The 17th century was a turning point for Russia. It is noteworthy not only for political, but also for church reforms. As a result of this, "bright Russia" was a thing of the past, and it was replaced by a completely different power, in which there was no longer a unity of worldview and people's behavior.

The spiritual basis of the state was the church. Back in the 15th and 16th centuries, there were conflicts between the non-possessors and the Josephites. In the 17th century, intellectual differences continued and resulted in a split in the Russian Orthodox Church. This was due to a number of reasons.

Origins of the split

During the Time of Troubles, the church was unable to play the role of a "spiritual doctor" and guardian of the moral health of the Russian people. Therefore, after the end of the Time of Troubles, church reform became an urgent problem. The priests were in charge of it. These are Archpriest Ivan Neronov, Stefan Vonifatiev - the confessor of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Archpriest Avvakum.

These people acted in two directions. The first is oral sermons and work among the flock, that is, the closing of taverns, the organization of orphanages and the creation of almshouses. The second is the correction of rites and liturgical books.

The question of polyphony. In church churches, in order to save time, simultaneous services were practiced for various holidays and saints. For centuries, this has not caused criticism from anyone. But after the troubled times, people began to look at polyphony differently. He was named among the main reasons for the spiritual degradation of society. This negative needed to be corrected, and it was corrected. Triumphed in all churches unanimity.

But the conflict situation after that did not come to naught, but only escalated. The essence of the problem lay in the difference between the Moscow and Greek rites. And it concerned, first of all, Composition. The Greeks were baptized with three fingers, and the Great Russians with two. This difference resulted in a dispute about historical correctness.

The question was raised about the legitimacy of the Russian church rite. It included: two-fingered, divine service on seven prosphora, an eight-pointed cross, salting (according to the sun), a special hallelujah, etc. Some clergy began to assert that the liturgical books were distorted as a result of ignorant scribes.

Subsequently, the most authoritative historian of the Russian Orthodox Church, Yevgeny Evsigneevich Golubinsky (1834-1912), proved that the Russians did not distort the rite at all. Under Prince Vladimir in Kyiv, they were baptized with two fingers. That is, exactly the same as in Moscow until the middle of the XVII century.

The thing was that when Russia adopted Christianity, then in Byzantium there were two charters: Jerusalem and studio. In ritual terms, they disagreed. The Eastern Slavs accepted and observed the Jerusalem Charter. As for the Greeks and other Orthodox peoples, as well as the Little Russians, they observed the Studian Rule.

However, it should be noted here that the rites are not dogmas at all. Those are holy and indestructible, and the rites can change. And in Russia this happened several times, and there were no shocks. For example, in 1551, under Metropolitan Cyprian, the Stoglavy Cathedral obliged the inhabitants of Pskov, who practiced three-fingered, to return to two-fingered. This did not result in any conflicts.

But you need to understand that the middle of the 17th century was radically different from the middle of the 16th. People who went through the oprichnina and the Time of Troubles became different. The country faced three choices. Habakkuk's path is isolationism. Nikon's path is the creation of a theocratic Orthodox empire. The path of Peter - joining the European powers with the subordination of the church to the state.

The accession of Ukraine to Russia aggravated the problem. Now I had to think about the uniformity of the church rite. Kyiv monks appeared in Moscow. The most notable of them was Epiphanius Slavinetsky. The Ukrainian guests began to insist on correcting church books and services in accordance with their ideas.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon
The split of the Russian Orthodox Church is inextricably linked with these two people

Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

The fundamental role in the split of the Russian Orthodox Church was played by Patriarch Nikon (1605-1681) and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1629-1676). As for Nikon, he was an extremely vain and power-hungry person. He came from Mordovian peasants, and in the world he bore the name of Nikita Minich. He made a dizzying career, and became famous for his strong temper and excessive severity. It was more characteristic of a secular ruler than a church hierarch.

Nikon was not satisfied with the huge influence on the king and the boyars. He was guided by the principle that "God's is higher than the king's." Therefore, he swung at undivided dominance and power equal to that of the king. The situation favored him. Patriarch Joseph died in 1652. The question arose about the election of a new patriarch, because without the patriarchal blessing it was impossible to hold any state and church events in Moscow.

Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich was an extremely pious and pious person, so he was primarily interested in the speedy election of a new patriarch. In this post, he just wanted to see the Novgorod Metropolitan Nikon, since he highly valued and respected him.

The desire of the king was supported by many boyars, as well as the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch. All this was well known to Nikon, but he strove for absolute power, and therefore resorted to pressure.

The day has come for the procedure of appointment to the patriarchs. The Emperor was also present. But at the very last moment, Nikon announced that he refused to accept the signs of patriarchal dignity. This caused a stir in everyone present. The tsar himself knelt down and, with tears in his eyes, began to ask the wayward clergyman not to renounce his priesthood.

Then Nikon set conditions. He demanded that they honor him as a father and archpastor and let him arrange the Church at his own discretion. The king gave his word and consent. All the boyars supported him. Only then did the newly-made patriarch pick up the symbol of patriarchal power - the staff of the Russian Metropolitan Peter, who lived in Moscow the very first.

Alexei Mikhailovich fulfilled all his promises, and Nikon had enormous power in his hands. In 1652, he even received the title of "Great Sovereign". The new patriarch began to rule harshly. This forced the king in letters to ask him to be softer and more tolerant of people.

Church reform and its main cause

With the coming to power of a new Orthodox ruler in the church rite, at first everything remained as before. Vladyka himself was baptized with two fingers and was a supporter of unanimity. But he began to talk frequently with Epiphanius Slavinetsky. After a very short time, he managed to convince Nikon that it was still necessary to change the church rite.

In Great Lent 1653, a special "memory" was published, in which it was attributed to the flock to accept three fingers. Supporters of Neronov and Vonifatiev opposed this and were exiled. The rest were warned that if they were baptized with two fingers during prayers, they would be betrayed by the church curse. In 1556, the church council officially confirmed this order. After this, the paths of the patriarch and his former associates diverged completely and irrevocably.

