The period of the history of the Russian church in Kievan Rus. A Brief History of Orthodoxy and the Russian Orthodox Church

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH.

     The Russian Orthodox Church has a history of more than a thousand years. According to legend, the holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called, preaching the Gospel, stopped at the Kyiv Mountains and blessed the future city of Kyiv. The spread of Christianity in Rus' was facilitated by its proximity to a powerful Christian power - the Byzantine Empire. The south of Rus' was sanctified by the activities of the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles brothers Cyril and Methodius, apostles and educators of the Slavs. In 954, Princess Olga of Kiev was baptized. All this prepared the greatest events in the history of the Russian people - the baptism of Prince Vladimir and the Baptism of Rus' in 988.
In the pre-Mongol period of its history, the Russian Church was one of the metropolises of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The metropolitan who headed the Church was appointed by the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, but in 1051 the Russian Metropolitan Hilarion, the most educated man of his time and a remarkable church writer, was first installed on the high priestly throne.
Since the 10th century, majestic temples have been built. Since the 11th century, monasteries began to develop in Rus'. In 1051, the Monk Anthony of Pechersk brought the traditions of Athonite monasticism to Rus', founding the famous Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, which became the center of the religious life of Ancient Rus'. The role of monasteries in Rus' was enormous. And their main service to the Russian people - not to mention their purely spiritual role - is that they were the largest centers of education. In the monasteries, in particular, chronicles were kept that brought to this day information about all significant events in the history of the Russian people. Icon painting and the art of book writing flourished in the monasteries, and translations of theological, historical and literary works into Russian were carried out. The extensive charitable activities of monastic monasteries contributed to the cultivation of the spirit of mercy and compassion among the people.
In the 12th century, during the period of feudal fragmentation, the Russian Church remained the only bearer of the idea of ​​the unity of the Russian people, counteracting the centrifugal aspirations and civil strife of the princes. The Tatar-Mongol invasion - the greatest disaster that befell Rus' in the 13th century - did not break the Russian Church. She remained as a real force and was a comforter to the people in this difficult trial. Spiritually, materially and morally, she contributed to the restoration of the political unity of Rus' - the key to future victory over the enslavers.
The unification of disparate Russian principalities around Moscow began in the 14th century. And the Russian Church continued to play an important role in the revival of a united Rus'. Outstanding Russian saints were the spiritual leaders and assistants of the Moscow princes. Saint Metropolitan Alexy (1354-1378) raised the holy noble prince Demetrius Donskoy. He, like later Saint Metropolitan Jonah (1448-1471), by the power of his authority helped the Moscow prince in ending feudal unrest and preserving state unity. The great ascetic of the Russian Church, St. Sergius of Radonezh, blessed Demetrius Donskoy for the greatest feat of arms - the Battle of Kulikovo, which served as the beginning of the liberation of Rus' from the Mongol yoke.
Monasteries greatly contributed to the preservation of the national identity and culture of the Russian people during the difficult years of the Tatar-Mongol yoke and Western influences. In the 13th century, the beginning of the Pochaev Lavra was laid. This monastery and its abbot, Reverend Job, did a lot to establish Orthodoxy in Western Russian lands. In total, from the 14th to the half of the 15th century, up to 180 new monastic monasteries were founded in Rus'. The largest event in the history of ancient Russian monasticism was the founding of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery by St. Sergius of Radonezh (around 1334). Here, in this later famous monastery, the wondrous talent of the icon painter St. Andrei Rublev blossomed.
Freed from the invaders, the Russian state gained strength, and with it the strength of the Russian Empire grew. Orthodox Church. In 1448, shortly before the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Russian Church became independent of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Metropolitan Jonah, installed by the Council of Russian Bishops in 1448, received the title of Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus'.
Subsequently, the growing power of the Russian state contributed to the growth of the authority of the Autocephalous Russian Church. In 1589, Moscow Metropolitan Job became the first Russian Patriarch. The Eastern Patriarchs recognized the Russian Patriarch as fifth in honor.
The 17th century started out hard for Russia. Polish-Swedish invaders invaded Russian Land from the west. During this time of unrest, the Russian Church, as before, honorably fulfilled its patriotic duty to the people. The ardent patriot Patriarch Ermogen (1606-1612), tortured by the interventionists, was the spiritual leader of the militia of Minin and Pozharsky. The heroic defense of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra from the Swedes and Poles in 1608-1610 is forever inscribed in the chronicle of the history of the Russian state and the Russian Church.
In the period following the expulsion of the interventionists from Russia, the Russian Church dealt with one of its very important internal problems - the correction of liturgical books and rituals. Much of the credit for this belonged to Patriarch Nikon.
The beginning of the 18th century was marked for Russia by the radical reforms of Peter I. The reform also affected the Russian Church: after the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700, Peter I delayed the election of a new Primate of the Church, and in 1721 established a collegial higher church administration represented by the Holy Governing Synod, which remained the highest church body for almost two hundred years.
During the Synodal period of its history (1721-1917), the Russian Church paid special attention to the development of spiritual education and missionary work on the outskirts of the country. The restoration of old and the construction of new temples was carried out. The beginning of the 19th century was marked by the activities of remarkable theologians. Russian church scientists did a lot for the development of such sciences as history, linguistics, and oriental studies.
The 19th century gave great examples of Russian holiness: the outstanding hierarchs, Metropolitans of Moscow Philaret and Innocent, St. Seraphim Sarovsky, the elders of the Optina and Glinsk hermitages.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, preparations began for the convening of the All-Russian Church Council. The Council was convened only after the February Revolution - in 1917. His greatest act was the restoration of the Patriarchal administration of the Russian Church. Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow was elected at this Council as Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' (1917-1925).
Saint Tikhon made every effort to calm the destructive passions fanned by the revolution. The Message of the Holy Council dated November 11, 1917 said: “Instead of the new social structure promised by the false teachers, there is a bloody strife among the builders; instead of peace and brotherhood of peoples, there is confusion of languages ​​and bitter hatred of brothers. People who have forgotten God rush at each other like hungry wolves.. ". Leave the crazy and wicked dream of false teachers who call for the implementation of world brotherhood through world civil strife! Return to the path of Christ!"
For the Bolsheviks, who came to power in 1917, the Russian Orthodox Church was a priori an ideological enemy. That is why many bishops, thousands of priests, monks, nuns and laity were subjected to repression, including execution and murders that were shocking in their cruelty.
When in 1921-22 the Soviet government demanded the release of valuable sacred objects, things came to a fatal conflict between the Church and the new government, which decided to use the situation for the complete and final destruction of the Church. By the beginning of World War II, the church structure throughout the country was almost completely eliminated. There were only a few bishops left free who could perform their duties. In the entire Soviet Union, only a few hundred churches were open for worship. Most of the clergy were in camps, where many were killed or disappeared.
The catastrophic course of hostilities for the country at the beginning of World War II forced Stalin to mobilize all national reserves for defense, including the Russian Orthodox Church as a popular moral force. Temples opened for worship. The clergy, including bishops, were released from the camps. The Russian Church did not limit itself only to spiritual support for the cause of defending the Fatherland in danger - it also provided material assistance, including uniforms for the army, financing the tank column named after Dmitry Donskoy and the squadron named after Alexander Nevsky.
The culmination of this process, which can be characterized as the rapprochement of the state and the Church in “patriotic unity,” was Stalin’s reception on September 4, 1943 of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Metropolitans Alexy (Simansky) and Nikolai (Yarushevich).
From this historical moment, a “thaw” began in relations between the Church and the state, but the Church was constantly under state control, and any attempts to expand its activities outside the walls of the temple were met with unyielding resistance, including administrative sanctions.
The position of the Russian Orthodox Church was difficult during the so-called “Khrushchev Thaw”, when thousands of churches throughout the territory were closed for the sake of ideological principles Soviet Union.
The celebration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus' in 1988 marked the decline of the state-atheist system, gave new impetus to church-state relations, forced those in power to begin a dialogue with the Church and build relationships with it on the principles of recognition of its enormous historical role in the fate of the Fatherland and its contribution to the formation of moral foundations of the nation. The true return of the people to the Father's house began - people were drawn to Christ and His Holy Church. Archpastors, pastors, and laity began to work zealously to recreate full-blooded church life. At the same time, the absolute majority of clergy and believers showed extraordinary wisdom, endurance, steadfastness in faith, devotion to Holy Orthodoxy, despite neither the difficulties with which the revival was associated, nor the attempts of external forces to split the Church, undermine its unity, deprive it of internal freedom, and subjugate it. worldly interests. Even the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, accompanied by a widespread increase in national egoism, could not destroy the multi-ethnic nature of the Moscow Patriarchate. The desire to enclose the Russian Orthodox Church within the framework of the Russian Federation and the national diasporas associated with it has so far proven futile.
However, the consequences of the persecution turned out to be very, very serious. It was necessary not only to restore thousands of churches and hundreds of monasteries from ruins, but also to revive the traditions of educational, educational, charitable, missionary, church and public service.
Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad and Novgorod, who was elected by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church to be widowed after his death, was destined to lead the church revival in these difficult conditions. His Holiness Patriarch Pimen the Primate See. On June 10, 1990, the enthronement of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II took place. Under his First Hierarchal omophorion, the Russian Orthodox Church undertook the most difficult efforts to recreate what was lost during the years of persecution. Peculiar milestones on this difficult path were the Bishops' Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church, at which current problems of church revival were freely discussed and decisions were made on canonical, disciplinary and doctrinal issues.
The Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on March 31 - April 5, 1992, held in Moscow, made a number of important decisions regarding church life in Ukraine and the canonical position of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. At the same Council, the beginning was laid for the glorification of the holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia, who suffered for Christ and His Church during the years of persecution. In addition, the Council adopted an appeal in which it outlined the position of the Russian Orthodox Church on issues that worried society in the countries in which its flock lives.
The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on June 11, 1992 was convened on an extraordinary basis to consider the case on charges of Metropolitan Philaret of Kyiv in anti-church activities that contributed to the split of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. In a special “Judicial Act,” the Council decided to depose Metropolitan of Kyiv Philaret (Denisenko) for committing grave moral and canonical crimes and causing a schism in the Church.
The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on November 29 - December 2, 1994, in addition to a number of decisions concerning internal church life, adopted a special definition “On the relationship of the Church with the state and secular society in the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate at the present time,” in which it confirmed “non-preference” for the Church of any political system, political doctrine, and so on, the inadmissibility of the Church's support of political parties, and also prohibited clergy from nominating themselves for elections to local or federal authorities. The Council also decided to begin developing “a comprehensive concept reflecting the church-wide view on issues of church-state relations and the problems of modern society as a whole.” The Council especially noted the need to revive the missionary service of the Church and decided to develop a concept for the revival of the missionary activity of the Russian Orthodox Church. In pursuance of the decisions of the Council of Bishops in 1994, the Holy Synod in December 1995 decided to form the Missionary Department of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 18 - 23, 1997 continued its work on the church-wide glorification of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia. In addition, the themes discussed at the Council of Bishops in 1994, which outlined the most important tasks and trends in church life, were developed in council reports and discussions. In particular, the Council confirmed the inviolability of the church position on the issue of the inadmissibility of participation of the Church and its ministers in political struggle. In addition, the prospects for the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in international Christian organizations, problems of missionary and social service of the Church, threats to the proselytizing activities of heterodox and heterodox religious associations were discussed.
The Anniversary Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church met on August 13 - 16, 2000 in the Hall of Church Councils of the recreated Cathedral of Christ the Savior. The meetings of the Council, which ended with the solemn consecration of the Temple, were included in the circle of celebrations dedicated to the great Jubilee - the 2000th anniversary of the Coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into the world.
The Council became a unique phenomenon in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church in terms of the number and significance of the decisions it made. According to the report of Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna, Chairman of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, a decision was made to glorify for church-wide veneration in the ranks of saints the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia of the 20th century, known by name and hitherto unknown to the world, but known to God. The Council considered materials about 814 ascetics whose names are known, and about 46 ascetics whose names could not be established, but about whom it is reliably known that they suffered for the faith of Christ. The names of 230 previously glorified locally venerated saints were also included in the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia for church-wide veneration. Having considered the issue of canonization Royal Family, the members of the Council decided to glorify Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra and their children: Alexy, Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia as passion-bearers in the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. The Council made a decision on the general church glorification of the ascetics of faith and piety of other times, whose feat of faith was different from that of the new martyrs and confessors.
The members of the Council adopted the Basic Principles of the Russian Orthodox Church’s attitude towards heterodoxy, prepared by the Synodal Theological Commission under the leadership of Metropolitan Philaret of Minsk and Slutsk. This document became a guide for clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church in their contacts with non-Orthodox people.
Of particular importance is the adoption by the Council of the Fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. This document, prepared by the Synodal Working Group under the leadership of Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad and the first document of its kind in the Orthodox world, sets out the basic provisions of the teaching of the Church on issues of church-state relations and on a number of modern socially significant problems. The document reflects the official position of the Moscow Patriarchate in the sphere of relations with the state and secular society.
In addition, the Council adopted a new Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, prepared by the Synodal Commission to amend the Charter on the governance of the Russian Orthodox Church under the leadership of Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad. The Church is currently guided by this Charter.
The Council adopted the Epistle to God-loving shepherds, honest monastics and all faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Determination on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Determination on the position of the Orthodox Church in Estonia and the Determination on issues of the internal life and external activities of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The beginning of Russian Christianity.

