The split of the Russian Church - did Russia need the church reform of Patriarch Nikon?

• December 9, 2019
• Events
• Olga Strelkova

The schism in the Russian Orthodox Church occurred in the 17th century, and it began in Moscow in the 1650s. It has a close connection with the reforms carried out by Patriarch Nikon. The reforms were aimed at introducing changes to the liturgical books printed in Moscow and to some of the rituals. The purpose of these changes is unification with the Greek canons.

Church reforms in the 17th century

The implementation of reforms took place with the participation of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and with his support. And also with the support of some other Orthodox patriarchs. The reformation was confirmed by decrees adopted by a number of councils. They took place in Moscow from 1650 to 1680.

The reforms had opponents, who later became known as Old Believers. They were anathematized at the Moscow Councils of 1656 and 1666 and at the Great Moscow Council held in 1667. She touched those who held the sign of the cross with two fingers.

These events marked the beginning of the Old Believer schism in the Russian Church. Groups of Old Believers appeared, which were subsequently divided into numerous agreements. As a result of church reform, which led to a split in the church in Rus' in the 17th century, confrontation arose within the Russian people. Its consequences have not been completely overcome to this day.

The truth about Russian schismatics called Old Believers and Old Believers

Patriarch Nikon, starting to correct Russian liturgical books and restore ancient rituals, decided that the only sure way to properly conduct the matter was to check printed books with ancient manuscripts and Greek books, which he instructed people educated and well acquainted with the Greek and Church Slavonic languages.

However, before starting the matter, in 1653 Patr. Nikon made an attempt to restore two ancient rituals: he issued a “memory”, or, in modern terms, a decree: 1) for Orthodox Christians to fold the first three fingers of their right hand for the sign of the cross and 2) when reading the Lenten prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian, Lord and Master of my belly, would make four prostrations and twelve small prostrations, and not seventeen prostrations, as they began to do then. It was this order of the patriarch that caused the first manifestation of the schismatic spirit. The royal confessor, archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral Stefan Vonifatiev, his friend archpriest of the Moscow Kazan Cathedral Ioann Neronov, the former archpriest of the city of Yuryevets Avvakum Petrov, who then lived in Moscow with Ioann Neronov, former archpriests - Daniel of Kostroma and Murom Loggin and some monks resolutely opposed accepting the order of the patriarch and began the turmoil from which the still existing schism of the so-called Old Believers arose. They compiled extracts from recently published books about how to fold fingers and about bowing, that is, they wrote down the very wrong opinions that we noted above, and submitted them to the Tsar, and throughout Moscow they spread an evil rumor that Nikon completely prohibited bowing. John Nero spoke out especially sharply and rudely against the patriarch, so that the patriarch was forced to bring him to the council court. Neronov was stripped of his skufia and sent to the Vologda province to the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery. After the departure of John Neronov, Avvakum remained in Moscow and, living in his apartment, went to worship in the Kazan Cathedral. Despite the fact that he did not belong to the cathedral clergy, he interfered in the affairs of the cathedral and wanted to take precedence in divine services. When the cathedral priests noticed to Habakkuk the inappropriateness of his claims, Habakkuk was offended, left the cathedral and held his worship service in a drying place (in a barn), in the courtyard of the house of John Nero, where he took some of the pilgrims with him. Those who retired also lured others from the church to the sushilo, saying - from the words, of course, of Avvakum - that at other times even a stable was better than a church, thereby hinting that Patriarch Nikon was allegedly introducing heresy into the Church. The Patriarch called Avvakum and his followers for interrogation; but these people not only did not show repentance, but boldly reviled the patriarch and all the bishops and even the tsar himself, which is why they were condemned to exile in different places: Avvakum was exiled to Siberia, Daniel and Loggin were deprived of the priesthood and exiled - the first to Astrakhan, and the second in Murom. Both of them died soon after.

In 1654, a council of Russian bishops met in Moscow. Patriarch Nikon pointed out to the cathedral the faults and discrepancies of printed church books in comparison with ancient Greek and Russian written books, in which all rites and statutes are equally set out. The Council unanimously decided to correct the liturgical books in accordance with the most ancient Russian and Greek manuscripts and to destroy all innovations and deviations from the ancient statutes.

There was only one objection on the issue of bows, made by Pavel, Bishop of Kolomna, who otherwise agreed with the opinion of the council.

In the same 1654, Patriarch Nikon sent a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, in which he indicated his intention to eliminate the defects that had crept into Russian liturgical books, asked how to form the fingers for the sign of the cross and for blessing, and how to deal with those who oppose the orders of church authorities . Nikon's charter was discussed in Constantinople at the council. The Council of Constantinople approved the intention of the Russian Patriarch and in a response letter wrote, among other things, that the Greek Church contains the ancient custom of making the sign of the cross with the first three fingers of the right hand, folded together in the image of the Holy Trinity, and bishops and priests bless people by folding their fingers in names, i.e. so that they depict the name of the Lord - Isa. Xs. - Jesus Christ. At the same time, the Greek archpastors pretended that the difference in rituals is not of significant importance and cannot serve as an obstacle to the unity of the Orthodox Churches, as long as there is no disagreement in the main essential members of the faith; that the rituals were not always and not everywhere the same in the local Churches, and this in no way hindered the unity of the Churches. Nevertheless, since the Russian Church has decided to be unanimous in rituals with the Greek and other Eastern Churches, then Russian people must follow the instructions of the church hierarchy, and those who oppose the Church show signs of schism and, like disobedient people, cannot be tolerated.

Simultaneously with sending the letter to Constantinople, Patriarch Nikon began to prepare everything that was needed to begin work on the revision of church books. From the Trinity-Sergius, Iosifov Volokolamsk, Yuryev and Khutynsky and other ancient monasteries, all the ancient Slavic and Greek manuscripts that were in them were collected in Moscow. And since there were few Greek books in Russia, back in 1653–1654. The learned elder Arseny Sukhanov was sent for them to Athos, who brought to Moscow from the Athos monasteries up to 500 ancient Greek and Slavic manuscripts and books written over 400, 500, 600, 700 or more years.

The correction of books was entrusted to people who were well educated and had a thorough knowledge of the Greek language. In 1655, the first book, the Service Book, was corrected, reviewed by the council and approved.

At this time, the following arrived in Moscow: the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius, the Serbian Gabriel, the Nicene Metropolitan Gregory and the Moldavian Gideon. Patriarch Nikon considered it necessary to address them with a question about folding their fingers for the sign of the cross.

All four hierarchs unanimously answered that, according to the legend of St. apostles and saints fathers and saints cathedrals, make the sign of the cross with the first three fingers of the right hand.

On April 23, 1656, the Russian saints again gathered in Moscow for a council and, having thoroughly considered the issue of folding the fingers, decided on the following definition: “If anyone from now on, knowing (the present definition), does not listen and does not depict the sign of the cross in this way, as from ancient times received St. The Church, as it is now maintained by the ecumenical patriarchs, as it was here (in Russia) before the printing of the (forged) word of Theodoret, namely with the first three fingers of the right hand in the image of the Holy Trinity, we consider him excommunicated from the Church.”

Soon an extremely sad circumstance occurred, which was of great importance for strengthening the split. Patriarch Nikon, a man of strong, unyielding will, strict towards himself and others, who had great influence on the sovereign and took a very active part in all state affairs, had many enemies and envious people of his power. The patriarch's enemies managed to undermine the sovereign's trust in him. The disagreement that occurred between the tsar and the patriarch, through the machinations of the latter’s ill-wishers, escalated and turned into a major quarrel.

Nikon left the patriarchate and left Moscow for the Resurrection (New Jerusalem) Monastery.

With the departure of the patriarch, the work of correction continued under the supervision of the Council of Saints; the newly corrected books were sent to churches and put into use. But there was no longer the same power and strength in the matter of correcting books that Patriarch Nikon possessed. The schismatics felt free, raised their voices and with greater persistence and audacity began to spread slander against the Orthodox Church. During the time when, with the departure of Nikon, the patriarchal throne remained unfilled, the schism greatly intensified and spread. Habakkuk, returned from exile through the machinations of friends, appeared in Moscow and presented himself as a martyr who had suffered persecution for ancient piety. Deacon of the Assumption Cathedral Theodore, Archimandrite of the Intercession Monastery Spiridon, Abbot of the Chrysostom Monastery Feoktist, boyars Morozova and Urusova, nun Justina - these are the main associates of Avvakum in Moscow. In other cities they came out in defense of the schism: in Suzdal - priest Nikita, known under the nickname Pustosvyat, in Romanov - Lazarus, in Kostroma - the monk Kapiton, in Murom - Anthony, in the Solovetsky Monastery - elders Theoktist, Gerasim, Epiphanius and others. The schismatics acted openly, fearing no one, especially Avvakum. This one had already crossed all boundaries in his insolence, so that the people themselves rebelled against him, and he was expelled from Moscow twice.

The main idea that the schism teachers preached was that Russian liturgical books and rites, printed earlier than Patriarch Nikon, seemed to be completely correct and did not contain any errors or deviations from ancient traditions; on the contrary, Nikon, they said, introduced these errors and deviations into the books, and thereby damaged ancient piety, under the guise of correcting the books, he introduced various heresies into the Church; they said that Nikon the heretic, the forerunner of the Antichrist, was infected with all heresies; they said that now the Church is defiled by the Antichrist filth, therefore one should move away from the Church, not accept the sacraments, run away from priests and apostles; They said that Orthodoxy perished in both the Russian and Greek Churches and is preserved in all its purity only by them, the schismatics. The people listened to such speeches, saw how the old church books were selected and new ones were sent out, and they began to sing and read from the new books, and to be baptized in a different way than was done before, and they were tempted. The people were not able to verify the matter, to understand its meaning, and in the simplicity of their hearts they followed the schism teachers.

Accusing the Church of many heresies, the schismatic teachers had to say exactly what heresies the Church had fallen into, and so they brought a whole series of accusations against the Church, which are repeated even now by the schismatics.

The schismatics accuse the Orthodox Church of having changed the creed, namely in Article 8 we read: (I believe) and in the Holy Spirit of the life-giving Lord, and not as was printed in previous books: (I believe) and in the Holy Spirit of the true Lord and life-giving; in the 7th term is right. The Church reads: His kingdom will have no end, but the old books say: there will be no end; there are some other even smaller discrepancies. True, the schismatics’ different interpretations do not change the meaning of what is read, but it would be better not to have such a difference, since the ecumenical councils forbid adding or subtracting even one word from the creed. That is why those arbitrary insertions that were included in early printed books and which now remain favorite among schismatics, inspired Patriarch Nikon to make the most careful comparison of the Russian text of the symbol with the ancient Greek and Russian texts.

