Church Council of 1666 1667 Why did the Church condemn schismatics for having two fingers

Having deposed Nikon, the council elected a new patriarch in his place - Joasaph, who had previously been archimandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Then the council proceeded to resolve cases caused by the book correction and curses of Nikon and the Greek hierarchs, including Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, who sat at the council, against ancient church traditions and customs.

Paisius Ligarides was in charge of all affairs at the cathedral. He could not be expected to defend the old faith. It was impossible to expect this from the Eastern patriarchs either, since Nikon's reform was carried out by the Greeks and in the spirit of the new Greek books, rites and rituals. In addition, by this time the influence of the people of Kiev had greatly increased in Moscow. Little Russia was annexed to the Muscovite state, and many southwestern monks, teachers, politicians and other businessmen came to Moscow from it. All of them were heavily infected with Latinism. They acquired great importance in the royal court. In government circles and under the tsar, the influence of Western trends also became stronger. All sorts of novelties, fashions, luxury, theatrical performances came from the West. Religiosity, ecclesiasticism was relegated to the background. And Paisius Ligarides was at that time conducting serious negotiations with Rome on the union of the Russian Church with the Latin. He persuaded the Eastern patriarchs to do the same. The Russian bishops were obedient to the tsar in everything. At such and such a time, a council was held on the matter of Nikon's church reform. Of course, he condemned all her opponents, approved the new liturgical books with all their errors and illiteracy, approved the new rites and rites introduced by Nikon, and secured them with monstrous curses and anathemas. He cursed Orthodox Christians for calling the Holy Spirit "True" in the Creed, recognizing that this word alone is a distortion of the Creed and is therefore subject to anathema by the Ecumenical Councils.

He cursed them for saying "Hallelujah" twice during the divine service, and "Glory to Thee, God" on the third. He acknowledged the most ominous hallelujah in the book "Rod" approved by him as heretical and abominable.

He cursed all those who will not be marked with tripartite. He affirmed the tripartite itself as a great and unchanging dogma for all eternity.

For the clergy, precisely for their blessings, the cathedral, in addition to tripartite, introduced another, new signet, called cherosyllabic, or nomenclature, since it supposedly depicts the name Icyc Christ: with the index finger the letter "I", with the great middle finger - "with" large and nameless, laid one on top of the other, - "X" and the little finger - "s". This is a narrow national composition, because in other languages ​​the pronounced name of the Savior (for example, in Hebrew - Ishua, moreover, in Hebrew letters, or in Chinese and Japanese with their own letters) cannot be depicted with these - and no - fingers. The Council, however, proclaimed that Christ himself commanded to bless with Slavic letters in this way and that with such a national signeting He blessed His Jewish apostles (see the book "Rod"), while every literate person knows that then, under Christ, not there was neither the Slavic language, nor the Slavs themselves.

The council cursed all Orthodox Christians for worship according to old, pre-Nikonian books.

In conclusion, the council said:

“This is our conciliar command, and testament, to all the above rank, Orthodox, we betray, and we command, to all unfailingly keep and repent of the holy eastern church. or he will begin to contradict and oppose us: And we are such an adversary, given to us by power from the all-holy, and life-giving Spirit, if it comes from the consecrated rank, we cast it out, and we expose him of all sacred rites, and we betray the curse. and we create a stranger, from the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: we betray both a curse and an anathema, like a heretic, and a disobedient: and from the Orthodox all-jointness, and a flock: and from the Church of God we cut off, until he understands and returns to the truth by repentance. who does not understand and return to the truth by repentance, And abide in his stubbornness until his end: let him be excommunicated after death, and part of him, and his soul, with Judas the traitor, and with the crucified Christ of the Jews: and with about Arius, and with other accursed heretics. Iron, stone and wood, let them be destroyed, and let them be corrupted: but that one, let it not be allowed, and not corrupted, And like a tympanum, forever and ever, amen.

This "conciliar legalization" was placed in the Assumption Cathedral in Moscow "for eternal affirmation and perpetual remembrance."

These extraordinary curses and anathemas outraged even Nikon, who was accustomed to often cursing Orthodox Christians. He declared that they were laid on the entire Orthodox people and recognized them as "reckless." In fact, they were not only reckless and insane, but also lawless and impious and downright heretical. Cathedral 1666-1667 he has made and cursed the entire Russian Church with all its saints, miracle workers and a huge host of God's saints, since, starting from the baptism of Prince Vladimir, she teaches everything that she cursed and made the cathedral into a myth. From its very beginning, the Russian Church teaches to sign with two fingers, from that time it also calls the Holy Spirit in the Creed "True", proclaims hallelujah twice, and the third time - "glory to Thee, God", performs divine services according to ancient books, etc. P. He cursed the cathedral and the ancient Eastern church, for it handed over to Russia all those ranks, rites and customs that the council subjected to such violent condemnation.

In order to force the Russian pious people to accept the new faith and new books, the council gave its blessing to torture those who disobeyed the council's decrees with the gravest executions: imprison them, exile them, beat them with beef sinews, cut off their ears and noses, cut out their tongues, cut off their hands, etc.

All these actions and decisions of the council brought great confusion to the Russian Church and gave rise to a church schism.

Anticanonical and heretical cathedrals

Composition of the cathedral 1666-1667 was very motley and rabble. Half of it consisted of strangers who accidentally came to the cathedral, who came to Russia only to profit from her rich alms. What kind of rogues and adventurers were not here! There were Greeks, Georgians, Bulgarians, Athonites, Sinaiites, Amasiists, Chionists, Iconists, Chiists, Trapezoans, Khokhols. Almost all of them did not know not only Russian Orthodoxy, did not understand and did not know the Russian spirit, national Russian feelings, did not know Russia itself, its history, its suffering, but did not even know the Russian language. What is Russia to them! What is the piety of the Russian people to them? They needed the wealth of this, in their opinion, wild, but hospitable country. They were ready to curse everything, to recognize everything as heresy - not only Russian books and fingers, not only prosphora and seals on them with the eight-pointed cross of Christ, but also Russian beards and Russian clothes. Yes, due to their ignorance, due to their ignorance of the Russian language, they, in fact, did not understand what, whom, for what they were cursing and anathematizing, what and against what they were signing. All they needed was fat food and generous alms. And they don't care about anything else.

Paisius Ligarid, Metropolitan of Gaza, a cunning Jesuit, an obvious apostate from Eastern Orthodoxy, who was cursed and deposed from all priesthood by the Eastern Patriarchs themselves for this apostasy, was in charge of all the affairs of the cathedral, a dishonest rogue, a deceiver, a thief, a rogue, a rogue, of which there are few, and to top it all - the most vile pederast-sodomite. It is difficult to find a more criminal and vile adventurer in history. And this notorious criminal, exposed heretic and self-styled bishop is the inspirer of the cathedral, its supreme leader, its head and eyes, its heart and soul.