This is how the Russian Orthodox Church split. Supporters of the "ancient piety" found themselves in opposition to the official church policy, while the church reform itself was entrusted to the Ukrainian by nationality Epiphanius Slavinetsky and the Greek Arseniy.

Why did Nikon go on about the Ukrainian monks? But much more interesting, why did the tsar, the cathedral and many parishioners also support the innovations? The answers to these questions are relatively simple.

The Old Believers, as the opponents of the innovations began to be called, advocated the superiority of local Orthodoxy. It developed and prevailed in North-Eastern Russia over the traditions of universal Greek Orthodoxy. In fact, "ancient piety" was a platform for narrow Moscow nationalism.

Among the Old Believers, the opinion dominated that the Orthodoxy of the Serbs, Greeks and Ukrainians was inferior. These peoples were seen as victims of delusion. And God punished them for this, giving them under the power of the Gentiles.

But such a worldview did not arouse sympathy in anyone and discouraged any desire to unite with Moscow. That is why Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich, in an effort to expand their power, sided with the Greek version of Orthodoxy. That is, Russian Orthodoxy took on a universal character, which contributed to the expansion of state borders and the strengthening of power.

The decline of the career of Patriarch Nikon

The exorbitant lust for power of the Orthodox Bishop was the cause of his fall. Nikon had many enemies among the boyars. They tried with all their might to set the king against him. In the end, they succeeded. And it all started with little things.

In 1658, during one of the feasts, the tsar's devious man hit a patriarchal man with a stick, paving the way for the tsar through a crowd of people. The one who received the blow was indignant and called himself "the patriarchal boyar son." But then he received another blow with a stick on his forehead.

Nikon was informed about what had happened, and he became indignant. He wrote an angry letter to the tsar, in which he demanded a thorough investigation of this incident and the punishment of the guilty boyar. However, no one started an investigation, and the culprit was never punished. It became clear to everyone that the attitude of the king towards the lord had changed for the worse.

Then the patriarch decided to resort to a proven method. After mass in the Assumption Cathedral, he took off his patriarchal robes and announced that he was leaving the patriarchal place and leaving for a permanent life in the Resurrection Monastery. It was located near Moscow and was called New Jerusalem. The people tried to dissuade the lord, but he was adamant. Then the horses were unharnessed from the carriage, but Nikon did not change his decision and left Moscow on foot.

New Jerusalem Monastery
In it, Patriarch Nikon spent several years before the patriarchal court, at which he was deposed

The throne of the patriarch remained empty. Vladyka believed that the sovereign would be frightened, but he did not appear in New Jerusalem. On the contrary, Aleksey Mikhailovich tried to get the wayward lord to give up his patriarchal power and return all the regalia so that he could legally elect a new spiritual leader. And Nikon told everyone that he could return to the patriarchal throne at any moment. This confrontation continued for several years.

The situation was absolutely unacceptable, and Alexei Mikhailovich turned to the ecumenical patriarchs. However, their arrival had to wait a long time. Only in 1666 two of the four patriarchs arrived in the capital. These are Alexandrian and Antioch, but they had powers from their other two counterparts.

Nikon really did not want to appear before the patriarchal court. But still he was forced to do it. As a result, the wayward lord was deprived of his high rank. But the long conflict did not change the situation with the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. The same council of 1666-1667 officially approved all the church reforms that were carried out under the leadership of Nikon. True, he himself turned into a simple monk. They exiled him to a distant northern monastery, from where the man of God watched the triumph of his policy.

Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action

Nothing strikes like a miracle, except for the naivete with which it is taken for granted.

Mark Twain

The church schism in Russia is associated with the name of Patriarch Nikon, who in the 50s and 60s of the 17th century staged a grandiose reform of the Russian church. The changes affected literally all church structures. The need for such changes was due to the religious backwardness of Russia, as well as significant misprints in religious texts. The implementation of the reform led to a split not only in the church, but also in society. People openly opposed the new trends in religion, actively expressing their position with uprisings and popular unrest. In today's article, we will talk about the reform of Patriarch Nikon, as one of the most important events of the 17th century, which had a huge impact not only for the church, but for the whole of Russia.

Prerequisites for the reform

According to the assurances of many historians who study the 17th century, a unique situation developed in Russia at that time, when the religious rites in the country were very different from the global ones, including from the Greek rites, from where Christianity came to Russia. In addition, it is often said that religious texts, as well as icons, were distorted. Therefore, the following phenomena can be singled out as the main causes of the church schism in Russia:

• Books that have been hand-copied for centuries have had typographical errors and distortions.
• Difference from world religious rites. In particular, in Russia until the 17th century everyone was baptized with two fingers, and in other countries with three.
• conducting church ceremonies. The rites were conducted according to the principle of "polyphony", which was expressed in the fact that at the same time the service was conducted by the priest, and the clerk, and the singers, and the parishioners. As a result, polyphony was formed, in which it was difficult to make out something.

The Russian tsar was one of the first to point out these problems, proposing to take measures to restore order in religion.

Patriarch Nikon

Tsar Alexei Romanov, who wanted to reform the Russian church, decided to appoint Nikon to the post of Patriarch of the country. It was this man who was instructed to carry out reform in Russia. The choice was, to put it mildly, rather strange, since the new patriarch had no experience in holding such events, and also did not enjoy respect among other priests.

Patriarch Nikon was known to the world under the name Nikita Minov. He was born and raised in a simple peasant family. From an early age, he paid great attention to his religious education, studying prayers, stories and rituals. At the age of 19, Nikita became a priest in his native village. At the age of thirty, the future patriarch moved to the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow. It was here that he met the young Russian Tsar Alexei Romanov. The views of the two people were quite similar, which determined the fate of Nikita Minov.