The schismatics accuse the rights. The Church is that it seems to have changed the name of the Savior, that is, it began to write Jesus instead of Jesus; they even say that under the name Jesus Orthodox. The Church prays to some other god, and not to the Son of God, our Savior; but this is blasphemy! The name Jesus is the exact inscription of the name of the Lord and has always been written as the full inscription; the mark of Jesus is abbreviated, and even more abbreviated - Iis., Isa. Thus, the schismatics say, without knowing what, Right. The Church believes in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, as we read in the creed.

The schismatics accuse the rights. The Church is that she changed the formation of the fingers during the sign of the cross, that is, she commanded to be baptized with the first three fingers, and for the priests to bless names, that is, to fold the fingers so that they depict the letters of the name of the Savior Isa. Xs., and not with two fingers, as lovers of imaginary antiquity cross themselves and bless. This or that arrangement of the fingers has no significant significance in the matter of faith if it does not contain any thought. This is only a ritual, and the Church can always change it at its discretion. But the Russian Church did not change the formula in the strict sense, but only restored it in its original form, in which it was used in both the Russian and Greek Churches from ancient times. The custom of being baptized and blessing with two fingers was introduced into printed books only shortly before Patriarch Nikon, without any reason.

The schismatics accuse the rights. The Church is that it reveres the four-pointed cross, but has rejected the eight-pointed cross. False: right. The Church generally reveres the cross of Christ, no matter how it is depicted: four-pointed, eight-pointed or six-pointed. And the schismatics themselves, who for some unknown reason reject the four-pointed cross, contradict themselves by putting on themselves the sign of the cross with a four-pointed cross.

The schismatics accuse the rights. The church is that it began to use 5 prosphoras during the liturgy, instead of the previous 7. For the sacrament, you actually need one prosphora, from which the lamb is taken out; the number of other prosphoras is not significant.

The schismatics accuse the rights. The Church that she changed the words in some prayers, such as, for example, in the Lord’s Prayer, instead of the words “Son of God” she put “Our God”; in prayer to the Holy Spirit, instead of words, she put the true Spirit to the Soul of truth; in the prayer to the Mother of God, instead of joyful, I put grace-filled; in the Easter troparion, instead of the words death come upon death - the words death by death are not right; in the Cherubic song, instead of sadness, there is care and so on. They also accuse that the Orthodox sing hallelujah three times, not twice, etc. But all these and similar accusations are of no importance, because they relate to the replacement of words and expressions by others with equivalent meaning, which the Orthodox Church has always had the right to do at its own discretion and has always done. Moreover, these changes, or rather corrections, were made correctly and in accordance with the ancient text of the sacred books.

And many similar accusations have been and are being made by schismatics, which are either outright false, such as, for example, the accusation that one is right. The Church prays to the evil spirit, or are completely insignificant, such as, for example, the accusation that the Church allows one to pray while kneeling, or such that they serve to accuse the schismatics themselves. So, for example, schismatics blame the Church for prohibiting earthly worship during the Holy Liturgy. gifts, when transferring them from the altar to the throne. Right The Church prohibits bowing to gifts at this time because they have not yet been transubstantiated into the body and blood of the Lord.

The schismatics even blame the Church for the shortcomings of some individuals from Orthodox society, such as, for example, careless display of the sign of the cross, breaking fasts, smoking tobacco, etc., as if these shortcomings were introduced or permitted by the Church.

So the schismatics falsely slandered the rights. the Church in changing the dogmas of faith and in accepting heresies; blaming the Church for changing or, more correctly, for correcting books and rituals, they themselves fell into a great mistake, mistaking the rituals for unchangeable dogmas of faith. That they actually learned the meaning of dogma through rituals and letters, this shows their very separation from the Holy Spirit. Orthodox Church.

The schism was taking a serious turn, and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich convened a large council in Moscow in 1666. Metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, archimandrites, abbots, and archpriests gathered. There was also a king with his synclite. The Council first of all again examined all the newly corrected books printed under Patr. Nikon and after his departure, approved them and then began to judge the schism and schismatics. At this council the main leaders of the schism appeared; They were questioned in detail, their errors were pointed out and they were persuaded to submit to the Orthodox Church. The first to appear at the council was Bishop Alexander of Vyatka, who, although not a schismatic, still did not sympathize with the cause of correcting books. Alexander asked the cathedral for admonition, became convinced of his mistake, repented and was accepted into the cathedral. Archpriest Avvakum, Nikita Pustosvyat, Deacon Theodore stubbornly remained in their errors, which is why they were anathematized, deprived of their ranks and exiled: Avvakum to the Pustozersky prison, and Nikita and Theodore to Ugresha. Hegumen Theoktist, Solovetsky Elder Gerasim and others realized their wrongdoing, repented and were accepted into church unity; The priest Lazarus was given several months to think, and when, at the end of the period, he remained in his errors, he was deprived of his rank, anathematized and exiled to the Pustozersky prison. John Neronov, who had earlier repented of his errors and accepted monasticism with the name Gregory, was also summoned to the council and, having confirmed his repentance, entered into unity with the Orthodox. In 1667, Patriarchs Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch arrived in Moscow with powers from the other two patriarchs - Constantinople and Jerusalem. The meetings of the council resumed and took place in the presence of the Eastern patriarchs. The Council first began considering the case of Patriarch Nikon and his trial. Nikon was convicted, deprived of his rank and exiled to a monastery (later Nikon received forgiveness, his rank was returned to him, and when he died, returning to Moscow, he was buried in the Resurrection (New Jerusalem) Monastery as a patriarch). Nikon was replaced by a new patriarch, Joasaph, who also took part in the following meetings of the council. All three patriarchs reviewed the actions of the council of 1666 and approved all the orders of the Russian saints. A general conciliar determination and testament was drawn up on behalf of all patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops and bishops of Russian and Greek and the entire consecrated cathedral: “In everything, without any doubt or controversy, submit to St. Churches; accept and use newly revised books; read the creed as stated in the newly revised books; make the sign of the cross with three fingers of the right hand, and bless the shepherds with names; In general, maintain church rites according to the legend of St. apostles and saints fathers." If anyone, the fathers of the council determined, does not listen to us and does not submit to St. Church and this consecrated cathedral, or he will begin to contradict and resist, such an enemy, given to us by the authority of the Holy Spirit, if he is from the sacred rank, we will cast him out and curse him, but if from the laity, we will excommunicate him and condemn him until he comes to his senses and will return to righteousness through repentance.

Reasons for the reform

Before considering the church schism of the 17th century, it is worth examining the reasons for the reform. Discussions about the need for reform of church life began in the 1640s.

Then a group called the “Circle of Devotees of Piety” was created in the capital. The members of the circle were representatives of the clergy. They advocated that church texts and rules of worship be unified.

But at the same time, there was no unity on the issue of choosing a sample according to which changes needed to be made. Some offered ancient Russian church books as a standard, while others suggested Greek ones.

Ultimately, victory was won by those who advocated for bringing church rites and books into conformity with the canons of Byzantium. There are several reasons for this choice.

The essence of church reform

It would seem that the circumstances and times themselves demanded church reform. But everything was not so clear. Nikon began implementing the planned transformations in 1653-1655. The main areas of reform included the following:

• You should have crossed yourself with three fingers instead of two.
• Making bows involved bowing to the waist (not to the ground, as before), and sixteen bows were replaced by four.
• The books and icons were significantly changed (in accordance with the Greek ones).
• The concept of “Orthodoxy” appeared.
• The name of God was written as “Jesus” (as opposed to the previous version “Iesus”).
• The shape of the Christian cross and the rituals of church services have changed.
• The religious procession had to go with the sun, and not against it.
• Also, adjustments were made to the performance of church hymns and features of rituals.

Alexey Kivshenko “Church Council. 1654 The beginning of the split"

Justification for the choice of Greek canons

Among them are the following:

1. The Russian state sought to strengthen its international position among countries that had adopted Orthodoxy. The “Moscow – Third Rome” theory, which was put forward by the Pskov elder Philotheus in the 15th century, was popular in government circles. After the schism of the Church that occurred in 1054, Constantinople was the spiritual center of Orthodoxy. According to Philotheus, after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the capital of Rus' took up the baton, becoming a stronghold of the Orthodox faith. Therefore, it was completely logical to focus on the Greek canons in worship.
2. After the decision of the Pereyaslav Rada in 1654, part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where the Orthodox population lived, passed to the Russian state. There the liturgy was carried out in accordance with the Greek canons. Thus, the unification of rituals could contribute to the process of unification of Russia with Little Russia.
3. Not many years passed after the Time of Troubles, and periodically the country experienced outbreaks of popular unrest. In this regard, the government saw the establishment of uniform rules of church life as an important tool for stabilizing the internal political situation and maintaining national unity.

To understand how the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church took place, we should consider the main participants in the process of implementing church reform that led to it. Notable among them are Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon, who were the initiators of church reform in the 17th century.

What is a schism?

The sin of resisting legal authority is extremely serious, according to the prophet Samuel: “As sin is enchantment, so sin is rebellion; and as sin is idolatry, so is disobedience a sin” (1 Sam. 15:23). Bishop Vissarion (Nechaev)[1]

The events of recent years clearly show us what bitter consequences the sin of schism and attempts to legalize it have for the Church.

Why do people refuse to see their schismatic state? – Because many simply do not know what a schism is

We see a monstrous duality of consciousness when those who accepted Ukrainian schismatics into communion say that there was no “Kyiv Patriarchate” (and this is true!), and those who accepted them serve memorial services for “Patriarch Vladimir” (Romanyuk).

Why do people refuse to see their schismatic state? In addition to spiritual reasons, which pastors should judge, the fact is that many simply do not know what a schism is.

This is what we propose to look into.

The first definition of schism is found in Canon 1 of St. Basil the Great :

“Schismatics [the ancients called] those who were divided in their opinions about certain church subjects and about issues that allow for healing.”

As an example, Saint Basil cites “Kaphars, Enkratites, Idroparastats, and Apotactites” - all of them not only broke away from the Church, but also held some heretical opinions.

In the second sense, the schismatics are described by rules 13–15 of the Double Council:

“Therefore, if any presbyter, or bishop, or metropolitan dares to step away from communion with his patriarch, and does not lift up his name, according to a certain and established order, in the Divine Mystery, but before the convened announcement and complete condemnation of him, he will cause a schism : The Holy Council determined for such a person to be completely alien to all priesthood, unless he is convicted of this lawlessness.”

Summarizing these two definitions, the famous Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus (Notara) says that the first describes a heretical schism, and the second a “pure apostasy” schism. What they have in common is that “every schism has disobedience”[2]. This is confirmed by the authoritative canonist, priestly confessor Nicodemus (Milash):

“...schism consists in the refusal of some persons to obey the legal hierarchy... for schism [the canonical rules] subject clergy to eruption, and laymen who follow the schism to excommunication"[3].

This definition, confirmed by many cases of church practice, poses the following questions to us:

1. What exactly should obedience to the legal hierarchy consist of?
2. Who exactly constitutes the legitimate hierarchy?
3. What consequences does falling into schism have from the point of view of being in the Church?