So, continuing the thought of Chapter I, it should be said that the Slavs in the 7th and 8th centuries. were in a state of ever-increasing social decay. The military alliance formed between them in the Carpathians fell apart into its constituent parts (tribes), the tribes split into clans, even clans began to split into small households or family farms, which is how these Slavs began to live during the Dnieper housewarming. But here, under the influence of new conditions, a reverse process of gradual mutual coupling began among them; only the connecting element in the new social structures was no longer the feeling of blood relationship, but economic interest, called to action by the properties of the country and higher circumstances. Southern rivers and plains and the yoke imposed from the side pulled in Eastern Slavs to a busy foreign trade. This trade drew scattered lonely households into rural trading centers, churchyards, then into large trading cities with their regions. New external dangers since the beginning of the 9th century. caused a new series of coups. The trading cities armed themselves, then they turned from the main storage points of trade into political centers, and their trading districts became their state territories, city regions; some of these regions became Varangian principalities, and from the combination of both, the Grand Duchy of Kiev, the oldest form of the Russian state, was formed. This is the connection between economic and political facts in our history...

So, the first dynasty of “Russian” princes in Rus' were the Rurikovichs. Let us turn to the history of this kind. Very few legends about the reign of Rurik have reached us. He was the eldest of the Rurikovich brothers and his power already extended to many peoples: to the Krivichi, i.e. Polotsk in the south, on Meryu and Muroma. There is news about wars that the summoned princes began to fight everywhere.

Judging by the government measures that Rurik carried out, one can judge that it was with him that the important activities of the Russian princes began - building nations, concentrating the population. A legend has been preserved that after the death of his brothers, Rurik left Ladoga, came to Ilmen, cut down the city above Volkhv, named it Novgorod and sat down to reign here. This passage in the chronicle directly shows that Novgorod itself was founded by Rurik; and since he remained to live and after him the princely posadniks and princes also lived here, this easily explains why Novgorod eclipsed Old city, no matter what it's called.

Mid-9th century. Having killed Askold and Dir, Oleg established himself in Kyiv and made it his capital city, as the chronicler testifies. Oleg's first task in Ukraine was to build cities, forts, to assert his power in new areas and for protection from the steppes. Having built cities and established tribute from the northern tribes, Oleg, according to legend, begins to subjugate other Slavic tribes living to the east and west of the Dnieper.

Oleg ruled the state even at a time when his successor Igor was already quite old. Accustomed from childhood to obedience, Igor did not dare to demand his inheritance from the power-hungry ruler, surrounded by the splendor of victories, the glory of conquests and brave comrades who considered his power legitimate, since he “knew how to exalt his state.” In 903, Oleg chose a wife for Igor, Olga. She was brought to Kyiv from Pleskov or present-day Pskov, writes Nestor. In other historical books it was said that she of a simple Varangian family lived in a village called Vybushskaya, near Pskov. It is also said that young Igor arrived from Kyiv and noticed Olga. He preferred her modesty and intelligence to all other brides. Here is what N.M. Karamzin writes: “The customs and morals of those times, of course, allowed the prince to look for a wife in the lowest state of people, that beauty was respected by a more famous family... Olga took her name, it seems, on behalf of Oleg, as a sign his friendship for this worthy princess and as a sign of Igor’s love for him.” It is likely that relations between Constantinople and Kiev have not been interrupted since the time of Askold and Dir; It is likely that the Greek kings and patriarchs tried to increase the number of Christians in Kyiv and “bring the prince himself out of the darkness of idolatry.” But Oleg, accepting gifts from the emperor and inviting priests and patriarchs, believed more in the sword and was content with a peaceful alliance with the Greeks and the tolerance of Christianity.

Oleg reigned for 33 years and died at a very old age, although he came to Novgorod with Rurik. Igor took power in adulthood. He hastened to prove that Oleg’s sword was in his hand, humbled the Drevlyans and increased their tribute. But soon a strong enemy appeared - the Pechenegs. They are mentioned in Russian, Byzantine and Hungarian chroniclers from the 10th to the 12th centuries. Igor concluded an alliance with the Pechenegs and, according to Nestor, they did not come to Rus' for five years.

Igor's reign did not leave a deep trace of any significant incidents in the chronicles until 941, when Nestor, in agreement with Byzantine historians, describes Igor's war with the Greeks. This was one of the unsuccessful campaigns of the Russian prince.

Igor's second campaign against the Greeks ended more successfully than the first. The ruler, unsure of victory and wanting to save the empire from the disasters of war, sent envoys to Igor. Having met him at the mouth of the Danube, they offered him tribute so that Igor would leave in peace. Igor agreed to this and returned to Kyiv.

Igor died at the hands of the Drevlyans, dissatisfied with the amount of the tribute that Igor imposed on them. Thus began the reign of Princess Olga.

The Drevlyans had to expect revenge from Igor's relatives, from Rus' from Kyiv; Igor left a son - a baby and his wife Olga. Svyatoslav's teacher was Asmud, and his governor was Svineld. Olga began to wait for her son to come of age and took revenge on the Drevlyans herself, as required by the law. Slga's revenge is described in great detail in Nestor's chronicles: “about the revenges and tricks of the Olgins.” This was a very important step for Olga to assert her power and authority. It seems to me that there is no need to repeat what everyone already knows from the history of the school curriculum; let us turn directly to the personality of the princess, to her innovations and regulations.

The character of Olga, as it appears in legend, is important for us in other respects: not only in the names alone can one find the similarity of the Grand Duchess with the famous successor of Rurik. Both Oleg and Olga are distinguished by wisdom (according to legend), that is, according to those concepts, by cunning and dexterity.

Olga takes revenge on the Drevlyans by cunning and takes Crake by cunning.

(We are not surprised at Olgina’s cruelty: the faith and civil laws of the pagans justified the inexorable revenge). But it was not for this trick alone that Oleg became known as prophetic, and Olga as the wisest of people. Oleg established tribute and built cities. Olga traveled all over Russian land, legend says that immediately after taking revenge on the Drevlyans, Olga, together with her son and retinue, went through their land, establishing regulations and lessons: her “camps” and “traps”, that is, the places where she stopped and hunted, were pointed out back in chronicler's time. A charter was a definition of how to do something, and a lesson was an obligation to do something by a certain date.

Although the chronicler mentions Olga’s orders only in the Drevlyanskaya land and in the distant reaches of the Novgorod region, however, as can be seen, her travels for economic purposes covered all Russian possessions and the graveyards she established were visible everywhere. Having established the internal order of the state, Olga returned to the young Svyatoslav in Kyiv. “Here, according to Nester, the affairs of her government end; but here begins the era of her glory in our church history,” said N.M. Karamzin (N.M. Karamzin, “The Tradition of Centuries”).

Olga was a pagan, but the name of God Almighty was already famous in Kyiv. She could see the solemnity of the rites of Christianity; out of curiosity, she could talk with church pastors and, being gifted with an extraordinary mind, become convinced of the holiness of their teaching. “As a woman, Olga was more capable of internal routine and economic activity; as a woman she was more capable of accepting Christianity.”

According to the chronicler, in 955 Olga went to Constantinople and was baptized there under the emperors Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Roman and Patriarch Polievka. At baptism, Olga was given the name Elena. We do not find anything about the motives that forced Olga to accept Christianity and accept it in Constantinople either in the known lists of our chronicle or in foreign sources. It could be that Olga went to Constantinople as a pagan, without a firm intention to accept the new faith, was amazed in Constantinople by the greatness of the Greek religion and returned home as a Christian.

It was not just the hope of self-interest that could attract Rus' to Constantinople, but also the curiosity to see the wonders of the educated world. Those who came from Constantinople brought with them a lot of impressions and stories, while others had a burning desire to visit there. After this, it would be strange if Olga, who was considered the wisest of people, did not go there. First of all, in Constantinople her attention was attracted by what most sharply marked the Greeks from Rus' - religion.

There is news that Olga was still inclined towards Christianity in Kyiv. There she saw the virtuous life of the confessors of this religion, even entered into a close relationship with them and wanted to be baptized in Kyiv, but did not fulfill her intention for fear of the pagans. The danger from the pagans did not decrease for Olga, and in the case when she was baptized in Constantinople, it was very difficult to conceal her conversion upon arrival in Kyiv. Upon her return, Olga began to persuade her son Svyatoslav to accept Christianity, but he did not want to hear about it. They began to laugh at those who accepted Christianity in Kyiv, therefore, although there was no obvious persecution, ridicule was already a sign of its beginning and a sign of the strengthening of Christianity, of which Olga’s conversion could be both the cause and the consequence. It can be seen that the new religion began to assume a prominent position, attracted the attention of the ancient religion, and this hostile attention was expressed in ridicule. “The struggle began: Slavic paganism, accepted by the Russians, had little positive to oppose and therefore had to soon bow before it, but Christianity itself, without relation to Slavic paganism, met strong resistance in the character of Svyatoslav, who could not accept Christianity due to his inclinations, and not out of attachment to an ancient religion.”

Svyatoslav fought a lot, he started with the Vyatichi, and defeated the Kazar. Then Svyatoslav went on a campaign along the Volga, and on the way back from the east, Svyatoslav, the chronicle says, defeated the Vyatichi and imposed tribute on them. From this time on, the exploits of Svyatoslav began, which have little to do with our history.

