Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action. The case of Patriarch Nikon. Schism in the Russian Orthodox Church Judgment case of Patriarch Nikon characteristics

In the middle of the 17th century, the reform of the Russian Orthodox Church began, which entailed a number of serious changes in the political and spiritual life of Russian society.

Prerequisites:

The social crisis of the mid-17th century and the difficult economic situation of the country in one form or another affected the relationship between the state and the church - a large landowner who had judicial and tax privileges and had enormous political weight and ideological influence. The authorities' attempt to limit the rights of the church (for example, with the help of the Monastic Order) met with decisive resistance on its part and even strengthened its political claims. Crisis phenomena also struck the church itself. The low level of professional training of the clergy, their vices (drunkenness, money-grubbing, debauchery, etc.), discrepancies in the holy books and differences in rituals, distortions of some church services undermined the authority of the church. To restore its influence in society, it was necessary to restore order, unify rituals and sacred books according to a single model. At the end of the 1640s. In Moscow, a circle of “zealots of ancient piety” arose, uniting people concerned both with the state of affairs in the church and with the penetration of secular principles into the spiritual life of society. Soon, differences began among members of the circle regarding the choice of sample. Some - S. Vonifatiev, the future Patriarch Nikon, F. Rtishchev - believed, like the Tsar himself, that Russian church books and rituals should be edited according to Greek standards. Others - I. Neronov, Archpriest Avvakum Petrov - saw the essence of the reform in a return to intact Russian antiquity, the decisions of the Stoglavy Council, and considered it possible to correct church books only from ancient Slavic manuscripts. The spiritual crisis experienced by Russian society aggravated the problem of the church meeting the requirements of the time. The crisis was expressed in the secularization of consciousness, which manifested itself in its rationalization and individualization among some of the townspeople and the upper classes of society. Thus, it was in the 17th century that artisans began to have personal marks; before that, they felt themselves to be participants in a collective creation and did not “sign” their products. Thus, the connection between a person’s personal efforts and the results of his work, and even his social status, was increasingly understood. It is no coincidence that it was during this era that the saying appeared: “Trust in God, but don’t make a mistake yourself.” The country's foreign policy interests also required reform. Russia tried to unite all Orthodox churches and peoples under its auspices. The Russian Tsar dreamed of becoming the heir of the Byzantine emperors both in matters of faith and in their territorial possessions. He also hoped to achieve the power and splendor of imperial state power. Here the influence of the theory of the “Third Rome” was felt. To achieve foreign policy goals, it was necessary to bring the rituals into unity with the Greek models adopted in the Ukrainian, as well as Serbian and other Orthodox churches in the territories that were planned to be annexed to Russia or taken under its control.

Progress of reforms.

After Nikon was elected patriarch, the reform began to be implemented. In 1653, he sent out a “memory” (circular) to all Moscow churches about replacing the sign of the cross from two to three fingers. With the blessing of the king, he unleashed repression against disobedient people. Nikon's intransigence, haste and violent methods of carrying out reform caused deep protest among the population and became one of the factors of the split. After Nikon’s departure from Moscow in 1658 and disgrace caused both by the patriarch’s excessive lust for power, fueled by his main idea “... the priesthood of the kingdom is greater,” and by the machinations of the boyars who did not want to obey the “artistic” patriarch, the patriarch continued the transformation of the church. the king himself. Cathedral 1666-1667 finally deposed Nikon. At the same time, the “schismatics” were declared heretics, legitimizing repression against them.

Church rituals and liturgical books were changed in accordance with the latest Greek models. These patterns have undergone changes over the centuries (even the form of the sign of the cross has changed), while the Russian Church has preserved the rituals in the form in which they received them from Byzantium. It was ordered to cross yourself not with two fingers, as before, but with three; the reading of the creed became different; the name of Christ began to be written “Jesus”, and not “Isus”, as tradition required; Greek icons were prescribed; a four-pointed cross, previously considered “Latin”, was introduced. A reform of the Church Slavonic language took place, vocabulary, grammar, and accents changed. In an effort to turn Russia into the promised land, Nikon began on the river. Istr construction of the Resurrection Monastery (named after the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem) - the New Jerusalem, which was to become the spiritual center of world Orthodoxy. The relationship between state and church. Nikon, believing that “the priesthood is higher than the kingdom,” became in 1652-1658. actual co-ruler of the sovereign. All issues discussed by the Boyar Duma were first reported to the patriarch. These measures turned out to be temporary and remained a thing of the past after Nikon’s removal, but the secular authorities made some concessions later. In 1667, the secular court against clergy was abolished, and in 1677 the Monastic Order was abolished. At the same time, there was a rapid economic strengthening of the church. New monasteries were built to which many villages were assigned

Consequences.

The reform strengthened the church hierarchy and the centralization of the church. The victory of the reformers created a spiritual atmosphere in society that promoted a critical attitude towards tradition and the perception of innovations, which became the psychological prerequisite for the global transformations of Peter 1. The reform and the trial of Nikon became the prologue to the liquidation of the patriarchate and the complete subordination of the church to the state. One of the spiritual consequences of the reform and schism was the deformation of the idea “Moscow is the third Rome.” For a long time, the symbol of the Third Rome was dual and contained the image of Jerusalem - the center of holiness and pagan Rome - the political and cultural capital of the world. In the 16th century, Moscow simultaneously claimed both special sanctity and political power. As a result of the split, the idea of ​​the New Jerusalem, which was one of the cores of Russian history and culture, went into the subconscious of society. The second part of the idea was picked up by Peter 1, who created “Great Russia” with a new political center - St. Petersburg, built in the image of imperial Rome.

The Old Believers were one of the most complex and contradictory consequences of the reform, a split in society and the church. According to some data, more than a third of the Orthodox population remained in the old faith. The nature of Old Belief. The “schism” was a religious-psychological phenomenon that contained, to one degree or another, socio-political components. The emergence of the Old Believers was not caused by the religious formalism of the “dark masses,” but by the fact that, without separating ritual from dogma, the people saw in the reform an attack on the faith of their fathers. The old faith was identified by the people with the idea of ​​Holy Rus', with the hope of finding “Truth” - social justice, embodying the idea of ​​“Moscow - the third Rome”, and most importantly - saving the immortal soul and getting into the kingdom of heaven. As a result of the reform, according to the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev, “a suspicion awoke among the people that the Orthodox kingdom, the Third Rome, had been damaged, a betrayal of the true faith had occurred. The Antichrist took possession of state power and the highest church hierarchy.” In pre-revolutionary official historiography, the Old Believers were interpreted as the result of ignorance and fanaticism of the masses. Democratic historian A.P. Shchapov assessed it as popular opposition to the entire political system of Russia, thereby giving the split a social character. During Soviet times, the “class” point of view was dominant. So N.I. Pavlenko emphasized that the lower classes were indifferent to the ritual side of the reform and supported the Old Believers only because they fought against the noble state. The boyars, supporters of the old faith, saw in it a symbol of antiquity, a means of “protest against the emerging absolutism.” In the conditions of the social crisis of the second half of the 17th century, expectations of the imminent end of the world intensified, which explained both the behavior of the early Old Believers and the combination in this movement of social groups so different in their interests and worldview. The fight against "new products". The ideological leaders of the Old Believers I. Neronov, Archpriest Avvakum and others called for the rejection of the innovations of Nikon and the church authorities, who had “given themselves to the devil,” and to fight for Orthodox traditions and the “true faith.” At the same time, religious content was also manifested in socio-political protests. The zealots of the “old faith” went to S. Razin and raised an uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery in 1668-1676. Many fled from a world “captured by the Antichrist.” The flight took different forms - from solitude in forest hermitages and participation in the development of Siberia, the mass base of which was made up of the Old Believers, to voluntary self-immolations by entire communities (in the burnt-out areas of the late 17th century, according to official data, at least 20 thousand people died. Human). New trends in the spiritual life of Old Believers. But it was not just about preserving the old. On the eve of the New Age, in the new conditions of the spiritual crisis of Russian society, the Old Believers acquired some socio-psychological features that were uncharacteristic of traditional Orthodoxy. Since the tsar and the church were discredited, there was a “loss” of external authority, an intercessor before God, and the role of morality of each believer as a bearer of an internal ideal increased. The Old Believers acutely felt personal responsibility not only for their salvation, but also for the fate of the Church and society. Their faith became more active, their spiritual life intensified. The Old Believers began to rely on themselves, on their inner faith, which had a positive effect on their moral character, contributed to moderation in needs, hard work, honesty, etc. These trends were characteristic not only of Russia; in that era they also manifested themselves in the European Reformation, which was incomparable with religious belief in the religious sense. And it is no coincidence that it was the Old Believers at the end of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. has done exceptionally much for the development of Russian entrepreneurship. The founders of the largest dynasties of Russian industrialists and merchants - the Morozovs, Ryabushinskys, Guchkovs, Tretyakovs, Shchukins, etc. - belonged to the Old Believers. In the 17th century, powerful folk performances took place, quite complex in nature and composition of participants. However, lacking a constructive program and being “rebellious” in form, they were doomed to failure. The state, overcoming enormous difficulties, is trying to find forms that meet the challenges of the time, taking measures, on the one hand, aimed at achieving social stability, strengthening the administrative apparatus, the service class, and on the other, leading to periodic spontaneous uprisings of the lower classes. Like transformations in other areas of life, the church reform of the 17th century was characterized by inconsistency, ill-conceivedness and led to unexpected and contradictory results.

Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action

Nothing amazes as much as a miracle, except the naivety with which it is taken for granted.

Mark Twain

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

Prerequisites for reform

According to the assurances of many historians who study the 17th century, a unique situation arose in Russia at that time, when religious rites in the country were very different from those around the world, including from Greek rites, from where Christianity came to Rus'. In addition, it is often said that religious texts, as well as icons, have been distorted. Therefore, the following phenomena can be identified as the main reasons for the church schism in Russia:

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

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

Patriarch Nikon

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

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

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

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

Implementation of the reform

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

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

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

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

The Scriptures predetermined the church schism in Russia

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient religion

For a very long time, the reforms of Patriarch Nikon were justified by the fact that he made the Orthodox Church enlightened. As a rule, there is nothing behind such formulations, since the vast majority of people have difficulty understanding what the fundamental difference is between orthodox beliefs and enlightened ones. What's the difference really? First, let's understand the terminology and define the meaning of the concept “orthodox.”

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

Historical reference book

Here, the correct opinion does not mean the modern sense (when this is what people are called who do everything to please the state). This was the name given to people who carried ancient science and ancient knowledge for centuries. A striking example is the Jewish school. Everyone knows very well that today there are Jews, and there are Orthodox Jews. They believe in the same thing, they have a common religion, common views, beliefs. The difference is that Orthodox Jews conveyed their true faith in its ancient, true meaning. And everyone admits this.

From this point of view, it is much easier to evaluate the actions of Patriarch Nikon. His attempts to destroy the Orthodox Church, which is exactly what he planned to do and successfully did, lie in the destruction of the ancient religion. And by and large it was done:

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

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

People's reaction to church schism

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

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

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

What did the reform lead to?

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

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

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

Patriarch's personality

The future patriarch Nikon was born into a peasant family under the name Nikita Minin. His mother died and his stepmother was cruel. Therefore, having learned to read and write from the parish priest, at the age of 12 he became a novice at the monastery. At $24, he returned home, got married and soon became a priest in one of the Moscow churches.

Nikon suffered family grief - his children died in 1635. After this, he decided to leave worldly life, convincing his wife of this as well. Actually, he received the name Nikon after taking monastic vows in the monastery Solovetsky Monastery. Nikon probably had a difficult character, because... after $4$ years he left the monastery due to a conflict. In $1643, Nikon became abbot Kozheozersky Monastery.

In $1646, Nikon met the Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich, appearing, according to the rule, to bow. The king decided to keep him with him, and the patriarch Joseph ordained Nikon an archimandrite Novospassky Monastery.

At the same time Nikon entered the circle "zealots of ancient piety". It was a group of ecclesiastical and secular persons, headed by the tsar's confessor Stefan Vonifatiev. The goal of the circle of “zealots” was to revive morality, develop education throughout the state, and renew the church. The “zealots” were engaged in the translation of liturgical literature, revived the practice of preaching from the pulpit, as well as unanimity against polyphony, which reduced the duration of the service.

In $1649$ the Patriarch of Jerusalem Paisiy elevated Nikon to the rank of Archbishop of Novgorod. During his stay in Moscow, Nikon became very close to the tsar. Therefore, when Patriarch Joseph died in $1652, the tsar wanted to see only Nikon in this rank, although the “zealots of piety” nominated Stefan Vonifatiev. When accepting the rank, Nikon made the tsar promise not to interfere in church affairs.

Note 1

Moreover, Alexei Mikhailovich gave Nikon the title of great sovereign, placing him on a par with himself.

Reform

Participation in the circle of “zealots of piety” convinced Nikon of the need for church reform. It was necessary to bring rituals and literature into line with Greek models.

In his endeavors, Nikon faced protest from former like-minded people. The fact is that the “zealots” refused to take the updated Greek books as a basis, but proposed corrections according to ancient Russian models. Nikon, who did not receive a proper education due to his background, relied in these matters on Arseniy Grek, whom he made his closest assistant.

So, in $1653, Nikon ordered to make the sign of the cross with three, rather than two, fingers. Other changes followed. The reform was approved by the councils of $1654 and $1656. Thus, in $1654, the cathedral began editing church books, using printed Greek books from the 16th century as a basis. In $1656, those who crossed themselves with two fingers were branded and anathematized.

The people took the reform hard, since for the consciousness of a person in the $17th century. it was too drastic a change. In addition, Russian Orthodoxy was perceived as superior to Greek. In addition, the harshness of the patriarch himself added fuel to the fire.

Nikon's active work included monastery construction. He founded Valdai Iversky Monastery in $1653$. Then he founded monastery on the island of Kiy And Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery in outskirts of Moscow.

Opal

Alexei Mikhailovich entrusted Nikon with too much power, which caused discontent among the boyars. Nikon himself was sharply against the Council Code, because. it limited church privileges. These facts, coupled with the difficult character of the patriarch and intrigues, led to a quarrel. In $1658 Nikon left Moscow without permission, as an act of protest.

In $1660, Nikon was almost deprived of his dignity, but it was decided to convene a court of the Eastern Patriarchs. Paisius of Alexandria And Macarius of Antioch profits only in $1666$, having opened Great Church Cathedral. Nikon's trial took place on December 12, and his crimes were listed in the defrocking document. Nikon became a simple monk and was exiled to Ferapontov Monastery.

Nikon died in $1681 on the way to the New Jerusalem Monastery, where the Tsar allowed him to return Fedor Alekseevich.

Another outstanding fact in the church sphere under Alexei Mikhailovich was the so-called “case of Patriarch Nikon.” This name usually refers to the feud between the patriarch and the tsar in 1658-1666. and Nikon's deprivation of the patriarchate. Nikon’s quarrel with the tsar, his removal from the patriarchal throne and Nikon’s trial are major events in themselves, and for the historian they receive special interest also because mixed in with the personal quarrel and ecclesiastical difficulty was the question of the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities in the Rus'. Probably due to such circumstances, this case attracted a lot of attention in science and a lot of research; A very significant place was devoted to Nikon’s case, for example, by S. M. Solovyov in the eleventh volume of “History of Russia.” He is far from sympathetic to Nikon and blames him for the fact that, thanks to the peculiarities of his unpleasant character and unreasonable behavior, the matter took such an acute turn and led to such sad results as the deposition and exile of the patriarch. Subbotin opposed the view expressed by Solovyov in his essay “The Case of Patriarch Nikon” (M., 1862). He groups in this case the features leading to Nikon’s acquittal, and places all the blame for the sad outcome of the tsar’s feud with the patriarch on the boyars, Nikon’s enemies, and on the Greeks who were involved in this matter. In all general works on Russian history there are many pages about Nikon; we will mention here the work of Metropolitan Macarius ("History of the Russian Church", vol. XII, St. Petersburg, 1883), where the question of Nikon is considered according to sources and the attitude towards Nikon is expressed almost the same as that of Solovyov, and the work of Hubbenet "Historical Study of the Case of Patriarch Nikon" (2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1882 and 1884), written objectively and seeking to restore in strict order the slightly confused connection of facts. The significance of all previous works, however, fell with the advent of major works by Prof. Kapterev, named above. Among foreign works, it is necessary to mention the English theologian Palmer, who in his work “The Patriarch and the Tzar” (London, 1871-1876) made a wonderful summary of data about the Nikon case, translating into English excerpts from the works of Russian scientists about Nikon and a lot of material, both published and not yet published in Russia (he used documents from the Moscow Synodal Library).