The patriarchs who sat at the council - Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch - were little better than their Eastern brother and companion Ligarides. And they arrived in Moscow with false letters, and they were deprived of their chairs, they were canonically condemned hierarchs, deprived of the right to do anything hierarchical even in their areas, they were deceivers and adventurers. Quite rightly and quite thoroughly, Nikon called them publicly at the cathedral itself, in the presence of the sovereign himself, impostors, vagabonds, deceivers. Already according to these only one leaders and stewards of the cathedral, he was clearly lawless, vagabond, self-proclaimed.

All conciliar deeds, all protocols and other conciliar acts were compiled by Hieromonk Simeon of Polotsk, also a stranger, a crest, a "Latin Kokhanets". Archimandrite Joachim of Chudov, later Patriarch of Moscow, who participated in the council, recognized Polotsky as an unalloyed heretic and even condemned him in print as a dangerous and stubborn Latinist. Simeon, in addition, was an immoral person: in his writings he bred and recommended such lustful love, which is a shame not only to talk about, but only to mention in a decent environment.

And these dishonest, unfaithful, immoral crooks and bigwigs smashed the ancient Orthodox Russian Church, cursed her centuries-old piety, heretical her church customs, orders, ranks, liturgical books and primordial traditions received by ancient Russia from apostolic times. Russian bishops were silent at this multilingual council. Stunned by the new "Tatar" invasion of holy Russia, frightened by Nikon's extrajudicial executions and murders, they slavishly and silently bowed their submissive and, moreover, illiterate and stupid heads before these terrible pogromists and their soul-killing atrocities.

Neither Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the grace of God, nor a blessing from above was and could not be in this incomparable gathering of various businessmen and rogues, foreign vagabonds - these monstrous cursers, potential murderers, clever swindlers, unscrupulous deceivers and obvious heretics. And, nevertheless, this disgusting rabble proclaimed itself a "consecrated cathedral" and blasphemously uttered their insane curses on Orthodox Christians "in the name of the great God", blasphemously passed off their wild, reckless, lawless decrees and decrees as the "favor" of the Holy Trinity Itself. The most blasphemous thing is that all this insane delirium, a terrible nightmare, the murderous breath of the devil himself was enshrined by the Russian state power itself, headed by Tsar Alexei, as the voice and commandment of the holy catholic and apostolic Church. This horrifying company of all sorts of unbelievers over the course of subsequent centuries was passed off as the Church of Christ itself, and the slightest disobedience to this, in essence, Christ-killing church was punishable by death, torture, and torment. From this Babylonian-Moscow pandemonium, from this deadly mixture of different languages, came the centuries-old rout of holy Russia, more terrible than the Tatar pogrom had been. He enslaved bodily, and this spiritually; that one defeated the country, and this one - faith, piety and the very soul of the Russian people: he breathed a mortal breath for all subsequent centuries. From here, from this new Babylon, which Moscow has become, "Babylonian caves" began to be erected all over Russia, in which pious Russian people were burned by tens, hundreds and even thousands of souls at once. The whole country was illuminated by the fire of log cabins and bonfires, and sanctified by the blood and sufferings of new great martyrs, passion-bearers, confessors, truly saints of God and sufferers of Christ.

Two-fingered or three-fingered in the Old Believers and New Believerswhich church

What is the oldest, more correct and acceptable numeral formation - two-fingered or three-fingered? This question has not yet lost its significance for our time. For almost three hundred years, disputes have been going on about this between the Old Believers and the New Believers, and although it is now indisputably and scientifically proven that two-fingering is of ancient origin (from apostolic times), and three-fingering is the newest rite, based on nothing and, moreover, dogmatically erroneous, Nevertheless, the Nikonians do not want to leave him and continue to hold on to him as the greatest shrine, as an immutable dogma of faith. Until now, the New Believer Church continues to assert in the Psalters, Books of Hours, Hours published by it (in the prefaces to them), as well as in textbooks on the Law of God, that two-fingering is an Armenian and heretical rite, and three-fingering is an apostolic tradition. Even in such a liturgical book as "Akathist to St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov", the "Orthodox" Church still proclaims before God Himself that the ancient Orthodox rites, including mainly the two-fingered, heretical content and origin, and precisely from a heretic that never existed Martin Armenian. If in our "enlightened" age, almost faithless, and for the people of this particular age - "cultured", "enlightened", saturated with all sorts of liberalism, the question of finger composition has, as we see, such an enormous confessional significance, then we can imagine how it excited and confused the pious people of the 17th century, for whom every church custom was of immutable importance. The question of two-fingeredness and three-fingeredness was at that time terrible and fatal, a matter of life and death. If you accept three fingers, you will be a full-fledged citizen, an “Orthodox” Christian, and if you remain with two fingers, you are doomed to death: you will be damned, constantly persecuted, subjected to painful torture and burned in a log house, or you will end your life on torture, on a chopping block, on a quartering, or you will be all your life hide in forests and other impassable places, on the distant outskirts of the Motherland and even beyond its borders.

Why, however, did the Russian pious shepherds of that time and their faithful flock renounce all the blessings of the earth, go to the most terrible torment and torture and death, but did not refuse the double-fingered sign? They had very solid and indeed immutable reasons for this.

1. Christianity is a religion of cross-bearing and God-manhood. "At the center of the Christian mystery stands the Cross on Golgotha, the torment and death of the Son of God, the Savior of the world. In the Son, in the Divine Man, in the God-man, the whole human race, the whole human multitude, every human face is contained. Humanity is a part of God-manhood; Christianity is essential anthropological and anthropocentric, it elevates a person to an unprecedented, heavenly height. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, is revealed as the Face of Man. This puts a person at the center of being, in him the meaning and purpose of the world-creation is supposed." This is the Christian worldview and confession and is expressed by double-fingered addition. More St. Cyril of Jerusalem (IV century) in his "catechumens" called: "Let us not be ashamed to confess the Crucified, with boldness let us depict with our hands the sign of the cross on the forehead and on everything. It is the crucified. At the head of the Christian confession stands the Son of Man, who raised our sins St. Peter of Damascus (VIII century, according to other sources - XII century) also says: "Two fingers and one hand reveal our Crucified Lord Jesus Christ in two natures and a single Hypostasis of the knowable" ("Philokalia"). In two-fingeredness, the index finger depicts the human nature of Christ, and the one standing next to it - the great middle one - depicts the Divine nature of the Son of God, and, according to the catechetical requirement, this finger should be inclined with its upper composition, which means the belief: "Lord bow the heavens and descend to the earth ". The remaining fingers, the large and the last two, copulate with each other to depict the Holy Trinity. As you can see, the two-finger addition is made up of all five fingers - for use the teachings of the Holy Trinity and the two natures in Christ, but during the very action of the sign of the cross and blessing, only two fingers rely on the head, on the stomach, on the right shoulder and on the left. Theologically and dogmatically, double-fingering is a completely Orthodox confession. And most importantly, it clearly and definitely expresses and, so to speak, demonstrates or manifests the central essence of Christianity: the crucifixion and death on the cross of the God-man, and with him the co-crucifixion of all mankind. "We preach Christ crucified," declares the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1:23). The same speaks for itself and dvuperstie. It is essential and illustrative: gospel and apostolic preaching.