Patriarch Nikon, as many historians note, was distinguished not so much by his knowledge, but by cruelty and dominance. He literally raved about the idea of ​​obtaining unlimited power, which was, for example, Patriarch Filaret. Trying to prove his importance for the state and for the Russian tsar, Nikon manifests himself in every possible way, including not only in the religious field. For example, in 1650 he actively participated in the suppression of the uprising, being the main initiator of the brutal reprisals against all the rebels.

Lust for power, cruelty, literacy - all this was combined into a patriarchy. These were exactly the qualities that were needed for the reform of the Russian church.

Implementation of the reform

The reform of Patriarch Nikon began to be implemented in 1653-1655. This reform carried in itself fundamental changes in religion, which were expressed in the following:

• Baptism with three fingers instead of two.
• Bows should be made to the waist, and not to the ground, as it was before.
• Religious books and icons have been changed.
• The concept of "Orthodoxy" was introduced.
• Changed the name of God, in accordance with the global spelling. Now instead of "Jesus" it was written "Jesus".
• Replacement of the Christian cross. Patriarch Nikon proposed replacing it with a four-pointed cross.
• Changing the rites of the church service. Now the procession was performed not clockwise, as it was before, but counterclockwise.

All this is described in detail in the Church Catechism. Surprisingly, if we consider Russian history textbooks, especially school textbooks, the reform of Patriarch Nikon comes down to only the first and second points of the above. Rare textbooks say in the third paragraph. The rest is not even mentioned. As a result, one gets the impression that the Russian patriarch did not carry out any cardinal reformatory activity, but this was not so... The reforms were cardinal. They crossed out everything that was before. It is no coincidence that these reforms are also called the church schism of the Russian church. The very word "split" indicates a fundamental change.

Let's look at the individual provisions of the reform in more detail. This will allow you to correctly understand the essence of the phenomena of those days.

The Scriptures Predetermined the Church Schism in Russia

Patriarch Nikon, arguing for his reform, said that church texts in Russia have many typos that should be eliminated. It was said that one should turn to Greek sources in order to understand the original meaning of religion. In fact, it was not implemented quite like that...

In the 10th century, when Russia adopted Christianity, there were 2 statutes in Greece:

• Studio. The main charter of the Christian church. For many years it was considered the main one in the Greek Church, therefore it was the Studium charter that came to Russia. For 7 centuries, the Russian Church in all religious matters was guided by this charter.
• Jerusalem. It is more modern, aimed at the unity of all religions and the commonality of their interests. The charter, starting from the 12th century, becomes the main one in Greece, it also becomes the main one in other Christian countries.

The process of rewriting Russian texts is also indicative. It was planned to take Greek sources and, on their basis, bring religious scriptures into line. For this, in 1653 Arseny Sukhanov was sent to Greece. The expedition lasted almost two years. He arrived in Moscow on February 22, 1655. He brought with him as many as 7 manuscripts. In fact, this violated the church council of 1653-55. Most of the priests then spoke in favor of the idea of ​​supporting Nikon's reform only on the grounds that the rewriting of texts had to come exclusively from Greek manuscript sources.

Arseniy Sukhanov brought only seven sources, thus making it impossible to rewrite texts based on primary sources. Patriarch Nikon's next step was so cynical that it led to mass uprisings. The Moscow Patriarch stated that if there are no handwritten sources, then the rewriting of Russian texts will be carried out according to modern Greek and Roman books. At that time, all these books were printed in Paris (Catholic state).

ancient religion

For a very long time, the reforms of Patriarch Nikon were justified by the fact that he made the Orthodox Church enlightened. As a rule, there is nothing behind such formulations, since the vast majority of people can hardly imagine what is the fundamental difference between orthodox and enlightened beliefs. Really what's the difference? To begin with, let's deal with the terminology and define the meaning of the concept of "orthodox".

Orthodox (orthodox) came from the Greek language and means: orthos - correct, doha - opinion. It turns out that an orthodox person, in the true sense of the word, is a person with a correct opinion.

Historical guide

Here, the correct opinion does not mean the modern sense (when people who do everything for the sake of the state are called so). So they called people who for centuries carried ancient science and ancient knowledge. A striking example is the Jewish school. Everyone knows perfectly well that today there are Jews, and there are Orthodox Jews. They believe in the same thing, they have a common religion, common views, beliefs. The difference is that Orthodox Jews brought their true faith in its ancient, true meaning. And everyone admits it.

From this point of view, it is much easier to evaluate the actions of Patriarch Nikon. His attempts to destroy the orthodox church, which is what he planned to do and successfully did, lie in the destruction of the ancient religion. And for the most part, this has been done:

• All ancient religious texts were rewritten. They did not stand on ceremony with old books; as a rule, they were destroyed. This process outlived the patriarch himself for many years. For example, Siberian legends are indicative, which say that under Peter 1 a huge amount of orthodox literature was burned. After burning, more than 650 kg of copper fasteners were removed from the fires!
• The icons were repainted in accordance with the new religious requirements and in accordance with the reform.
• The principles of religion are changed, sometimes even without the necessary justification. For example, Nikon's idea that the procession should go counterclockwise, against the movement of the sun, is absolutely incomprehensible. This caused a lot of resentment as people began to regard the new religion as a religion of darkness.
• Change of concepts. The term "Orthodoxy" appeared for the first time. Until the 17th century, this term was not used, but such concepts as "orthodox", "true faith", "immaculate faith", "Christian faith", "God's faith" were used. Various terms, but not "Orthodoxy".

Therefore, we can say that the orthodox religion is as close as possible to the ancient postulates. That is why any attempt to fundamentally change these views leads to mass indignation, as well as to what is commonly called heresy today. It was heresy that many people called the reforms of Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century. That is why the church split, because the "orthodox" priests and religious people called what was happening heresy, and saw how fundamental the difference between the old and the new religion was.

