The threat of schism, which in Greek means "split, division, strife," became real for Christianity already in the middle of the 9th century. Usually the causes of schism are sought in economics, politics, in the personal likes and dislikes of the Roman popes and the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Researchers perceive the peculiarities of the dogma, cult, and way of life of believers in Western and Eastern Christianity as something secondary, insignificant, which makes it difficult to explain the true reasons, which, in their opinion, lie in the economy and politics, in anything but the religious specifics of what is happening.

Meanwhile, Catholicism and Orthodoxy had such features that significantly influenced the consciousness, life, behavior, culture, art, science, philosophy of Western and Eastern Europe. Between the Catholic and Orthodox worlds, not only a confessional, but also a civilized border has developed. Christianity was not a single religious movement. Spreading through the numerous provinces of the Roman Empire, it adapted to the conditions of each country, to the prevailing social relations and local traditions. The consequence of the decentralization of the Roman state was the emergence of the first four autocephalous (independent) churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. Soon the Cypriot and then the Georgian Orthodox Church separated from the Antiochian Church. However, the matter was not limited to the division of Christian churches. Some refused to recognize the decisions of the ecumenical councils and the dogma approved by them. In the middle of the 5th century Armenian clergy did not agree with the condemnation of the Monophysites by the Council of Chalcedon. Thus, the Armenian Church placed itself in a special position, adopting a dogma that contradicted the dogma of orthodox Christianity.

One of the largest divisions of Christianity was the emergence of two main directions - Orthodoxy and Catholicism. This split has been brewing for several centuries. It was determined by the peculiarities of the development of feudal relations in the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire and the competitive struggle between them.

The prerequisites for a split arose as early as the end of the 4th beginning - the 5th century. Having become the state religion, Christianity was already inseparable from the economic and political upheavals experienced by this huge power. At the time of the Councils of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople, it looked relatively unified, despite internal strife and theological disputes. However, this unity was based not on the recognition by all of the authority of the Roman bishops, but on the authority of the emperors, which also extended to the religious area. Thus, the Council of Nicaea was held under the leadership of Emperor Constantine, and the Roman episcopate was represented by presbyters Vitus and Vincent.

As for the strengthening of the power of the Roman episcopate, it was connected, first of all, with the prestige of the capital of the empire, and then with the claim of Rome to possess the apostolic throne in memory of the apostles Peter and Paul. Monetary handouts from Constantine and the construction of a temple on the site of the "martyrdom of Peter" contributed to the exaltation of the Roman bishop. In 330 the capital of the empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. The absence of the imperial court, as it were, automatically brought spiritual power to the forefront of public life. Deftly maneuvering between the warring factions of theologians, the Roman bishop managed to strengthen his influence. Taking advantage of the current situation, he collected in 343g. in Sardica of all western bishops and achieved recognition of the right of arbitration and actual supremacy. Eastern bishops never recognized these decisions. In 395 the empire collapsed. Rome again became the capital, but now only the western part of the former empire. Political turmoil in it contributed to the concentration in the hands of the bishops of extensive administrative rights. Already in 422, Boniface I, in a letter to the bishops of Thessaly, openly declared his claims to primacy in the Christian world, arguing that the attitude of the Roman Church to all others is similar to the attitude of the "head to the members."

Beginning with the Roman Bishop Leo, called the Great, the Western bishops considered themselves only locum tenens, i.e. actual vassals of Rome, governing the respective dioceses on behalf of the Roman high priest. However, such dependence was never recognized by the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch.

In 476 the Western Roman Empire fell. On its ruins, many feudal states were formed, the rulers of which competed among themselves for primacy. All of them sought to justify their claims by the will of God, received from the hands of the high priest. This further raised the authority, influence and power of the Roman bishops. With the help of political intrigues, they managed not only to strengthen their influence in the Western world, but even to create their own state - the Papal States (756-1870), which occupied the entire central part of the Apennine Peninsula. christian religion schism monotheistic

Starting from the 5th c. the title of pope was assigned to the bishops of Rome. Initially, in Christianity, all priests were called popes. Over the years, this title began to be assigned only to bishops, and many centuries later, it was assigned only to Roman bishops.