We will present the circumstances of Nikon’s abandonment of the patriarchal throne and Nikon’s deposition briefly in view of the fact that Nikon’s entire case is made up of a mass of petty facts, a detailed account of which would take up too much space. We have already seen how Nikon achieved the patriarchate. It should be noted that he was almost 25 years older than Alexei Mikhailovich; this difference in years made it easier for him to influence the king. This was not the friendship of peers, but the influence of a very intelligent, active and remarkably eloquent man of venerable years on the soft, impressionable soul of the young king. On the one hand there was the love and deep respect of the boy, on the other - the desire to lead this boy. Nikon’s energetic but callous nature could not respond to the Tsar’s ideal sympathy with the same feeling. Nikon was a practitioner, Alexey Mikhailovich was an idealist. When Nikon became patriarch with the condition that the tsar would not interfere in church affairs, Nikon's importance was very great; little by little he becomes at the center of not only church, but also state government. The Tsar and others, following the example of the Tsar, began to call Nikon not “the great master,” as the patriarch was usually called, but “the great sovereign,” a title used only by Patriarch Filaret as the father of the sovereign. Nikon stood very close to the court, more often than the previous patriarchs he participated in the royal meals, and the king himself often visited him. In business relations with the patriarch, the boyars called themselves before him, as before the king, by half a name (for example, in a charter:

"To the Great Sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Nikon... Mishka Pronsky and his comrades are beating his forehead"). And Nikon himself calls himself “the great sovereign”; in the letters he writes his name next to the royal name, as the name of Patriarch Philaret was written; and in the newly published Service Book of 1655 Nikon even places the following words: “May the Lord give their sovereigns (i.e. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon) ... the desire of their hearts; may all who live under their power rejoice... as if, under a single sovereign command, all Orthodox peoples living everywhere... glorify our true God." Thus, Nikon called his reign a power and openly equated his power with that of the sovereign. According to modern expression, Nikon, having become patriarch, “loved to stand high and ride wide.” He was thus reproached for having forgotten himself and become proud. He really behaved proudly, like a “great sovereign,” and there was a reason for this: Nikon achieved that he ruled the entire state in 1654, when the tsar was at war, and the Boyar Duma listened to him as a tsar. Nikon's political influence grew to the point that his contemporaries were ready to consider his power even greater than that of the tsar. Neronov used to say to Nikon:

“What honor is it to you, holy lord, that you are terrible to everyone, and they say to each other threateningly: do you know who he is, whether he is a fierce beast - a lion or a bear, or a wolf? your envoys are more terrible than the king’s; no one dares to speak to them, it is confirmed among them: do you know the patriarch?” And Nikon himself was inclined to consider himself equal to the tsar in power, if not even the strongest. Once at the council (summer 1653), in a dispute with Neronov, Nikon rashly said that the presence of the king at the council, as Nero demanded, was not necessary. “I don’t need or need the royal help either,” he shouted and spoke of this help with complete contempt.

But Nikon’s influence was based not on law or custom, but on the king’s sole disposition towards Nikon (if Nikon had not been a patriarch, we would have called him a temporary worker). This position of Nikon, together with his behavior, proud and self-confident, caused enmity towards him among the court environment, among the boyars, who, thanks to his rise, lost part of their influence (Miloslavsky and Streshnev); there is evidence (from Meyerberg) that the royal family was also opposed to Nikon. At court, Nikon was looked upon as an uninvited despot, supported solely by the favor of the king. If this location is taken away, Nikon’s influence will disappear and his power will decrease.

However, Nikon himself did not think so. He could not imagine patriarchal power otherwise than in the extent to which he was able to exercise it. According to his concept, the power of the patriarch is extremely high, it is even higher than the supreme secular power: Nikon demanded complete non-interference of secular power in spiritual affairs and at the same time reserved for the patriarch the right to wide participation and influence in political affairs; in the sphere of church administration, Nikon considered himself the sole and sovereign ruler. He treated the clergy subordinate to him harshly, behaved proudly and inaccessibly, in a word, he was a real despot in the management of the clergy and flock. He was very quick to impose severe punishments, easily pronounced curses on the guilty and generally did not hesitate to take drastic measures. In terms of energy of character and desire for power, Nikon is readily compared to Pope Gregory VII Hildebrant. However, during his administration of the church, Nikon did not eliminate those abuses and burdens that fell on the clergy under his predecessor Joseph and caused complaints; In 1653, the order maintained and reintroduced by Nikon gave rise to a curious petition to the Tsar against the Patriarch. Although it was submitted by opponents of innovation, it concerns not only Nikon’s reforms, but also his administrative habits and very thoroughly depicts Nikon as an administrator, from an unsympathetic side. From this petition it is clear that there was great murmur against him even among the clergy. In general, it should be noted about Nikon that individuals loved him, but his personality did not arouse general sympathy, although his moral power conquered the crowd.

Before the Polish War of 1654, the tsar’s youth’s sympathy for Nikon did not waver. Leaving for the war, Alexey Mikhailovich placed both his family and the state in Nikon’s care. Nikon's influence seemed to be growing and growing, although the tsar was aware of many of Nikon's antics - both the way Nikon spoke of the tsar's help, that he did not "need" it, and the fact that Nikon did not favor the Code, calling it "damned a book" full of "lawlessness". But during the war, the king matured, saw a lot of new things, developed and acquired greater independence. This was facilitated by the very circumstances of military life, which had an influence on the impressionable nature of the tsar, and by the fact that Alexei Mikhailovich, during his campaigns, freed himself from Moscow influences and the monotonous everyday situation in Moscow; but, while he himself was changing, the king had not yet changed his previous relations towards his old friends. He was very good with Nikon, still called him his friend. However, disagreements began to occur between them. One such disagreement occurred during Holy Week in 1656 regarding a church issue (about the order of the Epiphany Blessing of Water). Convicting Nikon of lying, the tsar became very angry and in an argument called Nikon “a peasant and a stupid man.” But their friendship still continued until July 1658, until the well-known clash between the okolnichy Khitrovo and Prince Meshchersky at the reception of the Georgian prince Teimuraz. In July 1658 there was a sudden break.

In explaining the reason for Nikon’s break with Alexei Mikhailovich, researchers differ somewhat due to the incompleteness of factual data about this event. Some (Soloviev, Metropolitan Macarius) explain the break by the indignation of the tsar, on the one hand, and the harshness of Nikon’s behavior, on the other; They imagine that the cooling between the tsar and the patriarch occurred gradually and on its own, imperceptibly led to a rupture. Others (Subbotin, Gubbenet and the late professor of the University of Dorpat P.E. Medovikov, who wrote “The Historical Significance of the Reign of Alexei Mikhailovich.” M., 1854) believe that the rupture was caused by the slander and intrigues of the boyars, which they tend to attach in the Nikon case very significant. It should be noted that S. M. Solovyov also does not deny the participation of the boyars in this matter, but their intrigues and “whispers”, as a secondary factor, are in the background for him.

When the tsar did not give due reprisal, in Nikon’s opinion, to Khitrovo, who had offended the patriarchal boyar upon Teimuraz’s entry, and stopped attending the patriarchal service, Nikon left for his Resurrection Monastery, abandoning the patriarchate “in Moscow” and without waiting for an explanation with the tsar. A few days later, the tsar sent two courtiers to ask the patriarch how to understand his behavior - did he completely renounce the patriarchate or not? Nikon answered the tsar very restrainedly that he did not consider himself a patriarch “in Moscow,” and gave his blessing to the election of a new patriarch and to the transfer of patriarchal affairs to the temporary management of Pitirim, Metropolitan of Krutitsky. Nikon then asked Alexei Mikhailovich for forgiveness for his removal, and the Tsar forgave him.