The reaction of the people to the church schism

The reaction to Nikon's reform is extremely indicative, emphasizing that the changes were much deeper than is usually said. It is known for certain that after the start of the implementation of the reform, massive popular uprisings swept across the country, directed against changes in the church way of life. Some people openly expressed their dissatisfaction, others simply left this country, not wanting to remain in this heresy. People went to the forests, to distant settlements, to other countries. They were caught, brought back, they left again - and so many times. Indicative is the reaction of the state, which actually staged the Inquisition. Not only books were burning, but also people. Nikon, who was particularly cruel, personally welcomed all the reprisals against the rebels. Thousands of people died opposing the reformist ideas of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The reaction of the people and the state to the reform is indicative. We can say that mass unrest began. And now answer the simple question, are such uprisings and reprisals possible in the case of simple superficial changes? To answer this question, it is necessary to transfer the events of those days to today's reality. Let's imagine that today the Patriarch of Moscow says that now it is necessary to be baptized, for example, with four fingers, to make bows with a nod of the head, and books should be changed in accordance with ancient scriptures. How will people perceive this? Most likely, it is neutral, and with some propaganda, even positive.

Another situation. Suppose that the Moscow Patriarch today obliges everyone to be baptized with four fingers, use nods instead of bows, wear a Catholic cross instead of an Orthodox one, hand over all the books of the icon so that they can be rewritten and redrawn, the name of God will now be, for example, "Jesus", and the procession will go for example an arc. This nature of the reform will certainly lead to an uprising of religious people. Everything changes, crosses out the whole age-old religious history. This is exactly what Nikon's reform did. Therefore, a church schism occurred in the 17th century, since the contradictions between the Old Believers and Nikon were insoluble.

What did the reform lead to?

Nikon's reform should be assessed from the point of view of the realities of that day. Of course, the patriarch destroyed the ancient religion of Russia, but he did what the tsar wanted from him - bringing the Russian church into line with international religion. And there were both pros and cons:

• Pros. The Russian religion has ceased to be isolated, and has become more like Greek and Roman. This made it possible to create great religious ties with other states.
• Minuses. Religion in Russia at the time of the 17th century was most oriented towards original Christianity. It was here that there were ancient icons, ancient books and ancient rituals. All this was destroyed for the sake of integration with other states, in modern terms.

Nikon's reforms cannot be regarded as the total destruction of everything (although this is what most authors are doing, including the principle of "everything is lost"). We can only say with certainty that the Moscow Patriarch made significant changes to the ancient religion and deprived Christians of a significant part of their cultural and religious heritage.

The religious and political movement of the 17th century, which resulted in the separation from the Russian Orthodox Church of a part of the believers who did not accept the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, was called a schism.

The reason for the schism was the correction of church books. The need for such a correction has been felt for a long time, since many opinions were introduced into the books that disagree with the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

The elimination of discrepancies and the correction of liturgical books, as well as the elimination of local differences in church practice, were advocated by members of the Circle of Zealots of Piety, which was formed in the late 1640s and early 1650s and lasted until 1652. The rector of the Kazan Cathedral, Archpriest Ivan Neronov, Archpriests Avvakum, Loggin, Lazar believed that the Russian Church had preserved ancient piety, and proposed to carry out unification based on ancient Russian liturgical books. The confessor of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Stefan Vonifatyev, nobleman Fyodor Rtishchev, who were later joined by Archimandrite Nikon (later Patriarch), advocated following Greek liturgical patterns and strengthening their ties with the Eastern Autocephalous Orthodox Churches.

In 1652, Metropolitan Nikon was elected patriarch. He entered into the administration of the Russian Church with the determination to restore its full harmony with the Greek Church, destroying all the ritual features that distinguished the former from the latter. The first step taken by Patriarch Nikon on the path of liturgical reform, taken immediately after joining the Patriarchate, was to compare the text of the Creed in the edition of printed Moscow liturgical books with the text of the Symbol inscribed on the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius. Finding discrepancies between them (as well as between the Missal and other books), Patriarch Nikon decided to start correcting the books and rites. Conscious of his "duty" to abolish all liturgical and ritual differences with the Greek Church, Patriarch Nikon set about correcting Russian liturgical books and church rites according to Greek models.

Approximately six months after ascending to the patriarchal throne, on February 11, 1653, Patriarch Nikon indicated that the chapters on the number of bows at the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian and on the sign of the cross with two fingers should be omitted from the publication of the Followed Psalter. 10 days later, at the beginning of Lent in 1653, the patriarch sent a “Memory” to the Moscow churches about replacing part of the prostrations at the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian with waist ones and about using the sign of the cross with three fingers instead of the two-fingered one. It was this decree on how many prostrations should be made when reading the Lenten Prayer of Ephraim the Syrian (four instead of 16), as well as the order to be baptized with three fingers instead of two, which caused a huge protest of believers against such a liturgical reform, which eventually grew into a church schism.

Also during the reform, the liturgical tradition was changed in the following points:

Large-scale "book right", expressed in the editing of the texts of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, which led to changes even in the wording of the Creed - the union-opposition was removed "a" in the words about faith in the Son of God “born, not created”, they began to talk about the Kingdom of God in the future ("there will be no end"), not in present tense ( "no end"). In the eighth member of the Creed (“In the Holy Spirit of the true Lord”), the word is excluded from the definition of the properties of the Holy Spirit "True". Many other innovations were also introduced into historical liturgical texts, for example, by analogy with Greek texts in the name "Jesus" in newly printed books, another letter was added and it began to be written "Jesus".

At the divine service, instead of singing “Alleluia” twice (an ominous hallelujah), it was ordered to sing three times (a treble one). Instead of circumambulating the temple during baptism and weddings in the sun, circumambulation against the sun was introduced, and not salting. Instead of seven prosphora, five prosphora were served at the liturgy. Instead of an eight-pointed cross, they began to use four-pointed and six-pointed.

