Foreign peoples. Peoples of Eastern Europe: composition, culture, history, languages
The topic of interfaith relations in the Russian Federation has always been relevant. The country is huge in area and is replete with a diversity of religious associations, denominations and churches. One of the most pressing, complex and contradictory problems of external church dialogue was the relationship between the Old Believers (Old Orthodoxy) and the Moscow Patriarchate - the official Orthodox Church. Old Believers, by definition, are “ common name Russian Orthodox clergy and laity who refused to accept the reform undertaken in the 17th century by Patriarch Nikon and seeking to preserve the church institutions and traditions of the ancient Russian Orthodox Church» .
Starting from the middle of the 17th century, when the Old Believers as a religious movement began to show signs of a special confessional and cultural space, which had significant differences from the reformed church, the mutual dialogue of the two spiritual cultures with their different worldviews, traditions and norms was ambiguous.
Until the beginning of the 20th century, the Old Believers experienced severe police and administrative-legal pressure from the government church and state security forces.
The physical extermination of the Old Believers continued until the first third of the 19th century. Along with methods of forceful influence on the Old Belief, the tsarist government issued whole line laws and orders that significantly limited the rights and freedoms of citizens Russian Empire who considered themselves to be members of the ancient Orthodox religion. As for the opinion of the officially Orthodox Church itself, which on the issue of dialogue with the Old Belief was completely identical to the state one, the governing Synod fully followed the resolutions of the Moscow Council of 1666, calling the Old Believers fallen away from the unity of the church, and accepted the Old Orthodox into its church only by performing rites. Initially, this was baptism, but later the Synodal decree of May 25, 1888 prescribed the reception of Old Believers through confirmation. Thus, the Old Believer Church looked “inferior” in the eyes of the synodal regime. In addition, from the side of the Synod itself there was always every possible encouragement of the anti-Old Believer policy of the secular authorities. (The church practice of the Old Believers regarding the reception of priests and laity from the New Believers is also not uniform and has changed over time).
Decree of 1905 “On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance” legally equalized the legal status of the Old Believers and the dominant church, however, the synodal leadership expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation of this decree and continued to hinder the development of normal good neighborly relations with the Old Believers.
The situation of believers after the 1917 revolution
After famous events In 1917, when the autocracy was overthrown in Russia as a result of an armed coup, and ultimately the Bolsheviks came to power, the views of the ruling church regarding the Old Believers underwent canonically radical changes, dictated, in many respects and certainly, by external socio-political circumstances. At this point it is necessary to dwell in more detail. The new government began to pursue a completely different policy regarding religion. Regardless of confessional differences, any religion, religious organizations and, in general, any manifestation of cult were outlawed and subject to complete destruction.
Marxism was declared and permitted as the official “creed,” or rather ideology, philosophical basis which is dialectical materialism with its complete and fundamental rejection of the Spirit as the highest objective reality, as the basis and origin of all things, including the world and man. In 1909, V. Lenin wrote: “ Religion is the opium of the people,” this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire worldview of Marxism on the issue of religion. All modern religions Marxism always views churches and all kinds of religious organizations as organs of bourgeois reaction, serving to protect exploitation and intoxicate the working class". Thus, various religious organizations began to build their interfaith policies in new living conditions that severely limited freedom of religion. It is natural that the Bolshevik government did not see any difference between the Old Believers and the Synodal Church. As a result, both religious movements in their own way social status were placed in one row.
Before the revolution, the government-state Russian Orthodox Church formed a single organism with the authorities, helping the state in creating official ideological support. Any parish priest was a conductor of the will of state power. Now the dominant church has lost this privilege, and the “symphony of powers,” secular and spiritual, turned out to be unnecessary and even became superfluous in the construction of a new communist society.
No less deplorable was the state of the Old Believers, which, first of all, lost its material support - industrial potential. The Old Believers have done a lot for Russia in terms of the development of heavy industry. After all, it is known that before the revolution, the Old Believers owned about two-thirds of the production capacity of the Russian Empire. Soviet authority“thanked” the Old Believers for this by the fact that in the process of nationalization of property, in addition to the confiscation of plants and factories, those social strata (merchants, industrialists, Cossacks, strong peasantry) that were the sources and creators of traditional Old Believers culture were destroyed. Moreover, persecution by the tsarist authorities and the official church was still alive in the memory of the Old Orthodox Christians until all this was stopped by the manifesto of Emperor Nicholas II dated April 17, 1907. Having not fully recovered from recent persecutions, the Old Believers were again forced to save themselves in the Siberian taiga, the seaside and abroad.