After the death of his mother, Svyatoslav entrusted Kyiv to his son Yaropolk, and to his other son, Oleg, the Drevlyansky land, where her own princes had previously ruled. At the same time, the Novgorodians sent a messenger to the prince with a request that Svyatoslav give them his son as ruler. Yaropolk and Oleg did not want to accept power over them, but Svyatoslav also had a third son, from Olga’s housekeeper Malusha, daughter of Lyubanich Malka. So Vladimir was given power over Novgorod.

Later, Vladimir, with the help of cunning, betrayal and the Varangians, took possession of the state. Vladimir, having established his power, expressed excellent zeal for the pagan gods. He built a new idol of Perun and placed it near the “terem courtyard” on the sacred hill, along with other idols. Human sacrifices and other rituals were often performed here. It can be assumed that Vladimir thus wanted to beg forgiveness for fratricide, since the pagan faith itself did not accept such atrocities. Dobrynya, sent by his nephew to rule Novgorod, also placed the Magus, the rich idol of Perun, on the shore.

We see that the triumph of Vladimir over Yaropolk was accompanied by the triumph of paganism over Christianity, but this triumph could not last: Russian paganism was so poor, so colorless that it could not successfully argue with any of the religions that took place in the Southeast areas of Europe, especially with Christianity; the jealousy of Vladimir and Dobrynya at the beginning of their power, the arrangement of decorated idols, frequent sacrifices stemmed from the desire to raise paganism, to give it the means of something to oppose other religions that suppress it with their greatness; but these very attempts, this very jealousy led directly to the fall of paganism, because it best demonstrated its insolvency. In our Rus', in Kiev, the same thing happened that happened on a larger scale in the Empire under Julian: the jealousy of this emperor for paganism most of all contributed to the final fall of the latter, because Julian exhausted all the means of paganism, extracted from it everything that it could provide for the mental and moral life of a person, and thereby his inconsistency, his poverty in comparison with Christianity, was most clearly revealed. This is what usually happens in the lives of individual people and in the lives of entire societies, as sometimes the most passionate zealots suddenly unexpectedly leave the object of their worship and go over to the enemy side, which they defend with redoubled zeal; this happens because in their minds all the means of their former life have been exhausted. object of worship.

Chapter III.

Official Christianization.

Vladimir tried to prevent the spread of Christianity in Rus' by creating an international pagan pantheon led by Perun, who personified the new social relations of early feudal society. But this attempt was unsuccessful. She was followed by:

destruction of the created pantheon and official Christianization. This event was accelerated by the course of political relations between Russia and Byzantium. To fight the next rebel Varda Foka, who had sent to sit on the imperial throne and had great forces, Emperor Vasily II turned to Prince Vladimir for great help, without skimping on promises. An important condition The agreement under which a six-thousand-strong Russian detachment was sent to the emperor’s disposal was, according to the 11th-century Arab Christian historian of Antioch, the marriage of the “Tsar of the Russians” Vladimir to Vasily’s sister Anna and the adoption of Christianity by Vladimir and his country. This agreement could have been concluded in the winter of 987/88.

After the victory over the rebel, the emperor had to fulfill the agreement and give his sister, the princess, to the Grand Duke of Kiev, in order to achieve the fulfillment of the terms of the agreement, Prince Vladimir had to besiege and take in 989 the city of Korsun (Chersonese) that belonged to Byzantium in the Crimea, with an episcopal see. The Tale of Bygone Years says that Vladimir decided to be baptized if he succeeded in taking Korsun, and demanded the extradition of the princess after this success, and threatened Constantinople otherwise. However, this is contradicted by the evidence of “Memory and Praise” by Jacob Mnich, an 11th-century author. He said that Vladimir was baptized “in the tenth summer according to the teachings of his brother Yaropolk,” which occurred in 978, and after baptism he lived for another 28 years. This indicates, therefore, 987-988, which is confirmed by the reference to the fact that in the third year after baptism (i.e. in 989/90) he took Korsun.

At baptism, Vladimir received the Christian name Vasily in honor of the patron of Emperor Vasily II - Basil the Great. As for the baptism of the Kievites, sources also give conflicting information about its time. Along with the traditional date of 988. researchers justify both earlier and later dates, in particular 990.

(O. M. Rapov “On the date of adoption of Christianity by Prince Vladimir and the people of Kiev”). According to the “Tale of Bygone Years”, the baptism of the Kievites took place in the Dnieper, according to the “Life of Vladimir” - in the Pogaina River, a tributary of the Dnieper. After Vladimir returned from Korsun, a lot of Korsun and Constantinople priests appeared in Kyiv.

The change in religious cults was accompanied by the destruction of images of once revered gods, their public desecration by princely servants, and the construction of churches in places where pagan idols and temples stood. Thus, on the hill in Kyiv, where the idol of Perun stood, the Church of Basil, dedicated to Basil the Great, was erected. Near Novgorod, in Peryn, where there was a pagan temple, the Church of the Nativity was built. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, Vladimir began to build churches in the cities, appoint clergy, “and people began to be brought to baptism in all cities and villages.”

According to the historian Ya. N. Shchapov: “the spread of Christianity was carried out by the princely authorities and the emerging church organization by force, with resistance not only from the priests, but also from various segments of the population” (Ya. N. Shchapov “The Church in Ancient Rus'”, political publishing house 1989) .

Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev admitted that baptism in Kiev took place under duress: “No one resisted the princely order, pleasing to God, and they were baptized, if not of their own free will, then out of fear of those who ordered, for his religion was connected with power.” In other cities, the replacement of the traditional cult with a new one met open resistance. In Novgorod, a legend has been preserved about the introduction of Christianity there by Bishop Iakim Korsunyanin and the princely governors Dobrynya and Putyata, when “Putyata baptized with a sword, and Dobrynya with fire.”

Christianity under Vladimir was spread mainly along a narrow strip adjacent to the great waterway from Novgorod to Kyiv; East of the Dnieper, along the Oka and Upper Volga, even in Rostov, despite the fact that the sermon reached these places, Christianity spread very weakly. In the chronicles there is news that in 992, Prince Vladimir with bishops to the southwest, taught, baptized people and built a city in the Cherven land, called it Vladimir and the wooden church of the Virgin.

Chapter 4

The main stages of the development of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Soon after the official Christianity in Rus', the initial organization of the Russian Orthodox Church was created in the form of the metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It was headed by a metropolitan who was sent from Constantinople and had his residence in the Cathedral of St. Sofia in Kyiv. In addition to the metropolitan, bishops were also sent from Constantinople, in addition, Vladimir brought with him priests from Korsul and Anna brought her priests with her. But all this number was not enough to baptize and teach people in Kyiv and other places; there is news that clergy were called from Bulgaria, many bishops and even metropolitan Michael were Bulgarians. However, even a larger number of called priests could not satisfy the need for them; it was necessary to increase the number of Russian priests, and this could not happen otherwise than through special training. Such training was introduced immediately after the national baptism in Kyiv. For this, according to the chronicler, on the orders of Vladimir, children were taken away from the best citizens and sent to study with priests at churches.

From the chronicle one can also learn about the strong influence the clergy began to have on the social system. Vladimir consulted with the bishops not only about what means to speed up the spread of Christianity, but also about how to punish criminals; together with the elders, the bishops suggested to the prince where to use the drugs - and he agreed with them.

In parallel with these events, the formation of a church organization is taking place. The time of the establishment of the Kyiv Metropolis is determined indirectly, since this is mainly spoken about by foreign sources. It can be assumed that it was founded between 995/997. Probably, the St. Sophia Cathedral was originally made of wood, and in 1037 - early 1040s a temple was built, which has been preserved to this day.

Local church administration, in important political and administrative centers, was carried out by bishops subordinate to the metropolitan.

Already from the time of Vladimir and the first decades of the principality of Yaroslav, the creation of bishops in Belgorod, Novgorod, Polotsk, Chernigov, Turov and some other cities can be attributed. This is the time of Christianization and inclusion into the orbit of church power of the main territory of the state inhabited by the ancient Russian people. All bishoprics were created in the most important centers of the feudalizing state.

The new Russian church on the Dnieper and Volkhov became a new and plentiful source of income for its “spiritual mother”, the Church of Constantinople, and a new instrument of exploitation in the hands of the top of Kyiv society. These material benefits could be paid for by adapting Christian ideology to the folk religion of the Dnieper people, especially since this payment was not valued in a material way - simply put, it was worth nothing. “Production costs” were reduced to only a few pacifications of popular riots, during which, again, mainly the blood of the smerds was shed and their economy suffered. In the 10th – 11th centuries, monasteries were economic enterprises of an exploitative nature.

To a lesser extent, but the same features can be discerned in the history of the founding of some churches. Churches were erected almost exclusively by princes and boyars, either as official state churches, or as family tombs, or to serve the cults of their favorite saints. This phenomenon is clearly reflected in iconography.

The church took a different position in the next period - appanage feudalism, when after the defeat of Kievan Rus by the Tatars and its desolation, the center of Russian life moved to the Novgorod and Rostov-Suzdal regions.

The period from the 13th to the mid-15th century is characterized by typical features of the feudal system: feudalization covered all aspects of Russian life, including the sphere of religion and the church. The growth of the money economy and the crisis of the peasantry and the collision of urban and feudal society that usually accompanied it were still a matter of the future. The establishment of the feudal system had an important influence on the church organization, which underwent significant changes compared to the forms in which it was cast on the Dnieper. There, Byzantine church law, brought by the Greek clergy, was predominantly in force; here Byzantine church norms were preserved only nominally, the form of church domination acquired a feudal character and was completely welded into one organic whole with the forms of secular feudal domination. Society of the 13th and 14th centuries generally retains the old view of religion.

On the other hand, elementary knowledge of Christian doctrine and cult was alien not only to the laity and lower clergy, but also to monasticism and representatives of the highest hierarchy. In this regard, the messages of foreign travelers are very interesting, dating back, however, to the 15th – 17th centuries, but even more valid for the era in question. Foreigners claim that ordinary lay people knew neither the Gospel history, nor the symbol of faith, nor the most important prayers, including even the “Our Father” and “Virgin Mother of God,” and naively explained their ignorance by saying that “this is a very high science, suitable only the kings and the patriarch and in general gentlemen and clergy who have no work.”

Theological knowledge was not widespread among the clergy even at the end of the 17th century; only a very small part of Russian literate monasticism had a real understanding of Christian scripture and dogma, and other scribe-monks of the 14th - 16th centuries replaced the Christian theological system with a unique system of their own, which is usually not entirely correctly called monasticism.

There is information that priests and clerics often come to perform services drunk, and sometimes start quarrels among themselves, use foul language and fights, even “to the point of bloodshed.”

Other Orthodox “people of all ranks sometimes did not go to church at all and never fasted, although they made claims to be buried in the church; complaints about such a careless attitude towards fulfilling the basic requirement of Christian piety go back to the decrees of Peter 1.

In the simplicity of their souls, the Russians of that time did not hide the meaning that they attributed to icons. The icon is their closest, home god, it is their personal fetish, they called the icon a god. That custom, which has now been preserved only among a few backward peasants and among gray monasticism, the custom of bowing first of all to God at the entrance to a house, was then universal, and if the guest, entering, did not see the icon, his first question was: where is God? This god lives and feels, sees and hears.

