When was the patriarchate introduced? History of the Patriarchate in Rus'
From the very beginning of the Christianization of Russian lands in the 9th–10th centuries. their church hierarchy was part of the structures of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The head of the Russian Church was the Metropolitan of Kiev, whose candidacy was approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Until the 14th century. The metropolitan see, with rare exceptions, was occupied by Greek clergy.
Internal strife and Mongol invasions led to the 2nd half of the 13th century. to the decline of Kyiv. In 1299, Metropolitan Maxim moved his residence to North-Eastern Rus', to Vladimir, although he retained the title of Metropolitan of Kyiv. Beginning with Maxim's successor, Metropolitan Peter, the primates of the Russian Church lived primarily in Moscow, which gradually became the center of gathering of Russian lands.
The entry of the southern Russian lands into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland, as well as the relocation of the Kyiv metropolitans to the northeast, led to a series of internal church and administrative conflicts. In the middle of the 15th century. The Western Russian Metropolis was formed, the head of which bore the title of Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia. The first hierarchs who lived in Moscow began to bear the title of “Metropolitans of All Rus'.” Since 1448, they were elected by a council of Russian bishops, without approval in Constantinople. Thus, the Russian Church received actual independence (autocephaly), although not legally enshrined.
After the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 and the establishment of the Moscow Metropolitanate's independent status from Constantinople, the Russian Church became the most influential and numerous of the local churches. What is especially important is that it was located on the territory of the last independent state, where Orthodoxy was the official religion. Starting from the time of Ivan the Terrible, Moscow sovereigns took the title of tsars, presenting themselves as successors to the Byzantine Caesar emperors. There was a growing understanding of the need to raise the status of the Russian Church to patriarchy.
However, the elevation of the Moscow Metropolis to the level of patriarchate at that time was hampered by tense relations with the Church of Constantinople. Its leaders were offended by Rus' for its unilateral transition to autocephaly and did not want to officially recognize it. At the same time, without the consent of the Constantinople and other eastern patriarchs, the independent proclamation of a Russian metropolitan as a patriarch would be illegal. If it was possible to install a tsar in Moscow independently, by the force and authority of the Orthodox state, then it was impossible to establish a patriarchate without first resolving this issue by the leading departments. Historical circumstances were favorable for completing the program of autocephaly of the Russian Church through the establishment of the patriarchate only at the end of the 16th century, during the reign of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. An important role in the negotiations on this issue was played by the actual ruler of Rus' at that time - the brother of Queen Irina Boris Godunov, the future tsar.
The first stage of preparations for the establishment of the patriarchate in the Russian Church was associated with the arrival of Patriarch Joachim of Antioch to Moscow in 1586. This event became the impetus for the work of Godunov’s diplomats in acquiring patriarchal dignity for the primate of the Russian Church. Joachim first came to Western Rus', and from there he went to Moscow for financial help. And if in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the patriarch had to witness a new onslaught of Catholics on Orthodoxy and the almost complete decline of the church life of the Kyiv Metropolis, then in Moscow he was greeted with great honor and pomp.
The main purpose of the Patriarchal visit was to collect donations. At the See of Antioch, as well as at other Orthodox churches under Ottoman rule, there was a gigantic debt for those times - 8 thousand gold. The Russians were very interested in the appearance of Joachim in Moscow: for the first time in history, the Eastern Patriarch came to Moscow. In the minds of Godunov and his circle, this unprecedented episode almost instantly and unexpectedly brought to life a project designed to put into practice the idea of establishing the Moscow Patriarchate.
In 1587, on the initiative of Godunov, Dionysius, associated with the political opponents of Boris Fedorovich, was replaced at the metropolitan see by the loyal Job, previously the Archbishop of Rostov.
Meanwhile, the Church of Constantinople was going through a period of turmoil and financial difficulties. The new patriarch Jeremiah II, soon after his election, went to the Russian lands to get money.
On July 11, 1588, he arrived in Moscow, where he was met with great honors and placed in the Ryazan courtyard. After 5 days, Jeremiah was received by Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich and Tsarina Irina. They presented the Greek hierarch with silver, money, and sables. Jeremiah handed over to the king and queen the shrines brought to Moscow, including part of the relics of Emperor Constantine. After the gala reception, negotiations between Jeremiah and Boris Godunov took place. Here it turned out that Jeremiah was not ready to discuss the 1586 agreements of the Russian government with the Antioch Patriarch Joachim on the establishment of the Patriarchate in Rus' and came only “for the sake of alms for a church building.” The Patriarch of Constantinople insisted that he could not resolve such an important issue without a council discussion. Finding himself virtually under house arrest at the Ryazan courtyard, Jeremiah made concessions, offering Moscow limited autocephaly. At the same time, it was necessary to remember the Patriarch of Constantinople during divine services and receive consecrated myrrh from him. But by this time the Russian Church had already been virtually autocephalous for a century and a half.
However, Jeremiah continued to search for a compromise: he was ready himself, tired of the endless hardships in Constantinople, to remain patriarch in Rus'. In this case, the Russian side offered Jeremiah a residence in Vladimir; Metropolitan Job would remain in Moscow with the sovereign. Jeremiah agreed to become the Russian patriarch only if he was placed in the capital. Negotiations between Godunov and Jeremiah lasted almost six months. In mid-January 1589, Jeremiah made a promise to install a Russian patriarch in Russia and to bless the further installation of a patriarch in Rus' by a council of Russian bishops; the king had to let him go to Constantinople.
On January 17, 1589, Fyodor Ivanovich convened the Boyar Duma together with the Church Council: 3 archbishops, 6 bishops, 5 archimandrites and 3 cathedral monastery elders arrived in Moscow. The king announced that Jeremiah did not want to be patriarch in Vladimir. Fyodor Ivanovich decided to ask Jeremiah for his blessing to appoint Job as Patriarch of Moscow. On the same day, the Duma was assembled with the Consecrated Council, and the sovereign turned to Job, asking the metropolitan for his opinion regarding the establishment of the patriarchate. Job replied that he, together with all the bishops and the Consecrated Council, “put the Tsar and the Grand Duke at the will of the pious sovereign.”
On January 23, Patriarch Jeremiah and members of the Consecrated Council, with the exception of Metropolitan Job, arrived at the Assumption Cathedral. In the chapel in honor of the Praise of the Mother of God, the traditional place for electing candidates for metropolitan positions, the election of three candidates for the patriarchate took place. Then all the bishops participating in the elections, led by Jeremiah, arrived at the palace. Here the Patriarch of Constantinople reported to the Tsar about the candidates, and Fyodor Ivanovich chose Job. Only after this, the elected Patriarch of Moscow was called to the palace, and he met Jeremiah for the first time. Here, in the royal chambers, Job was named patriarch. In the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, Jeremiah and the named Patriarch Job served a short prayer service. Three days later, the installation ceremony of the first Russian patriarch took place there; Jeremiah and a host of bishops performed the full episcopal consecration of Job.
In early February, Jeremiah spent several days in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra; at the beginning of Lent, he again asked to be released to Constantinople, but Godunov, citing the difficulties of the journey in winter, persuaded him to wait some more time. This was necessary in order to prepare for Jeremiah’s signing a document on the establishment of the Patriarchate in Moscow - the so-called Chartered Charter. A characteristic detail of this letter, drawn up in the royal office, is the mention of the consent of all eastern patriarchs to the establishment of the patriarchate in Moscow. In fact, at that time such consent had not yet been obtained.
The next stage in the approval of the Moscow Patriarch was to include him in a fairly high place in the patriarchal diptychs - the official list of heads of Orthodox churches. The Russians claimed that the Moscow Patriarch would be commemorated in the diptych third, after the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, before the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem. After signing the letter, Jeremiah, having received generous gifts from the king, left Moscow in May 1589.
Fulfilling the promises made in Moscow, in May 1590 he convened a council in Constantinople, at which he spoke about the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. The Council recognized this act and approved the patriarchal rank for the primates of the Russian Church. The conciliar charter was brought to Moscow the following year by Metropolitan Dionysius of Tarnovo and was presented to the Tsar on June 20. Under the text of the verdict of the Council of Eastern Hierarchs there are 106 signatures (including the signatures of three patriarchs; there is no signature of the High Hierarch of Alexandria, because the See of Alexandria was then vacant). Their modern graphological analysis showed that at least 66 of the signatures were forged. There is no need to doubt the fact that Patriarch Jeremiah held a council regarding the elevation of the Moscow See to the level of patriarchal chair, but it must be recognized that the number of participants in the council was significantly less than the number of signatures under the council verdict. Probably, Jeremiah committed the forgery in hopes of quickly receiving alms from Russia and wanted to create a more representative impression of the cathedral than it actually was.