So, in the second decade of the last century, two churches at war with each other were among those subject to destruction. From a social point of view, from now on interfaith dialogue became possible only on equal terms and without outside interference.
StepsSynodal Churchfor rapprochement with the Old Believers
It should be noted that the loyal attitude towards the church life of the Old Orthodox Christians on the part of the New Believers Church began to manifest itself even before the revolution. In particular, the VI department of the pre-conciliar presence issued a resolution to petition the future Local Council of 1917 for the complete abolition of anathemas on pre-reform church ranks and Orthodox Christians who adhere to them. At the Local Council of 1917, active preparation of materials was also carried out to cancel the oaths of the Council of 1666, but in the spring of 1921 the actions of the Council were stopped due to the ongoing policy of destroying the church in the country. The premises in which the Council met were confiscated. Thus, the de-anathematization of the Old Believers did not occur.
The next step to bring the Synodal Church closer to the Old Believers was the recognition April 23, 1929 the Patriarchal Holy Synod of liturgical books of the pre-Nikon press were “Orthodox and saving”, and the oaths of the Council of 1666-1667 themselves. were canceled as non-existent. The “Acts” of the Synod stated: “ We reject negative expressions that in one way or another relate to the old rituals, and especially to double-fingering, wherever they are found and by whomever they are uttered, as if they were not sane» .
Consequently, the establishment of a peaceful and good-neighborly dialogue between the Patriarchal Church and the Old Believers began long before the famous Local Council of 1971.
A modern impartial researcher should have no doubt about the need to cancel the oaths of the Old Believers, and moreover, about the invalidity of the oaths themselves. Today there are enough published studies that assert the absolute meaninglessness of the reforms and the anti-canonical measures for their implementation. And the break in prayerful communication between a third of Russian Orthodox Christians and the church party carrying out the notorious reforms did not contain anything anti-Orthodox.
On the eve of the adoption of the conciliar resolution on the abolition of oaths to the “old rite,” at a meeting of the Council, a report was heard from Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad and Novgorod, a hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church who did not hide his sympathies for the ecumenical movement, one of the most active initiators of recognition of the Old Believers by the church holding the cathedral Orthodox. In the report presented to the Council, Metropolitan Nikodim gives a balanced assessment of the events of the mid-17th century, with references to the works of famous scientists N.F. Kapterev and E. Golubinsky, who for the first time in official pre-revolutionary church-historical science proved the antiquity of the Old Believer church, concludes about the historical correctness of the Old Believers and the absolute meaninglessness of any kind of oppression of the Old Rite. Metropolitan Nikodim stated the fact that “ big Moscow WITH The council of 1667 anathematized the Old Believers, based on their incorrect positions on the old church rituals", and all the oaths imposed by the Moscow councils of 1654-1667 are " unfounded» .
On the third day, after reading Met. Nicodemus’ famous report, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church made the following decisions regarding the Old Believers and the church forms of worship acceptable to them:
1. To approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929 on the recognition of old Russian rites as salutary, like new rites, and equal to them.
2. To approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929 on the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals, and especially to double-fingered, wherever they were found and by whom they were uttered .
3. Approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929 on the abolition of the Moscow oaths WITH Council of 1656 and Moscow WITH the Council of 1667, the oaths they imposed on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christians who adhere to them, and consider these oaths as not having happened.
The Consecrated Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church receives with love all who sacredly preserve the ancient Russian rites, both members of our Holy Church and those who call themselves Old Believers, but who sacredly profess the saving Orthodox faith.
Thus, for the ROC MP, Old Orthodox Christians-Old Believers are members of a single Christian Orthodox local church - the Russian. Old Believers are now allowed to participate in the prayer and liturgical life of the Church of the Moscow Patriarchate without any difficulty. Theoretically, an Old Believer, upon moving into the fold of the dominant church, becomes its member without first performing any ceremony.