In the 13th – 15th centuries, as a general rule, a saint was usually venerated only in the area where he was born, lived and created a reputation for himself as a saint.

From the second half of the 15th century. an economic revolution begins - a permanent and expanding market for the sale of agricultural products appears with every decade, cities grow and the Russian burgher class emerges, and at the same time monetary relations penetrate the countryside and transform the relations between masters and peasants. The old self-sufficient feudal worlds are losing their independence, centrifugal forces are weakening, centripetal forces are strengthening, and in the 16th century. The Moscow state was formed on the ruins of former appanage principalities and large boyar estates. The feudal church worlds give way to the Moscow centralized metropolitanate, and then the patriarchate. During the second half of the 15th and the entire 16th century. A fierce social struggle is brewing on this basis, in which church groups and figures are taking an active part. The crisis of the feudal church is accompanied by the emergence of various heretical movements.

Thus, the church moved into the orbit of new socio-political relations, in time to shake off the weights of feudalism, which were pulling it towards death. However, the matter did not end with the settlement of the economic base. Having broken with appanage feudalism and become subordinate to the Moscow “power,” the church had to centralize its cults and organization.

The transformation of the church from an instrument of the domination of feudal lords into an instrument of the domination of the noble state was completed in the 17th century.

All church councils of the 16th and 17th centuries. were convened by royal decrees, their members were invited personally by royal letters, the order of the day was determined by the king, and the very draft reports and resolutions were drawn up in advance by pre-conciliar commissions, usually consisting of boyars and Duma nobles. At meetings of the councils, either the tsar or his authorized boyar was always present, who vigilantly monitored the precise implementation of the intended program.

Official reform and the defeat of church opposition.

The essence of the official reform was to establish uniformity in liturgical rites. United Russian Church, Native sister eastern churches, did not have a uniform liturgical order and differed in this from their eastern brethren, as the eastern patriarchs constantly pointed out to Nikon and his predecessors. In a single church there should have been a single cult. The councils of the 16th century, having elevated local patrons to the rank of All-Russian saints, did not complete the task of unifying the cult. It was also necessary to introduce uniformity in the liturgical rite, to replace the specific liturgical diversity with Moscow uniformity. The question of carrying out this fundamental reform arose even before Nikon in connection with the victory of technology in the book business. As long as there were handwritten books produced locally by local scribes and from local originals, there could be no question of reform; but when in the second half of the 16th century. The Printing House appeared in Moscow and it was decided to supply all churches with printed liturgical books. The reference books, that is, the editors of printed publications, discovered an extraordinary diversity in handwritten books, both in terms of individual words and expressions, and in terms of the rites of liturgical rites. Errors and typos were not difficult to correct; but the matter was more complicated - it was necessary to choose one, the most correct, rite and record it in printed books, thereby destroying all other ritual options. The main difficulty turned out to be in choosing a sample for correction. For the Tsar and Nikon these were the Greek ranks of that time; for the vast majority of clergy - ancient Russian ranks, enshrined in “charatean” (handwritten) books.

The intra-church movement ended with the victory of official reform. The Moscow noble church found its credo and, with its help, began to assert its dominance. The convicted ministers of the old faith, however, did not obey and went “into schism,” i.e. deviated from the official church and continued to fight it in various ways.

Since the late 60s of the 17th century, the Moscow state has been repeatedly shaken by uprisings that have arisen in different places, both in the center, in Moscow itself, and on the outskirts, in the far north and on the Don. Almost all of these movements have a religious overtones.

In the practical life of the peasant, the remnants of ancient magical manipulations were of greater importance than the rituals of the new Christian cult.

In the 18th century In the various layers of the schism, internal differentiation began, which led the single current of the schism to opposites, pitting the various elements of the schism against each other. In this development of opposites and extremes, in the development of the struggle between individual currents within the schism, the very term “schism” was lost and depersonalized. New forms of life brought with them new forces, new organizations and new nicknames. If the 17th century was heroic, then the 18th century was the century of epigones.

The end of the 17th century, the entire 18th century and the first 60 years of the 19th century. Russian history passes under the sign of serfdom. On the basis of the serf economy, the landowner's commodity agricultural production undergoes the first stage of its development, commercial capital grows and industrial capital takes its first sprouts. The phenomena of church life, however, are closely intertwined with political phenomena, for the church, starting from

20s of the XVIII century. from an actual servant of the state formally turns into an instrument of state administration. Changes taking place in the church are always a consequence of changes in political life. The Church completely loses the ability to make any independent statements and acts only as one of the institutions of the autocracy.

Control was entrusted to the chief prosecutor of the synod, a secular official called in the official instructions of 1722 “the eye of the sovereign and the attorney for state affairs.” He, like the Chief Prosecutor of the Senate, was obliged to “see closely that the synod maintains its position and in all matters, truly, zealously and decently, without wasting time, according to regulations and decrees,” “also must firmly see that the synod in its title righteously and acted unfeignedly.” In case of omission or violation of decrees and regulations, the chief prosecutor had to propose to the synod “to correct it”; “And if they don’t listen, then I must protest at that hour and stop another matter, and immediately report it to us (the emperor).

The synod's "care" for church estates led not only to a decrease in treasury revenues, but also to consequences that began to threaten the security of the noble state. The exploitation of the peasants of the bishop's and monastic estates assumed unheard-of cruelty and robbery proportions; Extra fees and duties, “all sorts of insults and ruins” rained down on the peasants as if from a cornucopia.

The government reaped the fruits of the reform at the beginning of the 19th century, when the old collegiums, which no longer met the new requirements, were replaced by ministries in which the principle of individual management was strictly adhered to.

In 1718, all house churches were closed, except for churches that belonged to members of the imperial family, “for this is superfluous and comes from sheer arrogance, and is reproachful to the spiritual rank: gentlemen would go to parish churches and would not be ashamed to be brothers, even if they were their peasants.” in Christian society,” this measure is motivated by the retroactive Spiritual Regulations. Thus, private cult was prohibited, and instead of home confessors, their slaves, parishioners had to turn to parish confessors, ministers of the state church.

The government's efforts to reduce the number of members of the clergy began in the 18th century. in two directions. The first, seemingly rational, way to resolve the problem was to establish normal staffing levels for the parish clergy.

The state church had to first and foremost fulfill the duties that the state assigned to it.

The question of ideology was a sore point in the 18th century. The 17th century did not yet know him; While the “old faith” stood indestructible, the practice of ritual worship was at the same time the most important matter of faith. Nikon’s reform destroyed the old faith, but did not give anything in its place; in the end, Nikon himself doubted the correctness of that “ new faith", which those corrected by Greek models missals. The new rite could not acquire the same authority as the old one. And already under Nikon, the idea was expressed that the point was not in the ritual, but in religious theory, that is, in what was always in the background in the pre-Nikon church.

Until the end of the 19th century, the new “theology” was slowly grafted onto the spiritual environment.

Cases about “superstitions,” that is, about the appearance of new icons from which miracles occur, about the appearance of holy fools and pious healers through prayer for various diseases, did not leave the consistory tables during the 17th and 19th centuries. The attitude towards such cases was almost always the strictest, even if the perpetrators were the most orthodox people. But the proclamation of new saints and new relics, which took place in an official manner, was always arranged in the most solemn manner, with the indispensable participation of high-ranking persons. In these cases, the church has always been able to shine as a “leader” of the masses. The emperors themselves, ending with Nicholas II, often took an active part here, and these festivities for an objective observer always took on an interesting and very instructive meaning.

In the first half of the 18th century. the government, together with the synod, waged a fierce struggle against the schismatic communities that emerged at the end of the 17th century. on various outskirts of the Moscow state. Therefore, starting from the 18th century. new communities of schismatics are being formed mainly abroad. It was the same lively emigration and for the same reasons as the emigration of the Puritans from England in the 16th century. and Independents in the 16th and 17th centuries. This emigration occurred with particular force during the Bironovschina, in the 30s of the 18th century, when the orgy of the authorities over the schismatics reached terrifying proportions. By the end of the 18th century. registered schismatics along the banks of the Oka and Volga only within the Nizhny Novgorod region numbered up to 46,000. In the marinas and riverine settlements, the Old Believers took over all shipbuilding and trade, completely pushing aside the few merchants who adhered to Nikonianism.

In the middle of the 18th century. The Old Believer bourgeoisie, Russian and foreign, already possessed “great trades and trades.” The government of Catherine II took this circumstance into account as a financial opportunity and abolished a number of restrictions, but instead placed the burden on the shoulders of the Old Believers on a general basis. At the end of 1762, Catherine’s manifesto was published, calling for people of all “nations” to settle in Russia, “except for the Jews,” and also inviting all Russian fugitives to return to Russia, promising them forgiveness of crimes and other “maternal bounties.” By fugitives, first of all, as the Senate explained, they meant schismatics; In addition to the right to return, they were promised other benefits: permission not to shave their beard, to wear whatever dress they wanted, six years of freedom from all taxes and work; everyone had the right either to return to the previous landowner (!) or to enroll as a state peasant or merchant.

In the 18th century there was essentially no change in the position of the peasantry; There were only moments of special aggravation of serfdom, but there were no moments that would open up prospects for a better future for the peasant. XIX century began with a decree on free cultivators, then the agony of serfdom began in the form of Arakcheevism and the grip of the Nicholas era; after this came emancipation, which, despite all its half-heartedness, still deeply affected peasant life and forced peasant thought to move somewhat faster than before. Therefore, the religious life of the peasantry in the 19th century. immeasurably richer than in the 17th or 18th centuries: sects appear one after another in countless numbers.

The peasantry, by its very essence brought face to face with the elemental forces of nature, mysterious and unknown to it, is unable to escape the sphere of religious thinking. It clothed even a simple escape from unbearable living conditions in a religious form, elevated it to a religious principle of life. Flight and wandering, natural everyday phenomena of the 18th century, which served for the peasantry as almost the only way out of the clutches of the then life, received religious sanction and were easily fulfilled commandments.

By the last quarter of the 17th century. refers to the beginning of two other major movements of sectarianism that arose among the peasantry - Doukhoborism and Molokanism. Sects of “spiritual Christians,” as both of them called themselves, formed in the last quarter of the 18th century... Doukhobors appeared in the Ekaterinoslav province, among the Cossack population, which during the reign of Catherine was extremely constrained and ruined by distributions of Ukrainian Cossack lands to landowners; The Molokans, at the same time as them, made themselves felt in the Tambov province - partly among the peasants, partly among the small urban philistinism and artisans. There is much in common between both sects, and at first the spiritual and secular authorities confused them; however, there are also differences between them, which are explained by not exactly the same social composition and different conditions their life.

Molokanism and Doukhoborism of the Molochnovod period were typical manifestations of communist sectarianism during the period of the disintegration of serfdom, when the peasantry lived between the yoke of serfdom and liberation without land. Any such religious organization inevitably turned into an instrument of accumulation for part of its members and in this way especially quickly became an organization of domination and exploitation. Neither freedom, nor equality, nor the material well-being of the working masses can ever be built on illusions.

Trade and industrial union of Rogozh in the first 30 years of the 19th century. acted in a new, almost unheard of role in Russia. The peasants had a direct hope of switching to the Old Believers, because the prospect of a quick exit from serfdom and deliverance from conscription opened before them.