Having settled in the Resurrection Monastery (40 versts from Moscow in the north-west), which belonged to Nikon personally, he took up housekeeping and buildings and asked Alexei Mikhailovich not to leave his monastery with the sovereign's alms. The Tsar, for his part, treated Nikon graciously, and the relationship between them did not resemble a quarrel. The Tsar was informed that Nikon resolutely did not want to “be among the patriarchs,” and the Tsar was concerned about electing a new patriarch to replace Nikon. The whole question then lay in the election of the patriarch: the matter promised to be settled peacefully, but displeasure soon began. Nikon learned that secular people were sorting out the patriarchal papers left in Moscow, was offended by this and wrote a letter to the sovereign about this with a lot of reproaches, complaining, among other things, that no one was allowed to travel from Moscow to Nikon. Then he began to complain that he was not considered a patriarch, and was very angry with Metropolitan Pitirim for deciding to replace the patriarch with himself in the famous ceremony - the procession on a donkey (in the spring of 1659). On this occasion, Nikon stated that he did not want to remain a patriarch “in Moscow,” but that he had not resigned his patriarchal rank. It turned out that Nikon, not being the Patriarch of Moscow, was still the Patriarch of the Russian Church and considered himself the right to interfere in church affairs; If a new patriarch were elected in Moscow, then a bipatriarchate would emerge in the Russian Church. Moscow did not know what to do and did not dare to elect a new shepherd.

In the summer of 1659, Nikon unexpectedly arrived in Moscow, stayed for a short time, was received by the tsar with great honor, but there was no explanation or reconciliation between them, the relationship remained uncertain, and the matter was not unraveled. In the autumn of the same 1659, Nikon, with the permission of the tsar, went to visit his other two monasteries: Iversky (on Lake Valdai) and Krestny (near Onega). Only now, in Nikon’s long absence, did the tsar decide to convene a spiritual council in order to think over the state of affairs and decide what to do. In February 1660, the Russian clergy began its meetings and, after considering cases, determined that Nikon should be deprived of the patriarchate and priesthood according to the rules of St. apostles and councils, like a shepherd who left his flock by his own will. The Tsar, not fully trusting the correctness of the verdict, invited the Greek hierarchs, who were then in Moscow, to the council. The Greeks confirmed the correctness of the conciliar verdict and found new justifications for it in church rules. But the learned Kiev resident Epiphany Slavinetsky did not agree with the verdict of the council and submitted a dissenting opinion to the tsar, convicting the council of an incorrect interpretation of church rules and proving that the priesthood cannot be taken away from Nikon, although he should be deprived of the patriarchate.

The authority of the Greeks was thus shaken in the eyes of the tsar; he hesitated to carry out the council’s sentence, especially since many members of the council (Greeks) were inclined to show Nikon leniency and asked the sovereign for this. So, the attempt to unravel the matter with the help of the council failed, and Moscow was left without a patriarch.

Nikon continued to consider himself a patriarch and stated that a new patriarch in Moscow should be installed by himself. He returned to the Resurrection Monastery, learned, of course, about the council’s verdict regarding his deposition and realized that now it would not be easy for him to regain his lost power. When leaving Moscow, he hoped that they would beg him to return to the patriarchal throne, but this did not happen, and the council of 1660 showed him definitively that they would not ask him to return to Moscow. That Nikon’s influence had completely fallen was also seen by others: Nikon’s neighbor on earth, the okolnichy Boborykin, entered into a lawsuit with him, not yielding a piece of land to the once all-powerful patriarch. Dissatisfied with the fact that Boborykin was given a trial against the patriarch, Nikon writes a letter to the Tsar full of reproaches and heavy accusations. At the same time, he does not get along with Pitirim, who paid little attention to the former patriarch, and even anathematizes him. In general, Nikon, who did not expect an unfavorable turn of events for himself, loses his composure and is too worried about the troubles and pricks that befall him, like any fallen prominent figure. But until 1662, nothing decisive was taken against Nikon, although his harsh antics increasingly armed his former friend Tsar Alexei against him.

In 1662, the Gaza Metropolitan Paisius Ligarid, who had been dismissed from his post, came to Moscow, a very educated Greek who had wandered a lot in the East and came to Moscow in order to better provide for himself. In the 17th century the Greek clergy very willingly visited Moscow with similar intentions. A deft diplomat, Paisiy soon managed to acquire friends and influence in Moscow. Having looked closely at the relationship between the tsar and the patriarch, he easily noticed that Nikon’s star had already faded, he understood which side he should take: he stood against Nikon, although he himself came to Moscow based on his gracious and kind letter. First, upon his arrival, he entered into correspondence with Nikon, promising him a reward in heaven for his “innocent suffering,” but at the same time he tried to persuade Nikon to humble himself before the Tsar. But from the very first days he advised the tsar not to hesitate with the patriarch, to demand submission from him and to depose him if he did not submit and “the department of the patriarchs would abstain.” As a most learned person, Ligarid was asked in Moscow on behalf of Boyar Streshnev (Nikon’s enemy) up to 30 questions about Nikon’s behavior so that Paisius could decide whether the patriarch had acted correctly. And Ligarid decided all the issues not in Nikon’s favor. Having learned his answers, Nikon worked on his objections for about a year and wrote a whole book of passionate and very apt excuses in his response to Ligarid.

Obviously, under the influence of Ligarid, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich at the end of 1662 decided to convene a second council on Nikon. He ordered Archbishop Hilarion of Ryazan to draw up a kind of indictment for the cathedral - to collect “all kinds of guilt” against Nikon - and ordered the Eastern patriarchs to be invited to the cathedral.

Nikon, depressed by the tsar’s attitude towards him, had previously sought peace, sending letters to the tsar and asking him to change towards him “for the Lord’s sake”; now he decided to secretly come to Moscow and arrived at night (on Christmas 1662) to reconcile with the sovereign and prevent the council, but that same night he went back, probably informed by his Moscow friends that his attempt would be in vain. Seeing that reconciliation was impossible, Nikon changed his behavior again. In the summer of 1663, he uttered such an ambiguous anathema against the mentioned Boborykin (with whom he continued to have an affair) that Boborykin could apply it to the Tsar himself and the royal family, which he did, without failing to convey it to Moscow. The Tsar was extremely upset by this event and by the fact that during the investigation into this case Nikon behaved very arrogantly and made many obscene speeches against the Tsar. However, the investigators themselves tried to figure this out, infuriating the patriarch with their questions and their distrust of him. If Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich still retained any favor towards Nikon, then after this incident it should have disappeared completely.

The Eastern patriarchs, to whom the invitation was sent in December 1662, sent their answers only in May 1664. They themselves did not go to Moscow, but very thoroughly answered the tsar’s questions, which the tsar sent them about Nikon’s case at the same time as his invitation. They condemned Nikon's behavior and admitted that the patriarch could also be judged by a local (Russian) council, which is why their presence in Moscow seemed unnecessary to them. But Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich certainly wanted the patriarchs themselves to come to Moscow, and sent them a second invitation. The tsar’s desire to sort out Nikon’s case with the help of the highest authorities of the church is very understandable; he wanted that in the future there would be no room for doubt and there would be no opportunity for Nikon to protest against the council.

But Nikon did not want the council, realizing that the council would turn against him, he pretended that the council was not scary for him, but at the same time he openly and publicly took the first step towards reconciliation, in order to thereby destroy the need for the council; he decided, with the help, and perhaps by thought, of some of his friends (boyar N.I. Zyuzin) to come to Moscow as a patriarch, just as he had once left it. On the night of December 1, 1664, he unexpectedly appeared at Matins at the Assumption Cathedral, took part in the service as a patriarch and sent to notify the sovereign of his arrival, saying: “I came down from the throne without being persecuted by anyone, now I have come to the throne uninvited by anyone.” However, the sovereign, after consulting with the clergy and boyars; gathered immediately to the palace, did not go to Nikon and ordered him to leave Moscow. Even before dawn, Nikon left, shaking the dust from his feet, finally realizing his fall. The case of his arrival was investigated, and Zyuzin paid with exile. Nikon had to wait for the patriarchal trial of himself. In 1665, he secretly sent a message to the patriarchs, justifying his behavior in it, so that the patriarchs could judge his case more correctly; but this message was intercepted and at the trial served as strong evidence against Nikon, because it was written sharply.