Having consolidated their power in the West, the popes tried to subjugate all of Christianity, but to no avail. The Eastern clergy were subordinate to the emperor, and he did not even think of giving up at least part of his power in favor of the self-styled "Vicar of Christ", who sat on the episcopal chair in Rome.

Sufficiently serious differences between Rome and Constantinople appeared as early as at the Council of Trula in 692, when Rome (the Pope of Rome) accepted only 50 out of 85 canons. split line.

In 867, Pope Nicholas I and Patriarch Photius of Constantinople publicly cursed each other. The reason for the discord was the converted to Christianity Bulgaria, since each of them sought to subordinate it to his influence. After some time, this conflict was settled, but the enmity between the two highest hierarchs of Christianity did not stop there. In the XI century. it flared up with renewed vigor, and in 1054 there was a final split in Christianity. It was caused by the claims of Pope Leo IX to the territories subordinate to the patriarch. Patriarch Michael Cerularius rejected these harassments, followed by mutual anathemas (ie church curses) and accusations of heresy. The Western Church began to be called Roman Catholic, which meant the Roman world church, and the Eastern - Orthodox, i.e. true to dogma.

Thus, the reason for the split of Christianity was the desire of the highest hierarchs of the Western and Eastern churches to expand the boundaries of their influence. It was a power struggle. Other discrepancies in dogma and cult were also found, but they were rather the result of the mutual struggle of church hierarchs than the cause of the split in Christianity. So, even a cursory acquaintance with the history of Christianity shows that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have purely earthly origins. The split of Christianity is caused by purely historical circumstances.

If we group the main differences that exist to this day between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, they can be represented as follows:

Teaching about the Holy Spirit.

The dogma of the Western Church about the descent of the Holy Spirit both from God the Father and from God the Son, in contrast to the dogma of the Eastern Church, which recognizes the descent of the Holy Spirit only from God the Father; the leaders of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches themselves considered this disagreement to be the most important and even the only irreconcilable one.

• -The doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary (of the Immaculate Conception), which existed as early as the 9th century. and erected in 1854 into a dogma;
• - The doctrine of merit and purgatory.

The teaching of the Catholic Church about the "super-due merits" of the saints before God: these merits constitute, as it were, a treasury, which the church can dispose of at its own discretion. The practice of indulgences - absolutions sold by the church from this sacred fund. The doctrine of purgatory (adopted at the Council of Florence in 1439), where sinful souls, burning in flames, are cleansed in order to subsequently go to heaven, and the duration of the soul’s stay in purgatory, again through the prayers of the church (for a fee from relatives) can be shortened

• -The doctrine of the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith, adopted in 1870;
• - Teaching about the Church. Celibacy.

The ritual features of the Catholic Church in comparison with the Orthodox are: baptism by pouring (instead of Orthodox immersion), chrismation not over a baby, but over an adult, communion of the laity with one bread (only clergy partake of bread and wine), unleavened bread (wafers) for communion, cross sign with five fingers, the use of the Latin language in worship, etc.

The sources of Orthodox dogma are Holy Scripture and sacred tradition (decrees of the first seven ecumenical and local councils, the works of the "fathers and teachers of the church" - Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, etc.). The essence of the dogma is set forth in the "creed" approved at the ecumenical councils of 325 and 381. In the 12 members of the "creed" everyone is required to recognize the one God, faith in the "holy trinity", in God's incarnation, redemption, resurrection from the dead, the need for baptism, faith in the afterlife, etc. God in Orthodoxy appears in three persons: God the Father (creator of the visible and invisible world), God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, coming only from God the Father. The triune God is consubstantial, inaccessible to the human mind.

In the Orthodox Church (the most influential of the 15 independent churches is the Russian one), as a whole, due to its relative weakness and political insignificance, there were no mass persecutions like the Holy Inquisition, although this does not mean that it did not persecute heretics and schismatics in the name of strengthening its influence on the masses. At the same time, having absorbed many ancient pagan customs of those tribes and peoples who adopted Orthodoxy, the church was able to process and profess them in the name of strengthening its authority. Ancient deities turned into saints of the Orthodox Church, holidays in their honor became church holidays, beliefs and customs received official consecration and recognition. Even such a pagan rite as the worship of idols, the church transformed, directing the activity of believers to the worship of icons.