The government of Nicholas I was poorly versed in the various schismatic trends and movements, but it set itself a specific and quite understandable task from its point of view: to destroy the basis of the schism through the expropriation of its property and the destruction of its organizations, both charitable and liturgical.

Meanwhile, with the fall of serfdom, circumstances for the Old Believers developed unusually favorably. Since the 1960s, the schism has grown so rapidly that the entire population by the end

The 70s are divided almost equally between Orthodoxy and schism.

While the Old Believer priestly church steadily followed a clear and unchanging line of its development, non-priestly organizations, as in the 18th century, continued to experience significant fluctuations, going through changes of revival and decline, and could not gain a foothold as firmly as the priesthood. partly due to government repression, partly due to the internal contradictions that tore them apart and the weakness of the soil on which they were located. The priestly church organized the masses, spreading its communities throughout Russia and connecting them first with the unity of the cult, and then with the unity of both the cult and the hierarchy. Non-popovshchina organizations were autonomous communities, with little connection with one another; each of them had its own customs and its own ideology.

Like bespopovshchina, the role of organizing the initial accumulation of force was played at the beginning of the 19th century. and scopal organizations, operating in an environment of first commercial and industrial, and then loan application of capital. A specific feature of the skopchestvo was its ability to promote the rapid process of differentiation of the peasantry and to draw out the most pliable and suitable elements for capital from the villages to the cities.

The golden age for the skopchestvo ended in the 20s of the 19th century.

After 1861, sectarianism became extremely widespread and revealed a number of new forms and modifications, due to the post-reform economy and life of the city and countryside. Numerous sects of the post-reform period sharply split into two groups - into sects of a purely peasant nature, which arose in connection with the reform of 1861, and into petty-bourgeois sects, of a mixed composition, which absorbed petty-bourgeois and semi-capitalist elements of the village and city and arose in connection with the rapid the growth of capitalism after 1861, which split the countryside into opposite poles and at first fed the petty bourgeoisie of the city - artisans, shopkeepers, small owners of craft workshops and small factories. While the sects of the first category were distinguished by certain individual traits associated with the topic of the day, the sects of the second category exhibit some common features, especially the weakening of communist and mystical tendencies, often replaced by the most outspoken defense of private property and rationalism in dogma and ritual. If the sects of the first category were still organizations of workers’ struggle, then the sects of the second category were already open organizations of exploitation and if they fought, it was only with their worst competitor in this area, the Synodal Church.

In the early 70s, in some villages of the Yekaterinburg district, a general flight of peasants into the forests with all their belongings and children was discovered. The investigation found that the peasants were fleeing into the forest from the Antichrist, who supposedly now reigns in the world; anyone who does not want to accept his seal must go into the desert. The seal of the Antichrist is money; it spreads everywhere in buying and selling, and everyone who buys or sells anything accepts the seal of the Antichrist. Simultaneously with these quite clear sects, another sect appeared in the northern part of the Vyatka province, which some of Prugavin’s correspondents considered not even a sect, but rather a political group.

The Ural sects of the era of emancipation still revolve around old ideas and formulas, depending on the economic backwardness of the Urals, for which emancipation was a difficult, painful turning point. In internal Russia, emancipation gave rise to new forms of sectarianism. She put an end to the old primitive forms of messianism and the mysticism associated with them, putting forward practical tasks dictated by new living conditions. This change in the nature of sectarianism was due to the historical course of events, which overturned eschatological expectations. Instead of the end of the world came emancipation. It remained either to completely discard eschatology and look for new religious paths, or to preserve eschatology in the official church frame, making reconciliation with the church. As a result, the development of sectarianism on the old principles stopped after the reform of 1861. But already in the 60s, the consequences of the partial expropriation of the peasantry were revealed. It was precisely those sects that were viable and widely developed that were associated with the processes of accumulation, firmly adhered to the principle of private property and set as their task the promotion of the enrichment of their fellow members. Such sects also appeared in the Kherson region, from where they spread to neighboring Ukrainian provinces.

In the 90s, a rapid process of leveling out the differences between all petty-bourgeois Stundist movements and their gradual merging into one organization began. This process takes place under the banner of the so-called baptism The latter entered Russia from abroad in the 70s, first to the German colonies. Mainly retaining the character of an evangelical sect, Baptistism differed from other sects of this kind in that it did not recognize baptism of infants, requiring a conscious attitude of the baptized to this rite, and therefore established re-baptism for those newly joining the sect. The communities were organized into the “Union of Baptists of Russia”, with central congresses, a central council and a central mutual aid fund, which had its own local branches.

This brilliant success of Baptistism is explained by the fact that behind Baptistism there was already the power of international capital. Baptist organizations in Europe and especially in America were captured back in the 90s by capitalists, industrial and financial, who managed to turn their mentors into their agents by financing Baptist communities. The spearhead was, of course, directed at the working-class neighborhoods; by recruiting workers into Baptistism, they sought to distract the proletarians from their class struggle and create a cadre of strikebreakers. Baptistism in the hands of capital turned out to be an extremely flexible and fruitful tool, and in 1905 it acquired an international character: the Baptist World Union was organized. The intensified propaganda of Baptists in Russia, which was carried out under the leadership and with the lively participation of preachers from abroad, coincides with the penetration of foreign industrial and financial capital.

These are the main directions of Russian sectarianism after 1861. There were many other sects, many of which still exist, but all of them are adjacent to those described.

The revolution of 1905 produced a new shift in the field of religious quest. At first her influence in this sphere was purely destructive: the deity temporarily disappeared from the stage as the director of the tragicomedy of life, even in the ideas of the inert peasantry. But when the revolutionary wave subsided, sectarian quests resumed with renewed vigor.

The six and a half decades during which the noble autocratic state existed after the liquidation of its serf base were, in essence, the era of its last convulsive efforts in the struggle for existence. Undermined by the rapid growth of industrial and banking capital and shaken by periodically flaring up and intensifying revolutionary movements of the proletariat and peasantry.

All church money capital, both the already mentioned episcopal and monastic capital, and the capital of some large city churches, had to be placed in government interest-bearing securities and stored in the State Bank.

After almost five years of preparation, on June 13, 1884, the rules for parochial schools were finally published. According to the official explanation, the purpose of their establishment, in addition to spreading basic literacy, was “to instill in children the fear of God, teach them the meaning of faith, instill in their hearts love for the Holy Church and devotion to the Tsar and the Fatherland.”

The blow dealt by the 1905 revolution to the autocratic system also hit the church painfully. Moreover, looking for salvation and looking out for the ballast that could be thrown from a sinking ship, the tsarist government did not hesitate to sacrifice first of all the privileged position of the Orthodox Church, as if no longer hoping for the effectiveness of those means with which it could and did help it. church. The Manifesto of April 17, 1905 declared religious tolerance, legalized the freedom of transition from Orthodoxy to other Christian confessions, provided legal rights for the existence of Old Believer and sectarian organizations, except for the “savage” ones (Skoptsy and Khlysty), and recognized the title of clergy for the Old Believer and sectarian clergy.

The Synod Church was shaken to its foundations by October, which crushed and completely destroyed its class and state support. The next decade was a period of rapid decomposition and decline. The Old Believer Church also turned out to be broken, since its owners, industrial and banking bigwigs, found themselves either physically destroyed and expropriated, or on the other side of the border of the Soviet Union, in exile. Only sectarianism in some places showed vitality and even expanded its base due to the decline of Orthodoxy.

In the early nineties, Christianity experienced a decline in the West, even in the United States, where the largest number of people attend church. Public opinion polls conducted in 1991 showed that only 58% of Americans believe that religion plays an important role in their lives, down from 75% in 1952.

We can't figure out what it was like public opinion in the Middle Ages, but Christianity of the pre-Reformation period is striking in its unity. In the 16th century, the Reformation shifted the emphasis to the individual's relationship with God, opening the door to the fragmentation of Christianity. Since then, many sects have arisen and collapsed; the belief of believers, members of the sect, that their faith is true, turned out to be unfounded. The loss of confidence undermined religious faith itself.

At the same time, religion continues to struggle with progress in the natural sciences. The point is not that Darwin's evolutionary theory or the Big Bang explanation of creation cannot be reconciled with biblical ideas. More importantly, science has taught people to make strict demands on evidence, and religion is unable to meet them.

Organized Christian churches are losing credibility in the modern world; and many people turn to a variety of beliefs: astrology, Scientology, various forms of Eastern mysticism, a whole range of movements that are commonly called “new age.” The future will show whether these new religious movements will stand the test of time and whether they can be placed next to Christianity.

But in my opinion, recently the religious situation in Russia is not as clear as stated above, but even on the contrary - the “Second Baptism of Rus'” is taking place. This is evidenced by the restoration of old and construction of new churches, the number of people visiting charitable institutions, the reorientation of Russian politicians towards a religious perspective, etc. I think that this change of mood was caused by the collapse of the USSR with its atheistic policy and a number of less significant reasons.

CONCLUSION.

According to many scientists, the baptism of Rus' at the end of the 10th century was not the result of a special “chosenness” of itself and the ancient Russians, the illumination of Prince Vladimir by the Almighty and God’s enlightenment of the “Russian people with the light of Christ,” as theologians claim.

The adoption of Christianity by Russia as the state religion was a natural consequence of the long and far from simple socio-economic and cultural development of ancient Russian society.

The introduction of Christianity in Rus' was a major event that marked an important stage in the development of feudal relations, which replaced the clan system with its paganism. It helped strengthen the Old Russian state, its consolidation and increase in international prestige. At the same time, it testified to a major shift in the ideology of Kievan Rus. For the new religion was adapted to a class society, while the pagan one did not know classes, did not require the subordination of one person to another, and did not sanctify relations of domination and subordination.

The adoption of Christianity played an important role in the further development of the material and spiritual culture of ancient Russian society. It would be wrong to deny that the church played a very definite positive role in the development of writing, architecture and painting in Russia, the rise of Moscow, the development of patriotic and national self-awareness and the moral rise of the Russian and other peoples of Russia and Russia. Not without reason, theologians of the Evangelical Church of Germany, as well as Orthodox theologians, believe that Russian Christianity has enriched and “ European culture his contribution: theology, philosophy, literature, church architecture, iconography, church music.”

But, sharing these judgments, we must not forget about the role of the church that it played as a servant of the autocracy and the ruling classes, the worldview that it affirmed.

. “The Church is always renewed,” said Metropolitan Pitirim of Volokolamsk and Yuryev relatively recently. This is one of its properties. And that is why he believes that “the church lived under a slave system, under feudalism, it will live under another state system.” How? Pitirim does not know this. Pitirim’s appeal to history to predict the future of the church is evidence that today the center of confrontation between scientific and religious worldviews is focused on the assessment of the role of Russian Orthodoxy in the history of Russia and Russia, the development of our statehood and culture.