In tripartism, however, there is neither this central Christian confession, nor this apostolic preaching. The Council of 1667 dogmatized: “To create the sign of an honest and life-giving cross on yourself with the first three fingers of the gum hand: the finger of the verb large and others near it, the verb index and middle, put together in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and two - have the verbal little finger not a single word is spoken about the Son of God as the God-man, as Jesus Christ, who suffered on the Cross: there is no confession of him in tripartite. This is a banner without the God-man, without Christ the Savior. he confesses in two natures.

How could the pious people of that time renounce the two-fingeredness, the real sign of Christ, and accept the three-fingeredness, which did not at all confess Christ the God-man? Moreover, such a sign, naked from Christ, depicts a cross on a person. Thus the Holy Trinity was crucified on the cross without Christ, without His Humanity, without Man. It was, at least in this wild sign, a rejection of the very essence of Christianity, its core, its central meaning and purpose. Such tripartiteness could be accepted either without understanding the meaning and significance of Christianity, or through violence.

2. Neither the eastern patriarchs, nor all the adventurers who arrived in Moscow from different countries and performed church affairs here, nor the councils, which mainly consisted of them, could substantiate their tripartiteness, so alien to the Church of Christ, with any authoritative evidence. The council could only refer to “peasant peasants.” Needless to say, this is a very democratic testimony, one might say, directly proletarian. pious, which for centuries was invariably protected by the sign of the cross with two fingers: all "male villagers" were two-fingered.

In contrast to these unsubstantiated tripartites, pious shepherds put forward a number of very weighty, very authoritative evidence in defense and justification of the two-fingered. In addition to the above evidence, St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Peter, they cited as an example the sayings of St. Meletios of Antioch (4th century), Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (6th century), St. Maximus the Greek (16th century) and all the Greeks, the Eastern Fathers of the Church. Then the holy fathers of the Russian Church were cited as an example, all of whom were signified with two fingers, and the whole Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551, which was attended by such great standard-bearers as its chairman Macarius himself, Metropolitan of Moscow, whom the historian Golubinsky calls "the most famous of the famous," as "Equal to the Apostles" Saints Guriy and Barsanuphius, Kazan wonderworkers, Philip, later Metropolitan of Moscow, and then still only hegumen of the Solovetsky Monastery, and many others. The Stoglavy Cathedral not only confirmed the testimony of St. Meletios of Antioch and blessed Theodoret, but he condemned those who did not sign and did not bless, like Christ, with two fingers (Chapter 31 of the Council). And even this condemnation was borrowed from the ancient Greek consumer. The double-fingered people also referred to all the pious Russian patriarchs, in whose books (published by them) the double-fingered addition is legitimized and explained. Then came endless evidence from Holy icons, starting with the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos with the Divine Infant in her arms, blessing with two fingers, painted by the Evangelist Luke himself, and ending with many miraculous icons painted in Russia itself. How could the Russian Church after this believe the vagrants-foreigners who came to Moscow that the two-fingered sign is a terrible Armenian heresy? This meant recognizing all of their saints and miracle workers, and indeed the entire ancient Church - both Russian and Greek - as heretics, Armenians, damned. Yes, and write down the apostles as heretics, and recognize Christ Himself, who blesses on all these ancient and holy icons with two fingers, to be recognized as an Armenian and even worse. No, the Russian pious Church did not agree to this and rejected all these detractors, cursers and real heretics. The great Russian people remained true to themselves and their Church.

4. Trippers was imposed on the Russian people by force: it became a sign of the most severe persecution of Orthodox Christians. Because of him and for his sake, pious people were tortured, killed, burned. The whole country was stained with the blood of the holy martyrs. Millions of the best sons and daughters of holy Russia have been persecuted for whole centuries in the name of this sign with three fingers. Therefore, it became hateful to the Russian people. Many began to consider him the seal of the Antichrist, since only by accepting him could the Russian people live more or less calmly in their native country. The double-fingeredness became even dearer to the Russian pious people, more valuable and holier, for it was also persecuted: two fingers were cut off from the staunch guardians of the double-fingeredness. Nikonians persecuted him with curses and all sorts of blasphemy. They hate him even to this day.

5. The Orthodox Church did not refuse to accept the so-called nominative, or chirosylphic, composition. The book "Rod" published by the cathedral in 1666 claims that Christ himself established such a sign for blessing: ascending to heaven, He blessed all the disciples with a nominative sign sign, that is, he stretched out the index finger so that it meant the letter "I", and bent the great middle one like this, so that it looks like the letter "C"; thus, from two fingers it turned out "IC", which means ISUS; He crossed his thumb with the ring finger so that the letter "X" was obtained from them, and the little finger was bent so that it looked like the letter "C", from these fingers it turned out "XC", which means Christ. So it comes out in the Slavic alphabet and in the Greek alphabet. In all other languages, which have a completely different alphabet, for example, Jews, Arabs, Syrians, Chinese, Japanese and many others, it is impossible to depict the name of Christ with any fingers. Why the Lord Jesus, who sent his disciples with a sermon "to all languages" and, above all, to the Jews, needed to bless them, the Jews, with Greek or Slavic letters, which at that time had not yet been invented, the book "Rod" does not explain . But for the literate people of that time it was clear that the “Wand” was simply telling a fable about Christ, which they could not believe, despite the conciliar curses and persecution. The pious Russian Church remained with a truly Christ's blessing - a two-fingered addition, which is acceptable for all peoples and clear for all languages, but rejected the chiropractic, "invented" by no one knows who.

With Nikon leaving the patriarchal throne, a period of interpatriarchy began in Russia, which lasted from July 12, 1658 to December 1666. The absence of a patriarch on the throne created a difficult situation in the Russian Church. Opponents of the reform conducted successful propaganda in society against the innovations introduced into the rite and liturgical practice.