Obedience area

Essentially, it is set by the above-mentioned rule of St. Basil, which speaks of “opinions about church subjects.” The Russian Synod was able to describe this in more detail in a resolution of 1721.

The decree says that in addition to things that are obligatory for a Christian, and others that are unacceptable for a Christian, there are also third things - average [4]:

“The average things are learned from here: if anything from the Holy Scriptures and important holy councils in the Church and from well-known ancient traditions is neither legitimized nor rejected.”

It is precisely such average things that are subject to change and management by the church hierarchy: they are established by Fr.

This decree itself had the immediate purpose of explaining what the Old Believer schism consisted of and why the book on the right of Nikon was legal. But it is not difficult to see that the current schisms, caused by nationalist feelings or jealous impulses, cannot in any way claim that their disobedience concerns “legitimated by the Scriptures and important councils.”

Legitimate ecclesiastical authority

The canonical rules clearly indicate that within the diocese, power belongs to the bishop. Who is above the bishop?

All canon law is permeated by a principle called synodality

Many will answer that the patriarch is above the bishop. This is not entirely accurate. All canon law is permeated by a principle called synodality, and it boils down to the fact that judgments at levels greater than the diocese are not made individually (Apostle 34):

“But even the first [of the bishops of the region] does not do anything without the judgment of everyone.”

It is important to emphasize that the rules imply the participation of all bishops, and not all the faithful in general.

In those Churches where the head is a metropolitan (for example, in the Polish Church, in the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, as well as de facto in the Church of Cyprus, although its primate bears the title of archbishop), decisions belong to the Metropolitan Council of Bishops.

In the patriarchal Churches, above the metropolitans there is also the patriarch and his synod or the full Council of Bishops (cf.: I Ecumenical 6, IV Ecumenical 9 and paragraphs 5, 6, 17 of Chapter III of the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church). Before the creation of a harmonious system of patriarchates, metropolitans were judged by neighboring metropolitans - so that the principle of synodality was not violated (III Ecum. 1, cf.: Carth. 11).

Finally, above the patriarchs and all Local Churches stands the Universal Church. As Saint Meletius (Pigasus), Patriarch of Alexandria writes,

“The patriarchal throne is subordinate to no one other than the Catholic Church”[5].

This principle applies to all Churches, and, contrary to the assertions of the Roman Catholics, in the first millennium (while the West was Orthodox), the primacy of the Roman see was considered by the Eastern and most Western fathers precisely within the framework of this principle.

Thus, Blessed Augustine, speaking about the trial of Pope Milchiades and his synod over the Donatists, says:

“Suppose those bishops who condemned you in Rome were bad judges; but there remains a general Council of the entire Ecumenical Church, where it would be possible to sue these same judges, so that, if it turns out that they judged poorly, their verdict could be canceled.”[6]

The court case of Patriarch Nikon tells a revealing story[7]. The Eastern patriarchs asked Nikon: “Who judges the bishop - and who judges the patriarch?” Nikon replied: “The bishop is twelve bishops, and the patriarch is the whole universe! [T. i.e., obviously, the entire Universal Church].” But this is precisely the answer that the eastern patriarchs were waiting for! Hearing this, they immediately accused him of single-handedly condemning Bishop Pavel Kolomna. It should be noted that the two patriarchs themselves, who judged Nikon, took care of the consent of two other patriarchs, so that Nikon was judged by practically “the whole universe” (including, by the way, Russian bishops).

The fact that it is difficult to “find control” over the patriarch became one of the reasons for the abolition of the patriarchate in Russia and the establishment of the Synod. The “Spiritual Regulations,” which determined the life of the Russian Church for two hundred years, were expressed quite frankly[8]:

“What makes it happen that for the evil of such a sovereign there is a need to convene an Ecumenical Council, which happens with the great difficulty of the entire fatherland, and with no small dependence, even in modern times (when the Eastern Patriarchs live under the yoke of Tours, and the Turks of Our State are greater, than previously feared) it does not seem at all possible to be.”

The Council of Bishops is the highest authority for the Local Church, and above it stands only the opinion of the entire Ecumenical Church

So, the Council of Bishops for the Local Church is the highest authority, and above it stands only the opinion of the entire Ecumenical Church. Thus, for the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, the legitimate ecclesiastical authority is our bishops, who have not been condemned either by the Council of Bishops or by the joint decision of the Local Churches. On the contrary, convicted bishops and former bishops like Filaret (Denisenko), Diomede (Dzyuban), and recently Simeon (Shostatsky), no longer have any canonical authority, having become schismatics.

Consequences of the split

The first and most obvious consequence of a schism is that the schismatic falls away from the Church.

“Do not flatter yourself, my brothers! Whoever follows the one who introduces a schism will not inherit the Kingdom of God,” warns Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-Bearer at the beginning of the 2nd century (Phil. 4).

The disciple of the disciple of the apostles, Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyons, says:

“Christ will judge those who cause schisms, those who do not have love for God and who care more about their own gain than about the unity of the Church, who, for unimportant and random reasons, dissect and tear apart the great and glorious body of Christ.”[9]

The sermon of St. John Chrysostom is very vivid:

“So, I say and testify that to cause divisions in the Church is no less evil than to fall into heresies... what kind of Gehenna does he deserve who slaughters Christ himself and cuts him into pieces? Is it really the same one they threaten us with? It seems to me that some other, even more terrible” [10].

Accordingly, prayer (and even more so, Eucharistic communion) with schismatics is prohibited. The issue of punishment for entering into prayerful or liturgical communion with schismatics is not considered separately in the canons, but this situation is a special case of a more general one - prayer or Eucharistic communion with those excommunicated and defrocked:

• Apostle 10: “If anyone prays with someone who has been excommunicated from church communion, even if it were in the house, let him be excommunicated.”
• Apostle 11: “If anyone, belonging to the clergy, prays with someone who has been cast out from the clergy, let him also be cast out.”
• Antiochus. 2: “If ... any of the bishops, presbyters, deacons, or any of the clergy turns out to communicate with those who have been excommunicated, let him also be out of church communion as causing confusion in the church order.”

Violation of the apostolic covenant - entering into communion with schismatics - led to the current turmoil in world Orthodoxy

We see that it was precisely the violation of this apostolic covenant - entering into communication with schismatics - that led to the current turmoil in world Orthodoxy. On the other hand, taken to the extreme, the principle of non-confrontation with heretics and schismatics is often used to justify new schisms.

So, sometimes you can hear: “whoever prays with a heretic is a heretic himself!” or “whoever prays with a schismatic is a schismatic himself!” This principle sounds seductively simple - and yet it is wrong .

Turning to Apostolic Canons 10 and 11, we will see that these canons, on the one hand, say that the guilty person must be “excommunicated” and “cast out,” and on the other hand, these words are preceded by the imperative “let it be,” which in canon law indicates the need for a legal decision to be made by the appropriate ecclesiastical court.

The second rule of the Council of Antioch provides grounds for breaking off communion with a bishop who has entered into communion with schismatics or heretics, but at the same time the guilt of the one who has entered into communion with an excommunicate is formulated as “causing confusion in the order of the church,” and not at all “schism.” Note that in canon 3 of the Council of Antioch, exactly the same wording (“disorderly”) refers to the situation when a presbyter or deacon left the parish and does not return at the request of the bishop; and in canon 13 - priestly service and arrangement of church affairs by a bishop in another diocese without the consent of its bishop. Obviously, these cases cannot in any way be equated to a split.

Let us give one illustrative example: St. Ambrose of Milan wrote in defense of Maximus Cynicus, calling him the bishop of Constantinople[11]. Meanwhile, just a year later, the Second Ecumenical Council decided that Maxim was not only not a bishop, but had never been a bishop, remaining a layman and a schismatic (and he was in schism with one of the greatest bishops - St. Gregory the Theologian).

In defending Maximus, Saint Ambrose certainly made a mistake. But would it be too bold to say that he fell into schism?

Thus, despite all the severity of the canonical sanctions for intercourse with heretics and schismatics, they do not cause a “chain reaction.” For this reason, the Russian Church, according to the rules, protecting itself from communication with those who served with schismatics, rightly preserves communication with those Local Churches (and even individual hierarchs) who will serve with these concelebrants (without having communication with the schismatics themselves).

Archbishop Elpidophoros (Patriarchate of Constantinople), concelebrated by Metropolitan. Joseph (Patriarchate of Antioch), bishop. Irineja (Serbian Patriarchate), Metropolitan. Tikhon (Orthodox Church of America). October 2022 [12].

About divisions

It should be noted that sometimes “schism” is also broadly used to describe such situations when both divided sides remain in one Church.

Thus, in the Slavic translation of Carthaginian canon 114, the dispute between the bishops of Rome and Alexandria is called a “schism”[13], although all Byzantine interpreters unanimously call it only a disagreement. Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov) calls co-religionists (that is, members of the Church serving according to the pre-Nikon rite with the permission of the Synod) and “Churches under the authority of the chief priests” (that is, parishes in military units) [14] schismatics. It is clear that here he means the disobedience of such parishes to the bishops of their diocese, but not to the Church as a whole.

Thus, here we are actually talking not about a “schism”, but about a “separation”, when the two sides are in a canonically abnormal relationship: there is no Eucharistic communion between equals, there is no commemoration or obedience for the dependent. But there is no decision from the legitimate church authorities on this matter.

Among such divisions it is fair to include the demarcation in our Church in the pre-war period between Patriarch Sergius and the so-called “right opposition”. The canonicity of the election of Patriarch Sergius was not obvious. When Alexy I took his place with the clear consent of the majority of bishops, the priest Afanasy (Sakharov) reacted to it like this[15]:

“Patriarch Alexy has not been condemned by any legitimate higher hierarchical authority. <...> Therefore, when in 1945, while in prison, the priests who were with me, who did not remember Met. Sergius, we learned about the election and enthronement of Patriarch Alexy, we, having discussed the current situation, unanimously decided that since, apart from Patriarch Alexy, recognized by all the Ecumenical Patriarchs, there is now no other legitimate First Hierarch of the Russian Local Church, then we should lift up the name of Patriarch Alexy in our prayers as our patriarch, which I have been doing unfailingly since that day.”

It is clear why Saint Athanasius here speaks of recognition by “all the Ecumenical Patriarchs.” Because collectively they express the voice of that Universal Church, which served for Patriarch Alexy I, as for any patriarch or pope, as “the legitimate highest hierarchical authority.”

Submission to legitimate ecclesiastical authority trumps any political differences

One can only imagine what it was like to write to a bishop who had suffered imprisonment for his beliefs. Saint Athanasius was not, in fact, in schism. And yet, we hope that his example can say something to those residents of Ukraine who, alas, are in schism, about the importance of submission to legitimate church authority, which is more important than any political disagreements.

Alexey Mikhailovich Quiet

The church schism of the 17th century occurred during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, who reigned from 1645 to 1676. He was a very active ruler; he carefully delved into all issues of state life in Russia.