Only in the fall of 1666 did Patriarchs Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch come to Moscow (the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem did not come themselves, but sent their consent to the arrival of the first two and to the trial of Nikon). In November 1666, a council began, to which Nikon was also summoned. He behaved as if offended, but recognized the council as correct; He justified himself proudly and arrogantly, but obeyed the council. The tsar himself accused him, tearfully listing Nikon’s “grievances.” In December, Nikon was sentenced, the patriarchate and priesthood were removed from him and he was sent into exile to the Ferapontov Belozersky Monastery. This is how the “case of Patriarch Nikon” ended. Nikon listened to his verdict restlessly; he began to cruelly scold the Greek clergy, calling the Greeks “vagabonds.” “Go everywhere for alms,” he told them and ironically advised them to divide among themselves the gold and pearls from his patriarchal hood and panagia. Nikon’s irony was close and understandable to many at that time. The Greeks really “went everywhere for alms”; Having worked to condemn Nikon to please the most powerful monarch and rejoicing at the execution of justice, they did not forget to express the hope that now the royal mercy towards them would not become scarce. In view of this mercy, both before the council and at the council of 1666, they tried to exalt the royal power and establish its authority even in church affairs, blaming Nikon for his desire for independence in the church sphere. Nikon, arrogant, inconsistent and who has sinned a lot, is more sympathetic to us in his fall than the Greeks with their worries about the royal mercy.

The council unanimously condemned Nikon, but when they began to formulate the verdict against him, a major disagreement occurred at the council on the issue of relations between the authorities, secular and spiritual. In the verdict, edited by the Greeks, tendencies in favor of the first were too clearly and sharply pursued: the Greeks placed secular power as authority in matters of the church and faith, and some Russian hierarchs rebelled against this (precisely Nikon’s former enemies), for which they were subjected to church punishment. Thus, the question of the attitude of the authorities was fundamentally raised at the council of 1666-1667. and was decided by the council not in favor of the church authorities.

This issue had to be raised at this council: it was very significant in Nikon’s case and was visible much earlier than the council of 1666. Nikon fought and fell not only because of a personal quarrel, but because of the principle that he pursued. In all Nikon’s speeches and messages this principle is directly expressed, and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself felt it when (in 1662 in Streshnev’s questions to Ligarid and in 1664 in questions to the patriarchs) he raised questions about the space of power of the royal and archpastoral. Nikon firmly defended the position that church government should be free from any interference from secular power, and church power should have influence in political affairs. This view was born in Nikon from a high idea of ​​the church as the leader of the highest interests of society; representatives of the church, according to Nikon, should therefore stand above other authorities. But such views put Nikon in complete discord with reality: in his time, as he thought, the state had prevailed over the church, and it was necessary to return the church to its proper position, and this was the direction of his activities (see: Ikonnikov “Experience in research on cultural significance Byzantium in Russian History", Kyiv, 1869). For this very reason, Nikon’s quarrel with the tsar was not only a personal quarrel between friends, but went beyond it; in this dispute, the king and the patriarch were representatives of two opposing principles. Nikon fell because the historical course of our life did not give room for his dreams, and he, as a patriarch, realized them only to the extent that the king’s disposition allowed him to do so. In our history, the church has never suppressed or become superior to the state, and its representatives and Metropolitan Philip Kolychev himself (whom Nikon revered so much) used only moral strength. And now, in 1666-1667, a council of Orthodox hierarchs deliberately placed the state above the church.

Coming from a Mordovian peasant family, Nikon was a parish priest, then worked as a monk in the Russian North. In 1646, he met the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, thanks to whom he made a rapid career and in 1652 was elected Patriarch of All Rus'. Nikon began a liturgical reform based on Greek models, which ultimately led to a schism in the Russian Church. Nikon's intervention in the domestic and foreign policy of the state and upholding the principle of “priesthood above the kingdom” led to the severance of his relations with the tsar. In 1658, Nikon left the department in protest and retired to the New Jerusalem Monastery, but at the same time blocked the election of his successor. When Nikon came to Moscow without permission in 1664 and tried to take the patriarchal position again, he was sent back. Church Council 1666-1667 with the participation of the Greek ecumenical patriarchs, confirming the reforms carried out by Nikon, removed the rank of patriarch from him. Nikon was exiled to the Ferapontov Belozersky Monastery. In 1681, Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich allowed Nikon to return to the New Jerusalem Monastery, but he died on the road.