In addition, the subject of criticism of Patriarch Nikon was Russian icon painters, who deviated from Greek models in painting icons and applied the techniques of Catholic painters. Further, the patriarch introduced, instead of the ancient monophonic singing, polyphonic partes, as well as the custom of delivering sermons of his own composition in church - in ancient Russia they saw such sermons as a sign of self-conceit. Nikon himself loved and knew how to pronounce the teachings of his own composition.

The reforms of Patriarch Nikon weakened both the Church and the state. Seeing the resistance from the zealots and their like-minded people to the attempted correction of church rites and liturgical books, Nikon decided to give this correction the authority of the highest spiritual authority, i.e. cathedral. Nikon's innovations were approved by the Church Councils of 1654-1655. Only one of the members of the Council, Bishop Pavel of Kolomna, tried to express disagreement with the decree on prostrations, the same decree against which the zealous archpriests had already objected. Nikon treated Paul not only harshly, but very cruelly: he forced him to condemn, removed his bishop's mantle, tortured him and sent him to prison. During 1653-1656, corrected or newly translated liturgical books were published at the Printing Yard.

From the point of view of Patriarch Nikon, corrections and liturgical reforms, bringing the rites of the Russian Church closer to Greek liturgical practice, were absolutely necessary. But this is a very controversial issue: there was no urgent need for them, it was possible to confine ourselves to eliminating inaccuracies in liturgical books. Some differences with the Greeks did not prevent us from being fully Orthodox. Undoubtedly, the too hasty and abrupt breakup of the Russian church rite and liturgical traditions was not forced by any real, urgent need and necessity of the then church life.

The dissatisfaction of the population was caused by violent measures, with the help of which Patriarch Nikon introduced new books and rituals into use. Some members of the Circle of Zealots of Piety were the first to speak out for the "old faith", against the reforms and actions of the patriarch. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniil submitted a note to the tsar in defense of double-fingering and about prostrations during divine services and prayers. Then they began to argue that making corrections according to Greek models defiles the true faith, since the Greek Church has departed from the "ancient piety", and its books are printed in Catholic printing houses. Archimandrite Ivan Neronov spoke out against the strengthening of the power of the patriarch and for the democratization of church administration. The clash between Nikon and the defenders of the "old faith" took on sharp forms. Avvakum, Ivan Neronov and other opponents of the reforms were severely persecuted. The speeches of the defenders of the "old faith" received support in various strata of Russian society, ranging from individual representatives of the highest secular nobility to peasants. Among the masses, a lively response was found by the sermons of the schismatics about the onset of the "end time", about the accession of the Antichrist, who allegedly had already bowed to the king, the patriarch and all authorities and carried out his will.

The Great Moscow Cathedral of 1667 anathematized (excommunicated) those who, after repeated exhortations, refused to accept new rites and newly printed books, and also continued to scold the Church, accusing her of heresy. The cathedral also deprived Nikon himself of the patriarchal rank. The deposed patriarch was sent to prison - first to Ferapontov, and then to Kirillo Belozersky Monastery.

Carried away by the preaching of schismatics, many townspeople, especially peasants, fled to the dense forests of the Volga region and the North, to the southern outskirts of the Russian state and abroad, founded their communities there.

From 1667 to 1676, the country was engulfed in riots in the capital and on the outskirts. Then, in 1682, the Streltsy riots began, in which the schismatics played an important role. The schismatics attacked monasteries, robbed monks, and seized churches.

A terrible consequence of the split was burning - mass self-immolation. The earliest report of them dates back to 1672, when 2,700 people set themselves on fire in the Paleostrovsky Monastery. From 1676 to 1685, according to documented information, about 20,000 people died. Self-immolations continued into the 18th century, and in some cases at the end of the 19th century.

The main result of the schism was a church division with the formation of a special branch of Orthodoxy - old believers. By the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries, there were various currents of the Old Believers, which received the names of "talks" and "consent". The Old Believers were divided into priesthood and priestlessness. Popovtsy recognized the need for the clergy and all church sacraments, they were settled in the Kerzhensky forests (now the territory of the Nizhny Novgorod region), the regions of Starodubye (now the Chernigov region, Ukraine), the Kuban (Krasnodar Territory), the Don River.

Bespopovtsy lived in the north of the state. After the death of the priests of the pre-schism ordination, they rejected the priests of the new ordination, so they began to be called bespopovtsy. The sacraments of baptism and repentance and all church services, except for the liturgy, were performed by elected laity.

Until 1685, the government suppressed riots and executed several leaders of the schism, but there was no special law on the persecution of schismatics for their faith. In 1685, under Princess Sophia, a decree was issued on the persecution of detractors of the Church, instigators of self-immolation, harborers of schismatics up to the death penalty (some by burning, others by sword). Other Old Believers were ordered to be beaten with a whip, and, depriving of property, exiled to monasteries. The concealers of the Old Believers "beat with batogs and, after the confiscation of property, also exiled to the monastery."

During the persecution of the Old Believers, a riot in the Solovetsky monastery was brutally suppressed, during which 400 people died in 1676. In Borovsk, in captivity from starvation in 1675, two sisters died - the noblewoman Feodosia Morozova and Princess Evdokia Urusova. The head and ideologist of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum, as well as the priest Lazar, the deacon Theodore, the monk Epiphanius were exiled to the Far North and imprisoned in an earthen prison in Pustozersk. After 14 years of imprisonment and torture, they were burned alive in a log house in 1682.

Patriarch Nikon had nothing to do with the persecution of the Old Believers - from 1658 until his death in 1681, he was first in voluntary, and then in forced exile.