In 1593, in Constantinople, in the presence of the Moscow ambassador G. Afanasyev, a new council of eastern hierarchs was held, in which the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria (who also temporarily ruled the See of Antioch) and Jerusalem took part. The Council, having agreed with the elevation of the primate of the Russian Church to the rank of patriarch, confirmed the fifth place of the Russian Church in the diptych of Orthodox churches.
“Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'” - with all its ancient solemnity, this title has firmly entered modern media circulation. Whose patriarch is more important, more ancient, more authoritative? - we ask these questions as modern ones. "RG" discusses the history of the patriarchate in Russia with Sergei Perevezentsev, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor at Moscow State University and Dean of the Faculty of History and Philology of the Russian Orthodox University.
How and why did we have a patriarchate?
Sergey Perevezentsev: The patriarchate in Rus' officially arose at the end of the 16th century. But back in the middle of the 15th century, the famous Union of Florence took place, at which the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized the primacy of the Pope and agreed to profess Catholic dogmas in the Orthodox Church. The majority of the Orthodox world (including in Constantinople itself) perceived the news of union extremely critically. And in Rus' as well. The Greek Metropolitan, who came to Moscow from the Council of Florence and announced this news, was soon simply expelled from the country. And when in 1453 the Ottoman Turks took Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire perished, in Rus' this was perceived as God’s punishment for betraying the faith. Since the end of the 15th century, the desire of Russian theologians, politicians and thinkers to affirm the idea that there was only one independent Orthodox power left in the world - Rus', Russia - became noticeable. All Eastern Christians, who hoped that Russia would liberate them from Turkish rule, agreed with this growing sense of uniqueness. As a result, in the middle of the 15th century, autocephaly (independent self-government) of the Russian metropolis was established, and 150 years later, the patriarchate was established, the fifth after the previous four. The Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem have existed since ancient times, around the 4th century. In Rus' they were all called Ecumenical and were considered the main ones in resolving theological issues. But until the middle of the 17th century, a critical attitude towards the Greek Church remained; it was believed that the Greeks had betrayed the faith. Only the church reform of Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in the middle of the 17th century transferred the rules of the Greek Church to Rus', but it also led to a schism; many did not accept the innovations and became “Old Believers.”
How many patriarchs are there in the world today, what is their hierarchy and significance?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Today the existence of 15 local Orthodox churches is officially recognized. They are not necessarily headed by patriarchs; they may also be headed (as, for example, in the Greek Church) by an archbishop. In the Orthodox tradition there is no rule of a single head of the entire church. The heads of each of the local churches are equal to each other and are independent in making decisions in the church territories subordinate to them. The interference of other churches gives rise to political conflicts. Such a conflict currently exists between the Antioch and Jerusalem Patriarchates over Orthodox parishes in Qatar.
Did it also lead to the impossibility of convening a truly Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Yes, this is one of the reasons for the refusal of the Church of Antioch to participate in the Council in Crete. A conflict over some canonical territories also exists between the Serbian and Romanian churches. In the 90s, there was a conflict between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church, when part of the Estonian parishes went under the rule of Constantinople. Although from a canonical point of view he did not have the right to take over these parishes. But these conflicts also highlight an important thing: in the Orthodox Church there is no single head to whom everyone must obey. This has been the tradition of the Pope since ancient times, and in many ways it served to divide the churches in the 11th century. The Patriarch of Constantinople is by no means the “chief” in the Orthodox Church, only the “senior in honor” - a certain seniority is recognized, but not legal, but moral.
Have the names of patriarchal titles changed?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Certainly. The patriarch is also a bishop, and the episcopal title usually includes the names of those territories over which the authority of a particular church extended. After the annexation of Little and White Rus' in the second half of the 17th century, the Moscow Patriarch began to bear the title of Patriarch of White and Little Rus'. In the 19th century there was no longer the concept of Rus', they said: Russia.
But today we say “...all Rus',” but the word “Rus” has now come to mean the whole world, which is spiritually and culturally connected with our church?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Yes, behind this is the idea of the Russian World. Not political, not marked by state borders, not connected with any expansion, but the spiritual world. The word “Rus” means the spiritual connection of people living in different parts of the Earth, but professing Orthodoxy and recognizing the values of the Russian world as the main ones for themselves.
How do you explain the almost two-century gap in the history of the patriarchate? How important was its revival at the beginning of the 20th century?
Sergey Perevezentsev: During this period of Russian history, the Church found itself subordinate to the state. This process began long before the reign of Tsar Peter the Great. Even during the time of his father, Alexei Mikhailovich, attempts were made to subordinate the Church to the state in the economic, political, and judicial sense, but this trend finally prevailed in the 18th and 19th centuries. The results were inconsistent. On the one hand, the Church received direct state support, for example, in its missionary activities in the East. It was in the 18th and 19th centuries that the great Orthodox missionaries became famous - Innocent of Irkutsk, Innocent of Moscow, who enlightened Siberia and Alaska. But, on the other hand, all state sins were blamed on the Church - in popular opinion. And this had a serious negative impact. It is not without reason that at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, a movement for the restoration of the patriarchate arose in both Russian intellectual and priestly circles. Even before the First World War, a Council was planned at which this issue was to be resolved. And Tsar Nicholas II supported this cause. The war did not allow it to be carried out. And today, it seems to me, the Church should be an independent organization.
What were the patriarchs like as individuals? There are saints among them. Perhaps there are also losers?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Being a patriarch is a tough job. After all, he bears spiritual, moral, physical, legal responsibility for the entire Church. Not to mention the fact that a person holding this highest position must be an ideal of moral purity. Because it is through him that the church itself is most often perceived.
It must be said that most of the heads of the Russian Church, starting from the 11th century (from the time of the first metropolitans), were people of very high culture, deep experts and followers of Christian doctrine. It's hard to name someone who has outright done something bad. True, one bishop at the beginning of the 17th century, under False Dmitry I, agreed to take the patriarchal throne after the first Russian Patriarch Job was forcibly removed from him and sent to live out his life in a monastery. But he later fled from Moscow and is now not remembered among the patriarchs.
First Patriarch of Moscow Job. In 1989 he was glorified as a saint. Photo: wikipedia.org
What place does the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' occupy among other patriarchs?
Sergey Perevezentsev: Nominally - fifth. The first four come first. But in fact, the Russian Orthodox Church is now the largest in terms of the number of churchgoers. Its parishes are located all over the world. Therefore, in fact, the Russian Orthodox Church now occupies a position equal to Constantinople. And in terms of authority, she is one of the most influential. It is no coincidence that no one paid attention to the quite frequent meetings of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Pope of Rome in recent years, but the meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill with him caused a huge stir.
A Brief History of the Russian Patriarchate
The Patriarchate in Moscow was established in 1589. The first patriarch was Job. In 1721 it was abolished. The so-called synodal period followed in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, when it was governed by the Holy Synod. In 1917, at the All-Russian Local Council, the patriarchate was restored. Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow became Patriarch.
How the name of the patriarchal title changed
The first Patriarch Job was called "the Most Holy Patriarch of the reigning city of Moscow and the Great Russian Kingdom" and "Patriarch of the reigning city of Moscow and all Russia."
“Patriarch of All Russia and All Northern Countries” - this is how the title usually sounded until the time of Peter the Great. “By the grace of God, great lord and sovereign, archbishop of the reigning city of Moscow and all great, small and white Russia and all northern countries and Pomoria and many states, Patriarch” - this is how Patriarch Nikon wrote his title. On the tomb of Patriarch Adrian, his title is written as follows: Archbishop of Moscow and all Russia and all northern countries, Patriarch.
Patriarch Tikhon bore the title "Moscow and All Russia". The modern form “His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'” was chosen by Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1943, but it was also used in antiquity.
A candidate for patriarch must be, according to the Church Charter, a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, at least 40 years old, have a higher theological education and sufficient experience in church administration of the diocese. The rank of patriarch is for life.
Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation
University of Moscow
Department of History of State and Law
on the topic “History of the Patriarchate in Russia”
Moscow 2012
Introduction
3. Patriarchs of All Rus'
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
In the political system of medieval Russia, the church occupied one of the central places. Church administration was built on the mud of the secular. Boyars and armed servants were in the service of the church hierarchs. The structure and competence of the church organization, its administrative and judicial powers were determined by a special legal system - church law. The church's land and other wealth ensured its relative economic independence from the state and allowed it to play an important political role. The position of the medieval church organization can be defined as a state within a state. In such a situation, it became natural for the state to strive to include church institutions in the general structure of the state apparatus and solve a certain range of problems at the expense of the church.