In addition to the Local Council of 1971, the Russian Orthodox Church MP at the subsequent Local Council of 1988 confirmed the resolutions of the previous council and called the Old Believers " half-faith and half-brothers and sisters". The 2004 Council of Bishops also focused on the problem of relations with the Old Believers and demonstrated its complete openness and readiness for canonical union.
Is there unity among adherents of the dominant religion?
It should be noted that the religious movement of the New Belief, like the Old Belief, does not have a single church organization and canonical structure. In addition to the largest dominant Russian Orthodox Church MP, “post-Nikon” Orthodoxy is represented in the world a large number churches, associations and denominations, which appeared for the most part in the 20th century, the differences between which remain predominantly political. These include a number of foreign churches that did not accept church unity with the Russian Orthodox Church in 2008, several churches in Ukraine and the entire post-Soviet space, and a number of catacomb hierarchies. All of the above religious associations, whose prayer practice is built, by definition, in accordance with the “new rites”, do not recognize and anathematize each other, do not impose any canonical requirements on the Old Believers during their transition to the “new rite” regarding the need to perform rites.
There was no similar response from the Old Believers to the actions of the council in 1971, and to this day the attitude towards the conciliatory gesture on the part of the Russian Orthodox Church MP remains neutral. A careful study of the history of Old Believer thought reveals the indisputable fact of the confidence of Old Orthodox Christians in their historical and theological correctness. According to modern Old Belief, its founders did not blaspheme the Orthodox Church at all by not accepting the embarrassing decisions of the Moscow Council of 1666 (a similar idea is stated by the council we are studying). Consequently, the Old Believers remained in the bosom of Orthodoxy, and that part of the clergy and laity that did not reject the innovations found itself outside the church fence. That is, the entire totality of New Believer churches is a heretical organization of the same nature. It is obvious, from the point of view of the Old Believers, that all anathemas once imposed on pre-schism forms of worship are considered illegal and mystical invalid. The above postulate is an integral part of the Old Believer church identity. Thus, the abolition of oaths and anathemas against Old Orthodox Christians, or their canonical legitimacy, is considered for the Old Believers only as internal problems the New Believers Church, who in no way block the path to Salvation of Orthodox Christians who pray with two fingers.
What science says about church reform
Church historical science has long proven the senselessness and unnecessaryness of carrying out church reform, as well as its negative impact on the subsequent life of the Russian Church, which was partly recognized in the acts of the 1971 council. The Russian Church did not feel any need to correct its worship.
The recognition by the 1971 council of the meaninglessness of anathemas on old rituals, their incorrectness and non-canonical nature, by some modern figures of the Old Believers led to the conclusion that there is a historical and canonical contradiction in the church policy of the Russian Orthodox Church MP in relation to ancient Orthodoxy. In particular, the Old Orthodox Bishop of Kursk Apolinarius (Dubinin), known for his religious tolerance and, at the same time, the firmness of his anti-New Ritual position, cites one of the church rules, which contains very interesting point. The bishop writes:
« We open “The Helmsman,” a set of church laws that have not yet been repealed. And there it is written directly that a bishop or presbyter who has taken an oath incorrectly turns this oath on himself. It turns out that the Moscow Patriarchate today is under an oath, and it has anathematized itself in the course of these foreign innovations of Patriarch Nikon and is walking under the curse that it imposed on itself» .
The response of the Russian Old Believers to a truly broad and promising step forward on the part of the Russian Orthodox Church MP can also be expressed in the words of the Old Believer Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' (Chetvergov):
The recognition at the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1970 of the equivalence of new and old rituals is dogmatically meaningless. A similar scheme was proposed by Catholics several centuries ago. During the creation of the union, they proposed recognizing all types of rituals as equally honorable, and primarily the Eastern and Western rituals. In Orthodox dogma there is no division between the external side of the sacred rite (“rite”) and the internal, and therefore, when the external side is changed, the internal, spiritual hypostasis of the sacred rite or sacrament is undoubtedly distorted or completely lost.