Gradually, most of the Old Believer agreements, especially priesthood, lost their oppositional character in relation to the official Russian Church, and the Old Believer priests themselves began to make attempts to get closer to the Church. Having retained their ritualism, they submitted to the local diocesan bishops. This is how common faith arose: on October 27, 1800, in Russia, by decree of Emperor Paul, common faith was established as a form of reunification of the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church. The Old Believers, who wished to return to the synodal Church, were allowed to serve according to the old books and observe the old rites, among which the greatest importance was attached to double-fingeredness, but Orthodox clergy performed divine services and trebs.

The priests, who did not want to go to reconciliation with the official Church, created their own church. In 1846, they recognized as their head the Bosnian archbishop Ambrose, who was at rest, who “consecrated” the first two “bishops” to the Old Believers. From them, the so-called. Belokrinitskaya hierarchy. The Belokrinitsky Monastery in the town of Belaya Krinitsa in the Austrian Empire (now the territory of the Chernivtsi region, Ukraine) became the center of this Old Believer organization. In 1853, the Moscow Old Believer Archdiocese was created, which became the second center of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy. Part of the community of priests, who began to be called fugitives(they accepted "runaway" priests - those who came to them from the Orthodox Church), did not recognize the Belokrinitsky hierarchy.

Soon, 12 dioceses of the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy were established in Russia with an administrative center - an Old Believer settlement at the Rogozhsky cemetery in Moscow. They began to call themselves the "Old Orthodox Church of Christ."

In July 1856, by decree of Emperor Alexander II, the police sealed the altars of the Pokrovsky and Nativity Cathedrals of the Old Believer Rogozhsky cemetery in Moscow. The reason was denunciations that liturgies were solemnly celebrated in churches, "tempting" the faithful of the Synodal Church. Divine services were held in private prayer houses, in the houses of the capital's merchants and manufacturers.

On April 16, 1905, on the eve of Easter, a telegram from Nicholas II arrived in Moscow, allowing "to print the altars of the Old Believer chapels of the Rogozhsky cemetery." The next day, April 17, the imperial "Decree on Religious Tolerance" was promulgated, which guaranteed freedom of religion to the Old Believers.

The revolutionary events of the early 20th century gave rise in the church environment to considerable concessions to the spirit of the times, which then penetrated into many church heads, who did not notice the replacement of Orthodox catholicity by Protestant democratization. The ideas that many Old Believers of the early 20th century were obsessed with were of a pronounced liberal revolutionary nature: “equalization of status”, “cancellation” of Council decisions, “the principle of electiveness of all clerical and clergy positions”, etc. - Stamps of the emancipated time, in a more radical form, reflected in the "widest democratization" and "the widest access to the bosom of the Heavenly Father" of the Renovationist schism. It is not surprising that these imaginary opposites (Old Believers and Renovationism), according to the law of dialectical development, soon converged in the synthesis of new Old Believer sects with Renovationist false hierarchs at the head.

Here is one example. When the revolution broke out in Russia, new schismatics, the Renovationists, appeared in the Church. One of them, Renovationist Archbishop Nikolai of Saratov (P.A. Pozdnev, 1853-1934), who was banned, became in 1923 the founder of the hierarchy of the “Old Orthodox Church” among the fugitives who did not recognize the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy. Its administrative center moved several times, and since 1963 settled in Novozybkovo, Bryansk region, which is why they are also called "Novozybkovtsy"...

In 1929, the Patriarchal Holy Synod formulated three resolutions:

- “On the recognition of the old Russian rites as saving, like the new rites, and equal to them”;

- “On the rejection and imputation, as if not the former, of reprehensible expressions relating to the old rites, and especially to the two-fingered”;

- “On the abolition of the oaths of the Moscow Cathedral of 1656 and the Great Moscow Cathedral of 1667, imposed by them on the old Russian rites and on Orthodox Christians adhering to them, and to consider these oaths as if they had not been.”

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1971 approved three resolutions of the Synod of 1929. The Acts of the Council of 1971 end with the following words: “The Consecrated Local Council lovingly embraces all those who keep sacred the ancient Russian rites, both members of our Holy Church and those who call themselves Old Believers, but those who profess the salvific Orthodox faith."

The well-known church historian Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, speaking about the adoption of this act of the Council of 1971, states: “After the act of the Council, filled with the spirit of Christian love and humility, the Old Believer communities did not take a counter step aimed at healing the schism, and continue to stay out of communion with the Church” .

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

Nikon wanted not just to correct some errors of scribes, but to change all the old Russian church rites and rites in accordance with the new Greek ones. “The tragedy of the schismatic reform consisted in the fact that an attempt was made to “rule the right along the crooked”. Archpriest Avvakum, in these words, conveyed the order of Patriarch Nikon to “correct” the books to the “referencer”, the student of the Jesuits, Arseny the Greek: “Rule, Arsen, somehow, if only not in the old way". And where in the liturgical books it was previously written "lads" - it became "children", where it was written "children" - it became "lads"; where there was a "church" - it became a "temple", where there was a "temple" - there is a "church" ... There were also such frank absurdities as "the radiance of noise", "to comprehend the hair (i.e. with the eyes)", "to see with the finger", “cross-shaped hands of Moses”, not to mention the prayer “to the evil spirit” inserted into the rite of baptism.