Since the middle of the 16th century, church policy pursued by the state was aimed at limiting the privileges of the church organization. The greatest urgency became the resolution of issues of church land ownership, judicial and tarhan rights, and the intervention of the church in the affairs of the state.
The purpose of the work is to study the emergence and restoration of the institution of patriarchy in Russia.
In accordance with this, the work tasks are defined:
study the history of the emergence and renewal of the patriarchate in Russia
Name and define the main contribution of the patriarchs from the emergence of the patriarchate to the present day.
Analyze the activities of the Patriarchs of Moscow and All Rus'.
1. Establishment of the Patriarchate in Russia
The patriarchate in Rus' was introduced in 1589 under Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, the son of Ivan the Terrible. By this time, the Russian state had calmed down from internal and external troubles, and along with the rise of the autocratic power of the Moscow Tsar and the expansion of the state border of Russia, the Russian Church spread and rose in its external position. In territorial and material terms, the Moscow Metropolis was superior to many patriarchates, and often the Jerusalem, Antioch and other patriarchs came to Moscow for alms; in addition, the Patriarch of Constantinople, after the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks (1453), was heavily dependent on the Turkish Sultan. In such conditions, the patriarchs understood the request of the Russian Tsar, the pious Theodore Ioannovich, to free the Russian Church from subordination to the Patriarch of Constantinople and to give the Russian Metropolitan the rank of Patriarch.
Moscow Metropolitan Job became the first patriarch. Patriarchal worship was introduced, the high priest received special clothes.
When Tsar Theodore Ioannovich took care of the establishment of the patriarchate, he, in pious zeal, wanted to exalt the Russian Church with this high rank, and the Providence of God prepared in the person of patriarchs for the Russian Church and the people guardians and champions of the Orthodox faith. The patriarchate was introduced shortly before the beginning of the Time of Troubles. In the terrible time of impostors, when Russia was almost destroyed by anarchy and foreign power, it was the patriarch, who enjoyed the highest respect and authority among the Russian people, who alone directed the actions of the people towards the salvation of Russia.
Patriarch Job took an active part in defending the independence of the country: he sent out a letter so that prayers would be served in churches every day for the success of Tsar Boris Godunov over the impostor, he denounced those in the church who violated the oath to the Russian Tsar, and asked the boyars to admonish the people. At a time when many swore allegiance to the impostor, Patriarch Job remained firm, for which he suffered reproach. When Moscow was captured by supporters of the impostor, the villains broke into the altar during the Liturgy and began to tear Job’s holy clothes; then, after many tortures, the saint was imprisoned in a monastery.
The second Russian patriarch, Hermogenes, occupied the patriarchal throne in 1607-1612. He showed an example of pastoral firmness and steadfastness in Orthodoxy even in the rank of Metropolitan of Kazan: the saint adamantly demanded that the wife of False Dmitry, Marina Mnishek, accept Orthodoxy; for this he was removed from Moscow to the diocese.
Having become a patriarch, Hermogenes supported Tsar Vasily Shuisky in every possible way in the fight against the second impostor, and even when the rebellious boyars forcibly tonsured Vasily as a monk, he did not stop praying for him as a crowned tsar. Saint Hermogenes came up with the idea of calling the young boyar Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom. Russia also owes him the fact that the trick of the Polish king Sigismund III, who wanted to reign in Moscow himself under the name of his son, failed; the patriarch adamantly demanded that Vladislav accept Orthodoxy and that Sigismund, his father, not interfere in the affairs of Russia.
Saint Hermogenes blessed the Russian people to gather a militia against the Poles for the salvation of faith and fatherland and in his messages exhorted the people to stand firmly for the Orthodox faith, knowing full well that the impostor and the Poles want not only to obtain the Russian throne, but also to replace Orthodoxy in Russia with Catholicism. Prokopiy Lyapunov, the governor of Ryazan, was the first to respond to the patriarch’s call. In vain they threatened Saint Hermogenes with death if he did not stop the militia - the saint refused. Then the patriarch was imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery in Moscow and in February 1612 he was starved to death.
300 years after his painful death, in 1913, under Emperor Nicholas II, Patriarch Hermogenes was canonized by the Church.
Thus, the first patriarchs, Saints Job and Hermogenes, with their feat demonstrated the spiritual significance of the patriarchate for the Russian Church and Russia.
In the 17th century the most famous patriarch was Patriarch Nikon. His name is associated with the extraordinary growth of the power of the patriarch and the emergence of the Old Believer schism. Patriarch Nikon, being a friend of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, enjoyed his unlimited trust and during the tsar’s departures he ruled the state in his stead. For his services, the tsar honored Nikon with the title of great sovereign. The influence of Patriarch Nikon on the tsar was so significant that subsequently Peter I, remembering the example of Nikon, who believed that “the priesthood is higher than the kingdom,” and fearing that the power of the patriarch would limit the autocratic power of the tsar, abolished the patriarchate.
The most important church reform during Nikon’s patriarchate was the so-called “book right,” i.e., the correction of errors made by illiterate copyists of liturgical books. The identification of these errors began a long time ago, and by the time Nikon became patriarch, the Russian bishops recognized the need to correct liturgical books and rituals. The most important ritual deviations of the Russian Church from the Greek tradition were seen in the following: at the service they sang “Hallelujah” twice instead of three times, they were baptized with two fingers instead of three, etc. In addition, the copyists of liturgical books made mistakes in the spelling of words, which distorted their dogmatic meaning. The council of bishops, convened by Patriarch Nikon, ordered all the old books in the churches to be burned and new ones, corrected and approved by the council, to be introduced.
The Old Believer schism arose as a refusal of some believers to submit to the patriarch and the council of bishops due to adherence to old books and rituals. Nikon’s personal enemies and defenders of antiquity scolded the introduced “innovations” and spread rumors among the people that the patriarch-antichrist was “spoiling the faith.” Among an unenlightened people, loyalty to the familiar turned out to be stronger than the voice of reason. The essence of the schism was pride and ignorance, attachment to the letter and ritual, and not to the spirit of Christian doctrine.
For resistance to the ongoing reform, many champions of antiquity, among whom was the famous archpriest Avvakum, were sent into exile, and then some leaders and ideologists of the Old Believers were executed.
2. Revival of the patriarchate after 1917
the year was marked by the 95th anniversary of both two Russian revolutions and the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church. At one time it was abolished by Emperor Peter the Great after the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700. In 1721, with the consent of the Eastern Patriarchs, the highest body of church government was established in Russia - the Holy Governing Synod. A state control body over church affairs was also created.
At the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, opinions were increasingly heard among the clergy about the non-canonical nature of the Synod, about the “dominance” of the state in church affairs and about the need to reform internal church governance. Accordingly, the question arose about changing the relationship between the Church and the state. His decision began to be associated with the convening of the Local Council of the Russian Church. From the beginning of 1905, at the level of the Committee of Ministers and the Holy Synod, discussions began on the prospects for convening a Church Council. At the end of March of the same year, the Synod decided to petition the emperor to convene an All-Russian Council of Diocesan Bishops in Moscow to establish the patriarchate and discuss changes in church government. However, Nicholas II, who initially supported the idea of convening the Council, refused.
Fear of responsibility leads Orthodox believers to the dream of strong power
The relations between the state and the Church, established over two centuries, were consolidated by a number of legislative acts, the revision of which was an extremely difficult task. The destruction of the synodal system and the implementation of radical changes in church administration threatened to break the union of the empire and the Orthodox Church and even lead to the separation of the latter from the state. The restructuring of the religious foundation of the monarchy was fraught with the collapse of the entire edifice of the Orthodox state. Therefore, Nicholas II, following the advice of Chief Prosecutor Konstantin Pobedonostsev, not only was in no hurry to carry out church reforms, but also carried out a policy of “freezing”, leaving state-church relations unchanged.
State religious policy underwent major changes after April 17, 1905. On that day - in the context of the growing mass left-radical movement - the emperor issued a Decree “On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance.” According to it, all Russian subjects were given the right to profess any religion, and all religions of Russia were equal in rights. At the same time, the dominant position of the Church in the state worsened compared to what it had before the issuance of this royal decree: the Orthodox faith turned out to be the only one among all confessions that retained an inextricable connection with the state apparatus. The state did not interfere in the internal affairs of other confessions.