“Rite” means a lot to an Old Believer
Modern theology has almost forgotten the peculiarity of the original Orthodox teaching about the inseparability of the mystical and external aspects of church life. The doctrine of “rite” appeared relatively late, in medieval times in the Western Church, under the influence of the scholastic worldview, which directs the mind not to generalizations, in contrast to the cosmological (Neoplatonic) principle of knowledge of being, but aimed at analyzing and systematizing the surrounding reality, dividing it into private elements. The Old Believers remained unaffected by the epistemological principles of scholasticism and remained faithful to the patristic understanding of churchliness through contemplation of the integrity of ecclesiological existence.
Thus, the policy of external church relations of the Russian Orthodox Church MP did not bring any positive results in the matter of unification with the Old Believers and restoration of the unity of the Russian Church. The mutual misunderstanding of the two so far irreconcilable sides is due, first of all, to the existing ideological gap that has managed to divide Christians over 350 years of schism.
The Old Believers have a different understanding of history, different views on the part of church life usually called “rite.” The ontology of the Old Believers has completely different ideological qualities. The worldview of the New Believers is alien to her. The change in the “rite” for the Old Believer does not indicate a change in the position of the fingers of the right hand, but an internal ideological revolution, the beginning of a different way of thinking - a process that cannot be explained by the methods of rational reasoning. An Old Believer and a New Believer think differently. Therefore, at this historical stage“union of churches” can occur according to the following two schemes:
1. Search for some “common”, compromise points of contact, the presence of which would satisfy both parties and encourage communication. This system in the form of the establishment of common faith in 1800 or the “removal of anathemas” in 1971, it was proposed by the dominant Orthodox Church and is based on the principle of mutual concessions with minimal losses for each side.
1. The basis of the connection is a change of thinking, a change of mind, the Greek “metanoia”, which is translated into Church Slavonic as “repentance”. This is the only way the Old Believers see an end to church discord. Repentance for the mistakes of the past, unrepentant historical sins and a return to the first principles of patristic church thinking and consciousness.
Summarizing the above, it is necessary, unfortunately, to admit that the actions of the Council of 1971 turned out to be ineffective and unable to solve the problem of church unity. Instead of real fruitful results, the actions of the famous Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church MP in 1971 continue to live today only on the pages of works on church history and canon law, as monuments of ecclesiastical jurisprudence and historical documents.
Text: Roman Atorin, candidate philosophical sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy of the Russian State Agrarian University-Moscow Agricultural Academy named after. K.A. Timiryazeva
Source: rpsc.ru
Literature and sources:
. “Jesus,” what’s in Your name? or Under what religious roof does Russia live? Reflections of the Old Orthodox monks on the symbol of God and Man, on persecution and curses, on repentance and love. — Access mode: http: www. subscribe.ru
. Andrian, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus': milestones of the archpastoral path. M.: “Media 77”; "Panagia", 2006.
Apanasenok A.V. Old Believers Kursk region in the XVII - early XX centuries. (Text): monograph/ A.V. Apanasenok. Kursk State Technological University. Kursk, 2005.
. Acts of the archpastors of the Orthodox Holy Church in the USSR, headed by the Moscow Patriarchate, dated April 10 (23), 1929. Moscow.
. Acts of the Consecrated Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the abolition of oaths on old rituals and on those who adhere to them // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1971 No. 6.
. Magazine "Motherland", 1990. No. 9.
. Journals and minutes of meetings of the highest established Pre-Conciliar Presence. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1906.
Lenin V.I. On the attitude of the workers' party to religion// Selected Works: in 10 vols. T. 5. Part 1. 1907-1910. M.: Politizdat, 1985.
Mashkovtseva V.V. Confessional policy of the state in relation to the Old Believers in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries (based on materials from the Vyatka province) [Text]/ V.V. Mashkovtseva. - Kirov: VyatGU Publishing House, 2006.
. Nicodemus. Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod. Report at the local Council on May 31, 1971 // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1971 No. 7.
. Appeal of the Consecrated Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church to all Orthodox Christians who adhere to the old rites and do not have communion with the Moscow Patriarchate // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1988. No. 8.
. Tsypin V. Archpriest. The joining of non-Orthodox // Orthodox conversation. 1995. 5-6.