He positioned himself as a true believer, an Orthodox person, and all church affairs were under his supervision. Despite the fact that the nickname of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was the Quietest, he ruled in an alarming and turbulent time, which was overshadowed by many wars and other disasters.

St. Augustine the Blessed

We believe in the holy catholic Church. However, heretics and schismatics also call their communities churches. But heretics, thinking falsely about God, distort the faith itself, and schismatics, through lawless divisions, retreat from brotherly love, although they believe in the same thing as us. Therefore, neither heretics belong to the universal Church, which loves God, nor schismatics belong to it. (About the creed)

He who is not a member of Christ cannot be saved. You can have honor, you can have the sacrament, you can sing “Alleluia”, you can answer “Amen”, you can hold the Gospel, you can have faith in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and preach it, but nowhere except the Orthodox Catholic Church can you find salvation. (Word to the people of the Caesarea church)

Patriarch Nikon: influence on the Tsar

The church schism in Russia is inseparable from the name of Patriarch Nikon. In the world he is known as Nikita Minin. The years of his life are 1605-1681. He became a clergyman at the behest of his parents and in this field reached great heights. In 1643, he received a significant church position, becoming abbot of the Kozheozersky monastery, located in the Arkhangelsk province.

In 1646, Nikon arrived in Moscow on monastery business, and he was introduced to the then young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The latter was 17 years old at the time. The young sovereign liked the abbot so much that he decided to leave him at court and appointed him to the post of archimandrite in the Moscow Novospassky Monastery. Subsequently, thanks to the royal favor, Nikon became the Metropolitan of Novgorod.

In 1651, the tsar demanded the return of Nikon to the capital, and since then he began to influence Alexei Mikhailovich with even greater force. Enjoying the full trust of the ruler, the clergyman took an active part in solving state affairs.

The pinnacle of Nikon's career was his accession to the patriarchal throne. This happened after the death of Patriarch Joseph in 1652. From that moment on, preparations for the long-overdue church reform began.

Church and schism of the 17th century

Author's articles

Forgotten book: “The search for the schismatic Bryn faith”

When did the persecution of the Church in Russia begin?

Historical essays on the Old Believers

By the grace of God Patriarch

Pagan roots of European sectarianism

Blasphemy against the Church

CURRENT ARTICLES Comments

02/26/2022 Alexander Khaldei Ukraine – Russia

02/21/2022 Sergey Vasiliev The wild West and its infernal metastases

01/23/2022 Nikolay Kaverin In the event of a military danger to Russia, an Orthodox officer’s hand should not tremble

02/20/2022 Eduard Birov Selfishness does not suit a Russian

02/16/2022 Saint Theophan the Recluse On the Eternity of Torment

02/11/2022 Priest Sergiy Chechanichev In defense of the Church Slavonic language

01/30/2022 Kiprian Shahbazyan Communion and coronavirus

9.02.2022 "Flee fornication"

17.01.2022 Holy Communion - for the fall and rise of many

01/27/2022 Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) Eastern and Western monasticism

02/14/2022 Priest Alexy Gokov Gray-haired old age is the adornment of our Church

12/20/2021 Nikolay Kaverin On calls for a “revival of the monarchy” in modern Russia

6.12.2021 Sergey Khudiev Who needs anti-vaccination panic

01/10/2022 Archpriest Dimitry Shishkin Confrontation with collapse

01/04/2022 Archpriest Peter Andrievsky (†2012) Protestantism in Orthodoxy

01/19/2022 Natalya Mikhailova When did the persecution of the Church in Russia begin?

01/12/2022 Alexander Khaldei Liberal religion of Modernity. There is no more totalitarian religion in the world than liberalism

12/28/2021 Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) Is it possible to pray for the souls of suicides and heretics?

02/7/2022 Grigory Glushenkov Who killed Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev: Bolsheviks or Ukrainian nationalists?

11/14/2021 Eduard Birov How statists became fighters for “individual rights”

11/21/2021 Priest Sergius Chechanichev CIA and Covid dissidents. Imitation of Yulian Semenov

11/30/2021 Anatoly Stepanov This “terrible and terrible” quar code. About the imaginary and real dangers of quarcodization of the Russian population

01/14/2022 Mikhail Lodyzhensky Seraphim of Sarov and Francis of Assisi

12/23/2021 Lyudmila Selenskaya About Soviet cinema and modern Orthodoxy

12/9/2021 Nikolay Kaverin About the modern “prophecies” of Abel the seer

13.02.2022 Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee, 20th century

9.11.2021 Nikolai Kaverin Is the flow of myrrh always a miracle of God?

02/2/2022 Editorial staff of the “Holy Fire” website On the 4th anniversary of the death of Hero of Russia pilot Roman Filipov

09/06/2021 Archpriest Alexy Kasatikov Vaccination as a doctrinal issue

10/21/2021 Dmitry Gabyshev Dangers for the Orthodox community of new fabrications about the intimate sphere

10.25.2021 Eduard Birov “Vaccine war” of globalists with Russia

7.11.2021 Archpriest Alexy Kasatikov About true love and fake vaccination

12/26/2021 Archpriest Dimitry Shishkin Patriarchy

5.12.2021 December 5 is the day of the death of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II. His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II on church modernism and neo-renovationism

12/14/2021 Oleg Divov Eaten alive, or the Zombie Apocalypse in Russia. Waxer's Manifesto

12/16/2021 Archbishop Averky (Taushev) “Salt is haunting” - a sign of the approaching end

11/26/2021 Timur Davletshin The concept of uranopolitism by priest Daniil Sysoev. About the imaginary contradiction between Christianity and patriotism (in connection with the controversy about the admissibility of Orthodox believers to be vaccinated against coronavirus with Russian vaccines)

2.11.2021 Nikolai Kaverin The celebration of the Liturgy of the Apostle James is a manifestation of church modernism and a daring violation of the charter

11/12/2021 Archpriest Andrey Tkachev About migrants and the biblical paradigm

02/5/2022 Archpriest Alexy Chaplin Ukrainian modernism in the Russian Orthodox Church: Russian instead of Russian

4.11.2021 Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev On the non-canonical nature of serving the Liturgy of the Apostle James in the Russian Church

09.30.2021 Archpriest Peter Andrievsky (†2012) Heresy of Tsarebozhiy

10/19/2021 Archpriest Peter Andrievsky (†2012), Nikolai Kaverin Who is the “Retainer”?

11/17/2021 Editorial staff of the website “Blessed Fire” On the inappropriateness of including in the Month of the New “holiday” in honor of the “Holy Fathers of the Local Council of the Russian Church”

09/23/2021 Hegumen Adrian (Pavlov) Liturgical innovations of Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov)

19.11.2021 To the 75th anniversary of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill. Deacon Andrey Kuraev about the election of the patriarch at the Local Council in 2009

11.29.2021 Timur Davletshin About the writer Astafiev and “false” patriotism. Response to an article by Vladimir Semenko

10/14/2021 Natalia Mikhailova History of Fr. To the 50th anniversary of the Local Council of 1971

09/14/2021 Nikolay Kaverin On the propaganda of vaccine phobia in Russia

07.26.2021 Archpriest Alexy Kasatikov New wave of anti-vaccination madness in our Church

17.10.2021 Universal vaccination of the population in a few days was able to extinguish the terrible outbreak of smallpox in 1959–1960 in Moscow

08/29/2021 Nikolai Kaverin Why is Patriarch Kirill silent about vaccination?

08/16/2021 Anatoly Stepanov Revolutionaries on the right. Reflections on the phenomenon of Orthodox radicalism

10/4/2021 Natalia Mikhailova Forgotten book: “The search for the schismatic Bryn faith”

10.10.2021 To the 50th anniversary of the Local Council of 1971. On the removal of “oaths” from Old Believers at the Local Council of 1971

08/14/2021 Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov) About reading spiritual books according to your position. Instruction on what to read for a layman

10/31/2021 Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev About the holy martyr War and church prayer for the non-Orthodox

12.12.2021 Alexey Gorozhanin Did Apostle Andrew the First-Called visit the Russian land? In defense of Sacred Tradition from the attacks of Protestants

09.17.2021 Vladislav Artemov Madness of Orthodoxy

08/23/2021 In blessed memory of Archpriest Vladimir Pravdolyubov (†05/23/2021) Protopresbyter Alexander Schmeman in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate

12/18/2021 Editorial staff of the “Holy Fire” website Did St. Nicholas hit Arius on the cheek? In defense of the Holy Tradition from the attacks of Protestants and “new Sadducees”

08.08.2021 Alexey Yarasov How anti-vaxxers intimidate Orthodox Christians

08/18/2021 Editorial staff of the “Holy Fire” website To mark the 30th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church were also involved in the collapse of the USSR

08/1/2021 Alexander Strizhev What the Monk Seraphim of Sarov did not say. On the issue of pseudo-church myth-making

06/29/2021 Nikolay Kaverin The domestic vaccine “Sputnik V” has nothing to do with aborted material

08/25/2021 Priest Alexander Tsygankov About our differences

08/11/2021 Nikolay Bondarenko About the pandemic for the Orthodox. Questions and answers

07.07.2021 Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) Is Sodom really our future home?

03/31/2021 Anatoly Stepanov Why have Orthodox Christians become the vanguard of the fight against vaccination?

09.09.2021 Archpriest Igor Ryabko Why they would like to cut off our heads today

09/2/2021 Archimandrite Lazar (Abashidze) (†2018) The sword is double-edged. In blessed memory of the outstanding spiritual writer Archimandrite Lazar (Abashidze)

06/1/2021 Sergey Khudiev If you refuse vaccination, you can become a murderer

07/5/2021 Sergey Lukyanenko Body armor, or Why you don’t need to wear a hat in winter

25.05.2021 Who is slowing down the canonization of Yevgeny Rodionov

05/19/2021 Nikolay Kaverin On the liberal-renovationist and political views of Archpriest Alexy Uminsky

15.07.2021 Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) on adultery and debauchery

06/7/2021 Vladislav Romanov DECR and the schism in the Moscow Patriarchate. On the anniversary of the most “effective” church department

05/30/2021 Nikolai Kaverin About the draft document of the Inter-Council Presence “On the blessing of Orthodox Christians for the performance of military duty.” The Church is about war, murder in war and the defense of the Fatherland. Apology for Orthodox militarism

06/4/2021 In blessed memory of Archpriest Vladimir Pravdolyubov (†05/23/2021) Archpriest Vladimir Pravdolyubov The true meaning of the modern preaching of super-frequent communion

05/16/2021 Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) About recitation in the temple

21.06.2021 Why does modern cinema and television benefit from falsifying the truth about the Great Patriotic War?

04/11/2021 Nikolay Kaverin Russian nuclear weapons and Russian anti-Covid vaccines are the only guarantor of the sovereignty of our Motherland

09/26/2021 Alexander Petrovich Golubtsov From the history of images of the cross

11.06.2021 Loud resignation in the Belarusian Exarchate: Archbishop of Grodno and Volkovysk Artemy, who criticized the legitimate government in Belarus, was removed from the cathedra and sent to retirement