The changes that have taken place in the theological interpretation of our history indicate that Orthodox ideologists are making a lot of efforts to present the past of the Russian Church in a way that is more consonant with our time, the socio-political views and interests of modern believers. This is also done in order to present Russian Orthodoxy only a positive factor in the life of society and thereby increase its attractiveness and prolong its existence. With all the changes in theological views on the role and place of Russian Orthodoxy in history, the irreconcilability of the scientific and religious worldview remains unchanged. The evolution of the theological interpretation of the history of our Motherland may give rise in certain segments of the population to erroneous ideas about the real role of religion in the socio-political life of society. In view of this, it is necessary to pay more attention to the criticism of Orthodox Christian doctrine as the starting point for Orthodox ideologists to illuminate the events of the past and present, to reveal the actual role of religion and the church in the history of our country, and to prevent its exaggeration and idealization. Only under this condition will education by history fully serve the cause of developing a scientific-materialist worldview and morality among all working people, and the formation of a person free from religious prejudices.

Kyiv period
metropolis.
IN 988 In 1967, Prince Vladimir of Kiev concluded a treaty of friendship and mutual assistance with Byzantium. One of his conditions was Vladimir’s acceptance of Christianity, which was fulfilled. In August 988(according to some historians - August 1, 990.) a mass baptism of pagan Kievites took place in river waters. Baptism was performed by Byzantine (Greek) priests. After this, Christianity began to take root in Novgorod, Rostov, Suzdal, Murom and other centers of the Kyiv state. During the reign of Prince Vladimir (died 1015), the vast majority of the population of Rus' adopted Christianity. This process did not go smoothly; researchers are aware of facts of resistance to the new faith.

The Christianization of Rus' was accompanied by active temple building. At the same time, the church organization: worship was performed in churches priests and deacons, in large cities - Novgorod, Vladimir-Volynsky, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Belgorod, Rostov the Great - residences were located bishops, and was in Kyiv metropolitan, dedicated to the Constantinople patriarch. Thus, in the first centuries of its existence The Russian Church was a metropolitanate under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, although it had broad autonomy.

The Kyiv princes attracted the metropolitan and bishops to participation in government affairs.
The Church participated in the creation of all-Russian legislation, contributed to the mitigation of the punishment system, and developed the desire for mercy. Thanks to her, magnificent monuments of architecture and painting were erected, including the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv and the St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod, which are still preserved. Writing spread.
In the 12th century, Kievan Rus disintegrated into appanage principalities. The United Russian Church has become the personification of all-Russian unity.
Having suffered cruelly with all the people during the Mongol-Tatar invasion, The Church still received some benefits from the Horde. This gave its hierarchs the opportunity to strengthen the awareness of the unity of the torn and fragmented country. So, in 1274 year, a Church Council was held in Vladimer-on-Klyazma, in which the clergy of Suzdal Rus', Veliky Novgorod and Pskov participated. Life also raised the question of a new residence for the metropolitan, since ruined and unprotected Kyiv could not fulfill the role of a spiritual center.
Moscow is the center of the Russian Church. At the beginning of the 14th century, the metropolitans moved their residence to Vladimir, and from 1326- to Moscow. The Metropolitan of Moscow became an outstanding church and political figure of that era Alexy (1354-1378), due to historical circumstances, he became for a long time the first statesman - the head of the Boyar Duma and regent of the young Prince Dmitry (the future Donskoy). He contributed greatly to the unification of the lands around Moscow: he excommunicated Russian princes who were guilty of disobedience to the Grand Duke of Moscow and violated the peace, blessed the students and tonsures of Moscow monasteries to found monasteries in various principalities, and with his high spiritual authority strengthened the position of the Moscow prince. Metropolitan Alexy spiritually prepared Grand Duke Dmitry for the beginning of the confrontation with the Horde. Two years after his death Russian army under the leadership of the prince won a historic victory on the Kulikovo field.
The activities of Sergius of Radonezh(died in 1392), abbot of the Trinity Monastery near Radonezh. He managed to breathe new strength into church life, to reveal to the people of that era the still unknown depths of Orthodoxy. Thus, he began to affirm the veneration of the Trinity as the Beginning and Source of life, as a symbol of conciliarity and fraternal unity. Through Sergius's teaching on the Trinity, the Orthodox people were called to see in Orthodoxy the only spiritual force that gathers everyone together, to one Shepherd (God), without destroying national and linguistic differences. Sergius's school was closely connected with the flourishing of books, architecture, and icon painting. In praise of Sergius the monk Andrey Rublev(d. in 1430 year) painted the famous icon of the Life-Giving Trinity, which became the greatest achievement of medieval Russian spiritual culture. With the teaching of the Trinity, Sergius also answered the most important question of that era - the unity of the Russian lands. He blessed Prince Dmitry, who was going to the Kulikovo Field, giving him two schema-monks for spiritual support - Alexander (Peresvet) and Andrei (Oslyabya).
It is also important that Sergius gave impetus to the wave monastic foundations of the late XIV - early XV centuries. Almost a quarter of the monasteries formed at that time were founded by his students. All of them were established on the principles of community life: common property and meals, obedience to the will of the abbot, common good, humility and brotherly love. His students were Kirill Belozersky, Dmitry Prilutsky, Pavel Obnorsky, who founded monasteries in the Vologda region.
Period of autocephaly
(1448 - 1589)
Having become independent, the Russian Orthodox Church, more than ever, had to rely on own strength, your spiritual experience and theological heritage.
In the XV-XVI centuries it continued active monastic foundation: about 600 monasteries and deserts were founded, by the end of the 16th century their total number reached 770. Some of them were located on marginal or sparsely populated lands, thereby helping to attract new people there, and therefore further economic development of Russian territory. Many monasteries in the outskirts carried out important political and diplomatic assignments for the Moscow princes; in fact, they were military outposts on distant and poorly protected borders. Some of the monasteries acquired, through purchases, seizure, princely and boyar donations, as well as thanks to the contributions of wealthy pilgrims, considerable possessions - lands, peasants, fishing grounds, works of church art, etc. The accumulation of corporate property of the monasteries caused lively debate in society, in the center which turned out to be the question of acquisitiveness (hoarding).
In Orthodox theology it is not customary to exaggerate the depth and severity of differences non-possessors and Josephites. Both leaders agreed that the basis of the monastic (monastic) tradition is Faith, embodied in good deeds (and for this you need to have economic independence and solid income of the monasteries), carried out through prayer (and this requires the spiritual rebirth of each monk). Monasteries increasingly asserted themselves in the social, cultural and spiritual life of the country.
Church councils of 1547, 1549 and 1551, convened on the initiative Metropolitan Macarius (1542-1563). Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551 unified all aspects of church life: worship, church administration, monastic and parish structure, the fight against heresies, piety of the laity, etc. canonization 39 Russian saints. Each of them, representing a different type of holiness - saints, martyrs, saints, blessed ones, confessors, etc.- personified various ideals of a righteous life and a variety of paths to salvation.
Period of the first patriarchate
(1589 - 1721)
Already in the 15th century, the idea of ​​establishing patriarchate, i.e. about the leadership of the Russian Church patriarch- the highest clergy in Orthodoxy. From an ecclesiastical point of view, this would not only give the Russian Church a complete structure, but would also correspond to its position in the world of Orthodox Churches as the largest, most numerous and influential.

Conditions for performing this act in full accordance with the rules canonical(Church) law developed towards the end of the 16th century. IN 1589 the election of the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' took place Job (1589 - 1605). Of the nine subsequent patriarchs, the most famous are Hermogenes (1606 - 1612), who passionately called the people during the Time of Troubles to fight against the Poles and died as a martyr; Filaret (1619 - 1633), father of the first tsar from the Romanov dynasty, who did a lot to stabilize the country after the Time of Troubles; Nikon (1652 - 1658) who undertook reform in the Church.
The establishment of the patriarchate had a beneficial effect on the course of church affairs and significantly strengthened the rights and authority of the head of the Church, incl. and before secular authorities. In the 17th century, the patriarchs paid special attention to the development of church printing, education, and strengthening the deanery.
The Old Believers became a deep national tragedy. split, caused, as many researchers believe, mainly by the correction of liturgical books, rituals and icons. Reform started Nikon with the good goal of bringing books and liturgical practices into line with the Greek ones (they were considered the only true ones), was carried out hastily and was accompanied by rude attacks against those who doubted its expediency. The Orthodox consciousness of the mass of believers did not have time to understand and be convinced of the validity of the proposed changes: to make the sign of the cross not with two, but with three fingers; perform ritual circular actions counterclockwise, not clockwise; do not worship icons painted in deviations from established canons, etc. Many Russian people of that time saw in these ritual changes a departure from the true Orthodox faith. However Great Moscow Cathedral 1666-1667 approved Nikon's reforms and condemned those who adhered to the old rituals.
Synodal period
(1721 -1917)
1721 established a Spiritual College to govern the Church or Holy Governing Synod, consisting of the highest hierarchs. The Synod took its place among government institutions. A secular official, the chief prosecutor of the Synod, appointed by the emperor, had a significant influence on the activities of the Synod.
In 1764, Catherine II confiscated most of the lands from the Church along with the peasants ( secularization). States were introduced in the Church - a fixed number of vacancies with the subsequent introduction of their guaranteed content from the state budget. In church literature, these reforms are assessed extremely negatively; they are viewed as gross and inappropriate government interference in the affairs of the Church.
At the same time, by the beginning of the 20th century, problems of church and social activities: a certain social inertia of the clergy, unpreparedness for active confrontation with the advancing nihilism and atheism, as well as socialism, excessive nationalization of the church organization itself, etc. There were signs of a decline in faith and authority of the Church among younger generations. Some Russian hierarchs and church leaders saw a way out of this situation in a radical transformation of the entire system of church life, including the restoration of the patriarchate, the democratization of church institutions, and active social service.
Period of the second patriarchate
In August 1917, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church opened in Moscow for the first time since the 17th century. On October 28, 1917, he decided to restore the patriarchate. On November 5, 1917 he was elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Tikhon(Belavin). He had the opportunity to lead the Church during a period of difficult historical trials. A course towards the independence of the Church and counteraction to the “Red Terror” of Soviet power, as well as fundamental rejection civil war Patriarch Tikhon was brought to the dock and into the cells of the Lubyanka more than once. Continuous physical and moral pressure did not break his spirit, but led to his premature death in April 1925.
Ever since the first arrest of Patriarch Tikhon in 1922, church administration was seized renovationists, those. supporters of reforms that grossly destroyed Orthodox traditions and ready to combine Christian teaching with the ideology of socialism. After the death of Tikhon, the disintegration of the church body intensified, since the Church was not allowed to choose a new patriarch in accordance with the canons. At the same time, several hierarchs declared themselves locum tenens patriarchal throne.
IN 1927 metropolitan Sergius(Starogorodsky), in the most difficult conditions of persecution and for the sake of saving the Church, considered it possible to compromise and, having headed the church administration, issued a Declaration in which he proclaimed loyalty to Soviet power. This Declaration caused very controversial assessments in church circles: part of the Church went underground (Catacomb Church), part turned away from Sergius. Almost all of them were repressed.
Meanwhile policy of the Soviet state led to massive closures of churches, all monasteries, and educational institutions of the Church. Millions of believers were unable to receive spiritual consolation and perform Orthodox rituals. Their feelings and views were ridiculed and punished. By 1940, Metropolitan Sergius stood at the head of the Church, which in an organizational sense was only a faint shadow of the former Russian Orthodox Church. In many areas there was not a single functioning temple.
During the Great Patriotic War Stalin and his entourage, based on political considerations and for the sake of strengthening the unity of the people and trust among the Western allies, set a course to weaken the persecution of the Church, which also took a strong patriotic position. In September 1943 was allowed to hold a Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, at which Metropolitan Sergius was elected patriarch. However, he soon died at the Local Council 1945 was elected to the patriarchal throne Alexy I(Simansky). In the first decade of his patriarchate, relatively favorable socio-political conditions existed for the revival of churchism. Thousands of parishes were reopened, dozens of monasteries were revived, theological seminaries and academies were opened, a church magazine began to be published, calendars and liturgical books were printed. Patriarch Alexy I visited dozens of countries and again strengthened the authority of the Russian Church in the world. The Church joined the peace movement.
The time of Khrushchev's thaw'' turned into new ''frosts'' for the Church. The course towards building communism, officially proclaimed by the CPSU, assumed the final and rapid eradication of religion. Mass persecution and discrimination against believers resumed, and all manifestations of public activity by the clergy were excluded. The number of parishes, monasteries and educational institutions decreased sharply. The church was placed under the secret control of the KGB. There is information that between 1961 and 1964 in the USSR, 1,234 people were convicted on religious grounds. The efforts of Patriarch Alexy I to meet with the leaders of the state and stop the harsh anti-church course were unsuccessful. And all this - with outward goodwill towards the Church and its patriarch: Alexy I was awarded four times with orders of the Soviet state. He died in 1970 at the age of 93.
Despite this situation, in the country in the 50s the number of people observing religious rituals grew: in 1959, every third child in the RSFSR was baptized, during the 50s the income of the Church increased 4 times, competitions in seminaries increased, millions of people they visited a few churches on the days of great holidays, published Bibles were sold out instantly, the number of pilgrims to the Trinity - St. Sergius Lavra grew.
WITH 1971 . By that time, the extreme manifestations of a hard line towards the Church had been noticeably weakened, and its organizational position had stabilized. Since the beginning of the 1980s, the Church has taken advantage of the ongoing preparations for 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' to expand the forms of activity and more significant participation in the social and spiritual processes that took place in the USSR on the eve of the start ''perestroika''. As the crisis of communist ideology and its institutions grew, interest in Orthodoxy grew in society. The anniversary celebrations of 1988 resembled a nationwide celebration.