The fate and role of Nikon in the history of the Russian Church is unique. He came from a poor family of a Mordvin peasant, experienced the bitterness of orphanhood and early embarked on the path of pastoral service. In adolescence, Nikita (that was the name of the future patriarch) learned to read and write and acquired the skill of reading the Holy Scriptures. At the age of 12, he probably went to one of the monasteries founded by the Monk Macarius of Zheltovodsk, but at the insistence of his relatives he returned home. OK. In 1625 he married and was soon ordained a priest. A year later he moved with his family to Moscow. After the death of three young children, having assigned his wife to the Moscow Alekseevsky convent, Father Nikita went to the Solovetsky archipelago and there approx. In 1636 he took monastic vows at the Anzersky Trinity Skete with the name Nikon. He labored under the leadership of the monastery leader, the Monk Eleazar; engaged in icon painting, participated in the beginning of the construction of a stone monastery church. After 3 years, due to a conflict with Eleazar, Nikon left Anzer and moved to another northern monastery, Kozheozersk Hermitage. For several years he lived alone on a deserted island on Lake Kozhe (Kozhezero), and in 1643 he was elected abbot of the Kozheozero monastery. One day, having arrived in Moscow on business, Nikon was received by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and literally charmed the young monarch. He called the northern hermit a “sobinny” (special) friend and ordered him to be elevated first to the rank of archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow (1646), then to the Metropolitan of Novgorod (1649) and, finally, to the patriarch (1652). Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich had much in common in their views on the future of Russia and the Russian Church; this predetermined the patriarchate of the “cow’s friend” and his participation in the implementation of the liturgical reform brought forward by the tsar in the circle of lovers of God.
The beginning of the reform dates back to 1653, when on the eve of Lent the patriarch sent out a “memory” to churches about limiting the number of prostrations when reading the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian and the three-fingered (instead of the previous two-fingered) sign of the cross. At the same time, the correction of liturgical books began, focusing on the Greek tradition. There were practically no own experts in the Greek language and divine services in Russia; the authority of translators was maintained only thanks to the efforts of Nikon, and through his mediation, the Tsar, which is why the Printing House in 1653 was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch. The work of correcting the books was entrusted to an authoritative scribe, an expert in Greek and Latin, Epiphanius Slavinetsky, who in 1649 arrived in Russia with the recommendations of the Kyiv Metropolitan Sylvester (Kossov). Nikon removed the old investigators Savvaty, Sila Grigoriev, Ivan Nasedka, Mikhail Rogov, replacing them with Arseny the Greek and the disciple of Epiphany Slavinetsky, monk Evfimy Chudovsky.
Epiphanius, who was not formally on the staff of the Printing House, received predominant influence there. The Patriarch and his supporters claimed that they were correcting books based on Greek texts, but the “copyright” (proofreading) books of Moscow reference books testify primarily to southwestern Russian rather than Greek influence, since Ukrainian and Belarusian editions, partly verified, were taken as a basis with Greek books of the Venetian press under the Kiev Metropolitan Peter (Mogila). In fact, Moscow scribes limited themselves to using newly printed Ukrainian and Belarusian books, into which they made grammatical and lexical corrections, trying, on the one hand, to Greekize the Church Slavonic language, and on the other, to bring its grammatical structure closer to the recommendations of the southwestern Russian “Grammar” of Meletius (Smotritsky).
Probably, to Nikon, the book on the right initially seemed to be a rather ordinary measure, since it had happened before according to royal and patriarchal decrees, but on the part of former like-minded people there was a sharp reaction of rejection of innovations. According to Archpriest Avvakum and other former members of the circle of lovers of God, the reform should have followed the traditions of the Stoglavy Council of 1551.
To consider ritual issues and the results of collating liturgical books, Patriarch Nikon convened several church councils. The first council, which approved the ongoing transformations, was held from February 27 to May 2, 1654. At it, the patriarch raised the question of which tradition - Russian, dating back to Stoglav, or Greek - should be followed in the matter of transformations. The Council supported the position of the Tsar and the Patriarch, which consisted in adherence to the Greek tradition. In 1655-1657. A number of new councils took place, considering both individual reforms and the progress of the reform as a whole. Issues of church reform were considered, and liturgical books brought from Greece were compared. The councils decided that the right should be carried out on the basis of a comparison of ancient Russian manuscripts and Greek texts.
Resistance to reforms, first from former like-minded people of Patriarch Nikon from the circle of zealots of piety, and then from the broad masses of the people, led to a split in the Russian Church. To the confessional disputes was added social protest, the ground for which was prepared by the final enslavement of the peasantry by the Code of 1649. During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, dissatisfaction with church reforms was perceived by the authorities as an annoying misunderstanding; Alexei Mikhailovich more than once made efforts to reconcile the ideologists of the early Old Believers with the church, sometimes bringing them closer to court, then punishing with exile, but not resorting to reprisals, as happened later. Patriarch Nikon, in turn, quickly cooled down to the liturgical reform, which unexpectedly caused such a strong protest; Nikon was much more interested in issues of relations with secular authorities and problems of the universal significance of Russian Orthodoxy.
During the period of the tsar's participation in military campaigns against Poland (1654-1655), the patriarch actually ruled the country. The rise of the head of the Russian Church in matters of state administration, unprecedented since the time of Patriarch Philaret, caused discontent at court and among the bishops. Based on ideas about the special status of the patriarch not only in the Church, but also in the state, Nikon acted straightforwardly and despotic, which is why he ruined relations not only with the boyar circle of the tsar, but even with the highest clergy. At the beginning of July 1658, the tsar did not attend several patriarchal services in the Assumption Cathedral; Nikon regarded this as a sign of the tsar’s anger and left the patriarchal throne. After correspondence negotiations with the tsar about the reasons for leaving the see, Nikon left for the New Jerusalem Monastery near Moscow, where he spent more than eight years until he was deprived of the patriarchate at the council of 1666.
The events of these years were called in the literature “the Nikon affair.” The formal reason for the accusation against Nikon was his alleged assignment of the title of “great sovereign,” although this title was established on the initiative of the tsar. The main reason for the removal of the patriarch was his interference in political affairs; in particular, Nikon advocated an alliance with Poland against Sweden; this line had few supporters at court, so the blame for the military failures in the Swedish campaign of 1656-1658. the court party tried to blame Nikon. Defiantly, under the influence of emotions, leaving the patriarchal throne, Nikon hoped to strengthen his position at court, but his hopes were not justified. In response to the court’s demand to agree to the election of a new patriarch, since he himself had left the department, Nikon stated that, having left the patriarchate, he had not left the patriarchal rank, and agreed to the election of a successor only with his blessing. Initially, Nikon enjoyed some support from court circles loyal to him, in particular the Greeks who helped the patriarch during the period of church reform, and some Russian bishops.
Nikon's decisive position, the arguments in his favor set out by Epiphanius Slavinetsky, the hesitations of some bishops and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich delayed the consideration of the issue. The Nikon case gradually came to a dead end. In 1662, a Greek hierarch of very dubious reputation arrived in Moscow - Metropolitan of Gaza Paisius Ligarid (there were rumors that he changed his religion more than once). Boyar Streshnev compiled a list of 30 questions for Paisius, representing a list of the patriarch’s misdeeds. Paisiy gave detailed answers to them, the essence of which boiled down to a consistent accusation of the patriarch of exceeding power and abusing it. Following Paisius, Bishop Alexander of Vyatka composed a similar denunciation, probably on his own initiative. In 1664, Nikon responded to these incriminating documents from Streshnev-Ligarid with a lengthy “Objection”, where he rejected all the accusations brought against him, and also outlined his views on the place of the Church in the state and society and on the relationship between the “priesthood and the kingdom”
The essence of his views can be represented by a brief formula: “the priesthood of the kingdom is greater.” In particular, Nikon insisted that only the ecumenical patriarchs could judge him, and Alexei Mikhailovich had to comply with this condition to ensure the canonical correctness of the deposition of the patriarch. In 1666, Patriarchs Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch arrived in Moscow for the council for the trial of Nikon at the invitation of the Moscow government; representatives of the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Jerusalem were also present at the Council. The council condemned the former Patriarch Nikon, deposed him and, ordering him to henceforth be called a simple monk, sent him into exile. At the end of the “Nikon case,” the Council in 1667 examined in detail the activities carried out in the 50s and 60s. liturgical transformations and approved them. All bishops who expressed doubts about the necessity and validity of the reforms undertaken were interrogated by the Council regarding their adherence to the new church regulations. The most persistent supporters of the Old Believers were anathematized.
The deposed patriarch in exile grew medicinal herbs and treated the sick; was engaged in the construction of cells. In the summer of 1676, Nikon was transferred to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery with tougher conditions of detention; there he accepted the schema without changing his name. After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich in June 1681, Nikon was pardoned by the new Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. But already in August he died on the way from exile to Moscow. The following year, Nikon was posthumously restored to the patriarchal rank by letters of permission from the ecumenical patriarchs.
Materials on the case of Patriarch Nikon were stored in the archives of the Secret Affairs Order, then in the Moscow Synodal Library (now in the RGADA. F. 27).