The church pays special attention to the interior design of the temple, the conduct of worship, where an important place is given to prayer. Orthodox clergy require believers to attend a temple, wear crosses, perform the sacraments (baptism, chrismation, communion, repentance, marriage, priesthood, anointment), and fasting. At present, the modernization of Orthodox dogma and liturgy is taking place, taking into account modern conditions, which does not affect the content of the Christian dogma.

Catholicism was formed in feudal Europe and is currently the most numerous direction in Christianity.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church is based on sacred scripture and sacred tradition, and it includes among the sources of doctrine the decrees of 21 councils and the instructions of the popes. A special place in Catholicism is occupied by the veneration of the Mother of God - the Virgin Mary. In 1854, a special dogma was proclaimed on the "immaculate conception of the virgin Mary", free from "original sin", and in 1950, Pope Pius XII announced a new dogma - on the bodily ascension of the virgin to heaven.

With the blessing of the Roman Catholic Church, many cultural traditions of "pagan antiquity" with its free-thinking were consigned to oblivion and condemned. Catholic priests zealously followed the strict observance of church dogmas and rituals, mercilessly condemned and punished heretics. The best minds of medieval Europe perished at the stake of the Inquisition.

The Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople canceled the decree of 1686 on the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate. Not far off is the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

There have been many schisms in the history of Christianity. It all began not even with the Great Schism of 1054, when the Christian Church was divided into Orthodox and Catholic, but much earlier.

All images in the publication: wikipedia.org

The papal schism in history is also called the Great Western. It happened due to the fact that almost at the same time two people were declared popes at once. One is in Rome, the other is in Avignon, the site of the seventy-year captivity of the popes. Actually, the end of the Avignon captivity led to disagreements.

Two popes were elected in 1378

In 1378, Pope Gregory XI died, interrupting the captivity, and after his death, the supporters of the return elected Pope Urban VI in Rome. The French cardinals, who opposed the withdrawal from Avignon, made Clement VII pope. The whole of Europe was divided. Some countries supported Rome, some supported Avignon. This period lasted until 1417. The popes who ruled at that time in Avignon are now among the antipopes of the Catholic Church.

The first schism in Christianity is considered to be the Akakian schism. The split began in 484 and lasted 35 years. The controversy flared up around the "Enotikon" - the religious message of the Byzantine emperor Zeno. It was not the emperor himself who worked on this message, but the Patriarch Akakii of Constantinople.

Akakian schism - the first split in Christianity

In dogmatic matters, Akaki did not agree with Pope Felix III. Felix deposed Akakiy, Akakiy ordered that the name of Felix be deleted from the funeral diptychs.

The disintegration of the Christian Church into the Catholic with its center in Rome and the Orthodox with its center in Constantinople was brewing long before the final division in 1054. The harbinger of the events of the XI century was the so-called Photius schism. This schism, dating from 863-867, was named after Photius I, the then patriarch of Constantinople.

Photius and Nikolai excommunicated each other from the church

Photius' relationship with Pope Nicholas I was, to put it mildly, strained. The pope intended to strengthen the influence of Rome in the Balkan Peninsula, but this caused resistance from the patriarch of Constantinople. Nicholas also appealed to the fact that Photius had become patriarch unlawfully. It all ended with the church leaders anathematizing each other.

The tension between Constantinople and Rome grew and grew. Mutual discontent resulted in the Great Schism of 1054. The Christian Church was then finally divided into Orthodox and Catholic. This happened under the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Cerularia and Pope Leo IX. It got to the point that in Constantinople they threw out and trampled prosphora prepared in the Western manner - without leaven.

Schism of the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Great Schism)

The official split (great schism) of the church into the Catholic in the West with its center in Rome and the Orthodox in the East with its center in Constantinople took place in 1054. Historians still cannot come to a consensus on its causes. Some consider the main prerequisite for breaking the claim of the Patriarch of Constantinople to headship in the Christian Church. Others are the desire of the Pope to subjugate the churches of Southern Italy to his authority.