04/26/2021 Nikolay Kaverin On the Catholic influence on the movement of supporters of the “Eucharistic revival”

07/29/2021 Nikolai Kaverin On the 30th anniversary of the death of Schema-Archimandrite John (Maslov). About the modernist activities of Archimandrite Tavrion (Batozsky) in the Glinsk Hermitage

16.06.2021 Appeal from Lieutenant General Vladimir Shatokhin on the need to consecrate Russian weapons

21.05.2021 Holy Martyr Christopher and his iconography

03/29/2021 Nikolai Kaverin On the abolition of Confession before communion of the Holy Mysteries

22.07.2021 Improvement of the Grodno diocese. A number of Belarusian “revolutionaries in robes” lost their posts

04/18/2021 Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev On the revival of the Manichaean heresy in the evolutionist theology of Archpriest Alexander Men

03/9/2021 Editorial staff of the “Holy Fire” website In defense of the Main Church of the Russian Armed Forces from church liberals and anti-Sovietists

03/2/2021 Archpriest Sergius Antiminsov Archpriest Alexander Men as a commentator on the Holy Scriptures

02/28/2021 Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) Monuments-statues of saints

01/17/2021 Archpriest Peter Andrievsky (†2012) Apologist of heresy (On distortions of Orthodox doctrine in the writings of Deacon Andrei Kuraev)

02/18/2021 Maria Alferyeva Metamorphoses of Father Alexander Men

02/16/2021 Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev Extremes of evolutionism. Strange arguments about science and faith in one article on the website “Bogoslov.ru”

02.22.2021 Archpriest Alexy Kasatikov Evolution: from Darwin’s monkey to the “monkey of God”

21.04.2021 The sin of fornication and the fight against it

02/3/2021 Vladimir Shklyaev About the compilers of the “lives” of the new martyrs

02/10/2021 Editorial staff of the “Holy Fire” website “White handkerchiefs once saved the church.” Your Holiness, stand up for them!

31.01.2021 The President is my friend!

01/29/2021 Archimandrite Cleopas (Ilie) Do not give a sword instead of food. Conversation about Holy Communion and preparation for it

01/27/2021 Vyacheslav Makartsev Eschatological insensibility

05.23.2021 Archpriest Dimitry Shishkin “Intolerant” truth

12/1/2020 Nikolay Kaverin Where does the practice of ultra-frequent communion come from and where can it lead?

01/21/2021 Lidiya Sokolova, Svetlana Romanova “Exposure of Stalinist tyranny and communist totalitarianism...”?

01/20/2021 Editorial staff of the “Blessed Fire” website “We ask the Church Court to include in the case “on recognizing the supernumerary clergyman of Moscow, Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev, as subject to removal from the priesthood” a theological analysis of his publications.”

05/10/2021 Nikolai Kaverin If evil spirits in robes go berserk on Victory Day, then everything is right with us!

14.01.2021 Andrey Kuraev: “Orthodox boor” or boorish heretic?

01/12/2021 Editorial site “Holy Fire” To the 30th anniversary of the events of January 13, 1991 in Vilnius. We call on Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) to return the state award “For Courage and Self-Sacrifice” to the Lithuanian authorities

4.01.2021 After Patriarch Kirill’s appeal to Muscovites not to neglect divine services, the head of the DECR MP asked believers not to go to churches on Christmas. Who should poor Russian Christians obey?

12/24/2020 Nikolay Kaverin Creative missionary courage

12/28/2020 Priest Alexy Gokov How pacifists falsify the history of the Church. Commentary on the text of Protodeacon Kuraev on the anti-militarism of the early Church

01/2/2021 Mikhail Tyurenkov “Kuraev – on the way out!” The scandalous protodeacon was sentenced to defrocking. Anathema next?

12/29/2020 Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) The mystical essence of sin

12/15/2020 Archpriest Andrey Romashko When you really want a schism. About the Council of Orthodox Laymen (October 31, 2020, Moscow)

11/10/2020 Archpriest Alexy Kasatikov The royal path in the situation with COVID-19: how to walk between cowardly fear and feeble-minded courage

11/26/2020 Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) On the profanation of love

09/19/2021 Saint John (Maximovich) Perversion by the Latins in the newly invented dogma of the “Immaculate Conception” of the true veneration of the Most Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary

12/10/2020 Pavel Panov Once again about the temptation of Western culture

6.12.2020 On the 55th anniversary of the “lifting of the anathemas” of 1054 by Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople and Pope Paul VI in 1965

11/29/2020 Archpriest Sergius Pravdolyubov Memories of the work of the commission on the theological views of the priest. Georgy Kochetkov in 2000

11/19/2020 Timur Davletshin Kochetkovschina and Vlasovschina

11/8/2020 Mikhail Tyurenkov Will the Russian Church get rid of the Kochetkovite sect?

11/13/2020 Deacon Vladimir Vasilik About a new date in the church calendar: Day of Remembrance for all victims of car accidents

11/15/2020 Andrey Rogozyansky Why S. Chapnin’s lectures at the MDA are nonsense

10/28/2020 Mikhail Novoselov Letters to friends. On the false view of the church hierarchy as an infallible authority in matters of faith

4.10.2020 In December 2022, Patriarch Kirill launched the destructive virus of renovationism and liturgical reformation into the Russian Church. Letter to the editor of the site “Holy Fire”

10/21/2020 Nikolay Kaverin The Elitsy are returning - go away! About missionary liturgy

10.7.2020 Editorial staff of the “Holy Fire” website Relapse of neo-renovationism. Afterword to a letter to the editor of the “Holy Fire” from a parishioner of the church in Balashikha

10.11.2020 Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev The virus of renovationism has intensified in the Church

15.09.2020 Evidence of the behavior of Kochetkovites at services

09.20.2020 Nikolai Kaverin About the wonderful books from the series “The Life of Remarkable People” by one wonderful metropolitan: should there be a continuation?

09/29/2020 Archpriest Peter Andrievsky (†2012) Russia before the Second Coming... Unfulfilled predictions (+VIDEO)

09/13/2020 Nikolay Kaverin Secret Uniatism. Crypto-Catholicism in the Orthodox Church

09/17/2020 Priest Alexander Shumsky †09/16/2020 In blessed memory of priest Alexander Shumsky. “Solzhenitsynism” and historical truth are incompatible

10.09.2020 Where can the instructions of Archpriest Alexander Me lead?

09.23.2020 Vyacheslav Maltsev (†2004) The temptation of “pink Christianity”

10.18.2020 Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev The old orders are not new. To the discussion about the project of the Inter-Council Presence “On preparation for Holy Communion.” Eruption from the priesthood Theodore Ludogovsky

08/30/2020 Nikolai Kaverin Is a Local Council necessary in the Russian Church now?

08/26/2020 Editorial staff of the “Blessed Fire” website Metropolitan Savva, in addition to reforming the language of worship, gave communion to Orthodox believers in the Tver Cathedral with the Body of Christ and simple wine

10.15.2020 Alexander Kamchatnov Woe we have hearts, or Once again on the question of the language of worship

09/04/2020 Timur Davletshin About “Orthodox” Caesaropapism

09.7.2020 Archpriest Vadim Leonov On the Orthodox understanding of the sacrament of the Eucharist

24.08.2020 The Tver diocese may become a springboard for the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church

08/21/2020 Hieromonk Roman (Matyushin) Do not tempt these little ones

08/11/2020 Mikhail Tyurenkov “The Ghost of Autocephaly”: Will the Belarusian Church become anti-Russian

08/2/2020 Vladimir Semenko Former schema-abbot Sergius (Romanov) becomes a leader of the revolution in the Church

08/29/2017 Nikolay Kaverin The Orthodox Church of Belarus on the path to Euro-Orthodoxy

16.08.2020 Address by Metropolitan Kirill of Yekaterinburg and Verkhoturye with an explanation of the canonical position of Schemamonk Sergius (Romanov)

08/10/2020 Alexey Gorozhanin Are the laity obligated to partake of the Holy Mysteries of Christ at every liturgy?

12/8/2020 Panteleimon Filippovich Church liberalism: a view from White Russia

09/15/2011 Archpriest Vladimir Chuvikin Archpriest Vladimir Chuvikin: “The book on the right is now untimely.”

09/2/2020 Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) Charter

14.07.2020 A prominent theorist of sexual relations, Kuraev preaches to boys about the most relevant activity for him - about masturbation.

07/12/2020 Archpriest Dimitry Shishkin Between rebellion and apostasy

07.07.2020 Roman Kon About attempts to introduce the Filioque heresy into the Russian Orthodox theological school

07/30/2020 Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) Let’s become kind, let’s become fearful!

30.10.2020 Why plans for the nuclear bombing of the USSR were not implemented

20.08.2020 Soviet soldiers were never occupiers. They were Russian soldiers. On the 52nd anniversary of the entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968

07/2/2020 Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) The main features of church modernists, compiled by Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin)

07/26/2020 Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) About the sin of fornication

06/17/2020 Igor Shishkin Metropolitan Hilarion against Stalin

15.06.2020 Archbishop Ambrose (Ermakov) and Archpriest Pavel Velikanov are turning Sretensky Seminary into a hotbed of theological liberalism and church modernism

06/11/2020 Archpriest Dimitry Shishkin Reboot

2.11.2020 Protopresbyter Vladimir Divakov Battle of Sretensky. Moscow is behind us

10/25/2020 Roman Nosikov In loving memory of Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov (†10/21/2020). Pop and offended women. About the oddities in the work of Russian media

7.06.2020 They want to turn Sretensky Seminary into a Kochetkovsky get-together. Briefly about one “hero” of the scandal at Sretensky Seminary, Priest Stefan Domuschi

10/22/2020 Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov (†10/21/2020) In blessed memory of Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov. Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov about the activities of priests Georgy Kochetkov and Alexander Borisov

1.06.2020 A temple with an “iconostasis” in the form of a phallic symbol will be built in Moscow. Perhaps a public garden is better than a temple, conceived as a mockery of the Orthodox faith and a desecration of the Holy Trinity?

11/10/2019 Petr Malkov Review of video materials of the educational and educational portal “Academy of Faith”

05/28/2020 Valery Filimonov Chipping of biological objects according to Sobyanin’s plan. Moscow mayor may surpass Bill Gates

31.05.2020 Deacon Ilya Maslov about the “Kochetkovites” in connection with the deprivation of SFI accreditation

04/11/2020 Ilya Zabezhinsky If for a priest the Eucharist is only a ritual

05/17/2020 Archpriest Igor Ryabko New ecclesiology from Andrei Kuraev and Igor Savva: remote liturgy and online communion

05/10/2020 Deacon Ilya Maslov Expulsion from SFI - return to the Church

05.26.2020 Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) Is it possible to divide the Saints according to “specialization”?