MESSAGE OF PATRIARCH NIKON TO TSAR ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH FROM VOSKRESENSKY MONASTERY, JULY 1659
To the Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, autocrat of all Great and Lesser and White Russia, your pilgrim, humble sinner Nikon, former patriarch, for your sovereign’s spiritual salvation and bodily health and for the success of the victory and overcoming of God, I pray, long live you with his queen, and with our empress and Grand Duchess Maria Ilinichna, and with his son, and with our sovereign, Tsarevich and Grand Duke Alexei Alekseevich, and with his sisters, and with our empress princesses and grand duchesses, princess and Grand Duchess Irina Mikhailovna, Tsarevna and Grand Duchess Anna Mikhailovna, Tsarevna and Grand Duchess Tatiana Mikhailovna and with her daughters, and with our empresses, Tsarevna and Grand Duchess Evdokia Alekseevna, Tsarevna and Grand Duchess Martha Alekseevna, Tsarevna and Grand Duchess Sophie with her Alekseevna and with all the siglit and with all the Christ-loving army and with all Orthodox Christians.
I also pray that you do not be angry with your pilgrim about the great sovereign who needs me most for you, trusting in your former good disposition in God.
I heard that you gave it to the holy great church, and now you commanded it to be returned. I pray to you by our Lord Jesus Christ not to do such things, since you yourself have read the divine scripture, which says: give, and it will be given, and so on. And once again it was said of nature: Ananias, why did Satan tempt your heart, tempt the Holy Spirit? Isn’t your existence either in your area or not? And if you have already written, you have already written for us. And again I pray to you, the great sovereign, to stop from such people and not to become like evil speeches, but rather to God’s speeches; be jealous of that poor widow who gave two cups of copper, and the second one who poured a libation of ointment on the nose of Christ; for them, says Christ, to be remembered, and is now something to be praised, and an image for all lovers of God, giving to the holy churches of God. For the Lord’s sake, do not begin about these little ones, lest you come to great negligence and anger your Lord; Moreover, we have many good things, for from small contempt great things increase and we do not give what is our own, but what is God’s to God. For this reason, in the church it is said: Yours from Yours and brought to You. And again, my thought forces me to write to you, the great sovereign, and write this: if I, in accordance with my duty, have asked the great sovereign for forgiveness from you through the Scriptures, in which, as a man has sinned, according to the commandment of the Lord, he said: if you bring your gift to the altar and If your brother has something against you, leave that gift and go and reconcile with your brother. I am not like a brother, but like your last pilgrim. You, great sovereign, through your sleeping bag Afanasy Ivanovich Matyushkin, sent your gracious forgiveness. Now I hear that you are doing a lot of things, not as if you were forgiven, but as if you were the last evildoer: my bad and humble things, which remained in the cell, and letters, in them there is a lot of mystery, which no one from the world should know, since with the permission of God and your state council with the sacred cathedral elected him as the high priest, and I had many of your sovereign sacraments, and also many others; I demand complete forgiveness of my sins, writing with my own hands and sealing them with my hands, so that as a saint, having the power by the grace of God, given to us from the Most Holy and Life-Giving Spirit, the power on earth to bind and solve human sins, we will resolve them, which should have been dealt with by no one else, I think , below you, the great sovereign. And I marvel at this: how soon you came to such boldness, even though you were sometimes afraid to bring judgment on simple church clerks, as the holy laws do not command; Now, sometimes the whole world was like a shepherd who wanted to teach sins and sacraments and not just himself, but also to the worldly, who dared fearlessly, Lord, do not put them into sin, lest they repent? How is our judgment now being judged by the unrighteous, and not by the saints? If you had willed, great sovereign, from us what you needed would have been done, but we hear that for this reason it happened, so that the writing of your holy right hand will not remain with us, as you wrote, favoring us as your pilgrim, lovingly honoring us as a great sovereign (but there is nothing); Likewise, even now, not by our will, but by our own will, we don’t know where it began, but I think that by you, the great sovereign, such firstfruits appeared: since you, great sovereign, wrote in your sovereign’s letters in all and in replies from all the regiments to you , the great sovereign is written like this in all matters and it is impossible to correct this, but an evil and proud cursed nickname will be required, even if it was not my will; I hope in the Lord that my desire and command for this will not be found anywhere, except for a false creation, for the sake of which today there is much suffering and suffering for the Lord for the sake of false brethren, as it is nowhere said: troubles are in the false brethren, and their lips are full of sorrow and flattery, under their tongue untrue, and so on. Everything that has been said humbly by us is confessed proudly, and everything that is praised by God is said blasphemously; and with such lying words your anger has been magnified against me, I think, against anything that is not great, but it has been magnified in a way that has never happened before in your sovereign ranks, for which you have been tortured, no matter what you wanted or sought, to call yourself a great sovereign, before all people, he was reproached and reproached by the tuna, - I remember, and you, the great (sovereign), are not unaware that even in the holy litorgy you heard, according to our decree, at the trisagion they called the great master, and not the great sovereign, about this our command was . If you don’t remember the great sovereign, please interrogate the churchmen and cathedral deacons: if they don’t lie, they will tell you the same, just as I am saying now. But again, let us speak about false brotherly untruths, because their lies are exalted and those who are your enemies are more condemned: even if sometimes in all wealth I shared a meal with you, I am not ashamed to boast about them, and I am fed like a fat calf with many foods to slaughter, according to custom to your sovereign, having enjoyed him a lot, I soon cannot forget: now on the 25th day of July, the birth of the noble princess and Grand Duchesses Anna Mikhailovna was celebrated, everyone rejoiced about that good Christmas, enjoying it; I am the only one, like a dog, deprived of your rich meal; but even the psi, according to what has been said, are nourished from the grains that fall from the table of their masters. If it weren’t for the enemy being imputed, you wouldn’t be deprived of a small piece of bread from your rich meal. You yourself, great sovereign, do not weigh the divine scripture, why, before others, on the day of judgment we will be tortured: greedy, speech, fed. This is said not as if Christ grieved for the greedy, but by creating love, since no one is deprived of his daily food, even if he is poor; If Christ had grieved for the poor, He would not have once said: Do not worry about what you eat or what you drink: look at the birds of the air, how they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather, and the heavenly Father feeds them. Behold, I write not because I am deprived of bread, but because I am torturing the great sovereign from you with mercy and love, and let me not be put to shame about these things from the Lord God. Even if the enemy were imputed, by the grace of God, you would never be a great sovereign; but it is also said about everyone: if your enemy is hungry, feed him. And again: love your enemies. There are many, enemies and hostiles who accept your grace. And when I was not greatly rich in poverty, then your mercy increased more and more. Now, for the Lord’s sake, all these poor people are multiplied in my prayers for your spiritual salvation and physical health. Let us not forget what was spoken by the Apostle, the commandment to pray first for the king and all those in power, that the Lord give you a quiet, peaceful and serene life, that we too may live in all good faith and purity. I also pray to you, stop, for the Lord’s sake, from being angry; the sun, they said, do not go down on your anger. Whoever, as the Holy Spirit spoke from the mouth of David the prophet and king, walks without blemish and does righteousness, speaking the truth, who does not deceive in his heart and does not do evil to his sincere person and does not accept reproach against his neighbor; This work does not move forever. Sitsev Tsar and Prophet Charter. Now, more than anyone else, I have been slandered by you, the great one, reviled and reproached unrighteously; For this reason, I pray, transform yourself for the Lord’s sake and do not show me, a sinner, no mercy, which my evil things have not caused; Fear him who says: With the same judgment you judge, you will be condemned, and with the same measure you measure, it will be measured to you; Let men do as you will, and you do likewise to them; and if you don’t want it for yourself, don’t do it with it; If you want, but not according to your will, people will know your sacraments, fear the one who says: heaven and earth pass by, but my words do not pass by. And again: one jot and one tittle will not pass away from the law, until they all will. Why should you not be ashamed of him who says: Blessedness is merciful, for there will be mercy? How can he be merciful without being merciful himself? How do you always pray and ask for forgiveness of debts, saying: forgive us our debts, just as we forgive our debtors, and never forgive them? How can you see the face of God in your many years of life without being pure in heart? Not exactly, but many are suffering for my sake, as before these small days with Prince Yury, you, the great sovereign, ordered that you are the only one (attributed: yes princess) to me and kind (corrected, it was: kind), and Prince Yuri ; Now you alone have appeared to me, a poor pilgrim, with great unmercifulness; But you forbid those who want to be nice, and everyone has a strong order to come to me. For the Lord's sake, I pray, stop from such people! Even if you are a great king, appointed by the Lord, but for the sake of truth. Is it really my unrighteousness before You that I asked the church for the sake of judgment against the offender? And not only did he receive a righteous judgment, but the answers were full of unmercifulness; Now I hear that through the laws of the church you yourself dare to judge the sacred rite, which you are not commanded to eat from God. Look, for the Lord's sake, at the first birth, who through the law dares to do the sacred work of the great; You yourself, great sovereign, are not careless, as is written about Uzziah, and so on; And even about Manuel, the king of the Greeks, I think that you are a great sovereign and do not weigh this, even if the priest in bestiality wanted to judge how Christ appeared to him in the likeness of those who were written at his head standing. Now, according to the vision of God, the holy great cathedral apostolic church has that holy image of Christ in its depths, in the reigning city of Moscow, and the holy right hand of Christ has thus been corrected by the order of the indicative and is shown to this day, when he commanded the angel to punish the king, as if he were punished not to judge me slaves before the general judgment, just as this holy story tells the rest of the story. Be moved, for the Lord’s sake, and do not embitter me for the sake of a sinner who stings me, a sinner; For all your people are in your hand, and there is no one who will deliver them from your holy power; and for this reason, moreover, have mercy and intercede, as the divine apostle teaches, saying: You are God’s servant for vengeance as an evildoer, and for praise as a doer of good, and do not judge judgment on the face of sight, but judge righteous judgment, even for bitterness, or for the sake of small wines, or for the sake of slandering the Lord God, free and return, so that the holy God will forgive your many sins. The elders speak against me, as if I took a lot of vestments from the treasury, - Holy God, do not make them sin; but I am clean from these: one sakos is taken, and it is inexpensive, simple; and the amophorion was sent to me by Gabriel, Metropolitan of Chalcedon, and not for the sake of self-interest, but while I am alive and in need of a prayer for your sovereign’s spiritual salvation and for bodily salvation, let me create in them, and after death, let me rely on my sinful body. And the elders say: he took a lot of treasury with him, but he did not take it; but how much will be spent on the church building, but according to time I wanted to give it away. And since the treasurer gave it to Voskresensky during my departure, it was not for the sake of self-interest, but I will not leave my brothers in debt, since the businessman had nothing with which to repay. And there is another treasury, in front of everyone’s eyes: the Moscow courtyard is built, ten thousand and two and more; the packing plant became ten thousand; to you the great sovereign 10,000 struck with his forehead a military man; a thousand and ten in the treasury on the face; 9000 is given now for the planting; horses were purchased for 3000 years; the bishop's cap became one thousand five six; But the holy God knows how new it is for the poor, the orphans, the widows, the beggars, there are books in the treasury for all of them; but for everyone, I repent, for the Lord’s sake, forgive, so that you yourself will be forgiven by the Lord: let me go, I say, and it will be forgiven you.
For the Lord’s sake, don’t look at the letter, I don’t see much, but I can’t write clearly. Hello, great sovereign, with all your blessed home for many years to come.
On the back of the message is the inscription: To the Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, Autocrat of All Great, Little and White Russia. Litter: 167, July... day.

