saint: " Orthodoxy and schism are so opposed to each other that the patronage and defense of Orthodoxy should naturally constrain schism; condescension to schism should naturally hamper the Orthodox Church».
The history of the Orthodox Church in the countries of the post-Soviet space in recent years is full of important and dramatic events, many of which continue to exert a powerful influence on the current state of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Soviet Union collapsed, the social stratification of society is growing, and the problems associated with information inequality are growing. The Russian Orthodox Church has maintained its unity throughout the former Soviet Union, creating new forms of church organization. Over the past decade, autonomous Local Churches have been formed, which reflects the new political realities of the modern world. It is appropriate to speak of radical changes in the CIS countries related to the understanding of the unity of the Church today. This is primarily about the canonical and social aspects of Orthodox ecclesiology.
The processes of the rapid politicization of religious life in the countries of the former Soviet camp, of course, must be attributed to negative phenomena. The involvement of political parties of a nationalist persuasion in it created the ground for the formation of subsequently hostile to Orthodoxy political and religious structures such as the UGCC, UAOC, UOC-KP, TOC, etc. But no less dangerous are internal contradictions, disagreements and disciplinary and psychological splits within the church parish life.
The main feature of disciplinary-psychological schisms, from which all other near-church movements are derived, is their emergence in the era of the collapse of socialism and in the midst of the death of mass atheism. Since there is still no scientific literature that specifically interprets the activities of church schisms and the latest sects, it seems appropriate to briefly characterize a number of features that distinguish them from traditional sectarianism.
First of all, disciplinary-psychological splits spread mainly not in rural areas, but in large cities, with a dense cultural and educational infrastructure. Studies have shown that church schisms find the most nutritious soil among specialists with secondary and higher education. Hence the active professional orientation of the newest schisms: they are trying to comprehend religiously and "sanctify" the activity of a person as a specialist. It is the specialty that is the area of the most intense sectarian and schismatic self-awareness and self-determination. Therefore, the newest sectarians are often grouped along professional lines - of course, associations of this kind can also include ordinary amateurs who are interested in this profession. Schismatic-type associations are created among writers, historians, physicians, and physicists who are trying to give a religious interpretation of the facts in their subject area.
Some like to justify schismatics, saying that some difficult circumstances forced them to depart from the Church - some of them were treated badly or unfairly, offended, etc. But these excuses are not worth a damn. This is what St. , in a letter to the schismatic Novat: “ If, as you say, you separated from the Church involuntarily, then you can correct this by returning to the Church of your own free will.". Holy once said: I would rather sin with the Church than be saved without the Church". Florensky wanted to say that only in the Church is salvation, and that by leaving the Church a person commits spiritual suicide. Schisms were born with triumphant cries, and died with muffled groans—the Church still lived on! Sentenced to death by schismatics, she exists, she is full of spiritual strength, she remains the only source of grace on earth.
In order to prevent the appearance of heresies, the Russian Orthodox Church has always tried by exhortation, persuasion to return those who have fallen away to the path of the true faith, true Christian piety, has tried again and again to gather her lost sheep who have lost the voice of their shepherd. We must not forget about the great danger to the spiritual health of every person, coming from a possible falling into heresy through a schism, since a heretical worldview penetrates the soul much more strongly and infects it with ulcers of sin, from which it is very difficult to get rid of.
The Holy Fathers recognize the possibility and necessity of healing a schism in the spirit of church economy. The saint in the Rules from the First Canonical Epistle to points out the peculiarities of accepting penitents from schisms:
« For example, if someone, having been convicted of sin, is removed from the priesthood, did not submit to the rules, but himself retained the office and the priesthood, and some others retreated with him, leaving the Catholic Church, this is an unauthorized assembly. To think about repentance otherwise than as those who are in the Church is a schism... The baptism of schismatics, as yet not alien to the Church, should be accepted; but those who are in self-organized assemblies - to correct them with decent repentance and conversion, and again join the Church. Thus, even those in the ranks of the Church, having retreated together with the disobedient, when they repent, are often accepted again into the same rank.».
Very aptly defines the schism of St. : " Christ will judge those who produce schisms, who do not have love for God and care more about their own benefit than about the unity of the Church, for unimportant and accidental reasons dissecting and tearing the great and glorious body of Christ and, as much as depends on them, destroying it, saying about the world and those who swear". (Five books against heresies, 4.7).
As we see from the statements of the Holy Fathers and a small analysis of the problem of schisms, they must be healed, and even better not allowed. It is quite obvious that in addition to the personal charisma of the next schismatic teacher, the low spiritual education of his followers, political discord in the state, and personal motives play an important role. The time has come to develop a large-scale project for the prevention of church schisms, covering all possible aspects of this problem. It is absolutely necessary to create some kind of body, a church structure with extensive powers, capable of ensuring the proper level of monitoring of the spiritual state of the believers and, in time, rooting out schismatic movements in the ranks of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Schism is a real danger not only to the integrity of the Church, but first of all to the spiritual health of schismatics. Such people voluntarily deprive themselves of saving grace, sow division within the unity of Christians. A split cannot be justified from any point of view: neither political, nor national, nor any other reasons can be considered as sufficient grounds for a split. There can be neither sympathy nor understanding for the schism and its leaders - church division must be fought, eliminated, so that nothing worse happens.
