Church in the XV-XVII centuries. Orthodox Russian Church in the XIII-first half of the XV century

The era of Ivan III is the time of the formation of another most important state institution in Russia, the Boyar Duma. Often, what is known about this most important organ of the country's state life in the 17th century is transferred to more early times... This is a miscalculation. Of course, the council under any monarch has existed in Russia (as well as in other medieval countries) since ancient times. By the middle of the 15th century. a centuries-old tradition was formed that determined the procedure for the work of this institute. But it was during the years of the reign of Ivan III that too much changed. Under him, the narrow meaning of the term "boyar" arose and was strengthened, ie. official from the moment of receiving the life-long status rank of a council member under the Grand Duke We do not know how the awards took place in the boyars under Ivan III, but some procedure was approved. The Duma gradually acquired features of representativeness from different strata of the aristocracy that was forming at that time. In its personal composition, this was realized in two ways: the leading was the family-clan, less significant - the territorial.
Even then, the Duma acquired an internal structure. In addition to the highest Duma rank, there was a lower one - the roundabout. To resolve specific issues, the Duma allocated (by orders of the Grand Duke) temporary commissions. Usually it was about international negotiations or legal proceedings: several boyars in Moscow, as the highest court, were reported cases that were previously examined by lower judges. The functions and prerogatives of the Duma expanded as the differentiation of the tasks of state administration became more complex. It gradually turns into a "co-governing" opran under the monarch in a single state. That is why, by the way, the disgrace of the princes Patrikeevs and Ryapolovskys was so painful in 1499. It is important that the Duma becomes the nucleus of the estate organization of the noble part of society. In the sovereign's court, which experienced significant changes under Ivan III, she became its highest part, setting the type of ties within this social institution (it united the aristocratic and political elite of the Russian nobility). The Duma is also the nucleus of wide-ranging deliberative bodies convened by the Grand Duke on the eve of decisive events.
The most prominent representatives of the Russian Church, united within the framework of its most important institution, the Local Council, were obligatory participants in wide conferences under Ivan III. These regularly convened meetings of all the hierarchs of the Russian Church (after the final fall away of the Orthodox dioceses in Lithuania, the canonical and state borders coincided), the most prominent representatives of monasticism and the white clergy, were the subject of discussion on church issues proper. They were the venue for the election and appointment of Moscow metropolitans and bishops to the vacant cathedra. The problems of evangelization and catechesis of society (the most important functions of the Christian church) acquired in the second half of the 15th century. special meaning. First of all, because in front of many Russian residents involved in trade, politics, living in large cities, literally before our very eyes, the picture of the world was drastically changing. It turned out to be much larger and much more complicated than the notions habitual for appanage Russia. In that big world Russia had to find its special place as an Orthodox country.
One of the challenges of this rapidly expanding perception of the world is the heretical reasoning of persons closely associated with intellectual pursuits. Representatives of the white parish clergy, a few monks, some of the boyars, clerks, merchants, and artisans found themselves in the Novgorod and Moscow heretical circles. The most important dogmas of Orthodoxy were questioned, and in some way denied (based on the Old Testament tradition). Moscow heretics professed more moderate views, but what was their composition: prominent representatives of the order elite, clerks, brothers Kuritsyn, including priests from the Kremlin clergy, large merchant guests. Their connection with the entourage of Grand Duke Ivan Ivanovich is undoubted, and after his death - Dmitry, the grandson and widow of Prince Ivan, Grand Duchess Elena Stefanovna. The sovereign himself welcomed certain persons whose views were at least unorthodox. That is why the struggle against the heretics was both long and stubborn, and in the end it was unexpectedly brutal.
The impetus for her was given by the Novgorod archbishop Gennady (before the appointment - the archimandrite of the Moscow Chudov Monastery and a person very close to Ivan III). Nevertheless, his attempts to give the eradication of heresy a pan-Russian scale, to amaze with the severity of punishments for a long time did not give results. Only after the death of Metropolitan Gerontius, under the new Moscow chief priest Zosima (by the way, he was later accused of heresy, although hardly thoroughly), in October 1490, a church council was convened with the participation of the great prince himself and his closest advisers. The views of the heretics were condemned, some Novgorod priests who had moved to Moscow were expelled from their dignity, and quite a few people were arrested. But the Grand Duke most likely abandoned the secular persecution of the convicts (as was customary in the practice of Orthodox states), sending them to the Novgorod ruler. He made a shameful procession, some of the heretics were tortured (from which some died), and then sent to prison. Archimandrite Joseph Volotsky became a tireless denouncer of the Moscow heretics. His many-sided messages with a sharp condemnation of heretical views were made all over the country in the 90s. The Volotsk abbot sent them out to many hierarchs and prominent monks. A decisive turn took place after the final fall of Dmitry the grandson and his mother, the death of the most prominent clerk and diplomat Fyodor Kuritsyn (c. 1500-1501) and the onset of the illness of Ivan III himself. At the council of 1504, the heretics were condemned again, and in December of the same year the cages with the convicts on the ice of the Moskva River and Volkhov were flamed - about a dozen of the most prominent representatives of heresy were burned. Among them, the clerk Ivan Kuritsyn, the son of the boyar D. Konoplev, the Yuryevsky archimandrite Kassian from Novgorod, and other less famous persons are known. Never in the history of Russia has there been such cruel reprisals for such cases. This caused obvious displeasure among both the white clergy and the monastic environment.
However, the differences between the two streams of the clergy became apparent much earlier. Usually they are conventionally referred to: they begin as non-possessors and Josephites, since Joseph Volotsky was recognized as the ideological head of the latter, the natives of his monastery formed the backbone of this church "party". The basis for the controversy was mainly a deeply different understanding of the conditions and purpose of monastic life. The non-possessors saw in leaving the world a way of individual moral improvement and personal salvation: the social functions of monasteries, mainly sketes, receded into the background. That is why for them the problems of material security were of no significant importance, while the possession of immovable property (land), especially inhabited by peasants, was recognized as extremely undesirable - this somehow turned monastics to worldly passions, to domination of the like, to acquisitiveness, which is fatal for a monk. - land, money, wealth, property, etc. The source of livelihood for non-possessors is abuse from the state, personal labor, gifts and alms. For Joseph, the monastery was a place of salvation for the monks due to the severity of the monastery charter and its meticulous execution, due to the lack of personal property of the monks (apart from modest personal items). The monastery carries out social functions in a very wide range, and therefore it needs strong economic support. Given or donated to the monastery was given to God, and therefore under no circumstances can it be taken away. The rapid growth of the estates of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, the clear organization of its economic life, the detailed "tariff" of monastic services are striking. different types commemoration, burial, etc. The Council of 1503 confirmed the "immobility" of church land ownership, narrowing here the possibilities of secular power.
Here was one of the main points of contradiction between secular and ecclesiastical authorities. These contradictions, and they manifested themselves more than once and for various reasons during the reign of Ivan III, were the most politicized sphere of church life. In its most general form, it was the question of the superiority of ecclesiastical authority over secular authority, or vice versa. In principle, for a Christian, the answer is no longer so difficult: the timeless, heavenly and spiritual, of course, surpasses the corruptible, earthly and material. The first row of concepts was associated with the church, the second - with the world in general (human society) and secular power in particular. But the principle prevails in abstract judgments, in practice, real relationships are important. And they were such that both politically and economically, the Orthodox Church as a public institution was decisively dependent on the state, especially given the well-known amorphousness of Orthodox church institutions.
However, in the specific conditions of the second half of the 15th century. the situation was somewhat different. The autocephaly of the Russian Church, which was established thanks to Metropolitan Jonah, who played a very important role in the final victory of Vasily the Dark, greatly strengthened the authority of the Moscow metropolitans in general. Later, it intensified in connection with the confessional justification for the inclusion of Novgorod in the Russian state (in 1471 and 1478), the final elimination of the dependence of Russia on the Great Horde (in 1480), western foreign policy(Russian-Lithuanian and Russian-order wars). Metropolitan Philip initiated the construction of a new building for the Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral, which symbolized the unity of Orthodox Russia as a kingdom and the patronage of the Mother of God over it. That is why the clashes between Ivan III and Metropolitan Gerontius, which acquired a great public response, twice ended in defeat and repentance of the sovereign. That is why Ivan III at the end of the 90s publicly repented at the Church Council that he “killed his own brother with his incautiousness” in imprisonment of Andrey's brother. That is why Joseph Volotsky, dissatisfied with the position of the Grand Duke in relation to heretics, allowed himself to make public judgments about the true and untrue holders of supreme power, denying the latter the right to demand obedience from their subjects and giving the subjects themselves the right not to obey such tyrants.
The public teaching of the sovereign by his spiritual shepherds was still moderate. Here, as in many other areas, the era of Ivan III was transitional. Neither the non-possessors nor the Josephites have yet celebrated victories either in the church or in society. The principles of relations between the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and monarchs were gradually developed. By the way, this largely explains the unique polyphonism of the Russian chronicle writing of that era. Amazing difference of opinion and richness of views, allowing sometimes to reproduce in volume even the latent current political life.
Ivan III became seriously ill at the turn of 1504-1505. Back in 1504, the allocation of estates to the elders after Basil's sons of the departing sovereign began. Throughout the year, he gradually retired, and foreign informants vied with each other about his serious illness. Persons close to him also disappeared into oblivion. In April 1503 Sophia died, in January 1505 Elena (Elena Voloshanka, daughter of the Moldovan ruler Stephen the Great), the mother of Dmitry's grandson, died in captivity. During his father's lifetime, but hardly with his participation, the Grand Duke and Sovereign of All Russia Vasily Ivanovich married Solomonia Saburova, from the old Moscow boyar family. The foundation stone for the continuation of the dynasty was laid.
What was left behind the departing sovereign? The result of his deeds can be determined through a compelling comparison. In the mid-80s, the rebuilding of all the fortifications of the Moscow Kremlin began, its central part - the sovereign's residence and a number of cathedrals, the redevelopment of the entire center
cities. A little over three years after the death of Ivan III, his heir will move into the new palace, but construction in and around the Kremlin will last for more than one decade. What is important? It is fundamentally important that the main goals and objectives of the construction were determined under Ivan III, under him the bulk of the work was completed. The same is the case with society and the state. And here a lot in the social and state-political structure of the country remained unfinished. The reforms of the middle of the 16th century will finish a lot here. And nevertheless, the main thing took place - a decisive step was taken in the creation of a single centralized Russian state.

The content of the article

RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH. Tradition associates the spread of the Orthodox faith within the Russian borders with the preaching of the Apostle Andrew, who, as early church writers testify, got Scythia by lot for evangelism (the Byzantine writers use the term "Scythians" or "Tavro-Scythians" to denote the Russian people). Subsequently, the veneration of St. Andrew was the basis of the church unity of Russia and Byzantium, which was also under his patronage. The legend of the Apostle Andrew's visit to Russia is recorded in the oldest Russian historical chronicle Tale of Bygone Years... According to this legend, St. Andrei, following the waterway known as the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks", visited Kiev and reached Novgorod.

CHRISTIANIZATION OF RUSSIA (9-11 centuries)

The Slavs made repeated raids, invading the borders of the Byzantine Empire. In 860, the Russian fleet appeared directly under the walls of Constantinople. The response to the military action of the Slavs was the intensification of the missionary activity of the Byzantine Church among the neighbors of the empire. In 963 the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius, Equal to the Apostles, were sent to the Slavic lands and began their apostolic mission in Great Moravia. Indirect evidence suggests that Russia also entered the sphere of activity of Cyril and Methodius. The circular epistle of the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius (9th century), addressed to the heads of the Eastern Churches, testifies that "a people surpassing all others with ferocity and bloodthirstiness, called Ros, received the bishop and pastors, and also accepted Christian worship with great zeal and joy." It was the so-called. the first baptism of Russia. However, it had no practical consequences, except that the contacts of the Slavs with the Christian empire intensified. Sources abound in information about baptized merchants "from the Russians" who visited Constantinople, about the Varangians who entered the military service of the emperor and returned to Russia as Christians, contributing to the spread of Christianity in the Russian state. The chronicle reports about the first holy Russian martyrs Saint Theodore and his son John: "But that Varangian came from the Greeks and kept the faith of the Chresteians."

A new stage in the Christianization of Rus came after the death of Prince Igor, when his wife Princess Olga (c. 945 - c. 969) took the reins and was baptized in Constantinople. Her plans undoubtedly included the introduction of the church organization into Russian society... In 959 Olga turned to the German king Otto I with a request to send a bishop and priests to Russia. Bishop Adalbert was sent to Russia. However, for reasons unknown to us, he was unable to cope with the task of establishing a new diocese. After Olga's death and in connection with the coming to power of Olga's warlike son, the pagan Svyatoslav Igorevich, a pagan reaction ensued. The further prehistory of the baptism of Rus is reconstructed from Byzantine, Russian and Syrian sources as follows. In 987, the rebellion of the commander Barda Phocas began in Byzantium. Emperor Basil II (ruled 976-1025), in view of the danger looming over the Macedonian dynasty, sent an embassy to Kiev and asked Prince Vladimir for military assistance. In return, he offered him the hand of his sister, Princess Anna, which, of course, implied the baptism of the Russian prince. Russian army sent to Byzantium, decided the confrontation between Barda Phocas and Basil II in favor of the emperor, but he was in no hurry to send the bride promised to the prince to Kiev. Then Vladimir besieged Korsun (Chersonesos), the main fortress of the Byzantines in the Crimea, and took it, after which Anna arrived in Korsun and their wedding took place here (989–990). Upon Vladimir's return to Kiev, a mass baptism of the population began in Kiev and Novgorod, and no later than 997 the Russian Metropolitanate was established, subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It is believed that at the same time as the metropolitanate, episcopal sees were founded in Belgorod, Novgorod, Chernigov, Polotsk and Pereyaslavl. Cm... METROPOLITANTS IN THE HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH. For the maintenance of the church, Prince Vladimir put the so-called. tithe.

Under the son of Prince Vladimir, Yaroslav the Wise, the role of the church in the state system was strengthened. This is evidenced primarily by the monumental church construction: it was during this period that the majestic Sophia cathedrals were erected in Kiev, Novgorod, Polotsk. Patronizing the church, Yaroslav contributed to the emergence of the first Russian monasteries, libraries and schools. During his reign, the first Russian original literary works were created ( A word about law and grace Metropolitan Hilarion). At the same time, the church The charter written under Vladimir. The charter Yaroslav was drawn up already taking into account local customs. The most important events in the church life of the era of Yaroslav the Wise were the glorification of the first Russian saints - princes Boris and Gleb (under Yaroslav their relics were found and transferred to a church specially built for them), as well as the election of the first Russian bishop, Hilarion, to the metropolitanate. Cm... BORIS AND GLEB; HILARION. Under the sons of Yaroslav, the decisive role of the princely power in the Christianization of Rus was preserved. According to the chronicles, it is known about the pagan disturbances that arose during this period, during which the prince and his squad acted as the support and protection of the bishop, while "the people are all idosh for the sorcerer." In the second half of the 11th century. the heyday of the ancient Russian Kievo-Pechersk monastery, which during this period turned into a leading religious and cultural center of Russia. Cm... KIEV-PECHERSK LAVRA . Here the all-Russian national chronicle was born ( Tale of Bygone Years), the traditions of Russian hagiography (Nestorovo Reading about Boris and Gleb). The cenobitic charter of the Pechersk Lavra, borrowed from the Constantinople Studite monastery, was the basis on which other Russian monasteries were subsequently created. Natives of the Pechersk brethren occupied in the 11-12 centuries. episcopal sees, and cathedrals erected in dioceses were dedicated, like the cathedral church of the Pechersk monastery, to the Assumption of the Mother of God. As one of the ecclesiastical provinces of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Russia did not avoid participating in the controversy with the "Latins" that arose in 1054 after the separation of the Western and Eastern Churches. Russian metropolitans and bishops responded to it with compositions that defended the dogmas of the Eastern Church.

RUSSIA BEFORE THE MONGOLO-TATAR INVASION (12-13th centuries)

By the middle of the 12th century. v Ancient Rus established a polycentric state system caused by feudal fragmentation. Under the new conditions, the metropolitanate turned out to be the only force capable of resisting centrifugal tendencies. However, before the metropolitans realized their historical mission, they were embroiled in a long confusion between the princes who fought for the Kiev throne. This struggle led to the fact that Metropolitan Michael II left Kiev, closing the Metropolitan Sophia Cathedral with a special manuscript. In response, the new Kiev prince Izyaslav (1114-1154) independently appointed the Russian bishop Clement Smolyatich to the metropolitanate. ( Cm... KLIMENT SMOLYATICH) Many Russian hierarchs refused to recognize him as the head of the church. Many princes, opponents of Izyaslav, did not accept the metropolitan either. The metropolis was divided into two warring camps. Under these conditions, Clement Smolyatich behaved like a henchman of the Grand Duke, providing him with every possible support. When Izyaslav died, he immediately retired to Volhynia. Having taken possession of Kiev, Yuri Dolgoruky sent to Constantinople for a new metropolitan. Soon Constantine II (1155-1159) arrived in Kiev. The excessively harsh measures he took (anathematizing Izyaslav and Clement) aggravated the turmoil. In 1158 Kiev passed into the hands of Mstislav Izyaslavich, who expelled Constantine and insisted on the return of Clement Smolyatich, while Rostislav Mstislavich stood for Constantine. As a result of the disputes, the princes came to a decision to ask Constantinople for a new hierarch. The sent Theodore died a year later, and John IV appeared in Kiev only two years after his death, since the Kiev prince did not want to receive him. Only the admonitions of the emperor Manuel II himself made the prince come to terms with this candidacy.