Nikon's attempt to return to the throne in December 1665 not only failed to resolve the situation, but, on the contrary, confused it even more. The need for a conciliar solution of two issues became obvious - about Patriarch Nikon and about the defenders of the old rites. It was clear that the delays and delays of the Council could only aggravate the situation. The government had no more time to waste.

In connection with the impossibility of carrying out a trial on the head of the Russian Orthodox Church by Russian priests alone, as the Council of 1660 showed, it was decided to invite four eastern patriarchs. Patriarchs Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch (who participated in the Councils of 1655 and 1656) responded to the invitation of Alexei Mikhailovich. They had to travel a long way to Moscow, so it was impossible to count on their quick arrival. In this regard, Alexei Mikhailovich decided to start the Council with the participation of only Russian church hierarchs.

It is generally accepted that the Council was held in two stages: meetings, which were attended only by the Russian clergy (April 29 - September 1666), and the Council with the participation of both Russian and Eastern clergy (November 28, 1666 - February 1667) The Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667, as it was later called in the literature, was the largest in terms of the number of participants in the entire previous history of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Acts of the Moscow Council have been published 99 , well studied in the literature and retold in detail, for example, in the History of the Russian Church by Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov 100 (Book 7, Ch. III). The tasks solved by the Council should be divided into several groups, which allows us to make the content of the Acts:

1) The trial of the Old Believers at meetings from April to August 1666. Their excommunication from the Church by the Council as part of the Russian clergy. Adoption and promulgation of the "Instruction of the Deanery of the Church" of July 2, 1666;

2) The trial of the former Patriarch Nikon at the meetings from November 2 to December 12, 1666, the participants of which were Patriarchs Macarius and Paisios. The deposition of Nikon and the adoption of decisions regarding his orders;

3) Election of a new Patriarch Joseph and his enthronement at meetings from January 31 to February 10, 1667;

4) Discussion and re-approval in the spring of 1667 of the “Instructions of the Deanery of the Church”, adopted in 1666, and the promulgation of the “Saying, or Limit” adopted by the Council on May 13, 1667, in which an anathema was proclaimed against opponents of innovations.

Given the specifics of our topic, it seems appropriate to pay special attention to the events dedicated to the adoption of decisions regarding church reform, as well as the trial of the Old Believers and Patriarch Nikon. The first of the eleven Acts of the Council of 1666, according to the book "Acts of the Great Moscow Council of 1666" 101, was a not entirely canonical procedure, during which each of the 10 alleged participants had to answer in writing to the Tsar the questions posed by him, which required the qualification of all Greek books and all resolutions of the Council of 1654 102 .

The solemn opening of the sessions of the Council took place on April 29, 1666 and began with a speech by Alexei Mikhailovich entitled "The Word of the Great Sovereign Tsar to the consecrated Cathedral." In this speech, the king, having condemned the errors of the defenders of the old rite, declared that the church should be cleansed of them, relying on the authority of the four Greek patriarchs - "adamantes". The meeting ended after the speech of Bishop Joachim, who, on behalf of all the participants, expressed his agreement with the opinion of the king. This was the Second Act of Council 103 . Then the trial of the Old Believers began (Acts from the third to the eleventh) 104 .

The 13 most famous schism teachers were summoned to the Council in 1666: 1) Bishop Alexander Vyatsky; 2) Hieromonk Grigory (Ivan Neronov); 3) the former builder of the Intercession Monastery in the village of Lyskovo Avraamiy; 4) disciple of Neronov, Abbot of the Zlatoust Monastery in Moscow Feoktist; 5) Archpriest Avvakum brought from Mezen; 6) disciple of Avvakum, deacon of the Cathedral of the Annunciation Fyodor Ivanov; 7) monk Ephraim Potemkin, a monk of the Bizyukov monastery; 8) hieromonk of the same Bizyukov monastery Sergiy Saltykov; 9) a former archpriest of Smolensk, a master of the Simonov Monastery, Serapion; 10) Suzdal priest Nikita Pustosvyat; 11) Suzdal pop Lazar; 12) monk of the Solovetsky Monastery Gerasim Firsov; 13) former Archimandrite of the Spassky Monastery in the city of Murom Anthony.

The case of each defendant was carefully considered by the Council. In most cases, each of the accused had to appear alone before the participants of the Council. Bishop Alexander Vyatsky was the first to be summoned to the trial of the bishops, who was not invited to the first two sessions as suspected of opposing the Church and belonging to a schism. As the Third Act of the Council tells, “explanatory work” was carried out with him: “Then the truthful teachers and shepherds of the verbal flock of Christ will explain the truth to him with many books of charate and false arguments” 105 . After that, Bishop Alexander, recognizing the fallacy of his past judgments, wrote a penitential scroll, assured that he recognized all the Eastern Patriarchs as Orthodox and accepted the decisions of the Council of 1654, and also renounced his former views: scroll and handing over to the whole consecrated cathedral” 106 .

At the next meeting, which took place on May 15, Bishop Alexander of Vyatka became a participant in the Council along with other saints. Archpriest Avvakum was brought to the court, who refused to repent and “do not submit,<…>moreover, applying malice to malice and reproach in the face of the entire consecrated cathedral, calling it all non-Orthodox ”108. Therefore, as it is said in the Fourth Act of the Council, Avvakum was sentenced to exile in the Pustozersky jail.

After Avvakum, the Suzdal priest Nikita was brought to the Council. At the meeting, his works aimed at protecting the old rites were read and condemned. Particularly noteworthy is the Petition written by Nikita in refutation of the book The Tablet, in which all the innovations introduced as a result of the correction of liturgical books 109 were outlined. This petition, called among the Old Believers "Great" for its length, is one of the first attempts made to refute the new rites. In it, Nikita denounced and refuted the innovations made at the initiative of Nikon. Based on quotations from sources authoritative in the Orthodox world, the author came to the conclusion that the corrections made according to the modern Greek books are heretical and contradict true Orthodox traditions 110 .

This petition was seized from Nikita in an unfinished form and served as the main reason for the accusations brought against him by the Council. In the Fifth act, the course of the meeting devoted to the consideration of the case of Nikita is described in detail, at which his petition was read out 111. The participants of the Council made an attempt to convince him of the erroneousness of the judgments expressed in this essay, but Nikita showed firmness and refused to change his convictions: “He is a cursed one, like an asp, plugging his ears into the voice of a charmer. Do not want to listen to the bishop's admonitions" 112 .