At the end of July 1905, Pobedonostsev turned to the Russian episcopate with a request to send to the Synod its proposals for reforms in the Church. Feedback from bishops was received by the spiritual department from the end of October 1905 until the beginning of spring of the following year. It turned out that almost the entire episcopate demanded reforms concerning the canonical structure of the Church and aimed at liberating it from state dependence. Almost everyone spoke about the non-canonical nature of the synodal system and the need to convene a Local Council.
On December 1905, the Emperor addressed the Chairman of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg with a rescript on the need to carry out reforms in the structure of the Church. Metropolitan Anthony, together with the Metropolitans of Moscow and Kyiv, was asked to determine the timing of the convening of the Council.
For a preliminary consideration of the issues of church reform scheduled for discussion at the planned Council, on January 14, 1906, the Holy Synod decided to create a special commission - the Pre-Conciliar Presence. Its members included representatives of the episcopate, priests and famous theologians. The presence operated from March 6 to December 15, 1906.
It was decided to recommend to the future Local Council the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Church. On June 3, the Presence adopted the document “On the attitude of the Supreme Government of the Orthodox Russian Church to the Supreme State Power.” It outlined the rights of the future Patriarch. In general, the Pre-Conciliar Presence proposed to reduce the imperial influence in the life of the Church: on the one hand, so that the state would continue to perform all political, financial, security and other functions for the Russian Church. On the other hand, so that the rights of the Church not only expand significantly, but so that it gains self-government. At the same time, in the decrees of the Presence, the principle of church structure was not the principle of conciliarity (that is, participation in the management of the Church in addition to the hierarchs of the white clergy and laity), but the sovereignty of the episcopate. Taking into account the plans to introduce the patriarchate, there was a desire to strengthen the power of the bishops.
The Pre-Conciliar Conference, which worked from February 28, 1912 to April 3, 1913, continued the same line. Its members decided to maintain the model of church-state relations previously proposed by the Pre-Conciliar Presence. However, it was proposed to increase the power of the chairman of the Holy Synod (the Patriarch), giving him the right to “managerially” control the work of all central church institutions. In general, in the scheme of church-state relations, which was defended by the hierarchy, the Patriarch was thought of as a person actually not under the control of the emperor, who, in a sense, is not “with” the king (as one of the closest advisers), but “opposite” the king - as a certain "counterweight" to him.
It is clear that if any (even minor) disagreements arose between the church and state authorities, the Patriarch could go into opposition to the tsar. At the same time, he would actually be “out of reach” for the emperor: in the case of, for example, the trial of the Patriarch, hierarchs of the Eastern Churches “equal in rank” should be invited to consider his case (as in the case of Patriarch Nikon in 1666). And the state would be threatened by the possibility of a church-political split, similar to the schism of the 17th century, which, in the conditions of the growing revolutionary movement, could serve as a catalyst for the revolution.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russian society, in the fight against autocracy, achieved the convening of the State Duma and received certain civil liberties. But at the same time, the interests of the Orthodox Church were not taken into account, which was left practically alone with its unresolved problems. The clergy, due to their social position, could not accept those methods of struggle for reforms that were used by society: participation in the strike movement and the use of methods of armed struggle. However, the clergy of the Russian Church could exert an ideological influence on the political consciousness of the multi-million Russian peasantry. And during the February Revolution, the clergy widely took advantage of this opportunity in order to legitimize in the minds of the flock the overthrow of the monarchy in order to achieve their goals of gaining independence (“distance”) from the state
The long-awaited Local Council opened on August 15. Four days earlier, a decree of the Provisional Government on the rights of the Council was published. The bill he developed “On a new order of free self-government of the Russian Church” was to be submitted “to the respect” of the state authorities. That is, theoretically, the Provisional Government could refuse to sanction the conciliar resolution on the form of intra-church government. In this sense, the Local Council was legally unfree.
The Local Council (the highest governing body in the Church) that opened in Moscow on August 15, 1917 attracted public attention. To participate in it, 564 people were elected and appointed: 80 bishops, 129 priests, 10 deacons, 26 psalm-readers, 20 monastics (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity. It was perceived as the Church Constituent Assembly. The cathedral worked for more than a year. During this period, three of its sessions took place: the first - from August 15 to December 9, 1917, the second and third - in 1918: from January 20 (February 2) to April 7 (20) and from June 19 (July 2) to 7 (20) September.
In October 1917, the Council began discussing a report on the form of higher church government. The opinions of the Council participants were divided: some (mainly the episcopate) advocated the restoration of the patriarchate, others (ordinary clergy and laity) were opponents of such an idea, insisting on the need for conciliarity. Moreover, for almost two weeks the fate of this issue was unclear. However, the situation changed after news from Petrograd: on October 25, the Provisional Government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, and the next day a new one was formed - the Council of People's Commissars. Moreover, the Church did not defend the Provisional Government in any way, although in March 1917 it declared it “faithful”, an authority “from God” and led the people to swear allegiance to it.
The Council responded to the October revolution, according to Boris Titlinov, a professor at the Petrograd Theological Academy, “first of all, by accelerating the establishment of the patriarchate.” Indeed, after the departure of the Provisional Government from the political scene, the need to present to it “for respect” a conciliar resolution on the form of intra-church government disappeared. The interests of the new rulers of the state in those days were far from church topics: they faced the primary question of retaining power. Representatives of the “bishop’s party” took advantage of the temporary lack of control on the part of the authorities. Against the backdrop of the shooting that began on the streets of Moscow on October 28, which arose as a result of the anti-Soviet uprising of the cadets who seized the Kremlin, the opinions of the Council participants began to lean in favor of the patriarchate.
October, the discussions were over and the question of restoring the patriarchate was put to a vote. The corresponding resolution was adopted by an absolute majority of votes. It stated four points: 1) The Local Council, convened periodically at certain times and consisting of bishops, clergy and laity, has the highest authority in the Russian Church - legislative, judicial, administrative and supervisory; 2) the patriarchate and patriarchal government of the Church are restored again; 3) The Patriarch is the first among his equal bishops; 4) The Patriarch, together with church governing bodies, is accountable to the Local Council.
and on October 31, three candidates for Patriarchs were determined by secret ballot: Archbishops of Kharkov Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Arseny of Novgorod (Stadnitsky) and Metropolitan of Moscow Tikhon (Belavin). On November 5, 1917, by drawing lots in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, Tikhon was elected Patriarch. But only two days later - on the 8th - the Local Council adopted the “Definition on the rights and duties of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.” In particular, the “first bishop” was vested with the powers of a representative of the Church before the state and had a “duty of sorrow before the state authorities.” The fact that the Patriarch was elected, but his rights and duties were unclear, serves as an indication that supporters of the “bishop’s party” were in a hurry to restore the patriarchate.
A few days later, on November 21, Patriarch Tikhon was enthroned. In the Russian Church, essentially unlimited power of the “church monarch” appeared, accountable only to the Local Council.
The Council formulated its vision of state-church relations in the definition “On the legal status of the Orthodox Russian Church,” adopted on December 2, 1917. It was literally drawn up in a form imperative to the new (Soviet) government. It proposed to give the Church the public legal status of the “primary” denomination in the country, to ensure the right to self-determination and self-government, and to provide the opportunity for legislative activity (in cases where government decrees affected church interests). Church property was recognized as not subject to confiscation and taxation, and the state was expected to receive annual allocations within the limits of church needs. It was proposed to exempt clergy and full-time clergy from various duties (primarily from military duties), elevate the Orthodox calendar to the rank of the state calendar, recognize church holidays as non-public (weekend) days, reserve the right of maintaining metric books for the Church, and preserve the mandatory nature of teaching the Law of God for Orthodox students in all educational institutions, etc. In general, the clergy demanded significant privileges for themselves, but did not prescribe any of their responsibilities to the state.
On December 1917, the Council adopted a resolution concerning church governance “On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council.” These bodies, together with the Patriarch, were given the right to manage church affairs. All of them were accountable to periodically convened Local Councils, to which they were obliged to submit a report on their activities during the inter-council period.
The next day, November 8, the Council adopted a definition “On the range of affairs subject to the jurisdiction of the bodies of the highest church government.” According to it, the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod included matters primarily related to the internal life of the Church, in particular “the highest supervision and care for the inviolable preservation of the dogmas of the faith and their correct interpretation in the sense of the teachings of the Orthodox Church; protection of the text of the liturgical books, supervision of its correction and translation.” Before the revolution, “the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the ruling faith, the guardian of orthodoxy and all holy deanery in the Church,” as God’s anointed one, was the emperor. Thus, the tsar's ecclesiastical powers were fully transferred to the clergy.