In the 1160s, Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky first tried to divide the Russian metropolis, with the goal of establishing an independent cathedra in the capital of his principality, Vladimir on the Klyazma. With this request, he turned to Constantinople to Patriarch Luke Chrysoverg. Despite the resolute refusal of the saint, Andrei Yurievich as Metropolitan Vladimir land"Planted" a certain un-ordained Theodore. In 1169 Theodore went to Kiev, where, by order of Metropolitan Constantine II, he was arrested and executed: his right hand was cut off and his eyes were “taken out”. The unusual cruelty of the execution confirms the reality of the existing threat of the division of the metropolis. The unity of the metropolitanate was preserved, and the metropolitans later concluded for themselves that it was necessary to direct efforts to reconcile the princely groupings and preserve the unity of the church.

At the beginning of the 13th century. Constantinople was captured by the crusaders, and for almost half a century it turned into the capital of the Latin Kingdom. The Patriarch of Constantinople left the city and moved to Nicaea. The victories of the knights contributed to the fact that the idea of ​​the subordination of the Russian Church to the power of Rome revived in the West. There are several known appeals to Russian princes written by the popes of Rome, in which they urged them "to submit to the light yoke of the Roman Church." In the large Russian cities that lay on the trade routes with the West, the missionary activity of Catholics exceeded the permissible limits. In 1233, Prince Vladimir was forced to expel the Dominicans from Kiev, who until then had their own monastery here.

RUSSIA UNDER THE RULE OF MONGOLO-TATAR (13-14 centuries)

In 1237–1240 Russia survived the Mongol-Tatar invasion. Russian cities were destroyed and burned. The princes lost their independence and had to ask the Mongol Khan for the right to the great reign. The Russian Church was going through a deep crisis. Under these conditions, the burden of metropolitan power was assumed by Cyril II, a protege of the Galician-Volyn prince. Cyril II entered into close cooperation with the Grand Duke of Vladimir Alexander Nevsky. The prince and the metropolitan agreed that at this stage, bloodless Russia needs a respite, which could only be given by the recognition of the power of the Mongol khan. This political move allowed Alexander Nevsky to gather forces in order to defend the north-western borders of Russia from the encroachments of the Teutonic Order. In turn, Metropolitan Kirill II directed efforts to restore the internal church life. The council convened by him in 1273 laid the foundation for the creation of a code of laws, the so-called Russian helmsman... The policy of the Mongols in relation to the church, which exempted the church from paying tribute, contributed to the rapid restoration of its strength. Metropolitan Kirill II did not get tired of touring the dioceses, but at the same time he remained in Vladimir for a long time and appeared less and less often in Kiev, which lay in ruins after the sack of 1240.

Maxim, who replaced Cyril II, finally chose Vladimir as his place of residence. The transfer of the Metropolitan See from Kiev to Vladimir was dictated not only by purely practical circumstances. Both contemporaries and historians regard it as a political act, as a result of which the authority of the princes of Vladimir increased, and the princes themselves acquired the opportunity to directly influence the policy of the metropolitan. The current situation caused the strongest discontent of the Galician princes. Threatening to come under the jurisdiction of Rome, they got the patriarch to establish an independent Galician metropolis. However, it did not last long. In 1305, when two applicants for the metropolitan dignity arrived in Constantinople, one from the Galician prince and the other from the Vladimir prince, the patriarch elected Peter, who had arrived from Volyn, as the primate of the Russian Church, and consecrated him to the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia. The attempt to divide the metropolitanate was repeated ten years later: on the initiative of the Lithuanian prince Gediminas, the Lithuanian metropolitanate was created, abolished only with the appointment of Metropolitan Theognost (1327 / 28-1353). The political development of Eastern Europe further and further divorced the historical destinies of southwestern and northwestern Russia, so that the final division of the metropolitanate became inevitable and was only a matter of time.

THE RISE OF THE MOSCOW KINGDOM (14-15 centuries)

Metropolitan Peter chose northwestern Russia as his place of residence. He connected the future of the Russian Church with the towering Moscow, choosing the Moscow prince as his companion. Peter's choice was symbolized in the act of his will, according to which Peter was buried in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, which from that moment became the resting place of the primates of the Russian Church. The Greek Theognost, who replaced Peter, arrived directly in Moscow and, occupying the metropolitan see, followed the line of Peter, supporting the Moscow prince and contributing to the growth of his authority among the Russian princes. During his lifetime, Theognost appointed Alexy as his successor, who came from an ancient boyar family. Constantinople sanctioned this election in view of the exceptional qualities of an outstanding political figure inherent in Alexy. Saint Alexy is noted for the fact that it was during this period that a metropolitan court was formed, similar in structure to the prince's court, and the church turned into a large landowner and its possessions were legally registered. The successes of the unifying policy of the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich were also largely due to the authority that Metropolitan Alexy enjoyed in the Russian lands. More than once he managed to pacify the opponents of the Moscow prince and stop the princely conflicts, and he often resorted to very drastic measures. So, in order to suppress the enmity of the Nizhny Novgorod princes in 1362, Alexy ordered the closure of all the Nizhny Novgorod churches.

Strengthening Moscow could not please its main rival - the Grand Duke of Lithuania, whose ally was Mikhail Tverskoy. The Lithuanian prince Olgerd “besieged” Constantinople with demands to place an independent metropolitan in Kiev so that his power would extend to the lands that were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. After unsuccessful attempts to reconcile Olgerd and Mikhail of Tverskoy with Alexy, Patriarch Philotheus resorted to a compromise, placing his former cell-attendant Cyprian as Metropolitan of Kiev on the condition that after Alexy's death he would lead the entire Russian Church. This measure had no effect, but only intensified the church turmoil. When, after the death of Alexis, Cyprian declared his rights to the metropolitanate, the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich did not accept him, considering him a Lithuanian protege. Dmitry Ivanovich made several attempts to elevate one of his chosen ones to the rank of metropolitan, but none of them was crowned with success. The end of the turmoil was put by the death of Prince Dmitry in 1389.

The new Moscow ruler, Prince Vasily Dmitrievich, summoned Cyprian to Moscow. Taking into account the experience of the Troubles of 1375-1389, Cyprian paid special attention to the Lithuanian dioceses, repeatedly visiting them and maintaining friendly relations with the Lithuanian prince. The Metropolitan's actions were aimed at preserving the unity of the Metropolitanate and the peace within it. Metropolitan Cyprian put a lot of effort into the development of liturgical practice. He penned a number of significant liturgical works. On his initiative, the process of transition to a new liturgical charter, from the Studite to the Jerusalem one, began in the Russian Church. Cyprian and his successor Photius did much to settle the issues of ecclesiastical courts and ecclesiastical land tenure. However, in the agreement concluded by Vasily Dmitrievich and Cyprian, there is a clear tendency towards a reduction in the property and administrative privileges of the church. So, the church was obliged to participate in the payment of tribute, and it was also forbidden to ordain as priests and deacons of grand ducal servants.

During the reign of Photius, a heretical movement of the shearers broke out in Pskov. Apparently, the teaching messages of Photius and other measures taken by him had an effect, since soon information about heresy disappears from the sources.

AUTOCEPHALOUS RUSSIAN CHURCH (15-16 centuries)

The main content of the next historical period, starting from the middle of the 15th century, is the formation of the autocephaly of the Russian Church and the determination of its legal status among the churches of the Christian world. In 1453, under the blows of the Turks, the Byzantine Empire fell, which traditionally acted as the guarantor of the preservation of Orthodoxy. Under these conditions, the positions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople were so weakened that it could not resist the final division of the Russian metropolitanate into Moscow and Kiev, and in Rome an unprecedented appointment of the metropolitan to the Kiev metropolis took place. Even before the fall of Constantinople in 1439, in search of allies to resist the Turks, the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople agreed to conclude a union with the Catholics. The Uniate Council took place in Florence. However, his decision was not accepted by the majority of the hierarchs of the Eastern Church. The Russian Church also reacted negatively to them. The conclusion of the union put the Russian bishops in a difficult position. Following the tradition of "receiving" a metropolitan from Constantinople in the new conditions lost its relevance primarily because it did not meet the main requirement - to have an Orthodox metropolitan. Cm... UNIA.

After the death of Photius, the Ryazan bishop Jonah (1433) was named to the Russian metropolitan table. Difficult historical circumstances made it impossible for him to travel to Constantinople. When, in 1435, the embassy of Jonah was ready to leave, Moscow learned that Constantinople had appointed a supporter of the union, Isidore, to the Russian metropolitans. After long negotiations, not daring to break the tradition, Prince Vasily II received Isidor. Soon the new Metropolitan left Moscow for Florence to participate in the Uniate Council. He returned in 1441 and entered the city as a papal legate and cardinal. The Russian authorities, both secular and ecclesiastical, showed unanimity in their rejection of the newly made cardinal. Isidore was immediately captured and taken into custody. Basil II convened a church council, at which a message was drawn up, addressed to the patriarch. It very clearly stated the position of the Russian Church's rejection of Isidore as a hierarch who publicly preaches heresy, and also contained a request to allow a council of Russian bishops to independently supply metropolitans with their subsequent blessing in Constantinople. An embassy with a message was sent, but for unknown reasons returned before reaching Constantinople. By that time, Isidore was given the opportunity to flee, and in 1448 Prince Vasily again convened a council, which this time consecrated Jonah as a metropolitan. From that moment on, we can talk about the de facto autocephaly of the Russian Church. Metropolitans following Jonah were ordained without any appeal to Constantinople. Henceforth, in the election and appointment of the metropolitan, they primarily attached importance to the consenting expression of the will of the predecessor metropolitan, the grand duke and the consecrated cathedral, which corresponded to canonical church norms and corresponded to the principle of a symphony of the kingdom and priesthood, on which the administration of the Orthodox state was based.

The growth of the authority of the church during this period was peculiarly reflected in the changes in the face of Russian holiness. Now it was replenished not by holy princes, but by saints and monks. Metropolitan Jonah already in 1448 established a church-wide celebration of St. Alexis, and in 1472 Metropolitan Philip established the day of commemoration of St. Jonah. The main problem faced by the Russian Church in the conditions of independence was the questions of internal order, opposition to Latinism and the fight against heresies. The Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland Casimir IV did not abandon their attempts to extend their power to the northern Russian lands. They even managed to get Patriarch Dionysius to transfer all the fullness of metropolitan power to Metropolitan Gregory of Kiev. In Novgorod, a strong opposition was organized, agreeing to church subordination to Lithuania. Metropolitan Philip and Grand Duke Ivan III repeatedly appealed to the Novgorodians with admonitions to remain faithful to Orthodoxy, but the "great upheaval" continued. Under these conditions, the mutual decision of the prince and the metropolitan was the organization of a campaign against Novgorod, which was given the meaning of protecting Orthodoxy from Latinism. However, the “symphony of kingdom and priesthood” situation did not last long. Already the hierarchy of Metropolitan Gerontius (1473-1489) was marked by conflicts with the princely power. So, in 1479 a dispute broke out between the prince and the metropolitan about how to make the procession of the cross - "salting" or against the sun. Defending the walking against the sun, accepted in the Russian tradition, almost cost Gerontius the metropolitan dignity, although this time the prince resigned himself and admitted that he was wrong. Relations between the church and the Grand Duke in connection with the heresy of the Judaizers were very difficult during this period. The prince did not support the "searches" against heretics undertaken by the church. During his stay in Novgorod, Ivan III met the priests involved in the heretical movement, and invited them to Moscow, making them protopopes of the Kremlin cathedrals. The disagreements between the church and the prince continued until 1504, when nine heretics were excommunicated and sentenced to death. Council of 1503 discussed issues of church land tenure. Ivan III proposed a program for the alienation of the church's land holdings in favor of state power. In fact, this was the first offensive of the secular authorities on the property of the church, but the church hierarchs managed to defend their rights.

An important event in church life in the 16th century. the restoration of ties with the Patriarchate of Constantinople began: in 1518, the embassy of Patriarch Theolipt arrived in Moscow with a request for financial assistance. The title deeds testified to the recognition of the Metropolitan of Moscow by the patriarch.

A significant stage in the history of the Russian Church was the prelacy of Metropolitan Macarius (1542-1563). This pastor, on the one hand, managed to resist the chaos of boyar rule, on the other hand, to restrain the angry outbursts of the first Russian Tsar Ivan IV. During his primacy, a number of councils were held that were extremely important for the life of the church and state. The councils of 1547-1549 established an official church celebration for a large number of Russian saints, whose spontaneous veneration already had its own history. At the Council of 1551 (the Stoglavy Cathedral), the norm of the symphony of the royal and hierarchical power was legally enshrined - a change introduced in connection with the wedding to the kingdom of Ivan IV that took place in 1547. Here, the issue of the church's land holdings was raised again. Now the tsar succeeded in limiting the growth of church land tenure by a number of measures, and the possibility of confiscating church lands was also envisaged.

After the death of Metropolitan Macarius, the harmony of interaction between ecclesiastical and secular authorities was violated. The tsar established a regime of terror in the country, which extended to the saints. Now he raised and overthrew metropolitans, guided only by his own will. In 1568 Ivan IV publicly desecrated Metropolitan Philip II, tearing off his holy mantle while serving in the Assumption Cathedral. Metropolitan Philip II became the last high priest who was not afraid to openly oppose the unrighteous rule of the tyrant. Cyril, who replaced him, and the later metropolitans could no longer offer the authorities any resistance.

INTRODUCTION OF PATRIARCHISM IN RUSSIA (16th century)

During the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich in 1586, Patriarch Joachim of Antioch came to Moscow for alms. This was the first ecumenical patriarch to visit Russia. The Moscow government took advantage of his visit to raise the issue of establishing a patriarchate in Russia. Joachim promised to intercede for the Russian Church before other patriarchs upon his return to the East. Two years later, Moscow solemnly met the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah. However, contrary to the expectations of the sovereign, it turned out that he was not vested with the authority to appoint the Russian patriarch. Negotiations on the establishment of the patriarchate were resumed. Unexpectedly for the Russians, Jeremiah expressed a desire to stay in Russia and become the first Russian patriarch. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich agreed, but on the condition that the department was not in Moscow, but in Vladimir. Jeremiah, which Moscow sought, did not accept such a humiliating condition that he would be away from the court, having no chance of influencing state policy. In 1589, a council of Russian bishops elected Metropolitan Job to the established patriarchal throne. He was elevated to the rank of Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople. In 1590 and 1593, at the Councils of Constantinople, the chief priests confirmed the legitimacy of the act and assigned the Patriarch of Moscow the fifth place among the ecumenical primates.

In 1591, with the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, the Rurik dynasty was suppressed (Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich had no children). Boris Godunov was elected to the royal throne. Patriarch Job in every possible way contributed to his enthronement, and later, after the death of the latter, opposed the impostor False Dmitry I, who imposed Catholicism and Western customs. The new self-appointed ruler managed to force the council of bishops to remove Job from the throne and send him into exile. The former archbishop of Ryazan, Ignatius, who was loyal to the Westernizing innovations of False Dmitry, became the patriarch. After the overthrow of the impostor, his protege Ignatius was also removed from the patriarchal throne. Metropolitan Hermogenes of Kazan was elected the new patriarch. In 1611-1612 it was he, in the conditions of the Polish-Swedish intervention and actual anarchy, who led the national liberation movement, appealing to the people with an appeal to protect the Orthodox faith from the infidels. The Poles imprisoned Hermogenes in the Chudov Monastery, where he was martyred from hunger. Thanks to his appeals, the liberation movement took on a nationwide character and led to the expulsion of the Poles from Moscow.

In 1613 the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov to the throne. For the father of the young tsar, Metropolitan Filaret of Rostov, who was in Polish captivity, the title of "named patriarch" was approved. Filaret returned from captivity in 1619 and was made patriarch by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophanes IV, who was at that time in Moscow.

One of the first acts of the new patriarch was the restoration of the Printing House, where work began to correct the liturgical books, since during the years of turmoil a large number of books of the South Russian press entered liturgical use, requiring them to be brought into line with the Greek canon.

An important event in the church life of that time was a council convened at the initiative of Filaret and dedicated to the question of the re-baptism of Catholics, whom many priests accepted into Orthodoxy through chrismation. The Council decisively decreed the need to re-baptize Catholics. There were even approved special "ranks of annexation", drawn up by the patriarch Hermogenes.

The further policy of Patriarch Filaret, based on his personal experience of staying in Poland, was aimed at the utmost protection of the Russian Church from Latin influences. Official doctrine declared Russia to be the only guardian of ancient piety, whose religious experience was not influenced by Western influences. In accordance with this point of view, with the blessing of Filaret, public readings of new theological works created in Ukraine or Poland were organized in Moscow, during which they were subject to detailed analysis and criticism of Moscow “spokesmen”. Several of these writings were condemned for Latin influences and burned.

In addition to establishing strict control over the publishing and liturgical activities, Filaret, as the de facto co-ruler of Mikhail Romanov, took an active part in solving the most important state issues. Under him, the authority and power of the patriarch were raised to an unprecedented height.

His successors, Joasaph (1634-1640) and Joseph (1640-1652), did not have such power. During the period of their hierarchy in religious life, the issues of ordering parish and monastic life came to the fore, the imperfection of which began to cause acute concern for both the laity and the clergy. A significant number of the teachings and epistles written by Joseph denounce sorcery, buffoonery, drunkenness among the white and black clergy, all kinds of violations of the liturgical rules by the priests. In addition to pointing out the dark sides of Russian religious life, the patriarch's writings indicate that during this period the laity began to take a much more active interest in issues of faith and church life.

At the end of the 1640s, a circle of devotees of piety was formed around the confessor of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Stefan Vonifatiev. He set himself the goal of ordering church life by restoring ancient traditions. The increased activity of religious life in all strata of the population could not but contribute to the emergence of new heretical movements. Among them, the heresy of the monk Kapiton stood out, who saw the only means of achieving salvation in severe asceticism, and also denied the sacraments and hierarchy.