. Tsypin V. Russian Orthodox Church in the modern period. 1917-1999 // Orthodox Encyclopedia. Russian Orthodox Church. M.: Orthodox Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2000.
Shakhov M.O. On the problem of the content of the concept “Old Believers” // Old Orthodox Bulletin. 1999. No. 2.
To many, the Old Believers seem to be a kind of monolithic formation. Meanwhile, it is quite complexly structured both in church and social terms - from taiga hermitages to completely secular urban strata. Moreover, the Old Believers are fragmented, consisting of large and small groups of believers who have little communication with each other. With some Old Believer concords and groups of believers, dialogue, and productive dialogue, is possible, but with others it is simply unthinkable. Some Old Believer communities consist, according to the definition of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971, of “Orthodox believing Christians”; others, depending on the degree of self-isolation, are gradually taking the path of acquiring signs of sectarian formations. It is clear that therefore a constructive dialogue is not possible in principle with all Old Believers.
Let us make some preliminary remarks. Despite all the clarity of the concept of dialogue, as a conversation or negotiation between two parties, church life has developed its own stereotype of understanding this term. Here, dialogue usually means an organized two-way negotiation process pursuing some positive goal - the unification of Churches, the creation of a common doctrinal formula, etc. In relations with the Old Believers, for now, in reality, we can only talk about attempts to find mutual language for potential dialogue. Therefore, it would be more correct to call this phase of the relationship, for example, interviews, meaning by them this form of dialogue when the goal is not to create some kind of joint product, but simply to try to understand each other. To begin further movement forward, it is necessary to come to an understanding, preferably mutual, of what exactly separates us. And for this we need meetings, interviews, maybe even discussions, albeit formally non-binding, but allowing us to better understand each other.
Today, it is important that the results of such interviews become available to the entire Russian Orthodox community, that is, both to the children of the Russian Orthodox Church and to the Old Believers, since they can bring undoubted benefit to both. In our opinion, it is the opportunity to delve deeper into Russian national history that is valuable in such interviews, since it can contribute to the search for constructive solutions for the future.
If we talk about the problems that arise in today's attempts to establish communication with the Old Believers, then one such problem has already been named - until now, not only has there not been a joint attempt to objectively comprehend the phenomena of the past from the standpoint of modernity, but there is no common terminological base for this. Let us give a simple example: the absolute majority of representatives of one of the two largest agreements of Old Believers-Priests, who have had their own small theological seminary for several years, rightly assert that the members of this agreement have ritual and canonical disagreements with the Russian Orthodox Church, but no dogmatic, doctrinal ones; many representatives of the other consensus constantly emphasize the presence of dogmatic differences, invariably citing ritual ones as an example.
This is another problem in establishing communication. On the one hand, in pre-schism books, say, the sign of the cross, in accordance with the worldview of that time, was called “dogma,” which causes difficulties in attempts at mutual understanding, but difficulties can be overcome if one does not fundamentally deny the value of mastering historical and theological sciences. But, on the other hand, large Old Believer concords have absorbed quite a lot over the past 10-15 years a large number of people not brought up in Old Believer tradition, but militantly opposed to the Russian Orthodox Church. These people are characterized by aggression and intransigence that is surprising for church-going Christians. With the activity characteristic of neophytes, they tirelessly seek out more and more “heresies” in the Russian Orthodox Church, introducing all kinds of disorder and nervousness into the ranks of their community. I would not like to be mistaken, but it seems that healthy-minded adherents of church antiquity who originally belonged to the Old Believers nevertheless intuitively began to recognize clearly alien voices in their midst, quite openly conducted by the same baton that controls the so-called “alternative Orthodoxy.”