Having installed a Patriarch for themselves - a “church monarch”, towering with his rank above a secular “kingdom” devoid of sacred meaning, the clergy achieved their goals: the royal power was overthrown and, in fact, the patriarchal power was established in its place.
The new government that established itself in Russia in October 1917 began to pursue a well-known “religious” policy aimed at the complete separation of Church and state. The decree of the Soviet government “On freedom of conscience, church and religious societies” (or “On the separation of the Church from the state and the school from the Church”), adopted on January 20 (February 2), 1918, spoke of the deprivation of the Russian Church and all religious organizations of legal rights person and the separation of the school from the Church. The status of the Orthodox Church was equal to that of private societies and unions; it was denied any subsidies from the state; its property was declared public property. In other words, she was given the “freedom from state influence” that she had long desired. However, this was “freedom” raised by the Bolsheviks to an absolute: the Church was not granted “distance” from the state (which the clergy themselves had advocated since the beginning of the 20th century), but complete “separation” from it.
3. Patriarchs of All Rus'
Table 1. Patriarchs of all Rus'
JOB<#"justify">.JOB (in the world John) (1589-1605) - the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
In 1587-1589. - Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus'. Boris Godunov, in political interests, put forward the idea of establishing a patriarchal throne in Russia. Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich supported this proposal and turned to the Eastern patriarchs with a request to establish the Moscow Patriarchate, installing a Russian patriarch. The consent of the eastern patriarchs was obtained in 1588 after long and persistent negotiations. The Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah, who came to Moscow for “alms” (money to pay tribute to Turkey), was actually forced to establish a patriarchal throne here. Job was named on January 23, 1589, and made patriarch on January 26.
Job's main task was to carry out the reforms in the Russian Church outlined by the Council Code of 1589. Almost all episcopal sees were raised in rank, and several new ones were opened. Job elevated to the rank of four metropolitans, five archbishops (out of six) and one bishop for the seven planned new dioceses. He established church-wide holidays for some previously recognized saints and canonized a number of new ones. The Patriarch contributed to the spread of Christianity among foreigners in Siberia, the Kazan region, and the Korel region (Karelia). In Moscow, in order to establish greater deanery among the lower clergy, eight priestly elders were established.
After the death of Tsar Fedor in 1598, Job found himself at the head of the state. He proposed to the Zemsky Sobor to make Boris Godunov king. During the period of the struggle against False Dmitry I, Job called on the people to war for faith and the fatherland (January 1605). After the death of Boris Godunov, he organized an oath to the young Tsar Fyodor Borisovich. But peasants and townspeople, Cossacks and serfs, nobles and priests, boyars and bishops recognized False Dmitry (Dmitry Ivanovich) as the legitimate sovereign of all Rus'. The Patriarch was driven out of the Assumption Cathedral in disgrace by the crowd. He turned out to be the only bishop who refused to recognize the new tsar, despite the requests and threats of False Dmitry. Job was exiled to the Staritsky Assumption Monastery, where were kept under strict supervision. In February 1607, together with the new Patriarch Hermogenes, he sent a farewell and permissive letter throughout the country, absolving the people of all previous perjuries and calling on them to faithfully serve the new Tsar - Vasily Shuisky (who came to the throne after the death of False Dmitry). In the same year, Job died in the Staritsky Monastery. Canonized. IGNATIUS (1605-1606) - second Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Greek origin. First he was an archbishop in Cyprus, then he lived in Rome. Arrived in Moscow as an envoy of the Patriarch of Constantinople for the royal wedding of Boris Godunov. In 1603 he became bishop of Ryazan and Murom. In 1605, he was the first of the Russian archbishops to meet False Dmitry in Tula as a tsar. After the accession of False Dmitry I, a council of the Russian clergy removed Job from the throne, unanimously electing Ignatius as patriarch. After the murder of False Dmitry in 1606, the council of hierarchs deprived Ignatius of not only the patriarchal, but also the priesthood, sending him as a simple monk to the Chudov Monastery. In 1611, during the Polish rule in Moscow, Ignatius was released from the monastery and again recognized as patriarch. A few months later he fled to Poland, settled in Vilna and accepted the union (that is, while maintaining almost all the dogmas and rituals of the Orthodox Church, he recognized the primacy of the Pope). Publicly renounced Orthodoxy. Subsequently, Ignatius’s grave was destroyed during the capture of Vilna by Russian troops. HERMOGENES (in the world - Ermolai) (1606-1612) - third Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' From the metropolitans of Kazan. He was elevated by Tsar Vasily Shuisky to the place of the deposed Patriarch Ignatius. During the uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov, he convinced the people to stand for Shuisky, placing a curse on Bolotnikov and his supporters. After the deposition of Shuisky, he became an active opponent of the Poles and was imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery, where he died of hunger. FILARET (Romanov Fedor Nikitich) (1619-1633) - fourth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' From the metropolitans of Rostov and Yaroslavl. A major statesman. Father and co-ruler of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, nephew of Ivan the Terrible's first wife Anastasia. False Dmitry II was “named” patriarch and in this capacity in 1608-1610. ruled the church on lands subject to the impostor. In October 1610, Filaret became part of the embassy upon the calling of the Polish prince Vladislav to the Russian throne. For his irreconcilable position on the issue of the unconditional preservation of Orthodoxy in Rus', he was arrested and sent to Poland, where he remained until the summer of 1619. In 1613, Philaret’s son Mikhail Fedorovich reigned on the Russian throne. Until his return from Poland, the name of the “Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia,” the “great sovereign” Filaret Nikitich, was commemorated in churches along with the name of the tsar and his mother, the “great old nun Marfa Ivanovna” (Filaret’s wife). At the same time, Metropolitan Jonah of Krutitsa “observed” the patriarchal throne for his arrival. In June 1619, Filaret, who returned from captivity, was solemnly greeted near Moscow by the tsar, the court, the clergy, and crowds of people, and a few days later he was ordained by the Jerusalem Patriarch Theophan to the rank of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. Until his death, Filaret was the official co-ruler of his son. His patriarchal diocese covered more than 40 cities with suburbs and counties, and was governed by secular officials in the patriarchal orders (Palace, Treasury, Court, Razryadny). Filaret possessed enormous (unparalleled either before or after him) archpastoral power. He authorized the creation of a “Tale” about the emergence of the patriarchate in Russia, where the patriarch was declared the representative of God on earth. Under Filaret, two Zemsky Councils were convened (in 1619 and 1632), the Tobolsk and Siberian archdioceses were established, a Greek school for children was opened, and book printing developed. In 1619-1630 The publication of a major work was prepared - the 12-volume Menya Menstruation. One of the most powerful patriarchs of Moscow and all Rus', Filaret, was distinguished by his justice and hostility to fanaticism and greed. JOASAPH I (1634-1640) - fifth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' From the archbishops of Pskov. He was recommended by Patriarch Filaret as a successor to the patriarchal throne. Under Joasaph I, the importance of patriarchal power decreased. The name of the patriarch ceased to be mentioned in royal decrees on state and even church affairs. Under Joasaph I, the correction and publication of liturgical books continued: 23 editions were published. To stop disputes about places between hierarchs, the Patriarch published the “Ladder to Powers,” in which he determined the procedure for occupying places during worship and at councils. JOSEPH (1642-1652) - sixth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' From the archimandrites of the Simonov Monastery. He was elected patriarch “by lot, and not by royal will.” He began his activity with the publication of “Instructions” for the clergy and laity. In 1644 he took part in a famous dispute about faith with Lutherans, caused by the alleged marriage of Princess Irina Mikhailovna with the Danish prince Voldemar (a Lutheran). Joseph showed himself to be a limited, ignorant man and selfish. Did not enjoy the favor of Tsar Michael Fedorovich, who did not even involve him in the ceremonial transfer of the relics of St. Alexander of Svirsky. Joseph was forced to allow the creation of the sovereign's Monastic Order, which curtailed the rights of the patriarch himself. Joseph's position changed with the accession of Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his great father, shepherd, great saint and sovereign. Together with the tsar, the patriarch approved the discovery of the relics of some Russian saints. By the decrees of the Tsar and the Patriarch, the authenticity of the miraculous icons was certified, and the All-Russian holiday of Our Lady of Kazan was established. Being an opponent of the church “multiharmony” beloved by the tsar, Joseph could not achieve its abolition and was forced to give in. Joseph actively encouraged printing. Under him, the largest number of books (compared to previous patriarchates) was published - 38 titles (some of which went through up to eight editions). The Patriarch supported rapprochement with the Greek East and Kiev. Joseph sent monk Arseny Sukhanov on a journey to explore issues of faith. From Kyiv, Joseph invited