The historical prerequisites for schism date back to the 4th century, when the Roman Empire, whose state religion was Christianity, had a second capital - Constantinople (now Istanbul). The geographical remoteness from each other of the two political and spiritual centers - Constantinople and Rome - led to the emergence of ritual and dogmatic differences between the churches of the west and east of the empire, which over time could not but lead to a search for truth and a struggle for leadership.

The gap was reinforced by military action, when in 1204, in the 4th crusade of the papacy, Constantinople was defeated by the crusaders. The split has not yet been overcome, although in 1965 mutual curses were lifted.

The second split of comparable scale began in the church, when believers began to translate the Bible into their native languages ​​and return to the Apostolic origins, abandoning the doctrines of state churches that contradicted the Holy Scripture and supplemented it. It should be noted that for a long time in a significant part of the churches only the Latin text of the Bible was used. And in 1231, Pope Gregory IX with his bull forbade the laity of the Western Church from reading Holy Scripture in any language, which was officially abolished only by the Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965. Despite the ban, in more progressive Europe, the translation of the Bible into native languages ​​understandable to ordinary people began in the 16th century.

In 1526, the Reichstag of Speyer, at the request of the German princes, adopted a resolution on the right of every German prince to choose a religion for himself and his subjects. However, the 2nd Speyer Reichstag in 1529 canceled this decision. In response, a protest followed from the five princes of the imperial cities of Germany, from which the term “Protestantism” originated (lat. protestans, genus n. protestantis - publicly proving). So, the new churches that emerged from the bosom of the dominant confessions were called Protestant. Now Protestantism is one of the three, along with Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the main directions of Christianity.

There are many denominations within Protestantism, which basically differ in the interpretation of any texts of the Bible that do not affect the basic principle of salvation in Christ. In general, a significant part of these churches are friendly with each other and are united in the main thing - they do not recognize the primacy of the pope and the supreme patriarchs. Many Protestant churches are guided by the principle of "Sola Scriptura" (Latin for "Scripture alone").

As for Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church did not allow the translation of the Bible into a language understandable to ordinary people until the 19th century. The synodal translation of Holy Scripture from Church Slavonic into Russian was carried out in Russia only in 1876. Until now, it is used by Russian-speaking believers of most Christian denominations.

According to Operation Peace, there are approximately 943 million Catholics, 720 million Protestants and 211 million Orthodox around the world (Operation Peace, 2001).

There are countries in which certain confessions predominate. The site, which specializes in statistical data on the religions of the world, provides the following data. More 50% population Catholics make up in Italy, France, Spain, Ireland, Mexico, Poland, Canada, Argentina, Portugal, Austria, the Vatican, Belgium, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba; Orthodox– in Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine, Cyprus; Protestants- in the USA, Great Britain, Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Samoa, Namibia, South Africa, Jamaica, Tahiti.

However, all these figures do not quite correctly reflect reality. In fact, there may even be more Protestants than Orthodox and Catholics combined. For the number of believers really professing in their daily lives, Orthodoxy and Catholicism are much smaller than the number of those who claim to belong to these confessions. I mean, a significant proportion of Protestants know what they believe. They can explain why they are Protestant and belong to one church or another. They read the Bible, attend church services. And the majority of Catholics and Orthodox people look into the church from time to time, while they do not know the Bible at all and do not even understand how Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism are doctrinally different. Such believers simply consider themselves Catholics or Orthodox according to the church where they were baptized, that is, according to the place of residence or according to the faith of their parents. They cannot claim to have become Catholic or Orthodox because they know and fully share and accept the doctrines of their church. They cannot say that they have read the Bible and are sure that the dogmas of their church are consistent with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, most Catholics and Orthodox are not, because they do not know the doctrines of their churches and do not put them into practice. This is confirmed by the results of many sociological surveys. So, according to the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM), obtained in the spring of 2009, only 4% of respondents who identify themselves as Orthodox receive the sacraments, 3% pray as the church prescribes. The results of a VTsIOM survey conducted in the spring of 2008 showed that only 3% of the Orthodox fully observe Great Lent. A population survey conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) in the spring of 2008 showed that only 10% of Orthodox people go to church at least once a month. According to data obtained in 2006 by the Department of the Sociology of Religion of the Institute for Socio-Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ISPI RAS), 72% of Russians who consider themselves Orthodox Christians did not pick up the Gospel at all or read it a long time ago!