In the 1630s-1640s, the world community established the idea of ​​Russia as the defender of the peoples conquered by the Turks. This circumstance contributed to the development of the process of rapprochement with the Orthodox peoples of the East and, as a result, the weakening of the policy of isolationism. The experience of the religious life of other peoples began to penetrate intensively into Russian church life. In 1649 the king issued Cathedral Code, which had the meaning of the legislative code, which consolidated the dominant position of the Orthodox Church in the Russian state system. By this act, the power took under the protection and patronage of both the church and the Orthodox doctrine itself, while it established civil status for persons of clergy and limited the power of the church by the creation of the Monastic Order, to which the trial of the clergy, from metropolitans to clergymen, was transferred. Code caused a sharp rejection among the clergy. The answer to the publication of this document was the publication Feeding the book, where civil law was brought into line with church law according to the ancient Byzantine tradition. Edition Helmsman and Code demonstrated a tendency to divide the law into secular and ecclesiastical.

REFORMS OF PATRIARCH NIKON

In 1652, Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod came to the patriarchal throne. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself indicated his candidacy, contrary to the opinion of many zealots of piety. In the young, energetic and ambitious bishop, the tsar saw a close-minded person with whom, as it seemed to him, he had much in common in his views on the future of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1653, the energetic Nikon, with the support of Alexei Mikhailovich, began a church reform, the main content of which at first consisted in organizing the correction of liturgical books according to Greek models. In fact, the reformers used the books of the Belarusian and Ukrainian press, which, in turn, were guided by the Venetian editions. A church council convened by Nikon supported the course chosen by the tsar and patriarch.

In addition to the problem of correcting liturgical books, the reform also affected the ritual side of church life, which caused resistance to Nikon's innovations not only among the clergy, but also among the people, and ultimately led to a split in the church and the emergence of the Old Believers.

The first successes on the path of transforming the Russian Church and the patronage of the sovereign contributed to the fact that Nikon began to act in other matters just as decisively, and sometimes even despotically, clearly exceeding his powers. The rise of patriarchal power, unprecedented since the time of Filaret, and its active intervention in the affairs of state administration, in the end caused the tsar's discontent. Feeling the "thunderstorm", Nikon decided to leave the pulpit without permission, hoping that the tsar would return him. Nikon's wrong step was immediately taken advantage of in order to draw up an accusation against the patriarch. The Council of 1666 decided to deprive Nikon of the rank and elect a new primate of the Russian Church. Nikon's decisive position, who through his intermediaries proved the non-canonical nature of the conciliar decision, postponed its implementation. Nikon insisted that the priesthood is above the kingdom and only the ecumenical patriarchs can judge the patriarch. In 1666, the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria arrived in Moscow. The council brought Nikon down from the throne and sent him into exile. The successor to the patriarchal power was Joasaph II, who resolutely continued the liturgical transformations of Nikon, realizing that the condemnation of Nikon caused serious damage to the authority of the church.

Those who succeeded him first, Pitirim, and then Joachim, with difficulty restrained the decisive offensive of the secular authorities on the rights of the church. Patriarch Joachim achieved the abolition of the Monastic Order and the return to the hands of the clergy of financial, judicial and administrative power in resolving issues related to the church. The patriarch also contributed a lot to limiting the spread of the Old Believers. He penned a number of anti-schismatic works. With his blessing, schismatic monasteries and hermitages were destroyed; instead of old printed books, the priests were given new print liturgical books free of charge. In 1682, the church council decided to consider staying in schism as a civil crime. In the same year, under pressure from the archers and their leader, Prince Khovansky, Patriarch Joachim agreed to an open dispute with the leader of the Old Believers' Nikita Pustosyat. The debate was so violent that the regent, Princess Sophia, threatened with a debating departure from the capital. The dispute was terminated. Nikita Pustosvyat was soon captured and executed by order of Sophia. During the period of the patriarchate of Joachim, the problem of the increasingly spreading Catholic influence was still acute. Its powerful source was the writings of Simeon of Polotsk, a writer who was under the personal patronage of the tsar. An important event of this time was the return of the Kiev Metropolitanate to the jurisdiction of Moscow. see also SPLIT.

RUSSIAN CHURCH UNDER PETER THE GREAT

In the context of the weakness of state power at the end of the 17th century. Joachim managed to consolidate the forces of the clergy and defend the property rights of the church. Joachim's successor Adrian followed the policy of his predecessor in everything, but he managed to achieve little on this path - he faced the strengthened will of the young Tsar Peter I. The Tsar's intervention in church affairs took on a systematic nature, he completely ignored, and sometimes publicly insulted the Patriarch. The tsar reintroduced strict control over church property by the state. Joachim's successes were wiped out by the end of the century.

After the death of Hadrian in 1700, Peter I took decisive steps towards achieving complete submission to the church. The election of a new patriarch was constantly postponed. To fulfill the role of locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Peter appointed Metropolitan of Ryazan and Murom Stephen (Yavorsky). Metropolitan Stephen was brought up in Catholic schools in Lvov and Poznan. Peter's choice fell on him as a pro-Western bishop. However, in reality, Stefan Yavorsky turned out to be a champion of the patriarchate and the high authority of the church. He did not always agree with the policy of Peter. Apparently, Metropolitan Stephen was involved in the case of Tsarevich Alexei, although the tsar was unable to find any evidence against him.

In 1718, Metropolitan Stephen submitted a petition to let him go to Moscow under the pretext that, being in Moscow, it would be more convenient to govern the Moscow and Ryazan dioceses. In connection with the departure of the saint, Peter instructed Bishop of Pskov Theophan Prokopovich to draw up a project for the establishment of a Theological Collegium, which would replace the sole authority of the patriarch and, thus, would not be dangerous for the autocracy. Formally, the Collegium was endowed with judicial, administrative and legislative powers, but it could exercise the power given to it only with the consent of the sovereign himself. Under pressure from the monarch, the bishops signed a document establishing a new state collegium - the Holy Synod. Its opening took place in 1721. From that moment on, the church completely lost its former independence from the secular authorities. Stefan Yavorsky became the President of the Holy Synod. In 1722, the emperor established the post of chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, to which an officer was appointed who performed the function of "the sovereign's eye" in the Synod. As a result, Stefan Yavorsky was practically removed from the management of the church. After the death of Metropolitan Stephen, the office of president was abolished.

From now on, the state controlled all aspects of church life. In accordance with the educational reform of Peter, the compulsory education of the children of clergy was proclaimed (under pain of expulsion from the class). In different cities of Russia - Nizhny Novgorod, Vologda, Kazan, etc. - seminary-type theological schools were created; in Moscow, the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was transformed into the Theological Academy based on the Kiev model. New rules were also introduced regarding monastic life. Military and officials were forbidden to enter the monastery. An age qualification was introduced: men could enter the monastery from the age of 30, women - from the age of 50. The founding of sketes was strictly forbidden. The founding of new monasteries was only possible with the permission of the Synod. Many monasteries were closed under the pretext of lack of funds for their maintenance. These state measures quickly led to the desolation of monastic life and the extinction of the tradition of ascetic monastic practice, the life of which was "fueled" by only a very few of its representatives.

AFTER PETER

After the death of Peter during the reign of Catherine I, the Holy Synod was subordinated to a new state body - the Privy Council, which in fact meant the subordination of the church not to the anointed sovereign, but to a state government devoid of any sacredness.

During the short reign of Peter II, the son of Tsarevich Alexei, there was a movement towards the restoration of the patriarchate, but the sudden death of the fifteen-year-old emperor did not allow these hopes to come true.

Anna Ivanovna, who ascended the Russian throne, proclaimed a "return" to the precepts of Peter. Her policy was primarily manifested in the wave of the so-called. bishop processes. An important role in their organization belonged to Theophan Prokopovich, who sent the saints into exile and imprisonment, thus dealing with his "enemies." Monasteries were subjected to new severe tests. Now only widowed priests and retired soldiers could be tonsured into the monastery. The abbots of the monasteries were charged with the obligation to report to the Synod about the slightest misdeeds of monks who were subjected to severe punishments: they were either exiled to the mines or sent to the army. By the end of Anna Ivanovna's reign, some monasteries were completely empty, in others only deep elders remained.

The situation changed somewhat with the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna. Being very pious, the empress returned innocently convicted pastors from imprisonment and exile, allowed young monks from any class to be tonsured, made generous donations to many monasteries and restored the monastic system of management of the lands belonging to the monasteries. However, to the proposal to restore the patriarchate, Elizabeth, who sacredly revered her father's reformist activities, responded with a decisive refusal. During the reign of Elizabeth, the first occurred in the 18th century. canonization: Dmitry Rostovsky was canonized.

In the Petrine and post-Petrine epochs, an intensive expansion of the borders of the empire continued. In this regard, the missionary activity of the Russian Church received serious support from the state. Newly baptized foreigners were provided with serious benefits to the extent that tax and recruiting duties were shifted to unbaptized fellow tribesmen. Missionary activities were carried out by a specially established Office of New Epiphany Affairs.

THE CHURCH IN THE RULE OF CATHERINE II

The ecclesiastical policy of Catherine II, who replaced the short-lived reign Peter III, vividly characterizes her statement: "Respect the faith, but in no way let it influence state affairs." It was during her reign that the result of the centuries-old dispute over the monastic estates was summed up. A manifesto issued by the empress announced the secularization of church real estate. Funds for the maintenance of monasteries were now given by the Board of Economics. States were introduced for monasteries. Monasteries that were not included in the states were abolished or had to exist on the offerings of the believers. As a result of this reform, the number of monastics was reduced from 12 to 5 thousand, and many ancient monasteries were closed. Closed monasteries turned into barracks and homes for the insane. Despite a new wave of persecution, the surviving monasteries were able to derive considerable benefit from the current situation, seeing in it an opportunity for the revival of the ancient ascetic monastic spirit. Metropolitan Gabriel of Novgorod and St. Petersburg helped to ensure that from now on the monasteries were headed not only by "learned monks", but by people experienced in spiritual life. The institution of eldership was revived, the rooting of which is associated with the name of Paisius Velichkovsky, who asceticised in the monasteries of Athos and Moldavia.

RUSSIAN CHURCH IN 19-21 centuries.

Catherine's son Paul, during his short reign, in everything contradicted the beginnings of his mother. He somewhat improved the position of clergymen, freeing them from corporal punishment and increasing the staffing of the clergy. At first, Alexander I Pavlovich was very little interested in the affairs of the church. The question of the state of church affairs before the sovereign was raised by M.M. Speransky. Speransky began to intensively deal with the problem of spiritual education. Together with Archbishop Theophylact, he developed new statutes for academies, seminaries and schools, according to which the emphasis was not on the mechanical memorization of educational material, but on its creative assimilation. In 1809, classes in the new programs began at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and in 1814 at the Moscow one. Both academies soon became real centers of theology.

At the beginning of the 19th century. in Russian society, what was happening during the 18th century became really tangible. the division of national culture into folk culture, which remained faithful to the ancient religious and moral customs, and the culture of the nobility, fed by Western sources. After the war of 1812, mystical sentiments intensified in high society, which was the reason for the emergence of religious sects.

A significant event in church life in the 19th century. The Georgian Exarchate was founded in 1811. The Catholicos of Georgia was henceforth a permanent member of the Holy Synod. The incorporation of the Georgian Church into the Russian Orthodox Church created favorable conditions for missionary activities to restore the Orthodox faith in the Caucasus. The Ossetian Mission was opened in 1814. Metropolitan Theophylact translated the liturgical texts into the Ossetian language and Catechism.

With the coming to power of Nicholas I (1825), the state policy in relation to the church acquired a rigid "protective" character. The king tried to protect the official church from the influence of a large number of Masonic lodges and various kinds of sects. Spiritual censorship intensified, some especially zealous representatives of which placed the creations of Macarius the Great and Isaac the Syrian on a par with the works of sectarians. The Chief Prosecutor of the Synod N.A. Protasov (1798-1855, Chief Prosecutor 1836-1855) tried to carry out a new educational reform designed to lower the cultural level of theological schools under the pretext of adapting curricula to the conditions of rural life. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow resolutely opposed the reform. He managed to prevent the implementation of a plan for the extreme simplification of secondary spiritual education. In 1842, Protasov achieved the removal of Metropolitan Filaret from the Synod, but he, even after his removal from the Synod, remained the spiritual leader of the Russian bishops. A new phenomenon was the creation in 1841 on the initiative of the chief prosecutor of spiritual consistories - advisory and executive bodies under the diocesan bishops. The state of the consistories consisted of bishops and secular officials, headed by a secretary, who was appointed by the chief prosecutor himself. Any decision of the diocesan bishop could be challenged by the secretary. Thus, the diocesan administration, which received its own chief prosecutor in the person of the secretary, was also taken under the strict control of the state. In the 1820s – 1830s, the number of Uniates who converted to the Orthodox faith increased in western Russia. In 1839, a council of the Uniate clergy was held in Polotsk, which drew up an act of joining the Russian Orthodox Church. During the same period, a movement to join Orthodoxy was found among Estonians and Latvians, who perceived Lutheranism as the religion of the German barons. Russian bishops (Filaret Gumilevsky, Platon Gorodetsky) managed to consolidate the position of Orthodoxy in the Baltic States. In 1836, the opening of the Riga Vicariate of the Pskov Diocese took place in Riga. In 1847 the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission was opened in Jerusalem.

The system of church administration that took shape under Nicholas I and the chief prosecutor N.A. Protasov, during the change of the sovereign, caused sharp criticism in different strata of society. A. Muravyov, who served under the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, criticized formalism and bureaucracy in church administration. He submitted a memorandum to the new chief prosecutor A.P. Tolstoy On the state of the Orthodox Church in Russia... The period of the chief prosecutor of A.P. Tolstoy (1856–1862) was marked by a softening of tight control over the church. A.P. Tolstoy himself was a man of sincere faith, who treated the church with respect; quite often he made pilgrimage trips to Optina Pustyn. In the second half of the 1860s, D.A. Tolstoy (1865–1880) took the post of chief prosecutor, trying to revive the times of Protasov. He contributed to the removal of the clergy from the organization of the primary education of peasant children.

In the late 1860s, great changes took place in the position of the parish clergy. Abolished hereditary rights to church offices. The sons of priests received rights similar to the rights of children of personal noblemen or hereditary honorary citizens. They were given the opportunity to enter the military or civilian service and join the merchant guilds. Thus, the estate of the clergy was legally eliminated. An important direction the activity of the church at that time was missionary work. In 1865 the Orthodox Missionary Society was formed in St. Petersburg. It trained missionaries, provided material assistance existing missions. Particular attention was still paid to the Christianization of the peoples of the Volga region. In Kazan, Professor N.I. Ilminsky (1822-1891) opened the first school for baptized Tatar children with teaching in the Tatar language. In 1869, a divine service in the Tatar language was held for the first time in Kazan.

In the church press of the 1860s, the issue of reforming secondary and higher spiritual education was widely discussed. By 1867-1869, a special committee developed the statutes of seminaries, theological schools and academies. Now the administration of theological schools belonged to the Study Committee under the Synod instead of the previous administration, subordinate to the chief prosecutor. Internal administration was built on the basis of collegiality and self-government. The curricula have undergone significant changes. The circle of sciences has been reduced. Physics and mathematics disciplines were excluded from the curriculum of the Academies. Only the best students were left to work on master's and master's theses. Master's theses were subject to public defense. After the reform in the 1870s, the number of theological educational institutions began to grow rapidly. Through the efforts of Metropolitan Filaret in the 1860s, work on the translation of the Bible was resumed, and in 1876 the first edition of the Bible in Russian was published. see also THE BIBLE.

The era of Alexander III went down in history as an era of reaction to the liberal reforms of the 1860s. Church policy was now carried out by K.P. Pobedonostsev (1827-1907, chief prosecutor 1880-1905). The new head of the Synod stated that the government was striving for the practical application of the ancient canonical ecclesiastical right to conciliarly discuss the most important issues, but in reality strict state control over the church was preserved. The Russian episcopate received only the right to convene district councils of bishops. At the end of the 19th century. the class isolation of the spiritual rank has finally receded into the past. The rise of the clergy on the estate ladder brought him closer to the noble intelligentsia, to representatives of academic science. Numbered among the saints, John of Krondstadt, a shepherd who belonged to the white clergy, became famous not only for his sermons, but also for his profound theological writings. However, this phenomenon also had its downside: excessive big number graduates of seminaries and academies began to go to universities, to secular science. Pobedonostsev did not fail to strengthen church-protective measures in the system of spiritual education: they canceled the elective beginning of administration, abolished specialization in departments. On the other hand, Pobedonostsev strove to expand the influence of the clergy on public education and contributed to a significant increase in the number of parish schools.

With the accession to the throne of Nicholas II, the number of canonizations increased. For a short reign the last emperor Theodosius of Chernigov, Joasaph of Belgorod, Germogen of Moscow, Pitirim of Moscow were canonized, and the veneration of Anna Kashinskaya was restored. The glorification of Seraphim of Sarov was a great celebration. At the beginning of the 20th century. The Russian Church continued to carry out wide missionary activity. At that time, the Japanese Spiritual Mission, headed by the later canonized Metropolitan Nikolai (Kasatkin), and the Korean Spiritual Mission, whose work proceeded in the difficult conditions of the Russo-Japanese War, became especially famous. In 1898-1912, the Russian episcopate was headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg and Ladoga (1846-1912). In 1905 he led a church movement aimed at reviving the conciliar principle in church administration. For his part, Pobedonostsev opposed this movement in every possible way, stating that the chief prosecutor's supervision is a reliable guarantee of collegiality and conciliarity. Under pressure from Pobedonostsev, the tsar postponed the convening of the council, referring to the alarming time, but gave permission for the opening of the Pre-Council meeting. The meeting was called in 1912, but its work was interrupted by the outbreak of the First World War. The tragic moment of the collapse of the Russian Empire was approaching.