a group of prominent scientists to Moscow and allowed them to open a school in the “learned” monastery founded by F. M. Rtishchev near Moscow. In general, the time of Patriarch Joseph was full of reform initiatives that preceded the upheavals of the Nikon era; Nikon and the future leaders of the initial Old Believers came forward. NIKON (Nikita Minov) (1652-1666) - seventh Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' From the Metropolitans of Novgorod. One of the most striking and tragic figures in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. Having been elected patriarch, Nikon repeatedly refused this honor, until the tsar himself knelt before him with a plea to become the archpastor of the entire Russian people. To this, Nikon demanded that Alexei Mikhailovich and the bureaucrats swear before the shrines of the Assumption Cathedral to uphold the faith and laws, “to obey us in everything as the boss and the shepherd, and the redest father.” The king swore an oath, and so did everyone else. Only after this Nikon became patriarch. Having subordinated the king and secular power to his influence, the patriarch began to reform the church. He issued a decree abolishing two fingers - so that everyone would be baptized with three fingers. Nikon convened a council to “correct” a number of Russian traditions. All corrections were declared innovations. Work began on “correcting” Russian liturgical books. The church reforms of the icon caused a split in the church, from which part of the believers separated who did not recognize the innovations (Old Believers). The patriarch paid great attention to increasing church property: land, fisheries, forests, and fishing grounds. The number of peasants belonging to the church doubled under him. The richest monasteries were built: Resurrection on the river. Istra, Krestny on the White Sea, Iversky on Valdai. Dozens of smaller monasteries, churches, and villages are assigned to each of them. In Russia, Nikon appropriated the title of “great sovereign”; in his messages abroad he was written as “great lord and sovereign.” At the Zemsky Sobor of 1653, he insisted on accepting Ukrainian citizenship and war with Poland. The Patriarch ensured that the Tsar personally led the army (1654) and began a war with Sweden (1656). Nikon indicated the direction of the offensive and ensured the supply of the army. Soon, Alexei Mikhailovich recognized the patriarch as the guardian angel of the royal family and a reliable co-ruler. Without a report to Nikon, not a single matter of the Boyar Duma was decided. The patriarch's position changed suddenly. On May 6, 1658, the tsar did not invite Nikon to the ritual of welcoming the Georgian prince Teimuraz, and on July 10, the day of the Laying of the Lord's Robe, he did not appear at Matins. On the same day, the patriarch publicly announced in the Assumption Cathedral that he was leaving the patriarchate. Alexey Mikhailovich sent word to stay, but Nikon went to the Resurrection Monastery. From there he began to interfere in current church affairs. Thus, in 1662, he proclaimed anathema to the patriarchal locum tenens Pitirim, appointed by the tsar. In January 1665, Nikon wrote to the Tsar about his abdication and his readiness to install a new patriarch. On December 12, 1666, at the Great Church Council with the participation of two eastern patriarchs, Nikon was deprived of his patriarchal rank and exiled to the Ferapontov Monastery under guard. After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich, the new Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich wanted to free Nikon so that he could complete the construction of New Jerusalem, but Patriarch Joachim (third after Nikon) categorically refused this to the Tsar. At the insistence of Joachim, Nikon was interrogated on three hundred incriminating articles and was placed in a hopeless cell in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. Only with the news of Nikon’s illness did the tsar decide to give an order for his release. Accompanied all the way by crowds of people, the dying Nikon sailed to the Resurrection Monastery. He died on the way on August 17, 1681. Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich personally carried the coffin with Nikon’s body to New Jerusalem, buried him as a patriarch and obtained permission from the Eastern patriarchs to forever remember him in this rank. JOASAPH II (1667-1672) - eighth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' From the archimandrites of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Nikon's successor. Under him, the famous Moscow Council of 1667 (Great Church Council of the Russian and Eastern clergy) took place. The Council solemnly cursed the Old Believers, while simultaneously subjecting them to state criminal prosecution. The Patriarch addressed the Old Believers with a stern Letter of Exhortation. The priests who refused to conduct church services according to the new books and performed the liturgy on prosphora with an eight-pointed cross were stripped of their positions by Joasaph II and put on trial. He continued to defend Nikon's case regarding the immunity of the clergy from secular power. At the patriarchal court, the Order of Church Affairs was established, where only judges of ecclesiastical rank sat. saints without reliable examinations, do not hold court, work or trade on holidays; priests should not ride with a cross in front of the wedding train, which includes komorokhi, music and singing. At the same time, Joasaph II did not have enough energy to carry out a number of the most important decisions of the Moscow court. The council's recommendation on the widespread establishment of colleges (schools) and the establishment of new dioceses in Russia remained unrealized (only one, Belgorod, was approved). Joasaph II made efforts to implement the prohibitions introduced by the Moscow Council: not to recognize incorrupt bodies saints without reliable examinations, do not hold court, work or trade on holidays; priests should not ride with a cross in front of the wedding train, which includes buffoons, music and singing. At the same time, Joasaph II did not have enough energy to carry out a number of the most important decisions of the Moscow court. The council's recommendation on the widespread establishment of colleges (schools) and the establishment of new dioceses in Russia remained unrealized (only one, Belgorod, was approved). Fighting against the penetration of Western European style into Russian icon painting, the patriarch sought to legitimize the Byzantine style. For this purpose, in 1668 he published “An Extract from the Divine Scriptures on the Splendid Painting of Icons and a Denunciation of Those Who Frantically Paint them.” Promoting book printing, Joasaph II attracted Simeon of Polotsk to the work, who published the “Tale of the Acts of the Council of 1667”, the Large and Small Catechisms. During the patriarchate of Joasaph II, preaching in churches was resumed. On his initiative, Orthodox missionaries acted in the Far North (to the islands of Novaya Zemlya) and the Far East (to Dauria). On the Amur, not far from the border with the Qing Empire (China), the Spassky Monastery was founded. Joasaph II was a follower of Nikon, although less persistent in achieving his goals. PITIRIM (1672-1673) - ninth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' From the metropolitans of Krutitsky. Closer to Patriarch Nikon. After Nikon left the throne, he was his confidant in negotiations with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Having entrusted Pitirim with the management of church affairs, Nikon hoped to maintain his influence during his demonstrative departure from Moscow. Pitirim, on the instructions of the king, completely took over the church administration. To this, Nikon in the New Jerusalem Monastery solemnly anathematized Pitirim as having arbitrarily seized the patriarchal throne. At the request of the tsar, the Moscow bishops declared in writing that they would not recognize the anathema “against the patriarch.” In 1667, Nikon was condemned at the Great Church Council, but not Pitirim, but Joasaph II was elected patriarch. Only after his death Pitirim received the throne of the head of the Russian church, which he occupied for less than a year. During his patriarchate he did not commit any significant acts. JOAKIM (Ivan Savelov) (1674-1690) - tenth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' From the Metropolitans of Novgorod. In 1675, he convened a council, which decided that secular judges should not judge or rule clergymen in anything, that secular plaintiffs should not summon clergymen to Moscow, that diocesan lords should have clergymen in their orders and collect church tributes through archpriests, archimandrites and priestly elders (and not through secular officials). Joachim managed to obtain a royal charter stating that clergy were not subject to the jurisdiction of civil authorities and established a common standard for church tributes and duties for all dioceses. As a mentor to the young Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, the patriarch actively participated in state affairs, opposing all innovations. He energetically implemented church decrees against schismatics, sending special exhorters to large centers of schism and issuing the polemical “Proclamation of Exhortation to the Entire Russian People.” Under Joachim in 1687, the Kiev Metropolis was subordinated to the Moscow Patriarchate, with the consent of the Eastern Patriarchs. Joachim sided with the boyars who wanted to rule on behalf of young Peter and overthrew the ruler Sophia. In the fall of 1689, he achieved the immediate expulsion of the Jesuits from the country, wanting to destroy churches, churches, mosques throughout Russia and “from now on, of course, not allow new ones to be built anywhere.” Joachim did not have a positive program, although the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was established under him. The content of Joachim's activities was the defense of antiquity, the prestige of the church and the clergy. ADRIAN (in the world Andrey) (1690-1700) - the eleventh and last pre-Synodal Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' From the metropolitans of Kazan and Sviyazhsk. He was elevated to patriarch by the will of Tsarina Natalia Kirillovna. Adrian wrote several teachings, epistles, letters, a significant number of sermons and denunciations. Under him, two councils were held: one (in 1697) against the