Unfortunately, at present in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and other countries of the former USSR, the image of totalitarian sects is often deliberately formed in relation to the Protestant denominations. Meanwhile, Protestantism is a huge church with a long history and a flock of many millions, beautiful prayer houses and temples, spectacular worship, impressive work in the missionary and social field, etc. As mentioned above, countries with a predominance of Protestantism include Sweden, the USA, Great Britain, Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway ..., that is, the most economically and socially developed states. Less than half, but more than 20% of the population, Protestants are in Germany, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Scotland, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Guatemala and other countries.

In the 21st century, there is not a single social institution left in Russia that has not been affected by certain transformations, with the exception of the most conservative of them - the Russian Orthodox Church. Disputes and discussions about reforming church life have been going on for a long time. Questions about the replacement of texts from Church Slavonic into Russian, the transition to the New Julian calendar, the adoption of a charter for the laity are widely discussed in secular and Orthodox media.

However, it is necessary to recall, at least briefly, the church schism of the 17th century, when the Orthodox Church was reformed, the result of which was the split of the Russian people, and its consequences have not been overcome to this day.

Reasons for church reform in the 17th century

Discussion of the need to reform church life began in the 1640s. At that time, a “circle of zealots of piety” was organized in the capital. Representatives of the clergy, who were members of the circle, advocated the unification of church texts and the rules of worship. However, there was no unity on the issue of choosing a model according to which changes would be made. Some suggested taking ancient Russian church books as a model, while others suggested Greek ones.

As a result, those who advocated bringing church books and rituals in line with Byzantine canons won, and there were several explanations for this:

• The desire of the Russian state to strengthen its international position among the Orthodox countries. In government circles, the theory about Moscow as the Third Rome, put forward as early as the 15th century by the Pskov elder Philotheus, was popular. After the church schism in 1054, Constantinople became the spiritual center of the Orthodox Church. Philotheus believed that after the fall of Byzantium, the Russian capital became a stronghold of the true Orthodox faith. To confirm this status of Moscow, the Russian Tsar had to enlist the support of the Greek Church. To do this, it was necessary to bring the worship service in line with Greek rules.
• In 1654, the territory of Polish Ukraine, by decision of the Pereyaslav Rada, joined the Russian state. In the new lands, the Orthodox liturgy was held according to the Greek canons, so the unification of liturgical rules would contribute to the process of unification of Russia and Little Russia.
• Stabilization of the internal political situation. A little time has passed since the events of the Time of Troubles died down, and small pockets of popular unrest periodically flared up in the country. The establishment of uniformity in the rules of church life seemed to the government an important tool in maintaining national unity.
• Inconsistency of Russian worship with Byzantine canons. Amendments to the liturgical rules, which caused the church schism, were secondary to the implementation of church reform.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon

So under what tsar did the church split of the Russian people occur? Under the sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich, who reigned from 1645 to 1676. He was an active ruler, diligently delving into all issues relating to Russia. Considering himself a true Orthodox, he paid a lot of attention to church affairs.

In Russia, the church schism is associated with the name of Patriarch Nikon, known in the world as Nikita Minin (1605-1681). By the will of his parents, he became a clergyman and in this field he managed to make a brilliant career. In 1643 he received the high spiritual rank of abbot of the Kozheozersky monastery in the Arkhangelsk province.

In 1646, Nikon, having arrived in Moscow to settle monastic affairs, was introduced to the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The seventeen-year-old sovereign liked the abbot so much that he left him at court, appointing him archimandrite of the Moscow Novospassky Monastery. Thanks to royal mercy, Nikon later received the rank of Metropolitan of Novgorod.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon - the initiators of church reform in the 17th century

By order of the tsar, in 1651, Nikon was again returned to Moscow, and from that moment on, his influence on Alexei Mikhailovich increased even more. He entered into full confidence in the sovereign, actively participated in solving many state issues. Nikon reached the pinnacle of his career in 1652, having ascended the patriarchal throne, after the death of Patriarch Joseph. From that time, preparations began for church reform, the need for which had been brewing for a long time.