However, since the aforementioned Petition had already become very popular among opponents of innovations by that time, the Council decided to draw up a written refutation of the arguments cited in this essay. The implementation of this decision was entrusted to Paisius Ligarid, the Metropolitan of Gaz. As a result, "Reflections" by Paisius Ligarid were compiled, a polemical essay containing a refutation of Nikita Dobrynin's petition. However, the Council was not completely satisfied with this work, so another work of this kind was commissioned to write Simeon of Polotsk. Work on this work was completed on July 13, 1666. This work, "The Rod of Government" 113, also had a polemical orientation and was devoted to the "denunciation" of the ideas expressed in the petitions of Nikita Dobrynin and priest Lazar. This work was approved by the Council and published in 1667.

The Fifth Act testifies that, as a result of Nikita's disobedience to the will of the Council, it was decided to excommunicate him from the church and exile him to the Nikolsky Ugreshsky Monastery. However, despite the firmness shown at first, Nikita did not resist the will of the Council for long: later he made a written repentance and was forgiven 114 . The deacon of the Annunciation Cathedral Fyodor was invited to the next meeting, who, despite all the persuasion, refused to change his convictions. He was anathematized and sent into exile in the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery. From there, Fedor sent a letter of repentance and was forgiven, but later returned to his former views. As a result, in 1667 he was exiled to the Pustozersky prison, and five years later he was put to death together with Archpriest Avvakum 115. It is important to note that at the Council, deacon Fyodor, for the first time in the course of the reforms, dared to publicly condemn the tsar.

At the next meeting of the Council, the monk Ephraim Potemkin repented (act Seven). Further, as the Eighth act tells, hieromonk Sergius appeared before the court, and immediately renounced his views, “highlander weeping about his sin” 116 . However, priest Lazar, to whom Act Nine is dedicated, refused to repent at the Council, for which he was exiled to the Pustozersky jail 117 .

Act Ten differs from the others in that the meeting to which it is dedicated was richer in events. First, Grigory Neronov brought repentance, who was then forgiven and sent to live "in peace and repentance" in the Joseph-Volotsky Monastery 118 . At the same meeting, which took place on July 12, 1666, in the presence of the participants of the Council, Abbot of the Zlatoust Monastery Feoktist, Elder of the Solovetsky Monastery Gerasim Firsov, Archimandrite of the Spassky Monastery of the city of Murom Anthony, Hieromonk Avraam from the village of Lyskova, Abbot of the Bizyukovsky Monastery Sergius renounced their former convictions Saltykov, and Bogolep Lvov, an elder from the Kozheozersky monastery. It seems obvious that the moods of the named defendants were known, and therefore they were summoned to the same session. Therefore, it is not surprising that all seven accused repented and were forgiven by the Council.

At the last meeting, which is narrated in the Eleventh Act, on July 2, the Council passed a decision in which the participants condemned all those who did not accept the reform, calling them ignoramuses. The decisions made regarding the newly introduced rites were also announced (for example, the Council ordered all old seals with an eight-pointed image of the cross to be taken away from the prosphora and from now on only prosphora with a four-pointed cross should be made). Without calling the old books wrong and without arguing with the defenders of the old rites on the merits, the Council approved all the new rites and liturgical books and promulgated the "Instruction of the Deanery of the Church", which contained an official warning about punishment for opponents of the new rites. This document does not contain polemics with the defenders of the old rite, it does not talk about old and new books, but only declares the need to obey the will of the Council: if they begin to despise our spiritual punishment, we will apply bodily malice to such ones” 119 .

Representatives of the clergy, among whom there were many opponents of the reform, were not invited to take part in the meetings of the Council. At least, as S. Zenkovsky rightly notes, there is not a single signature of representatives of the white clergy on the protocols of the cathedral 120 . None of the adherents of the Old Rite (with the exception of Bishop Alexander Vyatsky) became a member of it. Therefore, the Council, whose convocation was so expected by the opponents of innovations, deceived their expectations. At the same time, all the persuasions and exhortations that took place at the meetings of this Council did not have the expected effect on many leaders of the schism. Many of those defendants who renounced their views at the Council soon returned to their former convictions. In particular, the Council failed to finally convince Bishop Alexander Vyatsky. N. Bubnov believes that this was evidenced by his activities in favor of the defenders of the old rite. As an example, such a researcher calls the fact that Alexander Vyatsky handed over to the Old Believers documents reporting on the decisions of the councils of 1660 and 1666–1667. on the case of Patriarch Nikon, secret resolutions on the persecution of the Old Believers, and much more. These documents subsequently became an important basis for the compilation of many polemical works of the Old Believers 121 .

Thus, at the first stage of the Council of 1666-67. Judgment was made on the opponents of church reform. The next important task was to solve the case of Patriarch Nikon.

The second stage of the Council began on November 2 of the same year, 1666, when Patriarch Paisios of Alexandria and Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, an old acquaintance and consultant of Nikon, arrived in Moscow. Already three days after their arrival, they began their meetings with the king. It is likely that it was not the problem of reform, the fate of which had already been decided, that worried Alexei Mikhailovich, but the outcome of his confrontation with Patriarch Nikon 122 . Many Greek hierarchs were aware of Nikon's Greekophilia and sympathized with him.

The patriarchs who arrived were greeted as peacekeepers, since great hopes were placed on them in resolving the conflict between the tsar and Nikon. Paisius Ligarides, who advised the patriarchs on opposition to the reform, presented the essence of the conflict as a simple rejection of Greek books by Russian believers, explaining this with their nationalist sentiments. Another adviser to the patriarchs was Archimandrite Dionysius of the Athos Iberian Monastery, who was of Greek origin, but lived in Moscow for 15 years (from 1655 to 1669). During this time, he learned Russian well and became one of the book references. Dionysius confirmed Ligarides' opinion regarding the conflict that had taken place in the Russian Church in connection with Nikon's reform. Therefore, the patriarchs, who did not know the Russian language, were forced to accept the opinion of translators.

On November 28, 1666, the trial of Patriarch Nikon began, who was brought from the Resurrection Monastery for this purpose. The former patriarch was condemned, he was deprived of his rank and, as a simple monk, was sent to prison in the Ferapontov Monastery. The verdict was announced on December 12 in the presence of Nikon by Hilarion of Ryazansky, his former ally and protege. The former "great sovereign" was accused of leaving the throne without permission, insulting the tsar, bringing confusion into the Russian Church, and ill-treatment of the clergy, in particular Bishop Pavel Kolomensky 123 .