On March 2, 1917, Nicholas II abdicated the throne. The government of the country passed to the Provisional Government. A new Chief Prosecutor VN Lvov was appointed to the Synod. First of all, he dismissed from the Synod all the bishops who were suspected of sympathizing with the previous regime. In the new structure, the Synod, chaired by Metropolitan Platon, tried to improve relations between the church and the Provisional Government. The result was the convocation of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which began its work in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin on August 15, 1917. Cm... LOCAL CATHEDRAL 1917-1918.

The main decision of the cathedral was the restoration of the patriarchate. Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) was elected His Holiness Patriarch. The Council took place in the days when the Provisional Government could no longer rule the country. The desertion of soldiers from the front became widespread. The country was in chaos. After the October Revolution, the cathedral issued an appeal in which it described the events that had taken place as "raging atheism." The second session of the cathedral opened on January 21, 1918, and on August 7, its activities were terminated due to the confiscation of the premises where its work took place. Having come to power, the Bolshevik government immediately began preparing a law on the separation of church and state. The adoption of this law was regarded by the church as the beginning of persecution of clergy. Indeed, at this time, the persecution of priests, monks and nuns had already begun in the country. Patriarch Tikhon tried to stop this process by addressing the Council of People's Commissars with a message. However, the patriarch's appeals remained unanswered. In the Civil War, the new government won one victory after another. First, the Red Army defeated the troops of A.V. Kolchak, then the army of A.I.Denikin. With the retreat of the White Army, many priests and bishops left Russia. Patriarch Tikhon was faced with the task of saving the remaining pastors, and he called on the clergy to abandon all political speeches.

The picture of church life in Ukraine was difficult in the first post-revolutionary years. The idea of ​​separating the Ukrainian Church from the Russian Church and the introduction of a union arose again. The government of S.V. Petlyura proclaimed the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church and arrested Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev (Khrapovitsky) and Archbishop of Volyn Eulogius. However, soon after the arrival of the Red Army in Kiev, the Ukrainian Church was left without a bishop. Trying to end the church turmoil in Ukraine, Patriarch Tikhon temporarily abolished the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church in 1921, giving it the status of an exarchate. Despite this, the Ukrainian separatists in October of the same year proclaimed the autocephaly of the church, and the Kiev priests ordained the married Archpriest Vasily Lipkovsky to the rank of metropolitan. Then, within a week, a whole false hierarchy emerged, which was called "Lipkovshchina".

The civil war and the defeat of the White Army led to the fact that a large number of Russian people were forced to emigrate. By 1920, there were more than two million Russians in European countries alone. Among them were clergymen. On November 21, 1921, in Sremski Karlovtsy, with the consent of the Serbian Patriarch, a meeting of the general church overseas assembly took place, which was later renamed the Russian All-Foreign Church Council. It included the bishops and members of the Local Council of 1917-1918 who were in Karlovtsy. Charles Cathedral formed the Higher Church Administration Abroad, headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), which headed the church life of the Russian diaspora.

The Bolshevik campaign of 1920 for the autopsy and destruction of the relics of the saints came as a strong shock for the believers of the Russian Church. In the summer of 1921, a drought began in the Volga region, resulting in a terrible famine. In February 1922, a decree was issued on the seizure of church property in order to find means to fight hunger. In a number of cases, during the confiscation, bloody clashes between believers and the police took place. Arrests began, and then the trial of a group of clerics, who were sentenced to death. Patriarch Tikhon was placed under house arrest in connection with these events. In the midst of the outbreak of terror, several Petrograd priests headed by A.I. Vvedensky, colluding with the GPU, seized church administration. In April 1923, they announced that Tikhon had been deprived of his dignity. While the patriarch was in prison, a show trial was being prepared against him. However, it did not take place due to protests from the international community and fears of possible popular unrest. Patriarch Tikhon was released, having previously demanded to publicly plead guilty to the Soviet regime. The saint considered it necessary to compromise with the authorities and fulfilled the condition he had set. When he was released, the patriarch began to put in order the church administration, which was upset by the confusion of the "renovationists". Pretty soon he managed to restore the hierarchical apparatus and give the church organization, in the words of the Bolsheviks themselves, "the appearance of an ideological and organic whole." In 1925, Patriarch Tikhon died. Cm... TIKHON, ST.

By the will of the deceased patriarch, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) became the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. The convocation of a council and new elections of the patriarch was out of the question, since the Church was actually in a semi-legal position, and the Soviet government recognized the Renovationist group as the Orthodox Church. In 1925, the Renovationists held another council, at which they accused Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Peter of having links with emigrant monarchists. Their political accusation was immediately taken up by the Soviet press. Metropolitan Peter, foreseeing the further course of events, drew up a will and appointed successors in case of his death. Metropolitan Peter was soon arrested. Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) took over the duties of the patriarchal locum tenens. Cm... SERGY.

Meanwhile, another schismatic grouping arose in the Russian Church: ten bishops spoke out against Metropolitan Peter as the head of the church and formed the Supreme Church Council. This body was legalized by the authorities.

In the 1920s – 1930s, the former Solovetsky Monastery became the main place of imprisonment for clergy. In 1926 there were 24 bishops. They drew up and addressed to the government the so-called. Aide Memoire... In it, they recognized the legitimacy of the separation of church from state and expressed their loyalty to the authorities. At the same time, the document emphasized the incompatibility of the Christian worldview with atheism, which is an integral part of the communist doctrine, and expressed the hope that the church would be allowed to elect a patriarch and organize diocesan administration. Metropolitan Sergius also turned to the government with a request to legalize the church. The authorities responded with another arrest of Sergius. In April 1927, Metropolitan Sergius was released. Returning to Moscow, he convened a conference of bishops who elected the Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod. This body was officially registered for the first time.

The Synod issued a decree on the resumption of the commemoration of the state authorities during the divine service, which was introduced by Patriarch Tikhon. The decree confused many bishops. Some of them even announced their separation from the "graceless Sergius church." Now it is obvious that the policy of Sergius was dictated by the desire to preserve the church and its ministers, without putting the people before a tough choice between "Renovationism" and a catacomb existence. In 1929, after a short lull, the persecution of the church began again. L.M. Kaganovich declared religious organizations a legally operating counter-revolutionary force. A number of new decrees were issued prohibiting charitable activities and private religious education for religious associations. The mass closure of churches and monasteries began. Many of them were simply destroyed, others turned into warehouses, prisons and colonies. Arrests and exile of clergymen were resumed in 1934. In 1935, the deputy locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergius, was forced to dissolve the Synod. Only a secretary and a typist remained in the Metropolitan's office.

In 1936, the false news came about the death of the locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter (shot in 1937). Metropolitan Sergius officially assumed the office of patriarchal locum tenens.

The Great Patriotic War forced the government to change its attitude towards the church. In 1943, Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolai met with Stalin, who agreed to hold a church council and elect a patriarch. The council, which took place in September 1943, was elected patriarch of Sergius. As a high priest, he began active efforts to restore the greatly thinned church hierarchy. Under the new conditions, the NKVD officers, using their inherent methods, contributed to the abolition of the Renovationist Church, which was once under their patronage.

In 1944, Patriarch Sergius died. The new patriarch was Alexy I ( cm... ALEXIUS I). In the postwar years, the Russian Orthodox Church restored communion with the ecumenical churches and gained international prestige. The replacement of the episcopal sees remained an urgent task. By 1949, the Russian episcopate already numbered 73 bishops. However, significant changes in the life of the church took place only after Stalin's death. Many priests have been granted amnesty; in 1956 the relics of St. Nikita of Novgorod were transferred to the church; for the first time since the restoration of the patriarchate, the Bible was reprinted.

Again the threat of persecution hung over the church in 1958. By order of NS Khrushchev, the church was demanded to reform the parish administration. According to the requirements, the abbot, together with the clergy, became legally hired personnel, with whom the parish council concluded an agreement. This achieved the goal of eliminating the priest from participating in the economic affairs of the parish. The number of parishes has almost halved. Many churches were closed under the pretext of restoration, others were simply destroyed. In 1963 the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra was closed.

After the change of government and the coming to power of Leonid Brezhnev (1964), the position of the church remained almost unchanged. The project submitted to the government on the introduction of parish rectors into the parish council did not meet with success. By the early 1970s, a situation had developed when more than half of the country's population was raised outside the influence of church and religion. The situation began to change towards the end of the decade, when the number of new converts who consciously came to church life multiplied. A wide circle of parishioners formed around the parish priests, which consisted mainly of the intelligentsia. One of the most popular churches in Moscow is the Church of St. Nicholas in Kuznets, where Father Vsevolod Shpiller (died 1984) served as the rector. Particular care for the neophytes was shown by Archpriest Alexander Men (killed in 1990), priest Dmitry Dudko and others. Despite the small number of operating monasteries, the tradition of elders did not fade away in them. The flow of pilgrims to Scheigumen Savva and Archimandrite John Krestyankin from the Pskov-Caves Monastery, and to Archimandrite Kirill from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra did not stop.

The 1980s were marked by preparations for the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus. In connection with the upcoming holiday, Patriarch Pimen appealed to the government with a request to transfer the St. Danilov monastery to the church. This event took place in 1983. On the eve of the anniversary celebration, three conferences were held - a church history conference in Kiev, a theological conference in Moscow, and a conference on liturgy and church art in Leningrad. They clearly demonstrated that the church has preserved ancient traditions. At the jubilee Local Council in 1988, for the first time in many years, a number of Russian saints were canonized. During the celebration of the anniversary, there was a radical shift in society in relation to the church. Churches began to return churches and monasteries, and the canonization of Patriarch Tikhon was the first step towards glorifying the clergy who suffered during the years of Soviet power. Since 1991, services have been regularly held in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The diocesan administration was fully restored. By 1994, the number of dioceses had reached 114. A notable event was the adoption of a new law Russian Federation On freedom of conscience and on religious associations, the text of which was drawn up taking into account the wishes of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church (1997).

Under Patriarch Alexy II, more than 20 thousand churches and monasteries were opened (sometimes rebuilt) and consecrated, monastic life was resumed in the mass of monasteries, many new saints entered the calendar, including the new martyrs and confessors of the 20th century, who became victims of revolutionary terror and persecution. One after another followed such significant events as: the uncovering of the relics of St. Seraphim of Sarov, the solemn transfer of them to Diveyevo, the acquisition of the relics of St. Joasaph of Belgorod and their return to Belgorod, the acquisition of the relics of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the solemn transfer of them to the Great Cathedral of the Donskoy Monastery, the uncovering in Trinity -Sergius Lavra of the relics of St. Philaret of Moscow and St. Maximus the Greek, the uncovering of the incorruptible relics of St. Alexander of Svir. With the blessing of His Holiness, more than 100 theological educational institutions were opened: seminaries, colleges and parish schools. The patriarch supported the idea of ​​reviving charity towards the poor and mercy, in particular, ministry in hospitals, nursing homes and prisons. Alexy II saw the role of the Orthodox Church in the establishment and maintenance of peace and harmony.

In May 2007, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II and First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Laurus, signed Canonical Communion Act, establishing the norms of relations between the two Orthodox Churches and aimed at restoring the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus, the almost century-old division of the Russian Orthodox Church was brought to an end. In conditions of social stratification, the church under Alexy II tried to spread its influence and unite various segments of the population, contributing to the formation common system values. The merits of Alexy II include the return of the Church to broad public service, the revival and spread of the Orthodox religion and culture.

APPENDIX. DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIGNITY OF THE X WORLD RUSSIAN PEOPLE'S ASSEMBLY

Realizing that the world is going through a turning point in history, is facing the threat of a conflict of civilizations that have different understanding of man and his mission, the World Russian People's Council, on behalf of the original Russian civilization, adopts this declaration.

Man as the image of God has a special value that cannot be taken away. It must be respected by each of us, society and the state. By doing good, a person acquires dignity. Thus, we distinguish between the value and dignity of the individual. Value is what is given, dignity is what is acquired.

The eternal moral law has a solid foundation in the human soul, independent of culture, nationality, life circumstances. This foundation was laid by the Creator in human nature and manifests itself in conscience. However, the voice of conscience can be drowned out by sin. That is why the distinction between good and evil is intended to be promoted by a religious tradition that has God as its Primary Source.

We distinguish between two freedoms: inner freedom from evil and freedom of moral choice. Freedom from evil is valuable in itself. Freedom of choice acquires value, and personality acquires dignity, when a person chooses good. On the contrary, freedom of choice leads to self-destruction and damages a person's dignity when he chooses evil.

Human rights are based on the value of an individual and should be aimed at realizing his dignity. That is why the content of human rights cannot but be linked to morality. The separation of these rights from morality means their profanation, for there is no immoral dignity.

We are for the right to life and against the “right” to death, for the right to create and against the “right” to destruction. We recognize human rights and freedoms to the extent that they help the individual's ascent to good, protect it from internal and external evil, and allow it to be positively realized in society. In this light, we respect not only civil, political rights and freedoms, but also social, economic and cultural rights.

Rights and freedoms are inextricably linked with the duties and responsibilities of a person. An individual, realizing his interests, is called upon to correlate them with the interests of his neighbor, family, local community, people, and all mankind.

There are values ​​that are not inferior to human rights. These are such values ​​as faith, morality, shrines, Fatherland. When these values ​​and the realization of human rights come into conflict, society, the state and the law must harmoniously combine both. Situations should not be allowed in which the exercise of human rights would suppress faith and moral tradition, would lead to insult to religious and national feelings, revered shrines, would threaten the existence of the Fatherland. The “invention” of such “rights” that legitimize behavior condemned by traditional morality and all historical religions is also considered dangerous.

We reject the policy of double standards in the field of human rights, as well as attempts to use these rights to advance political, ideological, military and economic interests, to impose a certain state and social system.

We are ready to cooperate with the state and with all well-meaning forces in ensuring human rights. Special areas of such cooperation should be the preservation of the rights of nations and ethnic groups to their religion, language and culture, upholding the freedom of religion and the right of believers to their way of life, confronting crimes on national and religious grounds, protecting the individual from the arbitrariness of the authorities and employers, taking care of the rights military personnel, protecting the rights of the child, caring for people in prisons and social institutions, protecting victims of destructive sects, preventing total control over a person's private life and beliefs, countering the involvement of people in crime, corruption, slave trade, prostitution, drug addiction, gambling addiction.

We strive for a dialogue with people of different faiths and views on human rights issues and their place in the hierarchy of values. Today, such a dialogue, like nothing else, will help to avoid a conflict of civilizations, to achieve a peaceful combination of different worldviews, cultures, legal and political systems on the planet. Their future depends on how people manage to solve this problem.

Literature:

Borisov N.S. Church leaders medieval Russia 13-17 centuries... M., 1988
Volkov M.Ya. Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century... - In the book: Russian Orthodoxy: milestones in history. M., 1989
Shchapov Ya.N. State and Church of Ancient Rus 10-13 centuries... M., 1989
Meyendorf I., archpriest. Byzantium and Moscow Russia:Essay on the history of ecclesiastical and cultural ties in the 14th century... SPb, 1990
Chichurov I.S. " The walk of the Apostle Andrew» in the Byzantine and Old Russian church-ideological tradition... - In the book: Church, Society and State in Feudal Russia. M., 1990
A. V. Kartashev Essays on the history of the Russian Church, vols. 1-2. M., 1991
Orthodox Church in the history of Russia... M., 1991
Tolstoy M.V. History of the Russian Church... M., 1991
Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church, vols. 1-7. M., 1994
Tsypin V., archpriest. History of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1990... M., 1994
Firsov S.L. The Orthodox Church and the State in the Last Decade of the Autocracy in Russia... M., 1996
S.V. Rimsky Orthodox Church and State in the 19th century... Rostov-on-Don, 1998
N.V. Sinitsyna Third Rome. The origins and evolution of the Russian medieval concept... M., 1998
Uspensky B.A. Tsar and Patriarch: the charisma of power in Russia... M., 1998



The collection of lands around Moscow, the formation of a single centralized state corresponded to the traditional political ideals of the Orthodox Church, which retained the idea of ​​a community of Russian lands throughout the entire period of feudal fragmentation.

But, in every possible way supporting the Moscow princes, promoting the unification of the lands around Moscow, the Russian Church found itself increasingly dependent on the grand-princely power.

An important role in this was played by the acquisition by the Russian metropolis in the middle of the 15th century. actual independence (autocephaly).

After the separation of the Russian Orthodox Church from Constantinople, the Moscow princes began to dispose of the metropolitan see at their own discretion. Councils of bishops rarely dared to challenge the opinions of secular rulers. Already the Metropolitan of Theodosia (1461-1464) - the first elected immediately after Jonah's death independently without hesitation or delay by a council of Russian bishops - was confirmed in the rank of the Grand Duke of Moscow.

The Grand Dukes did not confine themselves to decisive participation in the selection of metropolitans, in the appointment of bishops, but also intervened in purely church affairs. So, Ivan III once entered into a dispute with Metropolitan Gerontius (1473-1489) about the compliance with the church rules for consecrating the capital's Assumption Cathedral. A particular question: "How should the procession move around the consecrated church - in the direction of the sun or against the sun?" - became the cause of a serious conflict. However, even the conflict situation did not prevent the Metropolitan from remaining a zealous adviser to the prince in all political affairs.

Secular claims to supremacy were reinforced by traditional Byzantine ideas about the unity of the kingdom and the priesthood. These ideas get further development and a slightly different sound in the Moscow state in the middle of the 15th century. after the fall of Constantinople.