1. Two-finger replaced with three-finger
2. The ancient custom of electing clerics by the parish was abolished - he began to be appointed
3. Recognition of secular power by the head of the church - modeled on Protestant churches
4. Prostration canceled
5. Marriages with non-Christians and relatives are allowed
6. The eight-pointed cross was replaced by a four-pointed one.
7. During the processions, they began to walk against the sun
8. The word Jesus began to be written with two and - Jesus
9. Liturgy began to be served on 5 prosphora instead of 7
10. Praise the Lord four times instead of three times
11. The word of the true is removed from the Creed from the words about the Holy Lord
12. Changed the form of the Jesus Prayer
13. Pour baptism instead of submersible baptism became acceptable
14. The shape of the pulpit was changed
15. The white hood of the Russian hierarchs was replaced by the kamilavka of the Greeks
16. Changed the ancient shape of the bishop's staves
17. Changed church singing and canons of writing icons

1. Two-fingering, an ancient, inherited from the apostolic times, form of signing of fingers with the sign of the cross, was called the “Armenian heresy” and was replaced by three-fingered. The so-called malaksa, or nominative signage, was introduced as a priestly signet for blessing. In the interpretation of the sign of the cross with two fingers, two outstretched fingers mean the two natures of Christ (Divine and human), and three (fifth, fourth and first), folded at the palm, mean the Holy Trinity. Introducing the trinity (meaning only the Trinity), Nikon not only neglected the dogma of the God-manhood of Christ, but also introduced a “God-passionate” heresy (that is, in fact, he claimed that not only the human nature of Christ suffered on the cross, but the entire Holy Trinity). This innovation, introduced in the Russian Church by Nikon, was a very serious dogmatic distortion, since the sign of the cross has always been a visible symbol of faith for Orthodox Christians. The truth and antiquity of the two-fingered addition is confirmed by many testimonies. These include ancient images that have come down to our time (for example, a 3rd-century fresco from the Tomb of St. Priscilla in Rome, a 4th-century mosaic depicting the Miraculous Fishing from the Church of St. Apollinaris in Rome, a painted image of the Annunciation from the Church of St. century); and numerous Russian and Greek icons of the Savior, the Mother of God and saints, miraculously revealed and painted in ancient times (all of them are listed in detail in the fundamental Old Believer theological work “Pomor Answers”); and the ancient rite of acceptance from the heresy of the Jacobites, which, according to the testimony of the Council of Constantinople in 1029, the Greek Church contained as early as the 11th century: “He who does not baptize two fingers, like Christ, be damned”; and ancient books - Joseph, archimandrite of the Spassky New Monastery, the cell Psalter of Cyril Novoezersky, in the original Greek of the book of Nikon Chernogorets and others: “If anyone is not marked with two fingers, like Christ, let him be damned”3; and the custom of the Russian Church, adopted at the Baptism of Russia from the Greeks and not interrupted until the time of Patriarch Nikon. This custom was conciliarly confirmed in the Russian Church at the Stoglavy Cathedral in 1551: let him be cursed, like the Holy Fathers rekosha. In addition to the above, evidence that the two-fingered sign of the cross is a tradition of the ancient Ecumenical Church (and not only the local Russian) is also the text of the Greek Pilot, where the following is written: there they depicted him with two fingers - middle and index, as Peter of Damascus says. The whole hand, says Peter, signifies the one hypostasis of Christ, and the two fingers, His two natures. As for the tripartite, not a single piece of evidence in its favor has yet been found in any ancient monuments.

2. The bows of the earth accepted in the pre-schism Church, which are an undoubted church tradition established by Christ Himself, were canceled, as evidenced in the Gospel (Christ prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, "fell on His face", that is, he made prostrations) and in patristic writings . The abolition of prostrations was perceived as a revival of the ancient heresy of non-worshippers, since prostrations in general and, in particular, performed during Great Lent are a visible sign of reverence for God and His saints, as well as a visible sign of deep repentance. In the preface to the Psalter of 1646, the edition said: “Cursed be this, and such wickedness is rejected from heretics, if not to bow to the ground, in our prayers to God, in the church on the appointed days. It’s the same about this, and not without a decree from the charter of the holy fathers, such wickedness and heresy have taken root in many people, like knee-deep inflexibility, in Holy Great Lent, and any pious, like the catholic church, the apostolic son can not hear. Such wickedness and heresy, may there be such evil in us in the Orthodox, as the holy fathers say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. At the baptism of infants, the New Believers began to allow and even justify the pouring and sprinkling of water, contrary to the apostolic decrees on the need for baptism in three immersions (50th canon of the Holy Apostles). In this regard, the rank of Catholics and Protestants was changed. If, according to the ancient church canons, confirmed by the Council of 1620, which was under Patriarch Filaret, Catholics and Protestants were required to be baptized with a full triple immersion, now they were accepted into the dominant church only through chrismation.

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

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

12. The white hood of the Russian hierarchs - a symbol of the purity and holiness of the Russian clergy, which distinguished them among the ecumenical patriarchs - was replaced by Nikon with the "horned kamilavka" of the Greeks. In the eyes of Russian pious people, the “horned hoods” were compromised by the fact that they were repeatedly denounced in a number of polemical writings against the Latins (for example, in the story about Peter Gugniv, which was part of the Palea, Cyril Book and Makariev’s Four Mena). In general, under Nikon, there was a change in all the clothes of the Russian clergy according to the modern Greek model (which, in turn, was strongly influenced by Turkish fashion - wide sleeves of cassocks like oriental robes and kamilavki like Turkish fez). According to Paul of Aleppo, following Nikon, many bishops and monks wished to change their robes. “Many of them came to our teacher (Patriarch Macarius of Antioch. - K.K.) and asked him to give them a kamilavka and a klobuk ... Whoever managed to acquire them and who Patriarch Nikon or ours put them on, those faces opened and shone. On this occasion, they vying with each other began to order kamilavki for themselves from black cloth in the same form that we and the Greek monks had, and the hoods were made of black silk. They spat in front of us on their old hoods, throwing them off their heads and saying: “If this Greek robe was not of divine origin, our patriarch would not have put it on first” 7. Regarding this insane spitting on his native antiquity and servility to foreign customs and orders, Archpriest Avvakum wrote: “Oh, oh, poor people! Russia, something you wanted German actions and customs! and called on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: “Breathe in the old way, as it used to be under Stefan, kindly, and say in Russian:“ Lord, have mercy on me a sinner! that's what the hell they say; spit on them! After all, Mikhailovich, you are a Russian, not a Greek. Speak in your natural language; do not humiliate Evo in church and at home, and in proverbs. As Christ taught us, so it is fitting to speak. God loves us no less than the Greeks; betrayed to us the letter with our tongue by the saint Cyril and his brother. What do we want better? Is it the language of an angel? No, they won’t give it now, until the general resurrection.”9