In addition to questions related to the fate of the former Patriarch Nikon, the Council of 1667 dealt with the cases of some of the most prominent opponents of the reform. For example, Archpriest Avvakum in his Life reports that he was also summoned to court before the Greek patriarchs. He, as always, colorfully and emotionally talks about how he was brought to the meeting, how he was persuaded to renounce his beliefs, and how he opposed the will of the Council: I shake off the dust that has stuck to my feet before you, according to what is written: “It is better to do the will of God alone than the darkness of the lawless!” So they shouted at me more and more: “Take him! - dishonored us all! Yes, they began to push and beat me; and the patriarchs themselves rushed at me, about forty of them, there was tea, - a great army of Antichrist has gathered!<…>Then the authorities came to me again and again and began to talk about alleluia with me. And Yevfimey, Chudov's cellar, prayed: "You're right, it's no big deal for us to talk with you." Yes, and they took me to the chain” 124 . From this fragment it follows that Archpriest Avvakum, even in the face of the Council of 1667 and the patriarchs present at it, showed inflexibility and remained true to his views

So, at the meetings of the Council, the cases of all the most famous opponents of the reform begun by Nikon were examined. Most of those who opposed the adoption of innovations admitted the fallacy of their views, but some of them continued to defend their beliefs. The participants in the Council made attempts to convince them, but most often they were unsuccessful. Many of the defenders of the old rites held to their views even after repeated exhortations from the Council.

In the spring of 1667, the Great Council promulgated the "Saying, or Limit", which announced the decision taken in relation to the opponents of innovations. It literally repeated the "Instruction" written by the Russian bishops in the summer of 1666, and then an anathema was announced on behalf of all the participants in the Council: this consecrated council, or it will begin to contradict and oppose us, and we will cast out such an opponent with the power given to us from the all-holy and life-giving Spirit, if it comes from a consecrated rank, and expose him to all sacred rites and curse him. The Council, with the power “given from the all-holy and life-giving Spirit,” cursed those who opposed accepting the new rites, and excommunicated them from the church until the “disobedient” repented of their errors: “But if from the worldly rank, we excommunicate and alienate we create from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and we betray the curse and anathema, as a heretic and a disobedient, and we cut off from the Orthodox union and the camp and from the church of God, until he understands and returns to the truth by repentance. Thus, the Council made it possible for those who did not accept the new rites to return to the bosom of the Church, but on the condition that they admit their wrong and repent. However, this was followed by an even more uncompromising statement of the Council: “And whoever does not understand and does not return to the truth by repentance and remains in his stubbornness to the end of his life, let him be excommunicated even after death, and part of him and his soul with Judas the traitor and with crucified Christ Jews, and with Arius and other accursed heretics. Let iron, stones and wood be destroyed and corrupted, but let that be not allowed and not corrupted, and like a tympanum forever and ever. Amen" 127 .

Thus the Council, in very stern terms, declared that anyone who did not agree to accept the books and rites approved by it would be considered a "heretic and disobedient" and would be excommunicated from the Church. Archpriest Avvakum (already exiled to Pustozersk), deacon Fyodor Ivanov (who repented in 1666 and soon recanted), priest Lazarus (exiled to Pustozersk as early as 1665, summoned to the Council in 1666 and stripped on June 17, 1667) were officially anathematized. d.) and - a little later - the monk of the Solovetsky Monastery Epiphanius.

In accordance with the decision of the Council, Fedor, Lazar and Epiphanius were executed before exile: their tongues were cut off for reading their “blasphemous” writings in public on the squares. Lazarus also had his right hand cut off. On August 27, the convicts were sent to Pustozersk, where Avvakum had been in prison for a year. After 15 years, they were all burned by order of Tsar Fedor Alekseevich.

So, those who did not want to accept Nikon's reform were condemned in the most severe way. The results of the reform were approved, and the Old Believers lost their last hope that their opinion would be heard and accepted.

The acts and resolutions of the Council were sealed with the signatures of all its participants and laid down for preservation in the Assumption Cathedral. The most important decisions of the Council were published in the Missal of 1667.

Thus, the Great Moscow Cathedral legally formalized the existence of the Old Believers not as a simple opposition, but as a broad movement that separated from the church. This Council became an important event in the history of the Russian Church. The approval of new liturgical books and the determination declared at all stages of the Council to continue the fight against schism made this problem one of the most painful for both the Church and the Russian government for several centuries to come. In addition, the Great Moscow Cathedral (in chapter 7 of the Acts of the Council of 1667) officially approved the decision on punishment for opponents of innovations and on the right to carry out civil executions on the Old Believers. Subsequently, this led to the fact that the Moscow Church Council of 1681, on behalf of Orthodox Christians, asked the tsar to use military force against them 128 . The result of this was mass torture, executions, persecution of supporters of the old rite, which led to a deepening of the split.

After the conciliar approval of the new rites, the results of the reform were approved. The Council not only did not help restore the unity of the Russian Church and resolve the conflict situation that had arisen, but, on the contrary, made irreversible the divergence between the official Church and the adherents of the old Russian tradition 129 . The struggle against the reform took on a slightly different form: before the Council, despite its fierce character, it took place within the Church. However, by the oaths of the Council, the Old Believers were separated from the official state church, recognized as its antagonist 130 . Both in the first period after the start of the reform by Nikon, and after the Moscow Council, the opponents of the reform drew up many petitions to the tsar, in which they asked for intercession. However, their requests remained unfulfilled, and after the anathemas were pronounced, it became impossible to avoid a split.

Thus, the main result of the reform initiated by Patriarch Nikon and the events that followed it was the official separation from the state church of the supporters of the old rites, who began to be called schismatics, and they, in turn, called themselves defenders of the traditions and ritual of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Deposing Nikon, the council elected a new patriarch in his place, Joasaph, archimandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Then they set about solving the problems caused by the church reform.

The reform was beneficial to many. The eastern patriarchs liked it very much, as it was carried out in accordance with the Greek new books and consolidated their primacy in matters of faith, affirmed their spiritual authority, which by that time had faded greatly in Russia. The government also saw its geopolitical benefits in the reform. And the Vatican also had its own interest in the reform of the Orthodox Church. With the accession of Ukraine to Moscow, southwestern influence began to affect Russia. Many Ukrainian and Greek monks, teachers, politicians and various businessmen came to Moscow. All of them were imbued with Catholicism to varying degrees, which did not prevent them, and perhaps even helped them, to acquire a large one. influence in the royal court. Paisius Ligarid, continuing the work of Met. Isidore, at that time was negotiating with the Catholic West on the union of the Russian Church with the Roman one. He tried to persuade the eastern patriarchs to this as well. The Russian bishops were obedient to the tsar in everything. At such and such a time, a council was held on the matter of the Nikon reform.