Unfortunately, a certain problem in the development of communication is created by some media, especially secular ones, which are accustomed to looking for sensations and are not burdened with a sense of responsibility for the content of their publications. Of course, a developed church consciousness cannot recognize the state of church schism as a natural and normal phenomenon. But the feeling of grief should not obscure the sense of reality - there is currently no talk of any unification with the Old Believers. No matter how loudly the Christian conscience calls upon us to end, and quickly, with the sin of schism, we must proceed from objective reality. Healing the centuries-old schism that has given rise to violence, resentment, mistrust, and mutual alienation, even if possible in principle, requires a subtle, delicate approach that does not tolerate fuss and haste. There are now many people in the Old Believers who are not ready not only for dialogue, but even for communication with the Orthodox. It should be welcomed in every possible way that the majority of modern leaders of the Old Believers show a willingness to communicate and cooperate with the Russian Orthodox Church. And more than once I heard from these people fair complaints about media reports about supposedly already ongoing negotiations on unification. Such messages today can be assessed as provocative, perhaps intended only to complicate communication, since they are not true and because the reaction to such messages different groups believers can vary significantly. It should be remembered that Christian virtue is quiet and unobtrusive by nature, and its opponents, no matter how modest their number, are capable of destroying much and confusing many hearts.
In general, we can say that relations with the Old Believers are now developing dynamically, although not without certain difficulties. And the main goal of these relations at the present time could be called the achievement of a conscious understanding not only by many Old Believer leaders, but also by the majority of believers, that maintaining communication with the Russian Orthodox Church today is not just useful for them and for us, but also necessary. And today we are not talking about prayerful communication, which is what many Old Believers, concerned about preserving their identity, are afraid of. When preserving national identity is on the agenda, it makes sense to look at least a little higher than your fence. What if behind this fence is not an enemy, but a neighbor who faces the same dangers, which can hardly be overcome alone?
Old Believers. Touches to a historical portrait
The history of dialogue with the Old Believers exists as long as the Old Believers themselves exist. For almost 350 years, vast experience in polemics with the “zealots of ancient piety” has been accumulated. Dialogue with them continues to this day, but few of his contemporaries are familiar with it.
The state authorities and the official Church initially treated the Old Believers as heretics and persecuted them. The scale of persecution was by no means invented by the Old Believers themselves, for it was precisely these persecutions that gave rise to a schism in the Russian Church. The former Greek hierarchs at the Council of 1666-1667 advised the tsar to use executions against “schismatics.” Fearing executions, crowds of thousands of adherents of the old faith went into the deep forests or went abroad. Those whom the persecutors managed to find preferred self-immolation to torture. According to Church historian A.V. Kartashev, by 1690 more than 20 thousand people died in self-immolations.
Secular power and Old Believers
It should be especially noted that exactly government was the initiator of both the liturgical reform and the persecution of Old Believers.
The Old Believers suffered especially severe persecution under Princess Sophia. People could even be executed for adhering to the old faith. During the time of Peter I there was no open persecution of Old Believers, but at the same time the Old Believers population was subject to double taxes. During the reign of Catherine II, the Old Believers did not experience any special oppression from the state. Emperors Paul I and Alexander I continued their benevolent policy. Under Nicholas I, new persecutions began: Old Believer churches and monasteries were closed and converted to Orthodox or Edinoverie. A little known fact is that the writer P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky, who wrote the novels “In the Forests” and “On the Mountains,” was an official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and during the “anti-schismatic” campaign he was personally involved in the liquidation of Old Believers monasteries, earning the special dislike of the Old Believers.
During the reign of Emperors Alexander II and Alexandra III the oppression of the Old Believers began to subside. And under Nicholas II, after the promulgation of the “Manifesto on the Principles of Tolerance” in 1905, the Old Believers received freedom. The period between two revolutions in the history of the Old Believers is called the “golden age” by many researchers. During this time, the Old Believers built more than a thousand churches; Congresses and Councils were held almost annually, and several unions and brotherhoods were created. In 1912, the Old Believer Cemetery was opened at the Rogozhskoe cemetery. pedagogical institute with a 6-year training program, led by the father of the future academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences B.A. Rybakova. The institute never saw its first graduation: in 1916, all senior students were sent to the active army. Everything achieved was completely destroyed after 1917. The Old Believers, like all Christians, began to be persecuted by the new government, and new martyrs appeared for the old faith.
Evgeniy Yuferev
Church and Old Believers
The Old Believers were relatively unified only during the lifetime of such “zealots of ancient piety” as Archpriest Avvakum, Deacon Theodore, and others. After their death, different trends began to emerge among the Old Believers. Some Old Believers refused to accept priests from the Russian Church and, therefore, were left without a priesthood at all. The name “bespopovtsy” stuck to them. The other, less radical part of the Old Believers did not renounce the “fugitive” priesthood - these are the so-called “priests”. Both the “priests” and the “non-priests” were divided, in turn, into various “talk” and “agreements”.