According to the chronicle tradition, the foundations of the Christian faith were brought to Rus' by the Apostle Andrew the First-Called in the middle of the 1st century AD. The penetration and spread of Christianity among the East Slavic tribes was due to the following factors:

Trade, economic and spiritual-religious ties with Byzantium;

The gradual evolution of paganism towards monotheism;

The process of state formation;

The need to strengthen the power of the Kyiv prince:

The development of feudal relations and the need to justify social inequality;

The need to introduce Rus' to pan-European political realities, spiritual and cultural values.

Due to the peculiarities of the geopolitical position of Rus' between Europe and Asia, Prince Vladimir had a wide religious and civilizational choice. Theoretically, Rus' could accept one of three religions professed by neighboring states: Islam - Volga Bulgaria, Judaism - Khazar Khaganate, Eastern Christianity - Byzantium, or Western - most European countries. The choice of Orthodoxy is explained by the following factors:

The universal nature of the doctrine, acceptable to all people;

The principle of the dominance of secular power over spiritual power;

The influence of Byzantium and the need to strengthen the military-political alliance with this state;

The missionary activities of Cyril and Methodius, the baptism of Princess Olga;

The opportunity to perform worship in one’s native language, the attractiveness of the decoration of churches.

In 988, a mass baptism of Kyiv residents took place in the Dnieper. After this, the priests, with the active support of the squad, baptized residents of other Russian cities. A feature of the Christianization of Rus' was dual faith, i.e. preservation of a number of pagan rituals and beliefs.

The history of the Orthodox Church in Rus' begins with the formation of the Kyiv Metropolis, dependent on the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Patriarch of Constantinople had the right:

Bless the metropolitans at the pulpit;

The right to try the metropolitan;

The right to resolve religious and ritual disagreements.

In the history of the Kyiv metropolis, only two metropolitans were Russian: Hilarion, elected in 1051, and Clement in 1147.

The Russian Church was divided into dioceses headed by bishops, first in the 6th century (X century), then in the 15th century (XIII century). The highest clergy of the Kyiv Church was supported by state support - tithes from princely income. There were other sources of income: trade and ship duties, monastic estates.

The second stage in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church is Moscow (XIII-XIY centuries). During this period, the church was a unifying force in conditions of feudal fragmentation and the Tatar-Mongol yoke. The Russian principalities also had to fight Western European invaders. Prince Alexander Nevsky of Novgorod renounced his alliance with the Catholic Church in exchange for military assistance and was subsequently canonized by the Orthodox Church.

During this period, the throne of the Metropolitan of All Rus' was transferred to Moscow. Metropolitan Alexy and Abbot Sergius of Radonezh made a significant contribution to the national liberation movement.

In the middle of the XY century. The Russian Orthodox Church became autocephalous. In 1438, a council was held in Florence, at which a union was adopted between the Pope and the Byzantine Patriarch Joseph, recognizing the primacy of Rome. Metropolitan Isidore, who headed the Russian Church, supported the union, but the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily II and the Moscow clergy accused Constantinople of apostasy and removed Isidore. In 1448, a council was convened in Moscow and Bishop Jonah of Ryazan was installed as metropolitan.

At the end of the XY century. The Russian Orthodox Church faced the heresies of the Judaizers and Strigolniks. Heretics rejected the trinity of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and did not recognize church sacraments and hierarchy.

Great resonance in public life Rus' had a polemic between the Josephites, led by Joseph Volotsky, and the non-covetous people, led by Nil Sorsky. The first defended the right of the church and monasteries to land property and recognized the primacy of secular power, arguing that the power of the prince was from God. Non-acquisitives were for an independent church and opposed the accumulation of wealth by the clergy.

Metropolitan Macarius crowned Ivan IY the Terrible to the throne, affirming the idea of ​​​​the divinity of royal power. In the middle of the XYI century. 39 Russian saints are canonized, rituals and cults are unified. The Council of the Hundred Heads in 1551 introduced the church rank of archpriests, who monitored the discipline of the clergy, consolidated the custom of making the sign of the cross with two fingers, procession in the direction of the sun (salting), etc.

As a result of the strengthening of the Moscow centralized state, it became possible to establish the patriarchate in 1589. Job became the first Russian patriarch. The third stage in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church is the patriarchal period of 1589-1700. After the death of Boris Godunov and his son, Patriarch Job refused to recognize the power of the impostor False Dmitry I, for which he was exiled to a monastery. Another outstanding personality of the “Time of Troubles” was Patriarch Hermogenes, who, under the conditions of the Polish-Swedish intervention, defended the idea of ​​an Orthodox kingdom. From 1619 to 1633 The Moscow Patriarch was the father of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich - Filaret. He became co-ruler with his son and received the title “great sovereign.”

In the middle of the XYII century. a schism occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church, which was a consequence of church reform. The main reason for the reform was the implementation of the doctrine of the monk Philotheus “Moscow is the Third Rome,” which established the historical continuity of Moscow in relation to the first Rome, which “fell into the Latin heresy,” and the second Rome, Constantinople, captured by the Turks in 1453. This concept ensured the national unity of the state and the right to spread Orthodoxy beyond Russia. To transform Russia into a center of Orthodoxy, it was necessary to correct liturgical books and unify rituals according to Greek models. In addition, the books have accumulated many errors and discrepancies. The development of book printing also contributed to the reform.

Patriarch Nikon (1652-1666) played an important role in carrying out church reform. During the reforms, the two-finger sign was replaced by a three-finger sign, instead of “Jesus” they began to write “Jesus”, along with the eight-pointed cross, the four-pointed one was also recognized, walking around the altar began to be done against the movement of the sun, etc. There were changes in icon painting, church architecture and music.

But the reforms were not accepted by everyone. Many priests and laity opposed the Greek models, considering them a departure from the true faith. Archpriest Avvakum became the leader of the Old Believers. Followers of the old faith fled to the remote corners of Russia - to the North, to Siberia. Acts of protest included self-immolations, “purges,” and social unrest.

During the reform period, a conflict occurred between Nikon and the Tsar, Alexei Mikhailovich. At the heart of the conflict is the question of the relationship between secular and spiritual authorities. The patriarch's idea that the "priesthood is higher than the kingdom" led to his deposition. Church Council 1666-1667 deprived Nikon of his dignity and finally approved the reforms, blaming the Old Believers for the schism.

The consequences of these events were:

The emergence of the Old Believer Church;

Approval of the Church of the New Rite;

Affirmation of the priority of secular power over spiritual power;

Loss of the Church's monopoly on ideology;

Development of secular culture and social thought.

Official Church imposed an anathema on the Old Believers, which was lifted only in 1971.

Among the Old Believers, two main directions can be distinguished - priests and non-priests. Bespopovtsy believe that the post-reform clergy is wrong and has no right to exist. They retained only two sacraments - baptism and confession. The priests retained the priesthood.

The synoidal period in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church (1700-1917) began after the death of Patriarch Adrian. Peter I did not allow the election of a new patriarch, and the Church was headed by the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Stefan Yavorsky. The Tsar subordinated the clergy to the Monastic Order, transferred the clergy to a salary, and carried out a partial secularization of church lands.

In 1721, the Spiritual Regulations were adopted, according to which the patriarchal administration was replaced by the synodal. The Holy Governing Synod was headed by the Chief Prosecutor and consisted of. Peter's church reforms contributed to even greater subordination of the church to the state.

At the end of the XYIII century. The Church lost almost all of its land holdings, and its property came under state control. In the XYIII century. The missionary activity of the Church was actively developing, promoting the spread of Orthodoxy in Siberia, the Far East, and the Caucasus.

The Synodal period is characterized by a revival of monastic life and eldership. The elders of Optina Pustyn gained particular fame - Seraphim of Sarov (1760-1833), Ambrose of Optina (1812-1821), John of Kronstadt (1829-1908).

In the 19th century A large number of religious educational institutions appeared. Under Alexander I they were combined into one system. In the middle of the 19th century. the number of clergy reached 60 thousand people. Until the middle of the century, the clergy was a closed class, but in 1867 young men of all classes were allowed to enter seminaries. By 1917, there were 57 seminaries and 4 theological academies.

In August 1917, the All-Russian Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church began work in Moscow, which lasted until 1918. On October 28, 1917, a decision was made to restore the patriarchate. Tikhon was elected the new patriarch.

Under Soviet rule, a number of legislative acts were adopted that not only separated the church from the state, but also placed it in a discriminatory position. During the civil war, the church and clergy were subjected to severe persecution. For 1918-1922 27 bishops were arrested, and from more than one hundred thousand priests only 40 thousand remained.

In February 1922, the state confiscated jewelry from the church to fight hunger. Patriarch Tikhon sent a message in which he authorized the voluntary donation of valuables, with the exception of sacred objects. The repressions continued with the confiscation of church property, more than eight thousand clergy died.

To establish civil peace and end the persecution of the clergy, Patriarch Tikhon in June 1923 recognized the legitimacy of Soviet power. The main task of the patriarch was to preserve the canonical integrity of the church and the purity of doctrine in the conditions of a powerful anti-religious campaign.

After Tikhon's death in April 1925, the church was headed by the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Sergius. In his declaration of 1927, he declared the Church's loyalty to Soviet power in civil matters, without making any concessions in matters of faith. This statement did not stop the repressions and by the end of the 30s. In the USSR, only a few hundred churches were active and only four bishops remained in office. All monasteries and theological educational institutions were closed.