04/30/2020 Archpriest Peter Andrievsky (†2012) About the apologist of heresy - theological deacon Andrei Kuraev

05/14/2020 Alexander Shchipkov Pandemic and new sacredness. “We are being pushed to think about the inevitability of church reformation”

05/12/2020 Nikolay Kaverin Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) as a “de-Stalinizer” of the Great Victory in the Great Patriotic War

04/29/2020 Mikhail Tyurenkov From Otrepyev to Kuraev: Why do they want to defrock the scandalous protodeacon?

05/05/2020 Mikhail Demurin Who in the Russian Orthodox Church is against national unity in the Great Patriotic War?

04/27/2020 Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) He who remembers death cannot sin

04/23/2020 Roman Kon “Modern Theology” at the Moscow Theological Academy. About some erroneous statements of Professor Oleg Davydov

02/9/2021 On the 15th anniversary of the death of Archimandrite John (Krestyankin) Archimandrite John (Krestyankin) “Poison in an attractive package”

04/15/2020 Olesya Nikolaeva New Nikodim. A story for those who are afraid of becoming infected and catching the virus through Communion...

04/19/2020 Egor Kholmogorov Petrified insensibility. Today churches are protected from believers

13.04.2020 Military Easter 1942 in Moscow. How did the Church live during the war years?

24.07.2021 How the Russian Olympic Committee abandoned Crimea. Following the flag and anthem, Russian Olympians were deprived of the right to the territorial integrity of the country they represent

29.03.2020 The main task of the Church in the context of coronavirus (VIDEO)

04/8/2020 Nikolay Kaverin Modern renovationism and reform of liturgical language in the twentieth century. Brief background to the issue

03/23/2020 Nikolay Kaverin On the anti-Orthodox activities of priest Georgy Kochetkov to promote church reformation at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries

03/25/2020 Nikolai Kaverin Priest Georgy Kochetkov suggests refusing communion in churches

03/15/2020 Editorial team of the “Holy Fire” website Beware: a dangerous virus of renovationism has been detected in the Russian Church! We urge Orthodox believers to refrain from visiting those churches where the Proverbs, Apostle and Gospel are read in Russian, or where all services are conducted in Russian

12.03.2020 Appeal from parishioners of the Tver Metropolis to all parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church regarding the anti-Orthodox activities of priest Georgy Kochetkov

03/9/2020 Vladimir Semenko Events in Tver may become the beginning of a qualitatively new, organized conservative movement in the Russian Orthodox Church

09/21/2021 Archpriest Theodore Zisis Following ecumenism came homosexuality*

02/11/2020 Nikolay Kaverin Kochetkovshchina: ten years later, or Is it possible to believe in the immortality of the soul?

3.02.2020 About the activities of the Kochetkovsky brotherhood in Tver today and 13 years ago. Afterword by the editors of the “Holy Fire” website

01/14/2020 Editorial site “Holy Fire” Patriarch Kirill usurped the prerogatives of Royal power

02/9/2020 Editorial staff of the “Holy Fire” website Did the Local Council of 1917–1918 take place? resolution on the admissibility of using the Russian language during worship services

14.02.2020 Summary of the conclusion of the Commission on Theological Research of Priest Georgy Kochetkov

02/5/2020 Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev Heresy of Kochetkovshchina

02/19/2020 Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev On the inadmissibility of Russification of worship

15.05.2018 About the situation in the Serbian Orthodox Church

01/22/2020 Editorial site “Blessed Fire” Changing Church Slavonic worship is anti-church vandalism and sabotage against the Russian Church

12/1/2019 Georgy Korobin Correction of liturgical books at the beginning of the twentieth century

02/25/2020 Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev Against the new practice of communion - with the Body of Christ and wine

02/2/2020 Archpriest Georgy Belodurov About the Kochetkovsky sect (schism)

01/22/2020 Editorial site “Holy Fire” Another strange canonization of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. About one fact from the life of Hieromonk Sophrony (Sakharov)

01/29/2020 Vladimir Semenko New life of Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin

27.01.2022 The legend about the military visitor of Father Seraphim, reported by Hieromonk Joasaph (Tolstosheyev) in 1849

12/25/2019 Editorial staff of the “Blessed Fire” website On the significance of the Church Slavonic language in the worship of the Russian Orthodox Church

01/17/2020 Vladimir Semenko Vatican, Phanar, Russian Orthodox Church: role and participation in the ecumenical process

NEWS

26.02.2022 Donbass is behind us and God is with us! We are returning home...

24.02.2022 Let's provide prayer support to the President of Russia!

21.02.2022 Donbass, dear, we have waited!

20.02.2022 Popova (Rospotrebnadzor) and refugees from the DPR and LPR

17.02.2022 Appeal of the Russian political science and expert community to the President of the Russian Federation

07.02.2022 “The Gulag Archipelago”: re-read Solzhenitsyn and be stunned

02.02.2022 Boris Johnson in Kyiv told how Ukrainians can fight the Russians

31.01.2022 Support the Holy Fire website!

24.01.2022 Circular letter from Metropolitan Dionysius of the Resurrection on preventing the spread of coronavirus infection

03.01.2022 Vaccination buried the “Crimean consensus” of the authorities and patriots

25.12.2021 To the 30th anniversary of the collapse of the USSR

22.12.2021 Patriarch Kirill urged believers not to confuse the QR code with the seal of the Antichrist and called vaccination against coronavirus not a doctrinal issue, but a purely medical issue

11.12.2021 The Kremlin administration compared anti-vaxxers to Hitler, and the Russian Orthodox Church announced foreign curators of anti-vaxxers

29.11.2021 Who finances anti-vaxxer actions in Russia. There is plenty of evidence that support for Russian anti-vaxxers comes from abroad – both financially and in the media.

24.11.2021 The Russian Orthodox Church called on opponents of vaccination to visit the “red zone”

27.10.2021 Interview with Metropolitan Tikhon (Shevkunov) about Covid dissidents and anti-vaccinators, about Russian history, about President V.V. Putin...

23.10.2021 Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) spoke in favor of compulsory vaccination of the clergy, but the official of the Moscow Patriarchate V.R. Legoyda said vaccination would not be mandatory for her priests

19.10.2021 The information attack of the West and Russian Orthodox cliques on the Sputnik V vaccine should be equated to extremist activity and an encroachment on Russian sovereignty

04.10.2021 On calls for a “revival of the monarchy” in modern Russia

12.09.2021 Decree banning priest Roman Stepanov

11.09.2021 Has the decision of the rabbinate become considered a criterion of truth for the Orthodox?

02.09.2021 “Whoever infects someone with coronavirus is guilty of murder,” hierarch of the Greek Orthodox Church

31.08.2021 In blessed memory of Hero of Russia Alexander Zakharchenko (†31.08.2018)

25.08.2021 “Orthodoxy-light”, Or let’s teach children how to believe “correctly”

21.08.2021 Anti-vaxxers! Create a movement against dental treatment!

10.08.2021 About the main myths spread by anti-vaxxers. Interview of a correspondent for the “Blessed Fire” website with doctor Zoya Andreeva

06.08.2021 Metropolitan Tikhon of Pskov and Porkhov: “Back in the 90s, there were more than enough horror stories about vaccination”

30.07.2021 False start of the meeting of the Antichrist. The “community of witnesses to the imminent coming of the Antichrist” perked up when they learned that Chubais is a shareholder in the enterprise that produces Sputnik V.

20.07.2021 Who will be responsible for the premature death of Pyotr Mamonov from Covid?

14.07.2021 The paradox of vaccination. Patriots still opposed the authorities

03.07.2021 Address of Metropolitan Tikhon of Pskov and Porkhov to the Pskov flock on the need for vaccination

25.06.2021 Archpriest Alexy Kasatikov: “COVID-19 is a biological weapon directed against Russia, and we must protect ourselves from it with the domestic Sputnik V vaccine.”

24.06.2021 On Valaam, residents who have not been vaccinated will be expelled from the monastery, and in Moscow, compulsory vaccination will not be required of the capital’s priests

23.06.2021 Nikolai Starikov: forced vaccination is the second “pension reform”

22.06.2021 June 22, 1941 - 80 years since the beginning of the Great Patriotic War

10.06.2021 Archbishop Artemy of Grodno and Volkovysk, who criticized the legitimate government in Belarus, was removed from the department. The Belarusian Russophobic opposition hopes that the bishop will lead the “Orthodox Church in the new Belarus”

09.06.2021 The number of people vaccinated against COVID in the Russian army is close to 100%

28.05.2021 Archpriest Vladimir Pravdolyubov, a strict guardian of the traditions of Orthodox worship and a bright polemicist against neo-renovationism and church liberalism, has died

20.05.2021 Once again about vaccination: in wartime, some sins are not charged with condemnation

20.05.2021 The Russian Orthodox Church urged not to consider vaccination a sin

17.05.2021 Why does modern cinema and television benefit from falsifying the truth about the Great Patriotic War?

10.05.2021 We ask the Holy Synod to give a comprehensive explanation about the admissibility of Orthodox believers to be vaccinated with Russian vaccines

09.05.2021 Happy Victory Day! Escorting German prisoners of war through Moscow on July 17, 1944

30.04.2021 Patriarch of Jerusalem Diodorus (†2000) about what is happening in Edicule during the descent of the Holy Fire

14.04.2021 The Church-Public Council on Bioethics, which opposed the church recognition of IVF (in vitro fertilization), was abolished by the Holy Synod

12.04.2021 Gagarin: “Hello, descendants! How are you there? To the 60th anniversary of the first space flight of the Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin

24.03.2021 Vaccinations against coronavirus have begun on Mount Athos

07.03.2021 Appeal to the Church Court: “We ask that you include in the case “on recognizing the supernumerary cleric of the city of Moscow, Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev, as subject to removal from the priesthood” a theological analysis of his publications.”

05.03.2021 March 5 is the day of the death of I.V. Stalin. Stalin and the Third Rome

24.02.2021 Kuraev vs patriarchy: “draw”

18.02.2021 “The Splinter” of Patriarch Kirill, or Kuraev Has Long Arms!

16.02.2021 The initiative of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) to canonize Archpriest. Alexandra Me is called upon to “balance” the recent initiative of Metropolitan Tikhon (Shevkunov) to prepare for the canonization of the confessor of the Russian Church, Elder Archimandrite John (Krestyankin)

12.02.2021 Appeal from the Donbass student community to the youth of Russia

09.02.2021 Metropolitan Tikhon (Shevkunov) announced the collection of materials for the preparation of the canonization of Elder Archimandrite John (Krestyankin)

04.02.2021 False peacemaking under the guise of Orthodoxy. Shouldn't liberal priests take off their cassocks and become human rights activists?

03.02.2021 On the 3rd anniversary of the death of Hero of Russia pilot Roman Filipov

28.01.2021 Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye: “Over the years of his anti-church activity, Kuraev brought into the souls of Christians as much temptation, lies, condemnation, outright slander and hatred of the Church as probably no other person has done recently.”