In Muscovite Russia, the idea is gradually emerging that the grand dukes should play the role in the Orthodox world that previously belonged to the emperors of Byzantium. At the Moscow court, lavish rituals borrowed from Byzantium began to be practiced. The rooting of Byzantine customs was facilitated by the marriage of Ivan III to the Greek princess Sophia Palaeologus in 1472. Some church leaders embraced the Constantinople tradition of glorifying the monarch as the main bulwark of the faith. Thus, Metropolitan Zosima (1490-1494) called Ivan III “... shone forth in Orthodoxy, faithful and Christ-loving”, comparing him with Constantine the Great (under whom in the IV century Christianity was recognized as a legal religion), and he called Moscow “the new Constantinople ”.

The idea of ​​Byzantine-Russian succession was also substantiated later. During the reign of Vasily III, at the beginning of the 16th century, the Pskov monk Philotheus developed the idea of ​​Moscow as the “third Rome”, replacing Rome itself, which had fallen away from the true faith of Orthodoxy, and the second Rome — Constantinople, which tarnished Orthodoxy with an alliance with Catholicism. The fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople refused the Union of Florence shortly after its conclusion was ignored.

The thesis about Moscow - the third Rome was aimed not only at substantiating the global significance of the power of the Moscow rulers, but also at introducing into their consciousness the idea of ​​the need for all-round protection and support of Christianity, and, consequently, the Church.

Under Ivan IV, the thoughts expressed by Philotheus received official recognition in both state and church circles. Performed for the first time in 1547, the rite of wedding to the kingdom was largely copied from the Byzantine ritual. The great Moscow prince Ivan IV was proclaimed tsar. The accepted title of "the crowned tsar" finally secured to the head of the Russian state those prerogatives of supreme care for the interests of the church, which belonged to the Byzantine emperors and which, to a very large extent, were already gradually acquired by the Moscow princes themselves.

The relationship between church and state, despite the readiness of the church hierarchy to recognize the Moscow sovereign as the supreme ruler not only in worldly, but also in spiritual matters, were quite complex and contradictory.

In the XV - XVI centuries. the question in which the interests of church and state intersected was the question of church land tenure. The custom that spread in Russia to bequeath villages to monasteries so that their inhabitants would constantly remember the name of the donor in their prayers led to the rapid growth of church estates.

In the meantime, the Moscow rulers saw a reliable means of strengthening the central power in the spread of the noble, landlord land tenure. Noble landowners dependent on the grand-princely power were their strong social support and military force. But for the development of the local system, land was needed inhabited and cultivated by peasants. Meanwhile, during the XIV - XV centuries. cultivated land was concentrated in the hands of patrimonials (secular and spiritual). It was extremely tempting for the secular authorities to make up for the lack of land for the landlords by secularizing church lands.

On the other hand, the land riches of the church began to embarrass some church leaders, who were concerned that the income of the monasteries was used not in the spirit of Christian love for people, but for the comfortable (and even luxurious) life of the monks.

The question of the church and church riches became the subject of wide discussion during the reign of Ivan III (1462 - 1505).

The disputants were led by two prominent representatives of monasticism: Joseph Volotsky (Ivan Sanin), hegumen of Volokolamsk, the monastery he himself founded, and Nil Sorsky (Nikolai Maikov), the founder of a skete on the Sor River, near the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery.

Joseph Volotsky, a stern monk and an excellent owner, having built and enriched his monastery, maintained a strict monastic charter and an ascetic life in it: they fed the neighboring peasants there in times of famine, set up a shelter and a hospitable home at the monastery, etc.

Such charity and the relations of mutual assistance that developed in the lands of the Volotsk monastery justified in the eyes of Joseph and many of his contemporaries the preservation of the monastic land tenure (Joseph's supporters were called Osiflians or Josephians).

Opponents of such views were Nil Sorsky, his students and followers, who were called “non-possessors”. Neil condemned the gathering of church riches, including the possession of populated lands, believing that monks should decisively break away from worldly goods, feed themselves on the labor of their hands and strive with all their being towards God, not caring about anything earthly.

Thus, the issue of ecclesiastical land tenure had both intra-ecclesiastical and state significance.

In 1503, at the Bishops' Cathedral, on the initiative of Ivan III, the question of the Church's renunciation of land ownership was raised. Most of the participants in the council took the side of Joseph Volotsky. The secular authorities did not dare to go against the church authority and the monastic estates survived.

Another area of ​​intersection of state and church interests was associated with the emergence in Russia of heresies - religious movements that reject any elements of the teaching of the official church. The center of heretical movements was Novgorod, where in the XIV - early XV centuries. the strigolniks acted, denying the legitimacy of the church hierarchy, denouncing the vices of the clergy and drawing from this a conclusion about the sinfulness of the Orthodox Church.

At the end of the 15th century. In Novgorod, the heresy of the "Jews" arose, so named for some similarity of their views in matters of faith with Judaism (they did not honor the Holy Trinity, rejected the deity of Jesus Christ, did not worship the Holy Cross and icons, honored the Sabbath, the law of Moses, etc.). Heretics' criticism of church dogmas was combined with criticism of church organization. The "Jews" opposed church land tenure, the existence of a class of clergymen, insisting that every person, without the mediation of priests, should communicate with God.

The grand-ducal power used heresy in their own political interests.

After the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow (1478), Ivan III brought the leaders of heresy closer to him, assigning them to serve in the Moscow court churches. The alliance of the Moscow prince with the "Judaizing" heretics, unnatural at first glance, is quite understandable: they had one and the same enemy - the Novgorod clergy, who did not want to come to terms with Moscow rule. The removal of many church hierarchs from Novgorod churches by Ivan III, including the archbishop, and the secularization of the Novgorod church lands, met the ideals of the heretics.

The patronage of the Grand Duke to the heretics also affected the decision of the church council of 1490, which condemned the heresy, but applied rather mild punishment to the heretics: only a few heretics were sentenced to imprisonment.

We see a different attitude towards heretics at the beginning of the 16th century. The Council of 1504 condemns heretics to the death penalty, which was not carried out on many "Judaizers". This decision of the council became possible because the accusation of heresy became beneficial to the princely power. At this time, supporters of Prince Vasily, the son of Ivan III from his marriage to Sophia Paleologos, prevailed in the struggle over the issue of succession to the throne. And the official heir to the throne, the grandson of Ivan III Dmitry, together with his mother Elena, under the pretext of complicity with the heretics, were sent into captivity.

Thus, the trial of 1504, like other anti-heretical trials of the 16th century, in most cases was started not only and not so much to protect the purity of faith, but to deal with political opponents.

In the 16th century, under Vasily III (1505-1533) and Ivan IV (1533-1582), the disputes between the non-possessors and the Osiphlians continued. In principle, the grand-ducal authorities were interested in supporting the followers of Nil Sorsky. But the authorities could not go into conflict with a significant part of the clergy - supporters of the Osiflians.

In the first two decades of the XVI century. a situation is developing more favorable for the victory of non-possessors, not only due to the aspirations of the secular authorities, but also because the Russian Orthodox Church was headed by metropolitans sympathetic to non-acquisitives.

After 1521 the situation changed. Metropolitan Varlaam (1511 - 1521) - a man, according to Karamzin, “firm and not a flatterer to the Grand Duke in any matters contrary to his conscience” - was removed from office. More convenient for the Grand Duke, the head of the church turned out to be the Osiflian Metropolitan Daniel (1521 - 1539), who was distinguished by his pliability and servility to Basil III. Since that time, the metropolitan see was held by the followers of Joseph Volotskiy, and the non-possessors were removed from business.

During the period of political instability after the death of Vasily III, during the youth of Ivan IV, when rival boyar groups fought for power (1533 - 1547), many monasteries were able to expand their land holdings, accepting in property of the sovereign, and not just fiefdoms.

During the troubles of 1533 - 1547. the need to consolidate central authority became obvious to many church hierarchs. Metropolitan Macarius (1542-1563) supported the reforms carried out in the first years of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. In turn, Ivan IV paid great attention to the relationship with the clergy.

In 1551, on the initiative of the tsar and the metropolitan, a church council was convened, which was named "Stoglavy", since its decrees consisted of one hundred chapters. The council condemned many vices in the behavior of the clergy and took measures to restore order among them. He continued to form a new unified pantheon of Russian “saints”, which helped to overcome local separatism in the church organization. But the most controversial issue at the Stoglav Cathedral was the long-standing issue of monastic land tenure. The matter ended with a compromise: it was decided to return to the treasury the former lands acquired by the church during the period of boyar rule, and henceforth acquire lands only with the royal permission.

At the council, fidelity to the ancient Orthodox faith was proclaimed, and the Byzantine principle of the unity of church and state was confirmed.

Relations between secular and spiritual authorities in the following decades, although not always were equal, but on the whole developed on the basis of cooperation and the search for mutually beneficial solutions.

So, during the XIV - XVI centuries. significant changes have taken place in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church. She became autocephalous; its external borders and spheres of influence have narrowed down to the borders of the Moscow state; her alliance with the state strengthened, becoming one of the defining factors of Moscow politics. Thus, the Russian Orthodox Church acquired a national-state character.

Cit. Quoted from: Bogorodskaya O. E., Budnik G. A. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Ivanovo, 1998 .-- S. 23 - 29.

- 221.00 Kb

Outline of the history of relations between the Church and the State History does not begin from any definite point, it always has a prehistory. Thus, the history of the Church in the Soviet state does not begin with the October Revolution of 1917. It is precisely the attempt to describe the relationship between the state and the Church in Soviet time makes us turn to the church history of the past centuries.

Origins Kievan Rus entered into contact with Christianity through Byzantium. Saint Prince Vladimir was baptized from Constantinople, and all Kiev residents were baptized with him - this was a political decision. Thus, Kievan Rus and later state structures - the heirs of the union of ancient Russian principalities - grew into Byzantine culture. From here - with the division into the Byzantine East and the Latin West - a special development of Eastern Europe began, influencing the fate of all of Europe to this day. There were Christians in Russia even before the baptism of Prince Vladimir in Kiev. The Grand Duchess Olga, the grandmother of Saint Vladimir, was baptized already in 957 in Constantinople, but her son Svyatoslav remained a pagan. Thus, Olga's baptism remained an episode. It is noteworthy that after her baptism Olga asked in 959 to send bishops for missionary work - but she turned not to Byzantium, but to the Roman-Germanic emperor Otgon I (912-973). The emperor sent Bishop Adalbert from Trier to Kiev, but when the bishop arrived in Kiev in 962, Svyatoslav was already Grand Duke and Adalbert was forced to return. So a missionary bishop from Germany, a Latin, in Kiev also remained an episode.

On the other hand, Muslim sources speak of the successful Islamization of Kievan Rus. They report that Prince Vladimir first converted to Islam, which at that time was rapidly spreading from Central Asia to the West. Thus, the Volga Bulgars, neighbors of the ancient Russian principalities, converted to Islam a few decades before the baptism of Vladimir. Geopolitically or geostrategically, the Islamization of Kievan Rus would be more likely than its Christianization.

As Christians lived in Kievan Rus before the baptism of Vladimir, so the Slavic pagan gods lived for a long time in the minds of the Eastern Slavs. The coexistence of the Christian and pagan worldview, the so-called "dual faith", is most clearly represented in the "Lay of Igor's Host" (XII-XIII centuries), in which it is the main poetic background of the epic. The "Tale of Bygone Years" tells about conflicts with pagan ideas, which sometimes apparently took the character of riots, as, for example, in 1024 and 1071.

The priests who carried out the Christianization of Kievan Rus, for the most part, were probably Bulgarians. The Bulgarian people adopted Christianity (864) a century earlier than Kievan Rus. Bulgarians by that time widely used the created by Saints Cyril and Methodius of Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki) Slavic writing and a language formed on the basis of the South Slavic Solun dialect. Therefore, in addition to its functional name - "Old Church Slavonic language", the linguistic term "Old Bulgarian" is used in the West. The Gospels and the main church texts, especially the liturgy, had already been translated into Church Slavonic and, together with later translations from Greek, contributed significantly to the penetration of Byzantine culture, Byzantine-Greek thinking and worldview into Kievan Rus. Among the figures of spiritual culture that developed in the Kiev cradle, especially in the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery, we can name only the names of the great Kiev princes Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054) and Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1124).

From the very beginning, business writing developed in parallel to spiritual literature, where, although Church Slavonic forms were used, the Eastern Slavic living speech was reflected to a greater or lesser extent (depending on the genre), as, for example, in Novgorod birch bark letters of the 11th – 15th centuries.

There is still much that is not clear about the organization of the Church in the first centuries after baptism. In all likelihood, at first all the bishops were Greek and were appointed by Constantinople. Later, it is likely that only the Metropolitan of Kiev was appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople from the Greek clergy, and sometimes from the Slavs, while in most cases the Slavs became bishops in the localities. Apparently, strict control of the Kiev Metropolis by Constantinople was impossible, on the one hand, because of the great distances, and on the other, because of the growing pressure not only from the Ottoman Turks, but from the 13th century and the Latin West (recall the conquest of Constantinople by the Latins as a result of fourth crusade, "Latin Empire", 1204-1261). Thus, the Metropolitanate of Kiev rather soon gained a certain independence from the Mother Church and had great internal autonomy. According to a Byzantine document, in the middle of the 13th century, the following dioceses were subordinate to the Kiev Metropolis: Novgorod the Great, Chernigov, Suzdal, Rostov, Vladimir the Great (on the Klyazma), Pereyaslavl, Belgorod, Yuryev, Polotsk, Ryazan, Tver, Smolensk. After the conquest of Kievan Rus by the Tatars, even in the capital of the Golden Horde, Sarai (near present-day Volgograd), a diocese was formed in 1261.

After the conquest of Kievan Rus by the Tatars throughout the entire period of the Tatar yoke (1240-1480), the Orthodox Church had to solve a problem that could not be called otherwise than a national one. Compared with the Kiev and appanage princes, the Church was in a privileged position: it became the only interregional functioning Slavic institution during the Tatar rule and therefore enjoyed great prestige among the princes. Kiev and appanage princes had to dutifully ask for confirmation of their princely powers from the Khan of the Golden Horde in Sarai, backing up their requests with luxurious gifts (never knowing whether they would return alive or not), while the appointment of church hierarchs was accepted by the Khan of the Horde, as a rule, unconditionally: the new bishop did not need to go to bow to Sarai. After the conquest of Kievan Rus, the Tatars no longer touched monasteries, outside the walls of which spiritual culture could be preserved (but not developed): the monks were engaged in constant rewriting and dissemination, mainly of church literature, thus preserving the cultural heritage of Kievan Rus for posterity.

Under the constant threat of ruin and burning, the central territories of Kievan Rus fell into desolation - people left these lands. In the border areas of Kievan Rus, two centers were formed where refugees were concentrated: Vladimir, Tver and Moscow in the northeast and the Galicia-Volyn and Polotsk princedoms in the west. Thus, the division of the Eastern Slavs began, from which the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples were formed.

During the XIII-XV centuries, the Moscow princes subjugated all the Slavic principalities between the White Sea, Novgorod and Chernigov - the so-called "gathering of Russian lands". The Muscovites, thus, soon became the most significant force of the Eastern Slavs. At the same time, the Polish-Lithuanian state strengthened on the western borders and became a force to be reckoned with. The lands of the Galicia-Volyn and Polotsk princes already in the XIV century became Orthodox provinces in the Catholic Polish-Lithuanian state. The transfer of the metropolitan residence from Kiev to Vladimir by Metropolitan Maxim (1299), and then to Moscow by Metropolitan Peter (1326) speaks of the shift of the center of power to the northeast.

The great merit of the Church is that its best representatives could not come to terms with Tatar enslavement and encouraged the princes who paid tribute to the khan of the Golden Horde to fight. So, St. Sergius of Radonezh inspired and blessed Prince Dimitri to accept a battle with the Tatars in 1380 on the Kulikovo field, which ended in an important victory for the Moscow army, which was of great importance for the national consciousness of the Russians. The Church left secondary positions and began to play a partner, in the national sense, leading role in relation to the princes.

Kiev and appanage princes also borrowed from Byzantium the principle of symphony - the idea of ​​equality between the state and the Church, the emperor and the patriarch, the prince and the bishop. In Byzantium itself, this principle was implemented quite rarely, since the emperor almost always himself determined the course of the development of the Church. In Russian history, one can find several metropolitans who placed themselves above their contemporary Grand Duke or Tsar. Examples include Metropolitan Macarius and Tsar Ivan the Terrible, Patriarch Filaret (Fyodor Romanov) and his son Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, the first in the Romanov dynasty, Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

The same is the reason for the most significant - and at the same time the most tragic - schism in the Russian Church: as a result of the struggle between the state power and the church, the Old Believers appeared. Patriarch Nikon (1652-1660), with tough reforms, first provoked a protest, then a split. The state by secular (for example, military, economic and other) means, the church with spiritual (for example, anathema) measures persecuted schismatic Old Believers. In essence, the Old Believers became reformers: in a three-century struggle with the state and ecclesiastical authorities, they completely separated from the state - something that the "New Believer" Church has not succeeded in so far.

The autocephaly of the Russian Church (1448), more than a century later (1589), was followed by the recognition of the Moscow metropolis by the patriarchate by the old patriarchates - Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The self-awareness of the Church grew. It became almost a state within a state and it turned out, in the person of some of the first hierarchs (for example, Patriarch Nikon, 1652-1660, Patriarch Joachim, 1674-1690), a destabilizing factor in politics, which caused the monarch to have enlightened absolutism, which undoubtedly was Peter I, indignation. The enormous riches of the Church (she owned one third of all arable land), with the constantly empty state treasury, aroused the desire to take possession of them, which Catherine II was able to accomplish to a large extent. In any case, collisions with the Church were inevitable for Peter I.