On the first day of the Great Patriotic War, Metropolitan Sergius in his Message called on the Orthodox to defend the sacred land of the Fatherland from invaders. The Russian Orthodox Church has done a lot to strengthen the patriotic feelings of the Soviet people. The church contributed more than 300 million rubles to the defense fund; the Dmitry Donskoy tank column and the Alexander Nevsky air squadron were built with its funds.

In September 1943, the patriarchate was restored. In February 1945, Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad was elected patriarch to replace the deceased Sergius. The relaxations of the first post-war years led to an increase in the number of operating churches, the opening of two theological academies and eight seminaries. But the Church was prohibited from conducting any other activities other than worship and training of priests.

In 1961, the Russian Orthodox Church joined the World Council of Churches. In the 70s Patriarch Pimen was active in anti-war activities. On his initiative, the World Conference “Religious Leaders for Lasting Peace, Disarmament and Fair Relations between Nations” was held in Moscow.

The situation in the Church changed radically in the mid-80s. In the anniversary year of 1988, more than a thousand parishes were opened, and enrollment in theological seminaries was increased. Celebrations were held throughout the country to mark the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus'.

In May 1990, after the death of Pimen, Alexy II became the new Patriarch. In the 90s There was a genuine separation of church and state. The state no longer promoted atheism. A religious organization was recognized as a legal entity with the right to own property and engage in social, missionary, and charitable activities.

In August 2000, the “Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church” were adopted at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. This document formulates and systematizes the position of the Church on a wide range of issues - economic, political, moral.

In May 2007, the “Act on Canonical Communion” of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was signed. This document was the result of long-term work to eliminate contradictions and unite the Churches on mutually acceptable principles.

In January 2009, Kirill became the new Patriarch.

Literature

1. Gribanov A. Orthodoxy / A. Gribanov // Science and life. – 1993. - No. 6.

2. Kartashov, A.V. History of the Russian Church. In 2 volumes / A. V. Kartashov. – M., 1993.

3. Men, A. Orthodox worship. Sacrament. Word. Rite. / A. Men. – M., 1989.

4 Orthodoxy: dictionary. – M., 1989.

5. Kolesnikova, V.S. Russian Orthodox holidays / V.S. Kolesnikova. – 2nd ed., corrections and additions. – M., 1996.

6. Regelson, L.L. The tragedy of the Russian church 1917-1945 / L.L. Regelson. – M., 1999.

7. Nikitin, V. New holiday- a holiday of church unity. Act on canonical communion of Russian Orthodox Churches \ V. Nikitin // Science and religion. – 2007. - No. 11.

8. History of religions in Russia: textbook / ed. I.Ya. Trofimchuk. – M., 1995.

9. A new Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' has been elected. // Science and religion. 2009. No. 2.

10. Babkin M.A. Local Council of 1917-1918: the question of the conscience of the Orthodox flock. // Questions of history. 2010. No. 4.

11. Vyatkin V.V. Church policy of Anna Ioannovna. // Questions of history. 2010 No. 8.

12. Pashkov V. Monasticism in Rus' in the mirror of statistics. // Science and religion. 2010. No. 8

13. Myalo K. Participation in God or dedication to God? (Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet legacy). // Science and religion. 2010. No. 9.

14. Peter I and the patriarchs // Science and religion. – 2006 – 2006. - No. 12.

15. Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches: prospects for cooperation. // Science and religion. – 2005. - No. 6.

16 http://www.russion-orthodox-church.org.ru/

Bibliography

Sources:

1. Internet sites: Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate, Central Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”. 2000 – 2005.

Section 4.

World religions represented on the territory of the Russian Federation

Christianity, Buddhism and Islam are called world or universal religions. Worldwide in prevalence and universal in nature, which is not focused on any specific national, social or professional groups of people, but is capable of uniting them in its religion.

Christianity

Topic 12. Catholicism

5. 1. Prerequisites for the separation of the Western and Eastern Churches: theological, historical, cultural.

6. Division of 1054.

7. Differences between Orthodox and Catholic dogmatic teachings. Second Vatican Council.

8. Modern Catholic social doctrine.

The division of the Christian Church into Eastern and Western occurred under the influence of many different reasons, which for centuries, overlapping each other, undermined the unity of the Church, until finally the last connecting thread was severed. Despite the diversity of these reasons, we can conditionally distinguish two main groups among them: religious and ethno-cultural.

There are two strictly religious reasons for the schism: the desire of the Roman high priests for absolute power over the Church and dogmatic deviations from the general Christian doctrine formulated by the seven Ecumenical Councils, among which the most important is the change in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by inserting filioque (translated from the Latin “and from the Spirit”). - one of the dogmas of the Catholic Church, according to which the Holy Spirit comes not only from God the Father, but also from God the Son.

The next group of phenomena that decisively contributed to the weakening of church unity even at a time when it was still preserved relates to the area of ​​national and cultural conditions for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East.

Not a single Church in its history escaped the influence of these conditions, but in this case we are dealing with a clash between the two most powerful traditions of the ancient world - Hellenic and Roman. The difference in the ethno-cultural aspirations of these traditions laid down deep differences in the assimilation of Christianity in the West and in the East. This “opposite of native ethnic groups” slowly but steadily increased the degree of alienation until it finally became a reality in the 11th century. And the reason was no longer only the claims of the popes. The directions of development of church life have become different.

The peoples of the Hellenic world, according to church historian B.M. Melioransky, “understood Christianity primarily as revealed metaphysics and ethics, as a divinely indicated path to moral perfection and personal salvation and to knowledge of the essence of God.” This explains the fullness of the inquisitive theological life of the East, which equally poured itself out both in the depths of the knowledge of God and in heretical deviations from it, shaking and weakening the Eastern church organism.

On the contrary, what V.V. Bolotov, another church historian, called “the influence of the Romanesque on the Christian”, expressed itself in the patient and methodical creation of the church building, for the Romans “as the most stateful people in the world, as the creators of exemplary law, understood Christianity as a divinely revealed program of social order... Where The East saw a philosophical and moral idea; there the West created an institution."

The accumulation of deviations from the general teaching and life of the still undivided Church testified to independent development its western half, which became entrenched in the schism, which became, according to one of the most prominent Slavophiles A.S. Khomyakov, “an arbitrary, undeserved excommunication of the entire East.” The Eastern Church did not dare to introduce anything new into the conciliar truths, which cost it such labors and trials; it was the West that began to change them, and this departure from the conciliarly approved teaching and church life was resolved by the schism of 1054. The subsequent development of the Church only confirms this conclusion, for the common faith of the undivided Church is preserved by the Eastern Church unchanged even to this day, while the past centuries have burdened the independent church development of the West with numerous innovations that increasingly alienate it from the common heritage.

The growing independence, even self-sufficiency of the West accompanied by the depletion of the conciliar principle in the life of the Universal Church, which could no longer resist disintegration. In previous centuries, a Council was convened to resolve differences of opinion, and the power of its decisions admonished and united those at war. After the end of the era of the Ecumenical Councils, there was no longer a restraining principle, and innovations and novelties emerging from the West no longer led to the convening of a new Ecumenical Council, which could protect the church world from decay.

We can get a more complete idea of ​​the degree of alienation between the West and the East if we turn to the events that immediately preceded the Great Schism.

In the middle of the 9th century, Byzantium was shocked by the struggle against iconoclasm that it had just experienced, and after its defeat, two parties were formed: the “Zealots,” or supporters of a merciless fight against heretics, and the “Iconomists,” who stood for a lenient attitude towards them.

The confrontation between these parties resulted in a fierce confrontation between the Patriarchs Photius and Ignatius, in which Rome took an active part. The consequence of the confrontation was a rupture in relations between East and West, which ceased only after the Council of St. Sophia in 879-880. In addition to the Papal legates, representatives of the eastern Patriarchates and many bishops attended the Council, the number of which reached 383. Thus, it was one of the most representative Councils with the exception of Chalcedon.

At this Council, with the participation of the legates, a resolution was adopted against attempts to introduce the filioque into the creed. The popes' claims to supreme power in the Church were again condemned, and one of the rules of this Council confirmed the complete equality of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople. At the Council, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was announced and a resolution was adopted on its complete immutability, and it was also decided “not to allow any innovations in the management of the Ecumenical Church. The Holy Sophia Council was often classified as an Ecumenical Council, and until the 12th century it was considered such Western Church. The decades preceding the Great Schism present a picture of a “bad peace,” which was often disturbed and was eventually resolved by a “good quarrel.” V.V. Bolotov provides impressive statistics of the historical mutual estrangement of the Eastern and Western Churches. From the five and a half centuries that have passed Since the Edict of Milan in 312, which stopped the persecution of Christians and recognized Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, relations between the Churches were normal for only 300 years, and for more than 200 years they, for one reason or another, were interrupted.

In church history, there is a point of view according to which Rome deliberately aggravated relations with the East before the Great Schism, seeking their rupture. There were reasons for such a desire, for the disobedience of the East clearly embarrassed Rome, undermined its monopoly, therefore, as B. Melioransky writes, “The East refuses to obey and there is no means of forcing it to obey; it remains to declare that the obedient churches are the whole true Church.” .

The reason for the final break in July 1054 was another conflict over the church possessions of Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael Cerullarius. Rome tried for the last time to achieve unconditional obedience of the East, and when it became clear that this was impossible, the Papal legates, “missing, in their own words, the resistance of Michael,” came to the Church of Hagia Sophia and solemnly placed on the throne the bull of excommunication, which read: “By the authority of the Holy and indivisible Trinity, the Apostolic See, of which we are ambassadors, all the holy Orthodox fathers of the Seven Councils and the Catholic Church, we sign against Michael and his adherents the anathema that our most reverend Pope pronounced against them, if they do not come to their senses.” The absurdity of what happened was also complemented by the fact that the Pope, on whose behalf they pronounced the anathema, was already dead, he died back in April 1054.

After the departure of the legates, Patriarch Michael Cerullarius convened a Council, at which the legates and their “unholy writings,” after consideration, were anathematized. It should be noted that not the entire Western Church was anathematized, just as Cardinal Humbert did in relation to the Eastern Church, but only the legates themselves. At the same time, of course, the condemnations of the Councils of 867 and 879 regarding Latin innovations, filioque and papal claims to primacy remain valid.

All Eastern Patriarchs were notified of the decisions made by a district message and expressed support for them, after which church communication with Rome ceased throughout the East. No one denied the honorable primacy of the Pope established by the fathers, but no one agreed with his supreme power. The agreement of all Eastern Primates in relation to Rome is confirmed by the example of Peter III, Patriarch of Antioch, who crossed out the name of the Pope from the commemoration of the Patriarchal service along with other Orthodox Patriarchs (from the diptychs) long before the Great Schism. The correspondence of Peter III with the Roman throne about the possibility of restoring unity is known, during which he received a letter from Rome outlining the Papal point of view. It struck him so much that Peter III immediately sent it to Patriarch Michael, accompanied by very expressive words: “These Latins, after all, are our brothers, despite all their rudeness, ignorance and partiality for their own opinion, which sometimes leads them astray roads."

DIFFERENCES IN CATHOLIC AND ORTHODOX DOGMATIC TEACHINGS