LETTERS OF PATRIARCHES PAISIOUS OF ALEXANDRIA AND MACARIUS OF ANTIOCH (DECEMBER 1666)
1. To the Patriarch of Jerusalem Nektarios.
Most Holy, Most Blessed and Most Adorned Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and All Palestine with Wisdom, Lord, Lord Nektarios, most dear and most honorable brother in the Holy Dus, may your Most Holy Beatitude with brotherly love and zeal of true kiss, praying with a clear conscience and righteous mind, grant the almighty divine power from above peace, freedom from all debts, health, strength, and the exaltation of the Holy and Life-Giving Tomb brings us spiritual joy and joy.
Let it be known that I have departed from our thrones, having seen your writings, informing you that your blessedness intends to travel to these countries. Moreover, the letter-bearer verbally informed us that the Ecumenical Patriarch wanted to send his exarch, so that we should move forward with these things, so that there would not be any change in all the chapters, even though we are all four patriarchal judges. Moreover, according to the codicella of your beatitude, that is, according to the brief sign of it (especially compose in Volosekh in all our signings, like Nikonov’s obran), something that he was aware of was created. For he called to his council not once, but twice, so he also came to give a perfect answer about all the words that were made against him by many. However, most blessed brother, other great guilts have also arisen, but they should not be handed over to the scriptures, since the epistle does not contain anything secret in itself. One thing is sad, as the many and great internal illness of many years has been with the most worthy king, who, like a source, poured out tears from his own hair, even the floor of the earth was wetted with them. Packs with knowledge, as if it was not spoken out of passion, lower out of hatred it was spoken. For at such a coming the proud Nikon, like himself, was consecrated patriarch of New Jerusalem, a monastery he created with rapacity, called New Jerusalem with all those lying around: calling the Holy Sepulcher, Golgotha, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jordan. Also, our coming was the liberation of a certain literate of yours Savastyan, whom he could hardly accomplish with many requests and prayers from the royal wrath and imprisonment. And from there is the knowledge of boldness in the truth of being, who cannot judge anyone except much punishment and diligent testing, in a matter that is completely unknown; For this reason, as we have come, we have seen with our own eyes and sought in detail the whole truth, having found Nikon, not only unworthy of holding the patriarchal throne, but also below the worthy rank of bishop. For this reason, according to the divine holy rule and according to our patriarchal volume, he laid bare his entire sacred action. He was sent to a certain monastery, but he cried about his sins. We make this announcement for the special knowledge of your holiness, as it befits and we proclaim to each other the rules that befit the Holy Church of Christ.
We, therefore, by God’s mercy and grace, and by the diligence and good deeds of our most worthy king for many years, hope, after the completion of this divine work, and also after the consecration of the new patriarch, who is to be elected by the council, to return to our most wretched throne. May God please us to dream of one and the same, and to pray in this holy place, Christ the Lord trampled under our feet, and to rejoice in all our bodies, physically and spiritually. Hello, dear brother, for both people.
Your blessings to your brothers in everything and for everyone.
2. To the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius.
Most Holy, Most Wise and God-Chosen Lord Ecumenical Patriarch.
We, your brethren and co-servants in the Holy Spirit, unanimously kiss your holiness, all those who save souls desire your holiness, together with all the other consecrated council of the wisest bishops who are there in the reigning city.
For it is known that your brotherly love will be in the Lord (for nothing will come in secret, and no one who does) seeks something in secret so that it may be revealed, according to the verb of the Lord in chapter 7 of St. John the Evangelist), as the most illustrious and God-crowned Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, autocrat of all Great, Lesser and White Russia, wrote not only but also twice, as we saw, like written and to the other most holy eastern thrones. Moreover, as if that man was sent for the sake of guilt, he is faithful, calling us to consider some of his church proposals, which are being carried out in his Orthodox kingdom, confirming us to the fact that a man should have been sent from your holiness instead of the person of your patriarch. And as if for the sake of certainty of peace and consolation of the soul there was a certain private [i.e. e. special] condescension and dispensation, so that the two reigning countries could come into one, so that the existing turmoil between them would cease, even if they create in vain, they bring nothing, even if some evil people do, disturbing their kingdoms for the sake of profit. We forewarned, as the most blessed Patriarch of Jerusalem has been halfway from many times, that he himself would personally be present at the consecrated Moscow cathedral, dividing that we, two patriarchs, may not appear to be divisive to such a patriarchal unity, and so as not to appear disobedient to us To be so much the most righteous royal command, to die and die of the laborious paths, passing through icy places, and the tops of impassable mountains, only watching the end, so that we may preserve our forefathers’ reverence and the true truth. And this is all inconvenient due to imputation, even though we are burdened by the old age of days and the long journey is very unusual, because we died. But as soon as we arrived in the most glorious city of Moscow, we did not find your brotherly love in your presence, as we had hoped, according to the promise, and dividing it greatly and from zeal we were saddened, as if by our hope we had been deceived and deprived of good company. But before, as it is said: having been created, they cannot be uncreated; they came to a different conclusion and began to consider this church proposal, which had already been diligently sought, and was decided by the local council. Having become the former patriarch, Nikon owes and is guilty of many crimes: for having annoyed our strongest king with your writings, likewise, for tempting the blessed synclite, reproaching it and calling it heretical and Latinizing, but also keeping the church in widowhood for nine years, completely deprived of all church splendor, and the patriarch of beauty, with her cunning and cunning, tormenting you in every possible way. Moreover, after the complete renunciation of the throne by the people created in the cathedral church, again the liturgis and consecration, acting in all manner befitting the hierarchal dignity, freely and without any obstacle, cursing the sacred with some of their new and vain names, calling themselves the same as the consecration of the New Jerusalem patriarch. But why should the imams count his crimes so many that they can barely even be counted? We have again found, most holy Bishop, the patriarchal throne of the reigning city of Moscow has been greatly insulted, and has been greatly dishonored, and this great flock is without a cheerful shepherd, so that we can truly know what our calling is, which came from the Most Serene Sovereign Tsar; For this reason, the deed was extremely necessary, righteous and correct. And the court, which was pronounced by the local Moscow council, was completely pure and righteous in every way, drawn up according to the holy rule, and approved according to our patriarchal volumes. At the same time, we strived with all our might (all of which we did with great reasoning, and with many years of exacting the most worthy king and our defender, and with the true before God judgment of the local council of bishops), and always delved into the affairs of Nikon, who walked unrighteously, but bypassed the royal path of the middle , this and ovamo and completely debased people in the church, and the conciliar judges, should he live in the only monastery that was quite rich from the ancients, in order to cry to him about his sins. In the same way, the Patriarchal throne now remains in widowhood until the Most High will find the worthy groom chosen from him for His Church. We have asked the most worthy king for many years, so that there would be a special notification and expression through his letter-bearers about all the past of your holiness, and having received permission from him, we joyfully announce this, apart from any person’s acceptance, the whole truth, telling the future patriarch to have and in the diptychs there is a remembrance of itself, just as former patriarchs also have a constant remembrance with us. Both the usual alms given to the great throne and other poor thrones, we hope to be renewed, but even more so to be greater and more contented: and we are striving for this with all our might, until it is accomplished, that is, so that this parable would be fulfilled: As a brother helps his brother, he is saved, and so that friends may be in need be useful. We are adding something else, ours, for the sake of common consolation, as with our coming the mediastinum of enmity will be resolved and everyday captivity will be brought to ruin, so that we can hope to return to our former freedom, honor and glory, which we had in ancient times. The people here with their riots and frenzies have dishonored our noble lordship, for this reason they have become worthy of contempt and rejection among the nobles. However, we are anxious and pray all day long that they will be cast out from among us, and their skills will be greatly laid aside, for the sake of the common honor and the glory of our family.
We hope that with your holy prayers, propitiating God, we will ever accomplish this God-loving deed, who with all our souls began to starve for the Catholic Church for the sake of the Church, and return there: that is, we should kiss each other with all our souls and hearts and talk; both with due honor and decent fasting. Therefore, we must march to our poor throne and see the flock entrusted to us, as all called shepherds should watch him watchfully, so that we may receive worthy retribution from Christ, our shepherd, and also drive us away from these terrible places of torment, even Each one will be rewarded according to his deeds, even as they expect evil workers and shepherds who were not truly bishops, but gloomy men who did not do their duty perfectly.
Hello to both the outer and inner man, planted by God and honored by God as a ruler for many saved years, for the establishment of the church firmament.
Your Holiness, brothers, and yours in everything and about everyone.