In the "Spiritual Regulations" (1721) - the regulation on the administration of the Church, oriented towards the Protestant structure of the state Church (Staatskirche), the "tsar-patriarch" balance is no longer observed. The Patriarch is replaced by the "Theological College" (later named "The Most Holy Governing Synod"). This collegium had the same status as all other collegia, that is, ministries. The secretary of the Synod, the chief prosecutor (layman), actually became in the 19th century the head of the Church, eloquently called the "eye of the king." Bishops were required to swear allegiance to the king.

By no means the only reaction to this situation was the revival of the monastic ideal, especially the elders (Optina Pustyn '), at the beginning of the last century. 50 years later, secular theology developed in Russia, which in its essence has not yet been adequately appreciated to this day (V. Soloviev, K. Leontiev, A. Khomyakov, N. Berdyaev and others). Russian literature, which had deeply Christian foundations, entered its "golden age" (F. Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, A. Chekhov and others). Finally, in the depths of the church, a critical attitude arose to the internal state of the Church, which was reflected in journalism - in this sense, the study of the church press from 1870 to the First World War is of extremely great interest. The demand for a general renewal of the Church from top to bottom eventually became so widespread that Emperor Nicholas II agreed to convene a Local Council, which had not been convened for 200 years. At the Council, it was necessary to consider all the issues that had accumulated by that time and make a decision on the restoration of the patriarchate. The pre-council commission in 1906 prepared the Local Council in a few months; however, the first world oik- prevented its convening. Nevertheless, the materials of the pre-joint commission formed the basis for the work of the Local Council, which took place after the February Revolution of 19! 7. Only under the Provisional Government of AF Kerensky (1886-1970> the separation of the Church from the state was carried out, and the long-awaited Local Council was convened in August 1917. Its most important result was the restoration of the Patriarchate and the election of Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) Patriarch of Moscow and all Other decisions (on the structure of the Church, on strengthening the parish, on the role of the laity in the Church in the sense of conciliarity, etc.) were never implemented due to the October Revolution. The members of the Council were forced to disperse.

When in 1921-1922 the Soviet government demanded the issuance of church valuables to help the starving population due to the 1921 crop failure, it came to a fatal conflict between the Church and the new government, which decided to use the situation to destroy the Church.

During these years, many hierarchs, priests and laity, who resisted the confiscation of church values, died a martyr's death. The Soviet leadership presented the resistance to the confiscation of values ​​as a reactionary struggle against the Soviet regime and, in accordance with this, persecuted all those who resisted with the corresponding consequences.

The loyalty to the Soviet state, demonstrated in Patriarch Tikhon's "repentance", averted the most terrible threat from the Church and allowed over time to overcome the Renovationist schism, whose representatives even the Bolsheviks refused to support since the mid-1920s. This victory strengthened the long tradition of Russian Orthodoxy, based on spiritual, ecclesiological and liturgical principles to this day.

In these words, the political loyalty of the Church towards the Bolsheviks is formulated more clearly and sharply than that of Patriarch Tikhon, however, the loyalty of Metropolitan Sergius was expressed to the state, which more and more actively sought the final destruction of religion and the Church with the help of legislation (1929), which prohibited almost all church and parish life , which suppressed any manifestation of religious life, including through brutal persecution.

Internal church quarrels and schisms became a characteristic and tragic phenomenon of the second half of the 1920s and 1930s. At first, a discussion erupted as to whether Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, was a usurper of church power. Archbishop Gregory (Yatskovsky) of Yekaterinburg strongly denied the canonicity of the position of the Deputy Locum tenens of the Patriarchal See. His supporters ("Grigorievites") created the "Provisional Supreme Church Council" (12/22/1925). Due to similar canonical reasons, Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) of Kazan, appointed by Patriarch Tikhon Locum Tenens, separated from Metropolitan Sergius, Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens (Doc. 97-101, 108). Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) became the head of a significant schism of those who do not remember, who in litanies commemorated not the name of Metropolitan Sergius, but the name of the Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky).

The current assessment of the 1927 Declaration by the Moscow Patriarchate (in the sense that it gave the Church the opportunity to survive in these difficult times) is not convincing. By 1925, the structure of the Church was destroyed. And the church administration, which the Soviet government allowed Metropolitan Sergius to create, was only a temporary church administration.

Work description

Outline of the history of relations between the Church and the State History does not begin from any definite point, it always has a prehistory. Thus, the history of the Church in the Soviet state does not begin with the October Revolution of 1917. It is the attempt to describe the relationship between the state and the Church in Soviet times that makes us turn to the church history of the past centuries.
Origins Kievan Rus came into contact with Christianity through Byzantium. Saint Prince Vladimir was baptized from Constantinople, and all Kiev residents were baptized with him - this was a political decision.

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

State educational institution of higher professional education "Kamchatka State Pedagogical University named after Vitus Bering"

Department of History of Russia and Foreign Countries

Russian Orthodox Church in the XIV-XV centuries.

test

on the history of Russia

female students

socio-economic faculty

2 courses, gr. Out-0911

Kisilenko Irina Valerievna

Checked:

Ilyina Valentina Alexandrovna,

Associate Professor of the Department of History of Russia and Foreign Countries,

Candidate of Historical Sciences

Petropavlovsk - Kamchatsky 2010

Plan

Introduction

I. The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the unification of Russia in the XIV-XV centuries

1.1 The appearance in Russia of outstanding church figures, beacons of morality and patriotism

1.2 Support by the church of the grand-ducal power as a strong defense of Orthodoxy and a leader in the fight against the hated Horde

II. The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the political life of Russia in the XIV-XV centuries

2.1 Clashes between secular and spiritual authorities during the formation of a single state

2.2 The Orthodox Church as an inspirer in the struggle for the independence of Russia

Conclusion

List of sources and literature

Introduction

Having experienced a flourishing in the XI-XII centuries, Russia disintegrated into many principalities and, after the Batu invasion, lost its national independence. Two centuries passed before the Moscow princes managed to unite the Russian lands and put an end to foreign oppression. And, of course, the Orthodox Church played an invaluable role in the revival of the people and their statehood.

Kievan Rus' of Moscow left a great legacy: majestic church churches and the richest monastic libraries that stored both translated Greek and original Russian manuscripts. Outstanding figures of the church took part in the compilation of the annals, lives, legends, which had a profound influence on the development of the spiritual culture of Russia as a whole. In fact, during this difficult period, the church was an institution of government and sanctified the order of the feudal state.

In the vast expanse of the East European Plain, where several million inhabitants of Rus lived, who were mainly engaged in agriculture, the role of the church was determined by the fact that it united its long-suffering people with a single faith.

The church hierarchy was organized according to the secular type. Boyars and armed servants served the Metropolitan. The Church possessed large land resources and participated in the political life of the country. She exerted an even greater influence on the moral and spiritual life of society. The church organization had two faces, as it were, facing in different directions. The princes of the church were as close to the feudal elite of society as the parish priests were close to the people. Not a single important step in a person's life was complete without the participation of the clergy. Marriage, birth and christening, fasting and holidays, death and funeral - in this circle of life everything was done under the guidance of spiritual shepherds. In the church, people prayed for the most essential things - deliverance from ailments, salvation from natural disasters, pestilence and hunger, for the expulsion of foreign conquerors.

In the XIV century, the Russian Church found itself, as it were, in a double subordination. Byzantium was still in charge of the affairs of the Russian metropolis. Russian metropolitans were appointed primarily from the Greeks. All appointments to the highest ecclesiastical posts in Russia went through Constantinople, which brought considerable income to the patriarchal treasury. At the same time, the church was subject to the authority of the Golden Horde. The domination of the Mongol conquerors brought disaster and ruin to the Russian people. And amid all these strife, internecine strife, general savagery and Tatar men, the church reminded the people of its former greatness, called for repentance and heroism. "The Lord made us great," wrote Bishop Serapion in 1275, "but by our disobedience we have transformed ourselves into insignificant ones."

The Golden Horde perfectly understood the importance of the Church in the life of Rus, and therefore, instead of persecuting the Orthodox clergy, its rulers freed the Church from tributes and declared its estates inviolable. Like princes, Russian metropolitans had to travel to the khan's headquarters for labels confirming the rights of the church.

At the decisive moment, the saints blessed the people for the Battle of Kulikovo, but their blessing, firstly, was legendary, and secondly, "an atypical episode, uncharacteristic for the allied line with the Horde held by the Russian metropolitanate." The political doctrine of church hierarchs, according to the same concept, was determined by the constant desire to put Russia on the rails of theocratic development, that is, "to lead the Russian Church to victory over secular power." In this work, we will try to find out how solid these conclusions are.

The main task of our work is to find out what role the church played in the political history of Russia in the XIV-XV centuries.

The goals of our work: to show the role of the church in the revival of the spirituality of the people and its statehood, as well as to show the merits of the outstanding figures of the church in the development of the spiritual culture of the people, who at the cost of their own lives inspired the people to feat in the name of the independence of the motherland. Later, thanks to all these factors, in the 15th century with the formation of a single state, the country gained national independence.

The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the life of Russia in the period of the XIV-XV centuries is described in detail by R.G. Skrynnikov.

The book is dedicated to the turning points in Russian history from the Battle of Kulikovo to the Time of Troubles. It examines the role of the clergy in these events, reveals the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities. Choosing a biographical genre, the author gives vivid biographies of prominent church leaders in Russia.

N.M. Nikolsky in his book "History of the Russian Church" illuminates the history of the Russian Church in historical scholarship. The book traces the history of the origin of religion and atheism.

The prominent Soviet scientist A.I. Klibanov. The author critically analyzes the attempts of theologians to embellish the past of Russian Orthodoxy, to present it as the sole custodian of historical and cultural traditions.

P.V. Znamensky tells in great detail and interestingly about the history of the Russian Church. in his book "History of the Russian Church". The author tells in detail on the pages of the book about the origins of Christianity in Russia, about the ways of the formation and development of Orthodoxy throughout the vast state, about the close interaction and disagreements between secular and spiritual authorities. The book highlights the activities of the metropolitans, leaders of large monasteries, who provided powerful support to the grand dukes and were engaged in educational activities.

Now let's start our exploration.

I ... The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the unification of Russia in X IV - XV centuries

1.1 The appearance in Russia of outstanding church figures, beacons of morality and patriotism

The Russian Orthodox Church played an important role in the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow, in the struggle of Russia against foreign invaders. This was expressed in the fact that church leaders - metropolitans, leaders of large monasteries provided powerful moral support to the Moscow princes, spared no money on organizing the Russian army, inspired Russian princes, governors, ordinary soldiers to defend their native lands.

It is no coincidence that the emergence of church leaders, educators and clergymen, who by their own example of life and work prompted the Russian people to consolidate and feat, in the name of liberation from foreign invaders.

Thus, Metropolitan Peter, the first to move to Moscow, and his successors provided great support to Moscow in its unifying efforts. Their activities were inextricably linked with the activities of Ivan Kalita and his sons. Metropolitan Alexy (about 1293 - 1378) stood next to Dmitry Ivanovich when he took the parental throne as a boy. He supported Dmitry in all his patriotic affairs. He was an intelligent, educated person with a strong character. And at the same time, he was distinguished by piety and modesty in his personal life. Alexy was a real shepherd of human souls. Metropolitan Alexy used the authority of the church to prevent princely strife in Nizhny Novgorod. The head of the church tried to influence the warring members of the Nizhny Novgorod - Suzdal dynasty, using the mediation of the Suzdal Bishop Alexy. When Alexy refused to fulfill the will of the head of the church, the latter resorted to decisive action. He announced the withdrawal of Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets from the bishopric and took the name of the city under his control. Soon the Suzdal bishop lost his see. There is information that the metropolitan sent a personal emissary to Nizhny, hegumen Sergius, who closed all the churches in the city.

When the Russian - Lithuanian war threatened to finally split the all - Russian Church, the leadership of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church decisively sided with Moscow. In 1370, Patriarch Philotheus confirmed the decree "that the Lithuanian land should not be deposited or separated from the power and spiritual administration of the Metropolitan of Kiev under any circumstances" (Alexy).

In June of the same year, at the height of the Russian - Lithuanian war, the patriarch addressed extensive messages to Metropolitan Alexei and the Russian princes. Philotheus fully approved of Alexei's activities and advised him to continue to turn to Constantinople for church and state affairs in view of the fact that the Russian "great and numerous people" also requires great care: he "depends entirely on you (Metropolitan Alexy. - RS) and therefore try as much as you can to teach and instruct him in everything. "

Philotheus urged all Russian princes to show respect and obedience to Metropolitan Alexei as a representative of the patriarchal authority, the deputy of the patriarch himself, "the father and teacher of souls." At the same time, the head of the universal church strongly condemned the attacks of Lithuania on Moscow, and branded the princes who helped the Lithuanians as violators of the divine commandments. Later, Alexy was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Saint Sergius of Radonezh (c. 1321-1391) had a great influence on all Russian life. Already in adolescence, Bartholomew (that was the name of Sergius before taking monastic vows) was distinguished by a penchant for solitude, reading books, for constant work and high religiosity, which surprised those around him. After the death of his parents, the impoverished boyars, Bartholomew refused the inheritance and went to a monastery, where his older brother was already there. There he persuaded his brother to take an even more difficult and difficult dinner - to retire, go to live in the desert and devote himself to God there.

In the dense Radonezh forest, the brothers cleared a small clearing, built a hut, and erected a small church in honor of the Holy Trinity. Their life became "mournful and cruel", as it is written in the ancient source. The brother could not stand the cold, hunger, and other difficulties and went to one of the Moscow monasteries. Bartholomew was left alone. Two years later, he was tonsured a monk under the name of Sergius and spent 12 years in his meadow. His life was spent in works, prayers and reflections. He suffered from loneliness and hardship. Wild animals threatened him with death. The fame of the asceticism of Sergius, of his holy deeds quickly spread throughout Russia. And so followers and companions-in-arms gather around him, cut cells, master nature, erect new wooden churches. This is how the Trinity - Sergius Monastery was born.

For the first time in Russia, Sergius organized a monastery on a new, communal basis. This meant that, unlike the former monastic or cell monasteries, now all monks lived one common household, did not have personal property and could not engage in personal entrepreneurship. Sergius urged them to live in brotherhood, love and serve each other. He himself, already being the abbot of the monastery, often helped brothers - monks, dragged logs, repaired their dwellings, performed another hard work.

People are drawn here, to Sergius, to the holy fathers, for advice, consolation, absolution, spiritual support, and peasants settle here. The monastery begins to grow overgrown with villages.

With the participation of Sergius and with his blessing, dozens of new monasteries appear in the forest wilderness in Russia. They were founded by Sergius' disciples and associates. Gradually there is a transformation of remote forest corners, life is being born there. It is no accident that the whole of Russia knew the name of Sergius, it is no accident that both the Grand Duke and the last wretch, the peasant, listened to his voice.

A little later, the Moscow monk of the Simonov Monastery, Cyril (about 1337 - 1427), a native of a noble boyar family, performs his ascetic feat. He leaves Moscow for the distant Belozersk Territory and there in the forest more often he digs a dugout for himself - a cell and puts up a cross. This was the beginning of the famous Kirillo-Belozersky monastery in Russia. A virtuous and modest way of life, filled with labor and prayer, refusal to acquire, i.e. accumulation of money and things attracts people to Cyril. He teaches goodness, high morality, mutual assistance, hard work, devotion to the native land. Cyril was also canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.

But worldly interests, worldly passions also penetrated beyond the monastery fence, entered the monastic cells, changed the life of the monastery brotherhood. The monasteries were overgrown with households. The princes endowed them with lands, their own arable land appeared, which was cultivated by dependent peasants. Trade operations developed. It was difficult to maintain holiness under these conditions. However, true adherents of religion tried to combine Christian ideals with everyday conditions.

1.2 Support by the church of the grand-ducal power as a strong defense of Orthodoxy and a leader in the fight against the hated Horde

In 1425, after the death of Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, his son, young Vasily (1415-1462), ascended the throne. Vasily had a formidable rival who claimed the princely throne - the second son of Dmitry Donskoy, Prince Yuri Dmitrievich Zvenigorodsky - Galitsky (1374 - 1434). According to the will of Dmitry Donskoy, he inherited the large cities of that time - Zvenigorod and Galich. The main part of the Moscow principality passed to the Grand Duke. After the death of Vasily Dmitrievich, fifty-year-old Yuri Dmitrievich laid claim to the throne. He tried to return to the previous order of succession to the throne - by seniority, not from father to son, as was the case until the last moment. This deviation from the established tradition would have thrown Russia back into deep specific antiquity. Only inheritance from father to son contributed to the unity of the Russian lands and strengthened the power of the Moscow principality, only the bulk of the Moscow lands, the principality's treasury and resources passed from father to son.

Yuri Zvenigorodsky decided to break this order. He had personal reasons to seize the grand ducal throne. According to the first testament of Vasily I, he was his direct heir. But after the birth of another son, the first will was forgotten. But Yuri remembered and he was the son of Dmitry Donskoy, and at birth he was baptized by Sergius of Radonezh himself, which made him very popular among the people. Yuri was comprehensively educated, knew and appreciated literature and art. He was the patron saint of the great Russian icon painter at the turn of the XIV-XV centuries. Andrey Rublev. Known for his correspondence with the founder of the Kirillo - Belozersky monastery, Abbot Kirill. In Zvenigorod and the surrounding area, Yuri at his own expense launched the construction of beautiful churches and monasteries. He was an excellent warrior, a courageous commander, and he never suffered defeat on the battlefield. Such a bright man challenged a ten-year-old boy, the heir to the throne.