Briefly about the reforms of Patriarch Nikon and the church schism

The first thing the new patriarch focused on was the editing of all church books, which needed to be brought into line with the Greek canons. However, the starting date of the church schism of the 17th century is considered to be 1653, when changes are introduced to the liturgical rules, and a confrontation begins between Patriarch Nikon and his supporters, on the one hand, and adherents of the old rites, on the other.

Now let us dwell briefly on Nikon's reforms and the church schism that followed them:

• replacement of a two-fingered sign with a three-fingered one. Opponents of the reforms, this innovation caused the most criticism. The sign of the cross, performed in a new way, was regarded as disrespect for the Lord himself, because from three fingers a “fig to God” was obtained;
• spelling "Jesus" instead of "Jesus";
• reducing the number of prosphora for the liturgy;
• during the service, instead of bowing to the ground, it was necessary to make waist ones;
• the movement during the procession was now made against the sun;
• in church singing they began to say “Hallelujah” three times instead of two.

The reforms carried out by Patriarch Nikon became the main and main cause of the church schism in the 17th century.

What is a church schism and what are its causes?

The Russian church schism is the separation of a significant part of the believing population from the Orthodox Church and those who oppose church reforms carried out by Patriarch Nikon.

Speaking briefly about the reasons for the church schism of the 17th century, which had an impact on the entire subsequent history of the Russian state, they were directly related to the short-sighted policy of the secular and church authorities.

It should be noted that the church schism had a negative impact on relations between the authorities and the church, which can be briefly described as cooling and confrontation. The reason for this was the harsh methods that guided Patriarch Nikon, carrying out his reform. By order of the king in 1660, the spiritual council deposed Nikon from the patriarchal throne. Later he was deprived of his priesthood and exiled to the Feropontov Belozersky Monastery.

With the removal of Nikon from power, church reforms were not curtailed. In 1666, the Church Council officially approved the new rites and church books, which were to be accepted by the entire Orthodox Church. By the decision of the same Council, adherents of the "old faith" were excommunicated and equated with heretics.

Now let's take a closer look at the causes and consequences of the church schism:

• the methods by which church reforms were carried out alienated a significant part of the clergy and the common people, namely the forcible seizure of church books, icons and other shrines that did not correspond to the Greek canons and their further public destruction;
• the abrupt and ill-conceived transition to the new rules of worship caused the masses to believe that they were trying to impose a different faith. In addition, those who refused to accept the innovations were subjected to serious corporal punishment, which did not add sympathy to Patriarch Nikon and his entourage;
• the low level of education, and sometimes the complete illiteracy of the parish clergy, unable to explain to the parishioners the essence of the change in the liturgy;
• unscrupulous translation of individual texts from Greek into Russian, which, although slightly, began to differ from the former Old Russian ones. The greatest indignation among believers was caused by changes in the meaning of the prayer, the Symbol of Faith, where in the new edition the Kingdom of God is spoken of in the future tense, and not in the present, as it was before;
• lack of unity and agreement in the church environment on the issue of ongoing reforms. As a result, opponents of innovations appeared among the clergy, who became the spiritual leaders of the Old Believers.

The church schism in Russia is associated with the name of Archpriest Avvakum Petrov, a well-known leader of the Old Believers. For disagreement with church reforms, he was exiled for a long eleven years to Siberia. Having endured many hardships and hardships, he remained devoted to the "old faith". As a result, by decision of the Church Council, Avvakum was sentenced to imprisonment in an earthen prison, and later burned alive.

Miloradovich S.D.
Avvakum's Journey through Siberia. 1898.

The causes and consequences of the church schism can be briefly described as the rejection of Nikon's reforms by a significant part of the believers, which then resulted in a religious war. The Old Believers were persecuted and persecuted by the government and were forced to seek salvation on the outskirts of the Russian state. The response of the Old Believers to church policy was mass self-immolation, called "gary".