sexton Mikheev, who proposed to adopt new dogmas regarding baptism and other rites; another (in 1698) against Deacon Peter, who argued that the pope is the true shepherd. Adrian was a supporter of antiquity and an opponent of the reforms of Peter the Great. The patriarch's relationship with the king was tense. At the same time, the letter prohibiting the establishment of new monasteries without the sovereign's decree and the Note on the Hierarchical Courts, submitted to the Chamber of Code, testified to Adrian's readiness to cooperate with the state, recognizing its competence in church affairs. The Patriarch died on October 16, 1700. With his death, the patriarchal (pre-synodal) period in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church ended. patriarch orthodox church Conclusion Thus, the process of subordination of the church to the state covers the second half of the 16th and first quarter of the 18th centuries. During this period, the relationship between secular power and spiritual power repeatedly moved from harmony (Tsar Mikhail Romanov and Patriarch Filaret) to open conflicts (Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon). century in Russian history became a time of centralization of power and the emergence of autocracy. The Church contributed to overcoming fragmentation and unifying Russian lands. Church ideologists also participated in the development of the ideology of autocracy; representatives of the clergy substantiated the thesis about the divine origin of royal power, but at the same time the church was assigned an exclusive role in the state - a strong church power capable of influencing state policy was to be preserved. In the second half of the 16th century, the material benefits of the church repeatedly attracted the attention of the Moscow government. The conduct of the Livonian War, campaigns of conquest and others required significant funds, which the state did not have enough. The government carried out “squeezing” money from the church through various measures. One-time measures include, for example: plunder of the wealth of the Novgorod diocese during the oprichnina; the monasteries redeemed their charters in 1576. Long-term measures include the imposition and collection of state taxes from monastery lands. The most important event in the history of the Russian church in the second half of the 16th century was the establishment of the patriarchate. The establishment of the patriarchate met the interests of both royal power and church power. When carrying out the reform of the highest church administration, state power pursued the following goals: increasing the authority of the monarch's power (since it will be illuminated by the highest hierarch in the Orthodox world - the patriarch) and appointing proteges of state power to the most important church positions during the church organization. The main purpose of establishing the patriarchate for church authorities was to establish equality with other Orthodox centers. The common goal of the state and church authorities can be considered to be strengthening the authority of Orthodox Russia in the international arena. Assessing the results of the church government reform of 1598, we can say that the set goals were achieved. The church pursued such goals as: an increase in the number of diocesan sees and the creation of metropolises, after the head of the Russian church organization accepted the patriarchal title; consolidation of the achievements of the process of spreading Christianity in the Lower Volga region. The state authorities considered the Astrakhan diocese as a certain guarantee of the region's belonging to the Moscow state, in addition, the Orthodox hierarchs were supposed to serve as ideologists of the tsarist power. Based on the sources and opinions available in Russian historiography about the relationship between church and state in the 17th century, we can conclude that the most active process of subordinating the church to the state took place in the second half of the century. The main events that reflected the relationship between church and state were: adoption of the Council Code of 1649 (the Code limited the privileges of the church); conflict between Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich; reform of church governance in the early 80s. Church hierarchs were deprived of the right to trial; cases previously falling under church jurisdiction were transferred to the jurisdiction of civil courts, with the only exceptions being crimes against religion. Thus, the church lost income in the form of court fees. The Council Code provided for the creation of a special state body - the Monastic Prikaz, one of the main functions of which was the administration of justice over the clergy; that is, the clergy was subject to state court (for the bulk of cases). The patriarch retained the right of trial over persons in his service and over residents of the patriarchal estates. However The Council Code established that decisions of the patriarchal court can be appealed to a state court. The black clergy was divided into two categories, each with clearly defined goals. The goal of the first category of black clergy was to “serve suffering humanity” (caring for the sick, wounded, etc.), the goals of the second category were to appoint bishops from among themselves and “spread religious truths among the people.” The patriarchs of Moscow and all Rus', whose activities we touched upon in this work, had a huge influence on the development of the patriarchate in Russia. Bibliography 1.F. R-3431 On. 1. (Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917-1918) Historical correspondence about the fate of the Orthodox Church. M., 1912. Preobrazhensky I.V. All-Russian Orthodox Church according to statistical data from 1840-41 to 1890-91. St. Petersburg, 1897.1. Periodicals Bychkov S.S. Russian Church and imperial power. (Essays on the history of the Orthodox Russian Church 1900-1917) T.1. M., 1998. 319 p. Veniamin (Fedchenkov), Metropolitan. Russia between faith and unbelief. M., 2003. 732 p. V.N. State doctrine of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. M., 1883. 131 p. Note from A.N. Muravyov on the state of the Orthodox Church in Russia // Russian Archive. 1883. Book. 2. No. h. pp. 175-203. Zernov N.M. Reform of the Russian Church and pre-revolutionary episcopate // The Path. 1934. No. 5. Zernov N.M. Russian religious revival of the 20th century. Paris, 1974. 382 p. Zyryanov P.N. The Orthodox Church in the fight against the revolution of 1905-1907. M., 1984. 222 p. Zyryanov P.N. The Church during the period of three Russian revolutions // Russian Orthodoxy: milestones in history.” M., 1989. pp. 380-437. Ivantsov-Platonov A.I., prot. About Russian church administration. M., 1898. 86 p. Kapterev N.F. Patriarchal and episcopal power in ancient Rus' in their relation to the royal power and to the parish clergy // Theological Bulletin. 1905. T. 1. No. 4. p. 657-690; No. 5. p. 27-64. Kapterev N.F. Judgment of the great Moscow Council of 2007 on the power of the royal and patriarchal (On the issue of the transformation of the highest church administration by Peter the Great) // Theological Bulletin. 2002. No. 6. P. 483516; No. 8. pp. 171-190; No. 10. P. 46-74. Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. M., 2003. T. 1. 686 p. T.2. 568 pp. Lvov A.N. Princes of the Church // Red Archive. 2003, No. 2. P. 110-141. Meyendorff John, Rev. Russian episcopate and church reform (1905) // Bulletin of the Russian Christian Democracy. 1999, no. 122. Rogovich Alexey. His Holiness Tikhon Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. // His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Tikhon in the memoirs of his contemporaries. M., 2009. 45 p.
Before 1700
Before the election of the first Patriarch in Rus', the Russian kingdom was considered a metropolis (in this case, an integral part) of the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople. And although metropolitans were most often proposed by the Grand Dukes and Tsars of Russia, they were still approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Since the fall of the Byzantine Empire (1453) by the middle of the 16th century, the Church of Constantinople had lost its greatness. At the same time, the Russian Church and the Russian Tsardom had long been nurturing the idea of a patriarchate in Rus'. Favorable conditions for this ripened during the reign of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich.
The first election of the Patriarch in Rus' enriched church history with an interesting precedent. On June 17, 1586, Patriarch Joachim of Antioch visited Moscow for the first time. This event gave impetus to the implementation of the plan, which had long been ripened in the mind of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, to give the Moscow Metropolis the status of a Patriarchate. This also corresponded to the self-perception of the Russian high priest (thus, during the meeting between Patriarch Joachim and the then Metropolitan Dionysius, it was the Patriarch who was the first to approach the latter for blessing, and not vice versa). The Tsar, after consulting with the boyars and clergy, turned to Joachim with the question of the possibility of creating a patriarchal see in Moscow. He agreed and promised to intercede about this with other patriarchs.
In 1588, during the visit of the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah, similar negotiations were conducted with him. After the latter gave his consent, a Council of all Russian bishops was convened, which elected three candidates for the patriarchal throne. The Tsar chose the Patriarch from among the three proposed, and the Patriarch only approved the already chosen candidacy of the Metropolitan of Moscow Job . This happened in 1589. Later, at the Councils of Constantinople in 1590 (all the patriarchs participated except that of Alexandria) and 1593, Job was recognized among the patriarchs by the entire Ecumenical Church.
The peculiarity and exclusivity of the fact of Job’s installation as patriarch was that during this ceremony Job was re-ordained bishop. Moreover, for Job this was already the third ordination. The practice of the 16th century was to re-consecrate bishops during the transition to the Moscow Metropolis, which indicates a certain separation in the Russian church consciousness of the Moscow High Hierarch from among other bishops. As far as one can judge, the Patriarchs of Moscow were re-ordained in the 17th century.