But unfortunately, not always such a legendary personality can unite large masses of people and carry them along. In Uglich and Zvenigorod, they loved Yuri, but only in their own lands, who were accustomed to liberties and felt independent of the strong Moscow government. The northern cities of Vyatka and Ustyug, who were also accustomed to liberties, stood up for him, as well as the top of Novgorod, who dreamed that under Yuri the pressure from Moscow would not be so strong. Yuri was also supported by the petty princes, who dreamed of their former independence.

The struggle between the old appanage orders and the new heavy and irresistible tread of the emerging unified Russian state became a natural phenomenon in history. Fierce feudal war in the middle of the XIV century. broke out in England between the dynasties of York and Lancaster - the Scarlet and White roses. England emerged from this struggle as a strong and united state.

Behind the shoulders of the little boy were powerful forces of centralization and unity of Russia. These were serving princes, boyars and emerging landowners - noblemen - the basis of the grand ducal army, who rose to glory along with the grand dukes, received a large amount of land from Dmitry Donskoy and Vasily I and now did not want to share wealth and influence with the supporters of Yuri Zvenigorodsky.

The grand-ducal power was also supported by large Russian cities headed by Moscow (Kolomna, Nizhny Novgorod, Kostroma, Yaroslavl, etc.). During the Tatar raids and then during the struggle between Yuri Dmitrievich and his sons and Vasily II, townspeople, townspeople and merchants were tired of violence, robberies, fires, endless extortions and dreamed of a stable life.

Basil II was also supported by the church - the Moscow metropolitan, bishops, except for the Novgorod ruler, abbots of large monasteries. They saw in the Moscow Grand Duke a strong defense of Orthodoxy, a leader in the struggle against the hated Horde, which all their parishioners dreamed of. In addition, the grand-ducal authorities tirelessly supported the church materially - with rich land grants, the provision of all kinds of privileges to church farms.

Finally, the entire “house of Kalita”, all the relatives of the Grand Duke, even the brothers of Yuri Zvenigorodsky, supported the young Moscow ruler. They understood that a strong grand-ducal power is both their strength and power.

The war between uncle and nephew, between the forces of unity and centralization and the appanage freedom began. But at the first stage, the parties, with the help of the Moscow Metropolitan, agreed that it would be better to settle the matter peacefully. Both applicants went to the Horde for labels, and after spending a year there, Moscow won the dispute.

Soon, Yuri Zvenigorodsky, together with his sons, struck an unexpected blow on Moscow. The Grand Duke's troops were defeated, and Vasily fled to Kostroma. Yuri's sons demanded reprisals against the Grand Duke, but Yuri gave his nephew the inheritance of Kolomna, the most significant city after Moscow. That made it possible, after the death of Yuri, Vasily to regain the grand-ducal throne.

But an amazing thing happened: Broken and expelled from Moscow, Vasily II, who was settled in Kolomna, immediately attracted increased attention of all strata of Russian society. They did not want to serve the specific prince. The entire Moscow elite migrated to Kolomna. Yuri is left alone and makes an unexpected decision: he renounces the Moscow throne and concedes the capital to his nephew. Vasily II occupies the capital and decides to punish the sons of Yuri. Vasily II hastily gathered an army and set off after the brothers who had fled to Kostroma. On the banks of the Klyazma, Vasily was again defeated. Vasily gathers a new army and moves it to Yuri and his sons. In the decisive battle in 1434 on the territory of the Rostov land, Yuri again, having won a complete victory, occupied Moscow, seized the treasury. Fate gave Yuri two months to rule, then he dies, and the eldest son Vasily Kosoy proclaims himself the Grand Duke. A new stage of the feudal war began. The whole Northeastern Russia became the arena of battles and campaigns. Villages and cities were on fire, the fortress was taken by storm. Thousands of people died. Rus was bled to please the ambitions of individual rulers. By violence and cruelty, the Russian land was moving towards its unity and centralization.

Vasily Kosoy did not possess either the charm or talents of his father. Increasingly wider strata of society, including other sons of Yuri, oppose the ambitious adventurer and support the old Moscow government. In the decisive battle in the same Rostov land in 1436. Vasily Kosoy was defeated by the Moscow army, captured and taken to Moscow. There he was blinded by the order of the Grand Duke; thus the first lesson of cruelty was taught.

It seemed that now Russia could breathe a sigh of relief and heal the wounds inflicted by the internecine war. But no, the military ruin and weakening of Russia was immediately used by the old enemy - the Horde, which undertook a series of raids on the Russian lands. In the winter of 1444 the Horde army reappeared in Russia, captured Nizhny Novgorod, Murom, and other cities. Vasily II himself led the troops towards the enemy and was defeated. Shemyakin's auxiliary detachment did not appear on the battlefield at the appointed time. It was at this moment that Shemyaka had the idea of ​​a conspiracy against the Grand Duke. He used the defeat of Basil II and accused him of inability to defend Russia from the Tatars.

Under the leadership of Shemika, Vasily II was kidnapped and blinded, then he was taken to Moscow. Vasily II went down in history as Ivan the Dark. The Grand Duke and his family were exiled to Uglich on the Volga.

It seemed that the opponents of Vasily II had firmly seized power in Moscow, but all the forces that had previously supported the Grand Duke turned away from the rebels. Vasily's supporters began to move to Uglich, as they once did to Kolomna, gathered armed detachments and began to fight Shemyaka. In this situation, the Grand Duke had to be freed and transported to his permanent residence in Vologda, taking an oath from him never to claim the throne again.

But Shemyaka's calculation did not come true, since Vologda very quickly became the center of resistance to the rebels. In addition, Shemyaka quickly discredited himself as a ruler. Under him, the redistribution of land property began, the plunder of the state treasury. Bribery and injustice in the princely court acquired enormous proportions.

Soon the abbot of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery frees Vasily II from the oath given to Shemyaka. The Grand Duke gathered an army and captured Moscow in the same year. Shemyaka fled to Novgorod, where he soon died. The war continued for several more years, and in 1453 Vasily II finally established himself on the Moscow throne. He spent many years strengthening his power; restored the influence of the grand ducal administration in Novgorod, which during the feudal war achieved a number of freedoms for itself; strengthened the alliance with Tver, continued the fight against disgruntled petty princes; reflected new Horde raids. The prince severely punished the troublemakers who were Shemyaka's supporters, staging demonstrative executions in Moscow.

II ... The role of the Orthodox Church in the political life of Russia in XIV - Xv centuries

2.1 Clashes between secular and spiritual authorities during the formation of a single state

The Church supported the unifying policy of the Moscow sovereigns and helped them cope with the feudal turmoil. However, the period of the formation of a unified state was also marked by clashes between secular and spiritual authorities. The conflict was caused not by the theocratic manners of the church, its desire to seize leading positions in the state, but by the strengthening of secular power and the autocratic inclinations of the monarch. Ivan III was the first of the Moscow sovereigns who called himself an autocrat. This title primarily symbolized independence from the horde. But the title also reflected the tremendous power that the sovereigns of all Russia began to use in the future. The monarch's interference in church affairs intensified.

During the period of fragmentation, the church retained a certain independence due to the fact that it remained the only all-Russian organization that consistently fought against feudal anarchy. Metropolitans had the right to appoint bishops in different lands and principalities, excluding Novgorod the Great. The Church acted as a mediator and judge in inter-princely quarrels and clashes. Finally, the Moscow metropolitans - the Greeks - Cyprian, Photius, Isidore signed a union with the Catholic Church. Upon his return to Moscow, he was defrocked. Metropolitans began to be elected from among the Russian clergy. And with the fall of Byzantium in 1453, the bonds of dependence of the Moscow metropolis on the patriarch were finally broken. The guardianship of Constantinople constrained the Russian Church and at the same time gave it the notorious independence from the Grand Duke's power. By the middle of the 15th century, the Church of All Russia was finally divided. The head of the Russian Church took the title of Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia, in the Orthodox lands of Lithuania, the Metropolitanate of Kiev and All Russia arose.

The metropolitans firmly defended the inviolability of church property, wherever it was. The largest diocese in Russia was the Novgorod archbishopric. When the local boyars broke the princely power and founded the republic, the Novgorod archbishops began to carry out some functions of land administration that had previously belonged to the prince. The Sofia house possessed enormous land wealth and maintained a regiment. The excessive enrichment of the clergy prompted the Novgorod authorities to look for ways to prevent the rapid growth of church land tenure. The project, discussed by the boyars and the people, provided for the confiscation of estates donated by landowners to the church. Metropolitan Philip in 1467 turned to Novgorod with a letter, threatening the heavenly Novgorodians with punishment, who “want to have church estates and villages (donated - RS)”. Projects for the alienation of church lands were not implemented.

In January 1478, Ivan III finally subjugated Novgorod and abolished the veche there. Having crushed the republic, he demanded volosts for himself and sat down in Novgorod, without which he could not "draw his state in his homeland." Novgorod mayor and Novgorodians came forward with an initiative to give up the ten largest church volosts. They decided to donate church lands in order to preserve their fiefdoms. Ivan III accepted their offer, but at first he demanded for himself half of all the church lands in Novgorod, and when the Novgorod boyars brought him lists of volosts subject to alienation, the sovereign took pity - "he did not take half of the volosts from the lord, but took ten volosts." But the largest monasteries had to part with half of their villages. The unexpected mercy of Ivan III was probably connected with the fact that the Moscow clergy stood up for the archbishop. In carrying out the confiscation of church lands, Ivan III relied on the help of the Novgorodians - his supporters from among the boyars and clergy. The prince then took some of them to his capital and brought them into the circle of the court clergy.

An attack on church property has always been considered sacrilege. This was an attempt on the land of St. Sophia. Ivan III could not count on the sympathy of the highest hierarchs and monks. Metropolitan Gerontius and many elders, including Joseph Sanin, opposed his undertakings. Among the supporters of the grand duke were the Rostov bishop Vassian Rylo, the elders of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery Paisy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky.

Joseph Sanin and Nil Sorsky were destined to play an outstanding role in the history of the Russian Church, and their history deserves special attention. Both of them were born during the years of the feudal war, which flooded the Moscow state with blood. The Nile was born around 1433-1434, and Joseph six years later.

Having met after many years of wandering through monasteries in the lands of Russia, Sanin came to the conclusion that only strict measures can save the shaken ancient piety. Not hoping to correct the temper in ancient monasteries with a long-established charter of life, Sanin came to the idea of ​​the need to found a new monastery, which would become a model for cleansing monastic life from the rust that corroded it. To this end, Joseph decided to retire to his native land - Volotsk inheritance, where reigned Boris Vasilievich, Brother of Ivan III.

Boris greeted Sanin graciously and, after questioning him, took a place twenty miles from his capital, Volok Lamsky. At this place, at the confluence of the Sestra and Struga rivers, Joseph founded a monastery in the middle of a magnificent pine forest.

In the middle of a forest clearing, the monks cut down a wooden church. But already seven years later, a majestic stone church was erected in its place, which Joseph commissioned to paint the most famous of the artists of Russia - Dionysius. The church splendor, music, painting contained a force that had a profound impact on the soul of the people.

No other monastery had a stricter charter than the Joseph monastery. The authority of the abbot reigned in his monastery, and strict discipline and unconditional obedience were required from the brethren. All together and each separately, Sanin instilled that no one would escape punishment, even for a minor violation of Scripture. "Our souls," he wrote, "let us put on a single line of God's commandments."

Relations in the grand-ducal family deteriorated sharply in 1479, and the next year Boris and Andrei broke the peace with Moscow and left for the Lithuanian border. Preparing for a long war with Ivan III, Andrei and Boris ferried their families to the Polish king, and left for Velikiye Luki.

All these facts explain why Boris Volotsky did not spare land and money for the establishment of the Joseph - Volokolamsk Monastery. In a feud with his brother Ivan III, Boris counted on Sanin's mediation. Borovsky Monastery was the family abode of a grand ducal family, and its authorities in the person of Paphnutius and Joseph enjoyed authority with the widow of Vasily II and his sons. They helped to extinguish quarrels in a kindred circle and reconciled the warring brothers. In the conflict between Ivan III and Boris, Sanin openly sided with the appanage prince. Joseph wrote a detailed treatise on the origin of the sovereign's power and on his relationship with his subjects. You don't have to obey the king, Sanin wrote, if the king has “over him reigning fears and sins, love of money ... deceit and untruth, pride and rage, the worst of all is unbelief and blasphemy,” for “such a king is not God's servant, but the devil, and not there is a king, but a tormentor. "

In view of the war with the Horde, the Grand Duke made peace with the brothers, granted them lands, and then, choosing the right moment, dealt with them. In 1494, the appanage prince Andrei died in captivity. At the same time, the patron saint of Sanin, Prince Boris, died. Joseph, mourning the death of the appanage princes, attacked Ivan III with denunciations. The igumen likened the Grand Duke to Cain. Ivan III, wrote Sanin, renewed "the ancient evil of Cain", because through his fault the ancient family of sovereigns "as if the leaf is already withered, as the color of decay, as the light of the golden lamp has died out and leave the house empty." Sanin's attacks on the Grand Duke reveal the origins of the latter's clash with the clergy. In an effort to unite the country and establish autocracy in it, Ivan III too often violated law ("truth"), tradition, and antiquity. Not only did Sanin condemn Ivan III, Metropolitan Gerontius more than once condemned Ivan III and openly quarreled with him. The official Moscow chronicles hushed up conflicts of this kind, but they were reflected in the unofficial ones. One of these chronicles was compiled in Moscow, presumably by a metropolitan clerk or priest of the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin, the other - by a monk in the Rostov land. The Rostov monk as a whole remained loyal to Ivan III. The Moscow scribe defended the antiquity and therefore sharply denounced the Grand Duke for countless violations of law and tradition. The news of the unofficial chronicles gives a clear idea of ​​the relationship between the monarch and the head of the church in 1479-1480. The reason for the first major conflict between them was the construction and consecration of the main temple of the state.

The construction of the new Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin was originally commissioned by Russian Orthodox architects with the blessing of the Metropolitan. They failed. The walls of the cathedral collapsed and construction stopped. Then Ivan III ordered the famous architect Aristotle Fioravanti to be discharged from Italy. The construction management passed into the hands of heretics - Latins. The cathedral was completed by August 1479, consecrated by the metropolitan and the highest Moscow clergy. The new Kremlin shrine became the subject of a dispute between the secular and spiritual authorities. The supreme saint, according to Ivan III, made a mistake during the consecration of the main church of the state. He walked around the cathedral religious procession against the sun. The Grand Duke stopped Gerontius and ordered him to walk in the sun. A dispute began, in which, together with Ivan III, his old enemies, Archbishop Vasian Rylo and Archimandrid Gennady of Chudov, spoke out against the Metropolitan. The hierarchs who supported the prince did not provide any serious evidence in favor of their point of view. On the contrary, the head of the church defended both the Russian antiquity and the Byzantine tradition at the same time. “Whenever a deacon walks in an oltar,” he said, “he walks on his right hand with a censer.” This was the custom in Russian churches. The Metropolitan's correctness was confirmed by the abbot, who made a pilgrimage to Athos. Power was the grand duke's main argument. Until the dispute was resolved, he strictly forbade the Metropolitan to consecrate the newly built churches of the capital.

The invasion of the horde in 1480 put an end to the feuds for a time. But as soon as the danger was over, the conflict broke out with new strength... Due to the ban of Ivan III, the newly built churches in the capital remained unconsecrated for more than a year. Dissatisfied with this, the priests and laity were forced to support the metropolitan, in whose opinion the procession should be led against the sun. Having lost hope to convince Ivan III, Gerontius left the metropolitan's court outside the city - to the Simonov monastery and threatened to resign if the sovereign insisted on his own and did not beat him with his forehead. The threat from the head of the church took effect. The Grand Duke was forced to concede. He sent his son to the Metropolitan, and he himself went to the Simonov Monastery to bow, promising to obey the saint in everything, and relied on his will and antiquity regarding walking with crosses.

The peace between secular and spiritual power was short-lived. The author of an unofficial Moscow chronicle noted that in November 1483, Metropolitan Gerontius wanted to leave the metropolitanate and "went down to the monastery on Simonovo and took the sacristy and staff with him, he was already ill."

Together with the staff, the head of the church took the sacristy with the metropolitan clothes, church utensils and jewelry kept in it. Without the "metropolitan dignity" not a single saint could take the table and serve the metropolitan service. "

The head of the church hoped that the Grand Duke would again, like two years ago, visit the Simonov Monastery and declare his obedience to the spiritual pastor. However, he miscalculated. Ivan III tried to get rid of the obstinate ruler. The Emperor directly offered to take the metropolitan see to Elder Paisey.

Gerontius experienced an unheard-of humiliation. Ivan III achieved obedience from the head of the church, but he could not depose the saint he disliked. The high priest stayed in Simonov for a whole year, until in 1484 “on the same day, according to Kuzma Demyanov, the days after the autumn erection of the great prince of the same Metropolitan Gerontius on the table”.

A century has passed since the time when Sergius of Radonezh founded the Trinity Monastery, giving impetus to Moscow piety and spirituality. During this time, much has changed in the life of Russia and in the life of the monasteries founded by Sergius and his disciples. His experience in organizing a community (commune, kinovia) collapsed. Attempts to implement the principles of equality, compulsory labor, self-denial did not lead to success. The princes and boyars who tonsured the Trinity and donated villages and money to the monastery enjoyed the same privileges in the community as in the world. When Paisius tried to restore the Trinity community to its original structure and order, he only brought on his head the anger of the noble monks. In 1482, it came to the point that Yaroslavov announced his resignation. Reporting about Paisius's decision, the church writer emphasized: “Force him, prince great, to be an abbot at the Trinity in Sergeev Monastery, and Cherntsov cannot be turned to the divine path - to prayer, and to fasting, and to abstinence, and wanting to kill him, byahu for there the boyars and princes who have tonsured their tonsure do not want to obey, and leave the abbess. " Having lost the rank of hegumen, Paisy did not lose influence at the court, but did not want to remain in the capital.