13. The ancient form of the bishop's staffs has been changed. On this occasion, Archpriest Avvakum wrote indignantly: “Yes, he, the wicked Nikon, started in our Russia with his like-minded people the worst and most unpleasing deed - instead of the rod of St. , even the Lord himself cursed from all cattle and from all the animals of the earth. And now they sanctify and revere that accursed serpent more than all cattle and beasts and bring it into the sanctuary of God, into the altar and into the royal doors, like some kind of sanctification and the whole church service with those wands and with the damned snakes made they act everywhere, like some kind of precious treasure, before their face to show the whole world those snakes are commanded, they also form the consumption of the Orthodox faith "10.

14. Instead of ancient singing, a new one was introduced - first Polish-Little Russian, and then Italian. New icons began to be painted not according to ancient patterns, but according to Western ones, which is why they became more like secular paintings than icons. All this contributed to the cultivation in believers of an unhealthy sensuality and exaltation, previously not characteristic of Orthodoxy. Gradually, the ancient iconography was completely replaced by salon religious painting, which slavishly and unskillfully imitated Western models and bore the loud name of “Italian-style icons” or “in Italian taste”, about which the Old Believer theologian Andrei Denisov spoke in such a way in “Pomor Answers”: “The current painters , that (that is, the apostolic. - K.K.) changed the sacred tradition, they write icons not from the ancient likeness of the holy miracle-working icons of Greek and Russian, but from their own judicious thinking: the appearance of the flesh becomes whiter (thick), and in other inscriptions they are not like the ancient saints having icons, but similar to Latin and others, which are printed in the Bibles and painted on canvases. This pictorial new edition gives rise to doubts for us…”11 Archpriest Avvakum characterizes this kind of religious painting even more sharply: “By God’s permission, the icons of unsimilar art have multiplied in our Russian land… The Savior’s image of Emmanuel is being painted; his face is puffy, his mouth is red, his hair is curly, his arms and muscles are thick, his fingers are puffed up, and the thighs are thick at the feet, and the whole belly and fat of a German man is made, only that saber is not written at the hip. Otherwise, everything is written according to carnal intent: because the heretics themselves love carnal fatness and refuted the valley above ... And the Mother of God is fraught with the Annunciation, as well as filthy filth. And Christ is swollen on the cross: a fat little guy is standing there, and his legs are like chairs.

15. Marriages were allowed with non-Christians and persons in degrees of kinship forbidden by the Church.

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

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

The main reason for the split of the Russian Church lay in the spiritual sphere. Traditionally, Russian religiosity attached great importance to rituals, considering them the basis of faith. According to many Orthodox, the Greeks "shook" in faith, for which they were punished by the loss of the "Orthodox kingdom" (the fall of Byzantium). Therefore, "old Russian antiquity", they believed, is the only correct faith.

Nikon reform

The reform of Patriarch Nikon mainly concerned the rules for conducting a church ceremony. It was prescribed that the worshiper make the sign of the cross with three fingers (fingers), as was customary in the Greek church, instead of two, as previously existed in Russia; waist bows were introduced during prayer instead of earthly bows; it was prescribed during the service in the church to sing "Hallelujah" (praise) not two, but three times; during the procession, move not according to the sun (salting), but against; write the name Jesus with two "and", and not with one, as before; new words were introduced into the process of worship.

Church books and icons were corrected according to newly printed Greek models instead of Old Russian ones. Uncorrected books and icons were publicly burned.

The council supported Nikon's church reform and cursed its opponents. That part of the population that did not accept the reform began to be called Old Believers or old believer-mi. The Council's decision deepened the schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.

The movement of the Old Believers became widespread. People went to the forests, to the deserted places of the North, the Volga region, Siberia. Large settlements of Old Believers appeared in the Nizhny Novgorod and Bryansk forests. They founded sketes (remote settlements in remote places), where they performed rituals according to the old rules. The tsarist troops were sent against the Old Believers. At their approach, some Old Believers with their whole families closed themselves in houses and burned themselves.

Archpriest Avvakum

The Old Believers demonstrated firmness and adherence to the old faith. Archpriest Avvakum (1620/1621-1682) became the spiritual leader of the Old Believers.

Avvakum advocated the preservation of the old Orthodox rites. He was imprisoned in the monastery prison and offered to renounce his views. He didn't. Then he was exiled to Siberia. But he did not relent there either. At the Church Council he was defrocked and cursed. In response, Avvakum himself cursed the Church Council. He was exiled to the polar prison Pustozersk, where he spent 14 years with his associates in an earthen pit. In captivity, Avvakum wrote an autobiographical book, Life (before that, they wrote only about the lives of saints). On April 14, 1682, he, along with "fellow prisoners ... for great blasphemy," was burned at the stake. material from the site

Feodosia Morozova

Boyar Theodosia Prokopyevna Morozova was a supporter of the Old Believers. She made her rich house a refuge for all those persecuted "for the old faith." Morozova did not succumb to persuasion to move away from the old faith. Neither the persuasion of the patriarch and other bishops, nor cruel torture, nor the confiscation of all her vast wealth had any effect. Boyar Morozova and her sister Princess Urusova were sent to the Borovsky Monastery and imprisoned in an earthen prison. There Morozova died, but did not deviate from her convictions.

Monks of the Solovetsky Monastery

Among the Old Believers were the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery. They refused to read the traditional Orthodox prayer for the tsar, believing that he had submitted to the Antichrist. The government could not bear this. Government troops were sent against the recalcitrants. Mona Styr resisted for eight years (1668-1676). Of the 500 of his defenders, 60 survived.