The Council approved the books of the new press, approved the new rites and rites, and imposed terrible curses and anathemas on the old books and rites. The cathedral declared the two-fingered heretical, and approved the three-fingered. He cursed those who confess the Holy Spirit as True in the creed. He also cursed those who would serve according to old books. In conclusion, the council said: “If someone does not listen to us or starts to contradict and oppose us, then we are such an adversary, if he is a clergyman, we cast out and deprive him of all priesthood and grace and curse; if it is a layman, then we excommunicate him from St. Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and we curse and anathematize as a heretic and disobedient and cut off like a rotten oud. If anyone remains rebellious until death, then such a person will be excommunicated even after death, and his soul will be with Judas the traitor, with the heretic Arius, and with other accursed heretics. Rather, iron, stones, wood will be destroyed, and that one will not be allowed forever and ever. Amen".

These terrible curses outraged even Nikon himself, who was accustomed to cursing Orthodox Christians. He declared that they were laid on the entire Orthodox people, and recognized them as reckless.

In order to force the pious Russian people to accept the new faith, the council threatened to subject those who disobeyed the council's decrees to "bodily embitterment," which resulted in the fact that Christians' ears and noses were cut off, their tongues were cut out, and their hands were cut off; they were beaten with beef sinews, exiled, imprisoned. The acts and definitions of the council brought even greater confusion into the minds of the Russian people and aggravated the split.

At the local council of 1971, the modern New Believer Church acknowledged the mistake made by the former Patriarch Nikon and the council of 1666-67, which led to the tragic division of the Russian Church, and testified that the old rites were “equally honorable and salutary” for her, and oaths were taken “not according to good understanding." And as a result: the reforms "had neither canonical nor historical grounds." But, unfortunately, the recognition of the mistakes made in practice did little to change the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the old books and rituals, to the Old Believer Church.

The schism of the Russian Church did not take place immediately. The definitions of the cathedral were so stunning, there was so much madness in them, that the Russian people considered them to be a devilish obsession. Many thought that the tsar would only be temporarily deceived by visiting Greeks and Latins, and believed that sooner or later this deception would be revealed and everyone would return to the old days. As for the bishops who participated in the council, there was a conviction about them that they were not firm in faith and, fearing the royal power, were ready to believe as they were ordered. One of them, Archimandrite Joachim of Chudov (later Patriarch), frankly declared: “I don’t know either the old faith or the new one, but whatever the bosses say, I’m ready to do and listen to them in everything.”

For 15 years after the council there were squabbles between the adherents of the old faith and the new, between representatives of the ancient popular Church and representatives of the new, royal one. Archpriest Avvakum sent Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich one message after another and called him to repentance. This archpriest-bogatyr fervently and with inspiration convinced the tsar that there was nothing heretical in ancient Orthodoxy, which was so mercilessly cursed by the cathedral: “We hold the true and right faith, we die and shed our blood for the Church of Christ.”

They asked the tsar to appoint a nationwide competition with the spiritual authorities: let everyone see and hear which faith is true - old or new, but Alexei Mikhailovich did not heed this reasonable advice. After his death, the royal throne was taken by his son Feodor Alekseevich. Defenders and confessors of ancient church traditions turned to the new king with an ardent plea "to return to the faith of pious and holy ancestors." But this prayer was not successful either. The rulers responded to all the petitions of church pastors, who yearned for peace and church unity, with exile and executions.

The Council of 1667, like the Moscow Council of 1551, which met at the tsar's invitation to correct certain church disorders and to adapt the rules of the Greek Nomocanon to the needs of the Russian Church, was opened by Patriarchs Paisios of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch and Joseph of Moscow with metropolitans, archbishops and bishops. At this council, the resolutions on the court of the church and on government are especially remarkable. In the first section, it is prescribed, in accordance with the old Russian rules and on the basis of church decrees, that the patriarch and bishops in their dioceses have church courts in which archimandrites and other clergy would be judges, and that priests, monks and clerks are by no means subject to secular court in spiritual matters; as well as worldly people in spiritual matters, i.e. by marriages and spiritual testaments, would be sued in a spiritual court. In accordance with former Russian customs, it is prescribed to have a secular court under the patriarchal and bishop's houses, chaired by a patriarchal or bishop's boyar; but this judgment is limited only to the spiritual affairs of the worldly people, who come between male and female; all other legal cases previously brought before the court at the patriarchal or bishop's court, in accordance with the XIII chapter of the Code, are approved by the Monastic Order, and, thus, the so-called hierarchical court, which was in Russia in the past and described in detail in Stoglav, is truly conciliar action has completely lost its former meaning.
The second section is about church administration. Here, firstly, it is forbidden to consecrate and tonsure into monasticism boyar people and peasants without vacation pay. Secondly, boyar people or peasants, who, according to the petition of the gentlemen, are consecrated priests or deacons, are recognized as free with all children born after consecration, while children born before consecration remain with the masters. Thirdly, the former Russian rule, approved by the Stoglav, is canceled, according to which widowed priests and deacons were forbidden to celebrate the liturgy. The present council, on the basis of Greek ecclesiastical canons, leaves the widowed priests and deacons with the former churches to which they are consecrated, with the full right of priesthood, and only demands from them an unshameful life.
The Council of 1667, as can be seen from the content of its acts, constantly adhered to one rule, which I already noticed in the review of the Pilots, published in 1653; this rule consisted in asserting itself only on the Greek Nomocanons and rejecting all the former Russian conciliar acts and rules, not even mentioning them, as if they did not exist at all. In the present council, this new direction was expressed much more clearly than in the edition of the Pilots; here all purely Russian questions and perplexities, unknown to ancient Byzantium, are explained as much as possible on the basis of the Byzantine Nomocanons or are subject to the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The Council clearly departed from the previous history of the Russian Church, recognized the acts of the Moscow Council of 1551 as incorrect, and in its definition directly wrote: “And that Council is not in the cathedral and the oath is not an oath, and imputes nothing, as if it never happened.”

The Church Council of 1666-1667 finally sealed the schism in the Russian Church. After him, there was a separation from the Greek-Russian Church of a significant part of the Russian people, who received the name of the Old Believers. For three hundred years she has been living an independent life based on unconditional loyalty to the Orthodox Church.

Such a phenomenon, of course, could not be accidental. History shows that it was prepared over a number of centuries and was finally revealed at the council of 1666-1667.

With the adoption of Christianity in 988, Russia received from Byzantium not only a perfect church organization, dogmas and rituals, but also adopted the ancient conviction of Byzantine theologians in the inviolability of Orthodoxy and its strict preservation. Initially, the Russians regarded the Greeks as their teachers in Christianity. The situation changed after the Council of Florence in 1439, at which the Greek Church accepted union with Catholicism. However, being under Muslim rule for a long time, the Greeks gradually moved away from Orthodoxy.