In the historical literature, one often encounters the definition of a church schism as the starting point for mass popular unrest that periodically shook the Russian land during the 17th and 18th centuries. Indeed, the Old Believers found strong support among the common people, it was around them that all those dissatisfied with the existing order in the country began to gather.

The Significance of the Church Schism

• The church schism in Russia in the 17th century became a national tragedy. There was a division of the Russian people into those who remained in the bosom of the Orthodox Church, performing divine services according to the new rules, and into the Old Believers, who continued to adhere to the pre-reform church rites.
• As a result of the church schism, the spiritual unity of the Russian people ceased to exist. For the first time in the history of the state, enmity arises on religious grounds. In addition, social disunity among the population began to manifest itself more clearly.
• The supremacy of royal power over the church is established. The church reform was initiated by the government and carried out with its support. And this was the beginning to the fact that the management of church affairs began to gradually move into the state department. This process was finally completed under Peter the Great, who abolished the institution of the patriarchate.
• There is a strengthening of the international position of Russia and its ties with the countries of the Orthodox world.
• Speaking briefly about the positive significance of the church schism, the emerging Old Believer movement made a significant contribution to the development of Russian art. They created a number of spiritual centers, their own icon-painting school, preserved the ancient Russian traditions of book writing and Znamenny singing.

The concept of a church schism arose during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and since then has repeatedly become a topic for historical research. Most historians argue that the true cause of the church schism in the 17th century was not at all in the dispute over amendments to worship. The whole point is one significant question - whether the secular and ecclesiastical authorities can decide how and in what way the people believe in Christ, or whether the people have the right to keep intact the rituals and way of church life, established many centuries ago.

Schism of the Christian Church in 1054, also Great Schism and Great Schism- Church schism, after which the Church was finally divided into the Roman Catholic Church in the West with a center in Rome and the Orthodox Church in the East with a center in Constantinople.

The history of the split

In fact, disagreements between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople began long before, however, it was in 1054 that Pope Leo IX sent legates led by Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople to resolve the conflict, which began with the closure of the Latin churches in Constantinople in 1053 by order of Patriarch Michael Cirularius , during which his sakellarii Konstantin threw out the Holy Gifts from the tabernacles, prepared according to Western custom from unleavened bread, and trampled them with his feet. However, it was not possible to find a way to reconciliation, and on July 16, 1054, in the Hagia Sophia, the papal legates announced the deposition of Cirularius and his excommunication from the Church. In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates.

The split has not yet been overcome, although in 1965 mutual anathemas were lifted.

Reasons for the split

The historical premises of schism date back to late antiquity and the early Middle Ages (beginning with the defeat of Rome by the troops of Alaric in 410 AD) and are determined by the appearance of ritual, dogmatic, ethical, aesthetic and other differences between Western (often called Latin Catholic) and Eastern (Greek Orthodox) traditions.

The point of view of the Western (Catholic) Church.

The letter of dismissal was presented on July 16, 1054 in Constantinople in the St. Sophia Church on the holy altar during the service by the legate of the Pope, Cardinal Humbert. After the preamble dedicated to the primacy of the Roman Church, and the praise of "the pillars of the imperial power and its honored and wise citizens" and the whole of Constantinople, called the city "the most Christian and Orthodox", the following accusations were made against Michael Cirularius "and accomplices of his stupidity » :

As for the view on the role of the Roman Church, according to Catholic authors, evidence of the doctrine of the unconditional primacy and universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter exist from the 1st century. (Clement of Rome) and further are found everywhere both in the West and in the East (St. Ignatius the God-bearer, Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage, John Chrysostom, Leo the Great, Hormizd, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, etc.), so attempts to attribute to Rome only some kind of "primacy of honor" are unfounded.

The point of view of the Eastern (Orthodox) Church

According to some Orthodox authors [ who?], the main dogmatic problem in the relationship between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople was the interpretation of the primacy of the Roman Apostolic Church. According to them, according to the dogmatic teaching, consecrated by the first Ecumenical Councils with the participation of the legates of the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Church was assigned the primacy “by honor”, ​​which in modern language can mean “the most respected”, which, however, did not cancel the Catholic structure of the Church (then is the adoption of all decisions collectively through the convening of councils of all churches, primarily apostolic). These authors [ who?] argue that for the first eight centuries of Christianity, the catholic structure of the church was not subject to doubt even in Rome, and all bishops considered each other as equals.