24.01.2021 Metropolitan Hilarion: Kuraev faces excommunication from the Church

21.01.2021 Will Patriarch Kirill appeal to Moscow Mayor S.S. Sobyanin with a request to unblock social cards for free travel on public transport for people 65+ in order to attend Sunday and holiday services in Moscow churches?

19.01.2021 The Gamaleya Institute has denied rumors about the content of abortifacient materials in the Sputnik V vaccine

08.01.2021 Decision of the Diocesan Court of Moscow in case No. 50-54-2020 (on recognizing Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev as subject to removal from the priesthood)

05.01.2021 You can’t go to the Temple on Christmas?! Doctor Myasnikov condemned the fatal ban on elderly believers visiting churches

02.01.2021 Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye on the defrocking of Andrey Kuraev

29.12.2020 By the decision of the diocesan court of Moscow, Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev was found subject to defrocking

24.12.2020 A relapse of neo-renovationism: Patriarch Kirill again advocated the partial use of the Russian language in worship

17.12.2020 Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev unexpectedly spoke about canonicity, although he had previously said that “the canons must be forgotten and put on the shelf”

27.11.2020 Handshakers wearing “Christian” masks: a new open letter from the Russian liberda

24.11.2020 Priest Georgy Maksimov about the revolutionary “meeting of Orthodox laity” on October 31

15.11.2020 A meeting of Orthodox laity like rotting

09.11.2020 Author's program “Agitators” by Alexander Shchipkov: about priest Georgy Kochetkov, liberal Orthodoxy and zealots beyond reason

08.11.2020 Orthodox laity as a weapon of church revolution and renovationism on the right

04.11.2020 Will Russia declare the 2020 US elections illegitimate? The whole truth about the American elections from Margarita Simonyan

30.10.2020 Orthodox Covid dissidents have become more active...

27.10.2020 Appeal of Deacon Ilya Maslov to the Church Court of the Moscow Regional Diocese

24.10.2020 The era of Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov

The essence of the reforms of Patriarch Nikon

The first thing the activity of the newly-minted patriarch was aimed at was the editing of spiritual literature, which had to be coordinated with the Greek canons. As for the date of the church schism, it dates back to 1653, when changes to the liturgical canons began to be introduced. This is where the confrontation between Patriarch Nikon and his followers and supporters of the old rituals began.

Next, we will consider the essence of the reforms that led to the split of the Orthodox Church. It boils down to this:

1. The two-finger sign has been replaced with a three-finger sign. It was this innovation that caused the most criticism among opponents of the reforms. They believed that the sign of the cross performed in a new way carried disrespect for the Almighty, since the so-called fig for God was formed from three fingers.
2. Instead of “Jesus” they began to write “Jesus”.
3. The number of prosphoras during the liturgy was reduced.
4. During the service, it was necessary to make bows from the waist, not to the ground.
5. When performing a religious procession, it was necessary to move against the sun.
6. Instead of two “Hallelujahs,” church singing began to repeat this exclamation three times.

It should be noted that it was the reforms of Patriarch Nikon that led to years of church schism in Rus'.

Participants, reformers, opponents

The founder of religious reform was Tsar Alexei. He needed this in order to strengthen his own power, smooth out friction between Russia and Ukraine and make the state the center of the Orthodox faith. The leader of the religious schism, Patriarch Nikon, pursued completely different goals. He claimed the role of co-ruler of Russia. The patriarch argued that divine power was higher than royal power and wanted to rule the country together with the king, but being above him. Nikon's ambitious plans were not destined to come true.

Alexey Mikhailovich Romanov

Important. In 1660, Tsar Alexei Romanov ordered a church council to deprive Patriarch Nikon of his rank and exile him to a remote monastery

The patriarch's harsh methods led to a large number of believers leaving the church. At the same time, a powerful movement of champions of the old faith was formed. Disgraced clergy who did not recognize Nikon’s church reforms went into the deep forests and founded monasteries there. Then they were joined by hundreds and thousands of people who professed the old faith and did not accept the reforms.

There were especially many Old Believer hermitages in the Russian north and in the dense forests along the Kerzhenets River. The Solovetsky Monastery became a real stronghold of the old faith. The entire monastery brethren refused to accept the new faith, then the royal regiments were drawn to the monastery. After a long siege, the Solovetsky Monastery was taken. More than 400 monks were executed.

The movement of Old Believers was led by Archpriest Avvakum. He was a strong personality, in no way inferior to the reforming patriarch. The two opposing forces Nikon and Avvakum did not want to concede to each other in anything.

For adherence to the old faith and for accusatory seditious speeches against reforms, the archpriest was exiled to Siberia.

Important. Despite persecution and deprivation, Avvakum did not change his views and continued to preach and denounce Nikon as the Antichrist. For his activities, the archpriest was imprisoned in a deep pit and then burned.

Not only Archpriest Avvakum suffered. Many ardent supporters of religion according to old Russian laws were publicly burned at the stake from ancient handwritten books and images of saints. This fact marked the beginning of the terrible tradition of self-immolation, when residents of a religious monastery, along with women and children, locked themselves in a wooden building and set it on fire from the inside. As a rule, no one managed to escape. Self-immolation was also an extreme form of protest against persecution and repression.

Harsh methods and the deposition of Nikon

During the process of church schism, a significant part of the Orthodox believers separated from the Orthodox Church and began to oppose the reforms introduced by Patriarch Nikon. The reason was largely due to Nikon's harsh methods.

In 1660, at the behest of Alexei Mikhailovich, the patriarch was deposed. Subsequently, he was deprived of the priesthood and exiled to the Ferapontov Monastery in Belozersk.

Church Cathedral

A Church Council took place in 1667-1668. Alexey Mikhailovich himself supported the reform. As a result, 2 decisions were made:

1. Patriarch Nikon was defrocked. This happened due to his desire for power and conflict with the king.
2. But Nikon’s reforms were nevertheless accepted.

All those who disagreed were different from the church, anathematized and subjected to repression by the authorities. A real ideological war has begun. The most influential opponent of innovations was Avvakum Petrov.

Reasons for the split

Let's look at them in more detail.

1. The methods of implementing church reforms were very harsh. They alienated many members of the clergy and part of the common people. These methods were as follows: church books, icons and other shrines that did not comply with the Greek canons were forcibly confiscated. Later they were publicly destroyed.
2. The abruptness and thoughtlessness of the transition to new rules of liturgical rites led to the fact that the people formed the conviction that they wanted to impose a different faith on them. In addition, those who refused to accept the innovations were subjected to severe corporal punishment. And this could not add sympathy to the patriarch and his entourage.
3. The parish clergy had a very low level of education, and sometimes the priests were simply illiterate in matters of faith and therefore could not clearly explain to the parishioners what the essence of the changes was.
4. Inaccurate translation from Greek into Russian of individual texts, which, although slightly, still differed from the previous Old Russian ones. The greatest indignation of believers was that the meaning of the “Creed” prayer had changed. Previously, the Kingdom of God was spoken of in the present tense, but now - in the future.
5. There was no unity in the church environment on issues of reform. Therefore, opponents of innovations appeared there too, they became the spiritual leaders of the Old Believers.

Next, a few words should be said about the leader of the schism of the church in Rus' - Archpriest Avvakum.

A little about the history of church schisms (part two)

The church schism is one of the most tragic, ugliest and painful phenomena in the history of the Church, which was the result of oblivion and impoverishment of love between brothers in Christ. Today we will continue our conversation about him, which we will devote to the schisms of the 20th century.

ROC and ROCOR. Schism and reconciliation

The emergence of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad and its tragic separation from the Russian Orthodox Church in the USSR occurred as a result of the 1917 revolution and the anti-church policies of the Bolshevik authorities.

Then, not only many Orthodox lay people found themselves outside the borders of their native country, but also monks, priests and even bishops who were deported by the Bolsheviks or who fled from them. By the end of the 1920s, the number of emigrants who identified themselves with Orthodoxy reached 8,000,000 people.

Once abroad, the clergy began to organize themselves and form institutions of church governance in order to be able to care for their flock.

On November 21, 1921, the All-Foreign Russian Church Meeting (“Karlovac Cathedral”) took place in Sremski Karlovtsi in Serbia, which can be considered the date of the formation of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad. The foreign church administration was headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who previously occupied the Kyiv See.

Already the Karlovac Cathedral indirectly entered into confrontation with the holy Patriarch Tikhon, making a political appeal for the restoration of the monarchy and the Romanov dynasty in Russia, and also ignoring the opinion of the Moscow Patriarch regarding the decrees issued by the cathedral.

In 1927, the disunity worsened and turned into a real schism. On July 29, the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), issued a declaration calling on members of the Russian Orthodox Church to loyalty to the Soviet state and to civil patriotism: “We want to be Orthodox and at the same time recognize the Soviet Union as our civil homeland, the joys and successes of which are our joys and successes, and failures are our failures. Every blow directed at the Union, be it a war, a boycott, some kind of social disaster, ... is recognized by us as a blow aimed at us.”

The hierarchs who were abroad categorically opposed cooperation with the persecutors and finally left administrative subordination to the Moscow Patriarchate, defining themselves as (the wording of the 1956 resolution): “an inseparable part of the local Russian Orthodox Church, temporarily self-governing on a conciliar basis until the abolition of godless power in Russia.”

The division of the Churches persisted for many decades. During the Second World War, part of the ROCOR clergy expressed hope for the liberation of Russia from the power of the Bolsheviks by force of arms and even collaborated with the Nazis and emigrant military organizations, although another part, for example St. John of Shanghai, on the contrary, collected donations in favor of the Red Army and prayed for the victory of Russian weapons in the fight against the Nazis.

In September 1974, at the III All-Diaspora Council, several Russian saints were glorified - John of Kronstadt, Xenia of St. Petersburg, Herman of Alaska, as well as the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, who were later accepted for veneration by the entire Russian Orthodox Church. During the celebration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus' in 1988, Patriarch Tikhon (Belavin) and a number of other ascetics were canonized in the Russian Orthodox Church, and in 2000, at the Anniversary Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia were also canonized.

The glorification of common Russian saints was the first step towards the reconciliation of the Churches. This was followed by the work of a joint commission from both Churches to overcome the accumulated contradictions, which lasted for several years.

Finally, in 2007, the schism was healed by the signing of the Act on Canonical Communion between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II and the First Hierarch of the ROCOR, Metropolitan Laurus of Eastern America and New York, which ended with their first joint divine service.

Currently, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is one of the self-governing churches of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate).

Renovationist schism

The local council of 1917 revealed many problems of church life that required church-wide discussion and solutions. One of them was the problem of understanding worship and sacred texts by the broad masses of believers. Many clergy and laity proposed translating worship and holy scripture into Russian to make it more understandable and to introduce a number of other reforms.

The movement of clerics who advocated the renewal of the Church was actively supported by the Bolshevik authorities, with the goal of splitting the Russian Orthodox Church from within and destroying it. This is how one of the most painful schisms of the 20th century arose, known as the “renovationist” or “living church” schism.