Meanwhile, the most outstanding of Paisius' disciples, the Nil, returned to Russia. During his wanderings in the Balkans, he saw the calamities of the millennial Byzantine kingdom enslaved by the Turks and the humiliation of the Orthodox Church. The Nile made a pilgrimage to Constantinople and visited Athos. On Mount Athos, Nil Sorskiy got the opportunity to become closely acquainted with the theory and practice of hesychasts. Upon his return to Russia, he came up with the idea of ​​the revival of Russian spirituality through hesychasm. Hesychasts argued that reason kills faith, that a person is improved not through reflection, but through self-absorption and silence.

The Nile founded a skete on the Sorka River, fifteen miles from the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. Nilova Pustyn was not a hermit's settlement - anchorite. Neil rejected the community for the sake of the skete, "a hedgehog with one or more living with two brothers." The skete needed neither an abbot - a steward, nor a teacher - a mentor. Serving others took on a pure form: "Brother helps brother." In the XIV-XV centuries, the mystical ideas of hesychasts became widespread in the Balkans. Russia was not prepared for the perception of the teachings of the hesychasts at the time of its inception. But a century later, the situation changed.

Joseph Sanin hoped to reform Russian monasticism by preserving the rich and prosperous monasteries. The Nile called for the abandonment of wealth and desert dwelling. Poverty, in his understanding, was the right way to achieve the ideal of spiritual life. “Cleanse your cell,” Nile taught, “and the scarcity of things will teach you abstinence. Love poverty, and non-possession, and humility. " Monks should live in the deserts and feed themselves "from the righteous labors of their handicrafts."

The bulk of the black clergy remained deaf to the sermon of the Nile. Only a select few responded to his call. Hermitages of desert dwellers arose in the dense forests, who went to the Trans-Volga region in the footsteps of Nil Sorsky. The number of the Zavolzhsky elders was small. But the proponents of new ideas had an important advantage over the traditionalists. Paisius and his disciples enjoyed the patronage of the monarch. They defended the principles of the non-acquisitive life of the monks and thereby justified the actions of the sovereign in relation to the Novgorod monasteries and the church. Therefore, Ivan III was ready to hand over to Paisius the helm of the management of the Russian Church. However, the advocates of the mystical ideas of hesychasm, not in words, but in deeds, strove for a solitary life and categorically refused to touch the levers of power. This principle was very convenient for the monarch, since it gave full unlimited power.

2.2 The Orthodox Church as an inspirer in the struggle for the independence of Russia

Orthodox Church Russia Horde

With the unification of the Russian lands, historical prerequisites arose for the liberation of the country from the yoke of foreign conquerors. The Orthodox Church played a huge role in the struggle that returned independence to the state.

After the Mamayev massacre, the old system of khans' domination over Russia was shaken. The Grand Dukes of Moscow, taking advantage of the internecine strife in the Horde, more than once got out of the power of the khans, refused to pay tribute to them, or sent light "commemorations" to the "tsar", determining their size at their own discretion. Akhmat Khan twice equipped the troops in order to achieve obedience from Ivan III. His first campaign was not crowned with success in 1472, while crossing the Oka the Tatars' troops were repulsed by the Moscow warriors. Khan waited nine long years before deciding on a new invasion. He chose the right moment. It seemed that all of its neighbors were up in arms against Russia. From the west, King Casimir threatened her with war. Pskov was attacked by the Livonian Order. The Tatars advanced from the south. To complete the troubles, turmoil began in the country. The Novgorod boyars, not resigned to the loss of their liberties, were waiting for an opportune moment to oppose the Moscow authorities.

Without a day's delay, Ivan III sent the heir to his son Ivan Ivanovich - with regiments to Serpukhov. Founded by Dmitry Donskoy's brother, Serpukhov had excellent fortifications and reliably covered the approaches to Moscow from the south. While the Horde loomed in the steppe near the Don, Ivan III managed to gather a lot of forces. Only Tver, Ryazan and Pskov retained their independence from Moscow. But they too obeyed orders from Moscow. Because of the turmoil, the Grand Duke had to keep huge forces in Novgorod, fearing a boyar rebellion. In the conditions of the outbreak of feudal unrest, any of the Moscow cities could be attacked by the rebellious appanage troops. Until the turmoil was over, the Grand Duke could only partially use the city militias to defend the southern borders.

Learning about the movement of the Horde to the north-west, Ivan III ordered his son and the governors to move from Serpukhov to Kaluga in order to cover the approaches to the capital from the Ugra. On September 30, the Grand Duke returned to Moscow for council and thought with the boyars and the higher clergy. According to the report of the official chronicle, Ivan III stayed in Moscow for four days in order to “strengthen” the city and prepare it for the siege. The clergy, the Duma and the population implored the sovereign "with great prayer to stand firmly for the Orthodox Christianity against bezserlessness."

Beginning in the afternoon of October 8, fierce fighting on the Ugra river crossings continued for four days. The news of the fierce battles on the Ugra, apparently, caught Ivan III on the way. Instead of hurrying to the place of the battle, the Grand Duke stopped at a camp “on Kremenets with small people, and let all the military men go to the Ugra.

After the end of the battles at the crossing, the famous "standing on the Ugra" began, which lasted a whole month. During the days of standing, Ivan III decided to show cunning and entered into peace negotiations with the Horde. He wanted to wait until the arrival of the specific regiments. While the Horde stood on the Ugra, it plundered the nearby Lithuanian lands in search of food, which turned into a disaster against Casimir himself, who provoked the Horde's attack on Russia. Russian regiments defended the Ugra for as long as necessary. From Dmitriev's day, winter came into its own, "and the rivers all became, and the filth is great, as if the power is not ripening." Ugra was covered with an ice shell. Now the Tatars were able to cross the river anywhere along the entire border from Kaluga to Opokovna. The horde could break through the battle formations of the Russian army, stretching for tens of miles. In such conditions, in the environment of Ivan III, disagreements intensified. Some of his advisers suggested that they immediately retreat to Moscow, and if necessary, even farther to the north. Others demanded decisive action against the Tatars.

In Moscow, they were eagerly awaiting news of the battle with the enemy and the defeat of the Horde. Instead, the capital learned about the peace negotiations with Akhmat Khan and the impending retreat of Russian troops from the Ugra. The news made a painful impression on the metropolitan population, and Metropolitan Gerontius convened a sacred council to strengthen the army to defeat the rotten. In a message to Ivan III dated November 13, 1480, Gerontius “bought” with Vassian of Rostov and other clergy wrote that they “conciliarly” bless the Grand Duke, his son Ivan, brothers Andrei and Boris, boyars and all the soldiers for a feat of arms. The Metropolitan Epistle was written in a solemn, eloquent style, and it was impossible to understand from it what alarmed the church fathers.

Archbishop Vassian Rylo, as Ivan III's confessor, also sent him a personal message. Vassian extolled the sovereign's merits, praised his valor during the battles on the Ugra, but later in the letter there were also critical notes. Vassian undertook to express the general mood. Praising the merits of Dmitry Donskoy, he denounced the cowardice of Ivan III. The meaning of his words was clear to every contemporary.

Vassian Snout implored Ivan III not to listen to evil advisers - "flattering spirits" and old "libertines" whispering "flattering words" in the ear of the sovereign, advising him not to "resist with a companion, but to retreat and betray the verbal flock of Christ's sheep to be plundered by a wolf." At the same time, the confessor expressed extreme concern about the peace negotiations begun by Ivan III with the "desermen Akhmat". In Moscow, apparently, they were poorly aware of the goals and nature of the peace negotiations initiated by Ivan III. Drawing the image of a prince humbly praying to the Horde for peace, the archbishop fell into rhetorical exaggeration, deviating far from the truth.

Vassian did not live long after the events described. His message to Ivan III turned out to be the last testament. The letter of the saint made a tremendous impression on his contemporaries with its boldness, pathos and literary beauty. No one doubted that the confessor was a well-wisher of the Grand Duke. All this explains why the letter of Vassian had a tremendous influence on the formation of the chronicle tradition.

Vassian's version was adopted by chroniclers of various directions, although each gave her his own interpretation. The Rostov chronicler, like the official Moscow one, equally believed that Ivan III had withdrawn the regiments from the Ugra out of fear of the Tatars, but the blame for the retreat was blamed on evil advisers. The Grand Duke ordered to "retreat" to Kremenets, "afraid of the Tatar transition, and listening angry man, the money-lover of the rich and the paunchy, people like him advise the sovereign verbally: go away, you cannot fight with them. "

The Moscow Chronicle, compiled in church circles at the end of the 15th century, went much further than the Rostov chronicle in denouncing the Grand Duke. The author of the chronicle combined the previously made recordings, supplemented them and gave them a new sound. The words about Ivan III's cowardice and cowardice give the chronicler a reason to turn directly to Vassian's letter. Vladyka, who was in Moscow, learned that Ivan III wanted to "flee" from the Tatars, and wrote him a letter. The compiler of the chronicle included full text messages and then commented on it. Striking, on the one hand, is the scribe's disputable awareness and, on the other, his partiality.

The official chronicle limited itself to dully mentioning the devilish advice of the "Mamonovs". The church author revealed the full names of the "evil counselors" and used the case to directly condemn Ivan III. The church author was an informed person, and if we discard his obsessive desire to slander Mamonu, then it will become clear that the prince's advisers were not at all traitors, only thinking about handing over the Christians to the Basurmans. They simply believed that the personal participation of Ivan III in battles with the Tatars was associated with an unjustified risk. In the event of the capture of Ivan III, Moscow could be captured either by the Tatars or by rebellious appanage princes.

Vassian was not afraid to speak the truth in the face of the sovereign, and it was this that gave the church author a reason to portray him as a true denouncer of Ivan III. To this end, the author composed the following story. Having received Vladyka's message, the prince did not listen to his courageous advice and from the Oka "run to Moscow." There he is "shit" by the Metropolitan and Vassian himself. "But Vladyka Vassian began to speak evilly to the great prince, calling him a runner, even verb: all the blood of the Christian will fall on you, that you, having betrayed them, run away, but without fighting the Tatars and not fighting them." It can be argued with good reason that Vassian's speech was fictional from the first to the last word. Ivan III did travel from the Oka to Moscow, but this happened long before he received Vassian's letter. According to the official chronicle, the prince stood on Kolomna from July 23, and on September 30 he arrived in Moscow for four days to prepare the city for the siege. At that time, the Tatars had not yet crossed the Russian border and had not entered into battle with the Russian regiments. Vassian simply had no reason to accuse Ivan III of cowardice and betrayal. The Russian army took up defenses on the Oka, which forced the Tatars to leave the direct route to Moscow to Kaluga.

To highlight the cowardice of Ivan III, the church author claimed that he, being in Moscow, wrote letters to his son Ivan, telling him to leave the army and join his father. However, the heir did not listen to his order, "the courage of showing ... and not driving from the coast, and Christianity is not outstanding." The population of Moscow murmured loudly at the cowardly sovereign. The prince, however, did not dare to live in his Kremlin palace, and for some reason remained in Krasnoe Selo (east of Moscow), "fearing the citizens of the thought of evil capture."

The church author very biasedly portrayed the behavior of the appanage princes Andrei Bolshoi and Boris. Having raised a mutiny, they left Uglich for the Lithuanian border. In view of the threat of a Tatar invasion, Ivan III sent Archbishop Vassian Rylo and boyars to the brothers in Rzhev with the proposal: "Return to your fatherland, but I want to pay you, but I give you Prince Andrew to your fatherland and to our mother as a tribute to Kolug and Oleksin." However, the brothers, seeking a share in the conquered Novgorod, rejected Ivan III's offer. The war with the Horde eventually forced the appanage princes to make peace with Ivan III. From the border they moved to Pskov. The author of the church story tried to whitewash Andrei and Boris and portrayed them as peacemakers. The Pskovites asked Andrei and Boris to take part in the campaign against the Livonian Order, but they "did not go to the Germans" and did not "do" anything good, they only "plundered" the Pskov volosts.

The official chronicler briefly mentions the arrival of ambassadors from Andrei and Boris to Moscow. But the Rostov chronicler clarifies that the initiator of the reconciliation was the clergy, according to whose petition Ivan III ordered his mother to send messengers to the brothers with the promise of "their salary." Waiting for their arrival, Ivan III and started negotiations with the Horde. The scribe's story leaves no doubt that the negotiations were not a manifestation of the indecision or cowardice of Ivan III and his advisers, but were a common diplomatic ploy.

The enemy of Ivan III unwittingly refuted the church legend, noting that the Tatars "ran away" from the Ugra after the onset of severe frosts. Not a miracle of the Mother of God, but the cold drove the Horde out of Russia - such is the thought of the scribe. Undertaking to explain in detail to the reader the meaning and content of Vassinian's letter, the scribe omitted information about the army's "flight" from Ugra to Kremenets and further to Borovsk, since he did not find any hints of this "flight" in Vladyka's letter (the letter was written before the army left).

The influence of the church tradition on the minds of contemporaries was enormous. The news of the exploit of Vassian with oral rumor and thanks to the chronicles spread throughout the country.

During the days of “standing on the Ugra”, the church took a decisive position, insisting on the need to bring the struggle against foreign oppressors to the end. Contrary to legends, Vassian at that time acted not as an accuser and opponent of Ivan III, but as his most reliable ally.

Ivan III did not resemble Dmitry Donskoy, who attacked the Tatars at the head of an advanced regiment. He completely trusted his commanders, among whom two or three people had great military talent. Creating the legend about the heroes of the Ugra, the scribes did not bother to name the voivods who won the victory. The fierce battles on the Ugric crossings should not be viewed as a general engagement or as petty skirmishes. The attacks of the Tatars were repelled at all the fords. The Russian army stopped the Horde at the border lines and did not allow the enemy to reach Moscow. The clashes on the Ugra could serve as a prologue to a general engagement, which would have led to great losses. But Ivan III was not looking for such a battle. He wanted to achieve victory over the Horde with little blood. Patience and caution have always been his principles. Rather than expanding his operations to the scale of a real battle, Ivan III tried to use diplomatic means to stop the bloodshed on the border.

With the general patriotic mood that reigned among the people, Ivan III and his entourage did not at all think about fleeing the Tatars or submitting to the requirements of Akhmat Khan. Diplomacy was intended only to reinforce the military success achieved during the four days of fighting on the Ugra.

The church was involved in the creation of the legend, according to which the Mother of God was the savior of Russia, and not the Grand Duke with the governors and warriors. The miracle of the Mother of God consisted in the fact that the Russians fled from the Ugra to Moscow, fearing the Tatars, and the Horde fled to the steppe, fearing the Russians. In fact, the "standing on the Ugra" ended not with the flight of opponents, but with military operations.

Having won a victory on the Ugra, the Russian people put an end to the hated foreign yoke. The famous "standing on the Ugra" was the most important milestone in the history of Russia.

Conclusion

The Russian Orthodox Church with all its might defended and supported the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow, the strengthening of the grand ducal power and the creation of a centralized state. The grateful grand dukes supported the church in every possible way, provided it with new land holdings, made rich contributions to monasteries and churches with money, expensive things, provided church landowners with tax benefits, allowed them to judge and judge the people living on their lands themselves. This order was called immunity in the West, and it was also established in Russia.

Especially the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church grew after the fall of Constantinople and the transformation of the Russian Church from the middle of the 15th century into autocephalous, i.e. an independent organization, independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Now it was the largest, richest, well-organized Orthodox Church in Eurasia.

The church rendered great help to the grand-princely throne in the struggle against the Catholic aggression of the West and in the liberation of Russia from the rule of the Horde. Throughout all the internecine strife and wars, during the Novgorod revolt, while repelling the constant raids of the Horde invaders, the church has always directed and inspired the Russian people to feat in the name of preserving a single strong state, calling for unity and solidarity.

However, as the princely power strengthened, we see that the position of the church became weaker. Grand Dukes Ivan II and Vasily III could not measure themselves with the existence of a state within a state. And the church, with its enormous religious influence, land wealth, and numerous privileges, began to compete on a par with the princely power. This was noticeably manifested when energetic, intelligent, ambitious figures appeared on the metropolitan throne. So, Ivan III went into conflict with the same Gerontius. Basil III actually deposed him. With the passage of time, the election of the metropolitans began to depend on the grand dukes. The tax and court benefits of the church began to be cut. The grand dukes began to restrict the church in the further expansion of land holdings.

But the church in the 15th - first half of the 16th century. as before remained a powerful religious and moral force, one of the richest landowners in Russia. Monasteries, others church organizations were the focus of great cultural values. Here chronicles were created, picturesque masterpieces were born, schools operated. And the grand-ducal power could not fail to take into account all these points.

And, finally, the church collapsed on those that had arisen in the 15th - early 16th centuries. heresies that undermined not only the existing church order, but also the foundations of the state itself. Heresies opposed the church, and since it supported the state, substantiated the divine origin of the supreme power, the power of the great Moscow princes, the struggle against church foundations was equal to the struggle against state interests.

The Church, in spite of some contradictions with the grand-ducal power, continued to elevate the Russian centralized state in every possible way. It was in the church environment at the beginning of the 16th century. the theory "Moscow is the third Rome" was formed. Its creators argued that Moscow, the Russian state, the grand ducal power are the true heirs of Rome and Ancient Constantinople. They believed that the first Rome was destroyed by Catholicism, the second Rome - Constantinople was mired in sins and was captured by the Turks at the behest of God. Now only Orthodox Moscow is capable of becoming the world center of true Christianity, and the Russian centralized state must fulfill its world mission and save humanity from all sorts of heresies and become a truly world power.