However, by the year 800, the political situation around what used to be a unified Roman Empire began to change: on the one hand, most of the territory of the Eastern Empire, including most of the ancient apostolic churches, fell under Muslim rule, which greatly weakened it and diverted attention from religious problems in favor of foreign policy, on the other hand, for the first time after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, the West had its own emperor (in 800, Charlemagne was crowned in Rome), who, in the eyes of his contemporaries, became “equal” to the Eastern Emperor and the political power of which was able to rely on the Bishop of Rome in his claims. The changed political situation is attributed to the fact that the popes began to carry out the idea of ​​their primacy “by divine right”, that is, the idea of ​​their supreme sole authority in the entire Church.

The reaction of the Patriarch to the defiant act of the cardinals was quite cautious and, on the whole, peaceful. Suffice it to say that in order to calm the unrest, it was officially announced that the Greek translators had perverted the meaning of Latin letters. Further, at the Council that followed on July 20, all three members of the papal delegation were excommunicated from the Church for unworthy behavior in the temple, but the Roman Church was not specifically mentioned in the decision of the council. Everything was done to reduce the conflict to the initiative of several Roman representatives, which, in fact, took place. The patriarch excommunicated only legates and only for disciplinary violations, and not for doctrinal issues. These anathemas did not apply to the Western Church or to the Bishop of Rome.

This event began to be assessed as something extremely important only after a couple of decades in the West, when Pope Gregory VII came to power, and Cardinal Humbert became his closest adviser. It was through his efforts that this story gained extraordinary significance. Then, already in modern times, it rebounded from Western historiography to the East and began to be considered the date of the division of the Churches.

Perception of the split in Russia

Leaving Constantinople, the papal legates went to Rome by a circuitous route to announce the excommunication of Michael Cirularius to other Eastern hierarchs. Among other cities, they visited Kyiv, where they were received with due honors by the Grand Duke and the Russian clergy.

In subsequent years, the Russian Church did not take an unequivocal position in support of any of the parties to the conflict. If the hierarchs of Greek origin were prone to anti-Latin polemics, then the actual Russian priests and rulers did not participate in it. Thus, Russia maintained communication with both Rome and Constantinople, making certain decisions depending on political necessity.

Twenty years after the "separation of the Churches" there was a significant case of the appeal of the Grand Duke of Kyiv (Izyaslav-Dimitri Yaroslavich) to the authority of Pope St. Gregory VII. In his quarrel with his younger brothers for the throne of Kyiv, Izyaslav, the legitimate prince, was forced to flee abroad (to Poland and then to Germany), from where he appealed in defense of his rights to both heads of the medieval "Christian Republic" - to the emperor (Henry IV) and to dad. The princely embassy to Rome was headed by his son Yaropolk-Peter, who was instructed to “give all Russian land under the patronage of St. Peter." The Pope really intervened in the situation in Russia. In the end, Izyaslav returned to Kyiv (). Izyaslav himself and his son Yaropolk are canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.

There were Latin monasteries in Kyiv (including the Dominican - from), on the lands subject to the Russian princes, Latin missionaries acted with their permission (for example, the Augustinian monks from Bremen were allowed to baptize the Latvians and Livs subject to them on the Western Dvina). In the upper class, there were (to the displeasure of the Greeks) numerous mixed marriages. A large Western influence is noticeable in some [ what?] spheres of church life.

A similar situation persisted until the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

Removal of mutual anathemas

In 1964, a meeting took place in Jerusalem between Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, primate of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and Pope Paul VI, as a result of which mutual anathemas were lifted in December 1965 and the Joint Declaration was signed. However, the "gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness" (Joint Declaration, 5) had no practical or canonical significance. From the Catholic point of view, the anathemas of the First Vatican Council against all those who deny the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope and the infallibility of his judgments on matters of faith and morality, uttered by ex cathedra(that is, when the Pope acts as "the earthly head and mentor of all Christians"), as well as a number of other dogmatic decrees.