And from the 16th century, the Greek Church was already in a deep crisis: liturgical books were printed in Jesuit printing houses, the clergy studied at Jesuit colleges, where many became secret Catholics, then received the highest church positions, etc. There was a decline in Christian morals. The Greek clergy who came to Russia showed duplicity and deceit. On the one hand, Russian Orthodoxy was extolled, on the other, Russian Christians were called barbarians and ignoramuses.

All this aroused the fears of the authorities and hierarchs of Russia and strengthened the conviction that the Greeks had finally betrayed Orthodoxy. An embassy headed by Arseny Sukhanov was sent to Greece to test Greek piety. The test results were sharply negative. But Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon began to pursue a Grecophile policy in the matter of correcting Russian liturgical books and rites, which meant a refusal to turn to domestic antiquity as the main source of piety. The orientation towards Greek printed books of the 17th century resulted in the introduction of elements of Catholicism into the liturgical books. The new rites were enshrined in a whole series of church councils (1654, 1656, 1666), and finally, at the Great Moscow Cathedral of 1667.

At the councils of 1654 and 1656, with the participation of the Serbian Patriarch Gabriel and the Antiochian Macarius, the Russian Liturgical books printed under the first five patriarchs and the rites were declared unorthodox. Significant changes were made to the rites: five prosphora instead of seven were used in the proskomedia, in the liturgy many words of prayers and hymns were replaced by new ones that were absent in ancient Greek and Slavic texts. For example, in the Cherubic Hymn, instead of "bring" it became "sings". The changes also affected the Symbol of Faith, which was completely unacceptable.

A curse was pronounced on those who were baptized with two fingers, they were accused of the Armenian heresy. But the participants in the council did not stop there, but decided that the two-fingered sign contained the heresy of Arius and Nestorius.

The Council of 1666 was a large meeting of Russian bishops, convened to confirm the decisions of the two previous councils and to judge Christian antiquity. All Russian bishops and metropolitans were present at the council. At its first meeting, the bishops were asked the following questions: 1) do they recognize the four Eastern patriarchs as Orthodox; 2) do they recognize printed and handwritten Greek books as correct and reliable; 3) do they recognize the councils of 1654 and 1656 as correct from the canonical side.

All these questions were answered positively. The last one was especially important. He rejected the long-established opinion that the condemnations and curses of all councils on the Old Believers concerned only their disobedience to the dominant Church, but did not extend to the ancient rites they professed. The condemnation and anathema of the previous councils automatically entered into the decisions of the councils of 1666-1667. Thus, the accusation of ancient books and rites of non-Orthodoxy, and the double-faced accusation of belonging to Armenianism (Monophysiteism), Arianism and Nestorianism became an accomplished act, which was signed by all Russian hierarchs and Orthodox patriarchs.

In subsequent meetings, the council was engaged in the trial of adherents of Old Orthodoxy. Some of them, out of fear of punishment, renounced their former views, while the unrepentant were excommunicated from the Church and sent to prison.

The conciliar definition read: from now on, the prosphora with a four-pointed cross is true, the sign of the cross is performed with the first three fingers, Isusov’s prayer is read with the words “Our God”, and not “Son of God”, “Hallelujah” is said three times, not twice, with blessing the priests should use a nominative blessing (malaksu).

The conciliar definition was based not only on the decisions of the two previous councils, but also on the book of Simeon Polotsky (Sitnianovich) "The Rod of Government", where accusations of the old rites in various heresies were repeated. This book was approved by the Council of 1667 as a fundamental one for the fight against the Old Believer, although it is doubtful both in the canonical illiteracy of the historian and in the fact that its author is a graduate of the Jesuit colleges, a secret Uniate, a person alien to Orthodoxy.

Thoughtless church reformism was completed at the last largest council, which took place in December 1666 - May 1667. 29 bishops took part in it: 17 Russian and 12 Eastern, headed by 3 patriarchs - Russian Joasaph, Macarius of Antioch and Paisius of Alexandria. Patriarch Nikon, the initiator of the reforms, was condemned at the council and subsequently exiled to Ferapontov. In January, a new patriarch, Joasaph II, was elected. The participants in the council expressed their opinion about it in the “Saying”, where what was said before regarding ancient books and rites was repeated word for word. All who oppose innovation were anathematized. At the cathedral, the curse of the Stoglavy Cathedral on those who are baptized with three fingers and wailing hallelujah was lifted. Ancient church traditions were relegated to the realm of the “sleepy dream” of Russian scribes and not belonging to the holy fathers. Pouring baptism was equated with immersion, which in Orthodoxy has always been considered the worst heresy. Finally, regarding the Old Believers, the participants in the council declared that they must be punished not only by church punishment, but also by city punishment, that is, according to civil laws. As a result, in Russia, with the blessing of the Church, bonfires were lit, on which confessors of ancient orthodoxy were burned. In a short historical period, from 1654 to 1667, there was a radical break in the traditional Christian consciousness, ancient Christian foundations and way of life. Everything sacred, until now carefully preserved and cherished, suddenly in full view of the entire Russian people began to be ridiculed, accused of ignorance and obscurantism. Russian church antiquity was declared created "from the wind of its head."

By anathematizing the ancient books and rites and their followers, the council of 1666-1667 anathematized the former Russian Church as well. For Russian pious Christians, it became incomprehensible how, in fact, retroactively, the founder of Christianity in Russia, St. Vladimir, Sergius of Radonezh, Joseph Volotsky, who were baptized with two fingers, turned out to be ranked among the universal heresies.

The unjustified Greekophilism of Tsar Alexei and Patriarch Nikon did not lead to unity with the true Greek Church, but to the introduction of first Latin and then Protestant principles into Russian church life, caused a schism in the church, which is already irresistible.

Maybe in this regard we will listen to the prophets: “... Starting from the soulless reforms of Nikon and Peter, when the eradication and suppression of the Russian national spirit began, the weathering of repentance began, the drying up of this ability of ours. For the monstrous reprisal against the Old Believers - bonfires, tongs, hooks and dungeons, continued for another two and a half centuries by the senseless suppression of the unanswered. unarmed compatriots, dispersing them to all the uninhabited lands and even to the ends of their own land - for that sin, the ruling church never repented. And this could not but lie like a boulder on the entire Russian future, eh. simple: in 1905 persecuted sorry...(and that too late, so late that it could no longer save the persecutors themselves) ”(A. Solzhenitsyn).