According to a similar model, the next Patriarch was enthroned in 1606 - Hermogenes . Tsar Vasily Mikhailovich Shuisky chose him from the candidates proposed by the Council of Bishops.
Metropolitan Filaret essentially began to be called Patriarch even before his election. This title was awarded to him by False Dmitry II. Although, in a strict sense, the title of “Nominated Patriarch” assigned by the “Tushinsky thief” meant something like a locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. The unconditional authority of this ruler and the fact that he was the father of the new Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich became the prerequisites for the fact that when choosing the High Hierarch at the Council of Bishops in 1619 (Patriarch Theophan of Jerusalem also participated in it) and when approving this choice by the Tsar, Filaret’s candidacy was the only one.
Patriarch Joasapha , who took over the department in 1634, was chosen as his successor by Patriarch Filaret himself with the consent of the tsar, but the established form of patriarchal election was observed over him as well. Next Patriarch Joseph was elected in a rather unusual way. After the metropolitans and archbishops invited by Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich arrived in Moscow, the Tsar, asking for their prayers, prepared six lots with the names of the most worthy bishops and heads of monasteries. The bishops gathered in the cathedral church had to test the lot.
In 1652, to elect a new Patriarch, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich gathered four metropolitans in Moscow, who were instructed to compile a list of “12 spiritual men.” From this list, the metropolitans had to choose the most worthy, and then notify the king about this. Metropolitan of Novgorod was elected Patriarch Nikon . This time the lot was not cast.
The procedure for electing the Patriarch in 1667 was very similar to that after which Job and Hermogenes were elected. At the Council called to elect the Patriarch, there were two Patriarchs - Alexandria and Antioch, bishops, archimandrites, abbots and many other clergy. The Council, with the active participation of the Tsar, selected three of the most worthy from 12 candidates. The list with their names was handed over to the king, who, after consulting with Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, pointed to the archimandrite of the Vladimir monastery Joasapha . The next patriarchs Pitirim And Joachim , one might say, were directly “appointed” by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with the formal support of the Council of Bishops.
During the election of the last patriarch before the abolition of the patriarchate of the high priest Adriana there was a conflict between him and Peter I. Peter I wanted the Pskov Metropolitan Markell, a man distinguished by his learning and able to support the Tsar’s innovations, to become patriarch. The bishop generally agreed. But the middle clergy (archimandrites, abbots of prominent monasteries) proposed Adrian - a man of high spiritual life, a strict zealot of church traditions. Peter's mother Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina, who revered Adrian, also agreed with this choice. The Church Council, at which these differences were revealed, decided the matter in favor of Adrian
After 1917
After two hundred years of Synodal governance of the church, a new Patriarch was elected in 1917 at the Local Council. The election procedure consisted of two stages. The full composition of the Council (bishops, priests and laity numbering 364 people on November 5) chose three candidates. Then the lot was cast, which fell on the Metropolitan of Moscow Tikhona (Belavina) . It must be said that this election of the Patriarch was the first in the history of Russia in which secular power did not take any part. Moreover, the patriarchate was revived precisely with the aim of opposing the amorphous power of the Provisional Government (at first no one seriously thought about the Bolsheviks) with a formalized organism that was closed on a specific individual.
After the death of Patriarch Tikhon in 1925, the Bolsheviks did not allow the election of a new high priest for a long time. The situation changed in 1943. Stalin allows the convening of a Council of Bishops, which meets on September 8, 1943. 19 hierarchs took part in the Council. The only candidate in the voting was Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) , who was elected by open voting.
41 Russian and 5 foreign bishops took part in the 1945 Council. Voting was again open and uncontested. Metropolitan of Leningrad was elected Alexy (Simansky), named by Metropolitan Sergius as his successor.
The election of Patriarch Pimen in 1971 was held by open voting. Here is how Archbishop of Brussels and Belgium Vasily (Krivoshein), a participant in that Council, writes about this: “I hurried to the Assumption Church, everyone was already assembled there, they were waiting for me and were worried about my tardiness. They quickly put the robe on me, without even having time to fasten the hooks, and we, in procession and in order of seniority, entered the premises of the Cathedral, the Refectory Church of St. Sergius, and took our usual places. The foreign guests also settled in in full, and I managed to notice that Kuroyedov or any of the representatives of the civil authorities were not there either.
The meeting began at about two o'clock in the afternoon. Metropolitan Pimen proposed discussing the procedure for electing the Patriarch. Metropolitan Nikodim stood up and said: “The election procedure was the subject of a deep and comprehensive discussion at the Bishops’ Conference. It was decided that the election would take place by open voting, and, therefore, I ask and propose that the Council approve this procedure.”
The last election of the Patriarch in modern history took place during the Local Council of 1990 for the first time in many years without any pressure from the secular authorities. This time, the candidates for patriarch were 75 diocesan bishops over the age of 40 who had Soviet citizenship from birth. The Council of Bishops first nominated its candidates: each of its members could nominate up to three people from the proposed list. The Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod received the most votes Alexy (Ridiger) , Metropolitan of Rostov Vladimir (Sabodan) and Metropolitan of Kiev Philaret (Denisenko). Further, five candidates were nominated by the Local Council, but due to the weak support of each of them individually, further voting took place only on the first three candidates. Voting at the Local Council took place secretly in two stages. At first, only two candidates remained - Metropolitans Alexy and Vladimir. In the second round, Alexy prevailed by 15 votes.
The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on January 27-29, 2009 will elect the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. The elections will be held in connection with the death of Patriarch Alexy II on December 5, 2008.
Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' is the title of the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The Patriarchate was established in Moscow in 1589. Until this time, the Russian Church was headed by metropolitans and until the middle of the 15th century belonged to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and did not have independent governance.
The patriarchal dignity of the Moscow metropolitans was personally assigned to the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II and confirmed by the Councils in Constantinople in 1590 and 1593. The first patriarch was Saint Job (1589-1605).
In 1721 the patriarchate was abolished. In 1721, Peter I established the Theological College, which was later renamed the Holy Governing Synod - the state body of the highest ecclesiastical authority in the Russian Church. The patriarchate was restored by the decision of the All-Russian Local Council on October 28 (November 11), 1917.
The title “His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'” was adopted in 1943 by Patriarch Sergius at the suggestion of Joseph Stalin. Until this time, the patriarch bore the title “Moscow and All Russia”. The replacement of Russia with Rus in the title of the patriarch is due to the fact that with the emergence of the USSR, Russia officially meant only the RSFSR, while the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate extended to the territory of other republics of the Union.
According to the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted in 2000, His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' “has primacy of honor among the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church and is accountable to the Local and Bishops’ Councils... has care for the internal and external welfare of the Russian Orthodox Church and governs it jointly with the Holy Synod, being its chairman."
The Patriarch convenes Bishops' and Local Councils and presides over them, and is also responsible for the implementation of their decisions. The Patriarch represents the Church in external relations, both with other churches and with secular authorities. His responsibilities include maintaining the unity of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, issuing (together with the Synod) decrees on the election and appointment of diocesan bishops, and he exercises control over the activities of bishops.
According to the charter, “the external distinctive signs of patriarchal dignity are a white cap, a green mantle, two panagias, a great paraman and a cross.”
The Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' is the diocesan bishop of the Moscow diocese, consisting of the city of Moscow and the Moscow region, the Holy Archimandrite of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, governs the patriarchal metochions throughout the country, as well as the so-called stauropegial monasteries, subordinate not to local bishops, but directly to the Moscow Patriarchate.
In the Russian Church, the title of Patriarch is given for life, and this means that until his death the patriarch is obliged to serve the Church, even if he is seriously ill or in exile or imprisonment.
Chronological list of Moscow Patriarchs:
Ignatius (June 30, 1605 - May 1606), was appointed False Dmitry I during the living Patriarch Job and therefore is not included in the lists of legitimate Patriarchs, although he was appointed in compliance with all formalities.
Hieromartyr Hermogenes (or Hermogenes) (June 3, 1606 - February 17, 1612), canonized in 1913.
After the death of Patriarch Hadrian, no successor was elected. In 1700-1721, the guardian of the patriarchal throne (“Exarch”) was Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky) of Yaroslavl.
Moscow patriarchs in 1917-2008:
Saint Tikhon (Vasily Ivanovich Belavin; according to other sources Bellavin, November 5 (18), 1917 - March 25 (April 7), 1925).