One of the organizers and ideologists of the movement for the renewal of the Church was priest Alexander Vvedensky. In the future, he will lead the renovationist church with the rank of metropolitan, become its permanent leader for the entire duration of the schism, and will advocate close cooperation with the Soviet government.

In 1922, Patriarch Tikhon was placed under house arrest by the Bolsheviks, and the establishment of a new “Higher Church Administration” was officially announced throughout the country, which included only renovationists. By the end of the year, two-thirds of the 30,000 operating churches had been seized by the new “church authorities,” with the support of the authorities. Clergy loyal to the patriarch were arrested and exiled.

Many priests and bishops were confused or intimidated and also agreed to cooperate with the renovationists and recognize the “VCU”. Even the Patriarch of Constantinople and other patriarchs of the Eastern Churches were disoriented and temporarily recognized renovationism.

Only the common people were not deceived. Renovationist reforms and protests against the patriarch scared off believers, who considered this a “damage to Orthodoxy.” The churches captured by the renovationists remained almost empty.

Even with the death of the patriarch in 1925, the renovationists were unable to change the situation. The Patriarchal Locum Tenens addressed the believers with a message in which he categorically refused to enter into any agreements with the schismatics unless they repented and recognized the canonical church authorities.

In 1927, when the government realized that it would not be possible to make the renovationist movement mass, the canonical Russian Orthodox Church again received official recognition. The renovationist “Holy Synod of the Orthodox Russian Church” existed until 1935, after which it dissolved itself.

In the 1930s, renovationists were subjected to repression along with the Orthodox clergy and laity. With the beginning of the repressions, many renovationist bishops and priests realized their mistake and began to repent en masse and return to the real Church. The schism was finally healed in 1946, when its inspirer Alexander Vvedensky died.

Two bleeding schisms in Ukraine

The 20th century was marked by another tragic schism, which has not yet been overcome. We are talking about the falling away from the canonical Church of two fairly large groups of believers in Ukraine. To be more precise, in Ukraine in the 20th century there was not just one, but two splits.

The first happened in 1917, when part of the dioceses of the South of Russia sought to break away from subordination to both the state authorities and the canonical Russian Orthodox Church.

In the spring of 1917, the nationalist Ukrainian archpriest Vasily Lipkovsky founded an organization of like-minded people known as the “Brotherhood of the Resurrection.” In the same year, at the Podolsk and Poltava diocesan councils, members of the brotherhood proposed to create an independent Ukrainian Church, elect bishops based on nationality, and also translate services into Ukrainian.

In conditions of civil war and anarchy, church nationalists tried to push through the decision on autocephaly, relying on the soldiers. On November 9, 1917 in Kyiv, the 3rd All-Ukrainian Military Congress adopted a resolution on the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Emissaries were sent to the diocese who tried to force the bishops to recognize the new canonical formation and allocate delegates to the All-Ukrainian Council, which was never able to fully discuss issues important to the Church, since the authorities in Kyiv changed several times during the year.

In 1920, with the permission of the Soviet authorities, nationalists assembled the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Rada, at which the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) was proclaimed. However, the innovation was not widely supported by the faithful and was not approved by any of the bishops. Thus, the new formation did not have the opportunity to obtain its own canonical church hierarchy.

Then in 1921, at a congress called “the first All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Council,” nationalist delegates decided to nominate worthy candidates for bishops “by the entire council,” relying on a certain “ancient practice of consecration by the hands of presbyters and prophets.” This is how the UAOC got “Metropolitan” Vasily Lipkovsky, “Bishop” Nestor Sharaevsky, and then four more “bishops”.

In 1930-1937, the UAOC clergy was subjected to repression by the Soviet authorities. Church nationalists were dealt with even more cruelly than Orthodox clergy, and the UAOC was almost completely destroyed. Only the diocese in Canada, headed by “bishop” John Teodorovich, survived.

During the war, the UAOC was persecuted both by the USSR authorities and by the German occupiers. After the victory, the Soviet authorities had a sharply negative attitude towards any idea of ​​reviving this organization on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR. The activities of the UAOC resumed only in 1989. The schismatics began by massively seizing churches from the canonical Church in western Ukraine.

In 1990, with the participation of retired Bishop John (Bondarchuk), several bishops were ordained in the UAOC. One of them, Mstislav Skripnik, was even elected “patriarch”. However, despite the support of the authorities and nationalists, the UAOC failed to widely spread its influence in the central and eastern parts of Ukraine and soon it rapidly declined.

After the death of “patriarch” Mstislav, the UAOC experienced a number of internal splits and entered into a struggle for influence with another schismatic organization of the UOC (KP). Part of the clergy and flock of the UAOC repented and returned to the single canonical Church. However, the rest of this structure is still in schism and is not recognized by any of the Local Orthodox Churches.

This first Ukrainian split was superimposed by the second, which occurred in 1992 and became much larger. Its conscious initiator was the now defrocked Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko).

Metropolitan Filaret was one of the candidates for the patriarchal throne. However, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church elected not him, but Metropolitan Alexy (Ridiger), to the patriarchal see, which Vladyka Philaret was very offended by. In retaliation, he decided to use the ideas of liberalization, nationalism, church renewal and the creation of church autonomy, widespread in Ukraine in the early 90s, in order to obtain autocephaly for the Church, which he could lead.

On July 9, 1990, the episcopate of the Ukrainian Exarchate, which had been ruled by Metropolitan Philaret for almost 25 years, on the initiative of the latter, accepted the “Appeal of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to grant it independence and autonomy in governance” and elected Metropolitan Philaret as its primate.

The division in the Church was stopped for some time by the decision to create the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) with the rights of broad autonomy, but in 1991-1992, Metropolitan Philaret repeatedly assembled the episcopate and tried to push through the decision to separate from the Russian Orthodox Church. He urgently demanded that Patriarch Alexy II grant the UOC (MP) autocephaly.

In March-April 1992, the issue of autocephaly of the UOC (MP) was considered at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, in which 97 bishops took part, including 20 Ukrainian bishops. The discussion allowed us to gain an adequate understanding of church life in Ukraine.

The outcome of the meetings was a surprise for Bishop Philaret: not only Russian hierarchs, but also the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian bishops spoke out against granting full independence to the UOC. They believed that with complete independence, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine would be forced to single-handedly confront the “Uniate aggression” and schismatics from the UAOC.

Most of the bishops of the Ukrainian dioceses disavowed their signatures on the petition for the granting of autocephaly, explaining that they acted under duress, fearing oppression from Metropolitan Philaret, the Ukrainian authorities and nationalists who supported the independent metropolitan.

After the council, Metropolitan Philaret returned to Kyiv, where he continued to publicly advocate confrontation with the mother Church. On June 11, 1992, the Metropolitan was deposed and defrocked (anathematized in 1997) by the Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) was elected the new head of the UOC (MP).

Filaret did not recognize the resignation and, with the support of President Kravchuk and the Ukrainian Nazis, occupied one of the city cathedrals - Vladimir. The temporary alliance with the UAOC gave him several influential supporters, including the bishops from whom the UOC (KP) - the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate - was formed.

At first, Filaret occupied a rather modest role in the new schismatic organization, although he controlled many financial flows. Then the first “patriarchs” of the UOC (KP) died, and he became its new primate. Over the course of several years, Filaret Denisenko, using nationalist formations and the patronage of the authorities, managed to take possession of a significant number of churches, especially in Western Ukraine and the Kyiv region. Some of the parishes were taken by force from the canonical Church, and some from their recent allies from the UAOC.

However, despite all attempts to give the UOC (KP) the status of the official Church of Ukraine, the schismatic patriarchate at the moment remains not recognized by any of the canonical Local Orthodox Churches. The churches taken away from believers mostly stand half-empty, and the schismatic “clergy” have no moral authority.

Alas, the schism that has been smoldering since 1917, as a result of which two non-canonical organizations were formed in Ukraine - the UAOC and the UOC (KP), is supported for purely political reasons. Moreover, it is supported not only by former church hierarchs seeking high status, but also by the highest authorities of the country and a number of leading world powers, who partly benefit from the unrest in the Orthodox Church and in this region.

Afterword

Unfortunately, the Ukrainian split has not yet been overcome and is unlikely to be overcome in the near future. It remains a painful wound in the hearts of believers and an example of what troubles can occur even within the Church from a lack of love for each other and excessive ambitions.

And yet, nothing is impossible for God, and He always wants Christians to live in harmony with each other and be able to experience the joy of the congregational glorification of their Heavenly Father. Let us hope that someday we will see the healing of the Ukrainian schism, and perhaps a return to the conciliar unity of the Roman Church.

Andrey Szegeda

You can read the first part of the publication here .

You can applaud the author (at least 10 times)10

Activities of the Old Believers

Thus, Nikon's reforms were rejected by a significant number of believers, whose protest resulted in a religious war. The Old Believers were persecuted, the government persecuted them, and they sought salvation in remote corners of the Russian State. In response to church policy, the Old Believers staged mass self-immolations, which were called burnings.

Historical literature often characterizes the church schism as the starting point of massive popular unrest that periodically engulfed Russian lands in the 17th and 18th centuries. In fact, the Old Believers gained strong support from ordinary people; those who were dissatisfied with the existing order in the country gathered around them.

Results of the split

They can be briefly characterized as follows.

1. The church schism of the 17th century grew into a national tragedy. The Russian people were divided into those who remained in the bosom of the Orthodox Church, who performed divine services according to the new canons, and the Old Believers, who adhered to the pre-reform rules.
2. As a result of the schism, the spiritual unity of the Russian people was destroyed. For the first time in the history of the country, hostility on religious grounds arose.
3. Priority was established over ecclesiastical power over secular power. The reform process was initiated by the tsarist government and took place with its full support. This was the beginning of the transition of the management of church affairs to state institutions. The completion of this process already occurred under Peter the Great, who abolished the patriarchate.
4. The international position of the Russian state and its connections with the countries of the Orthodox world have noticeably strengthened.
5. The Old Believers movement influenced the development of Russian art, making its own contribution to it. Spiritual centers and their own school of icon painting were created, and the ancient Russian traditions of writing books and znamenny singing were preserved.

In conclusion, let us consider the change in the views of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Old Believers.

The evolution of the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards the Old Believers

As mentioned above, the councils of 1656 and 1666 condemned the supporters of the “old rites,” calling these rites unorthodox and heretical. This condemnation was finally sanctioned by the Great Moscow Council of 1667. At it, the reforms carried out by Patriarch Nikon were approved, and everyone who did not accept the council’s decisions was anathematized as heretics and disobedient to the Church.

However, starting from 1800, the use of old rituals began to be accepted to one degree or another by the Holy Synod. In 1971, a local council was held to elect a patriarch. The issue of the Old Believers was considered and the following decision was made.

A resolution of the Synod of 1929 was approved regarding the recognition of old Russian rituals on an equal basis with new ones. In 1974, a similar decision was made by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. But despite this, prayer communication between any large-scale church jurisdiction of Old Believers and New Believers was not resumed.