The official Church continued to treat the Old Believers as heretics. Metropolitan Dimitri of Rostov in his “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith” wrote that the Old Believers believe in “another Jesus,” in the “equal-eared one.” The fact is that, in accordance with ancient tradition, Old Believers write the name “Isus” with one letter “i”. Metropolitan Demetrius noted that this spelling is similar to the Greek word, which is translated as “equal-eared.” Such a low level of argumentation did not contribute to dialogue, but, unfortunately, it was precisely this level that was consolidated and used by the synodal missionaries in polemics with the Old Believers. The tradition of such criticism was supported by such hierarchs of the Orthodox Church as Archbishop Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod, Bishop Ignatius of Tobolsk and Metropolitan Arseny of Rostov.
This level of controversy outraged not only the Old Believers, but also fellow believers. Edinobelievers are Orthodox Christians-Old Believers who joined the Orthodox Church on the conditions of full preservation of the pre-Nikon rite. In the 18th century, there were several cases of Old Believers joining the Orthodox Church on these conditions. For example, the founder of the Sarov Hermitage, Hieromonk Isaac († 1737), convinced a priestless Fedoseyevite named John to join the Orthodox Church. And in 1799, a whole group of Rogozh Old Believers turned to Metropolitan Platon with a request to join them with the Orthodox Church. In response to this petition, Metropolitan Plato wrote “Rules or Points of Conformity.” According to them, the oaths of the Council of 1666-1667 to the old rites were lifted only from those Old Believers who joined the Orthodox Church. Fellow believers were allowed to receive communion in New Believers churches, but at the same time, New Believers were forbidden to receive communion in a Edinoverie church. Only in case of emergency, in the absence of a New Believer priest in the area, could a New Believer receive the guidance of a priest of the same faith. These restrictions were abolished at the Local Council of 1917-1918.
Due to the preservation of oaths to the old rites, the Old Believers were in no hurry to join the Orthodox Church. Only in 1971 were the old and new rituals recognized as equally saving. The resolutions of the 1971 Council created new conditions for relations with the Old Believers. After this, the walls of theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church were opened for the Old Believers, which made it possible for such representatives of the modern Old Believers as Ivan Mirolyubov, Bishop Anthony (Baskakov, Old Orthodox Church of Russia) and Archbishop Alexander (Kalinin) (Russian Old Orthodox Church) to receive higher theological education.
In the 19th century, state power, in fact, used Edinoverie to abolish the Old Believers. In the Russian Empire, Old Believer monasteries and monasteries were closed by violent methods. They were either completely destroyed or handed over to fellow believers. In particular, in the 1840-1850s, the famous Old Believer center in Moscow - the Rogozhskoe cemetery - was transferred to the Edinoverie, as part of its parishioners joined the Edinoverie. One of the Rogozhsky churches - Nikolsky - became Edinoverie, and in Pokrovsky cathedral At the request of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov), the altars were sealed. They were revealed again only in 1905 by decree of Tsar Nicholas II.
In 1862, the so-called District Epistle appeared among the Belokrinitsky Old Believers. His goal was to get rid of some “non-priestly” ideas from among the Old Believers-“Priests”, which they mistakenly accepted as true. The message stated that the Russian Orthodox Church is the True Church, and the name Jesus in the new spelling is not the name of the Antichrist. The message caused a split, which the Belokrinitsky Old Believers failed to heal. Subsequently, the “anti-okruzhniks” lost their hierarchy, but small communities of them existed in Guslitsy near Moscow until recently.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the attitude of the Church and the state towards the Old Believers gradually changed. After the publication of the “Manifesto on Strengthening the Principles of Tolerance” on April 17, 1905, religious communities became free from state pressure. Changes also occurred in missionary work with Old Believers. Now the missionaries could no longer count on the help of government authorities in the fight against the schism. At the meetings of the Pre-Conciliar Presence (1905-1906), devoted to the problems of mission, the need was stipulated to “fundamentally change the methods of missionary work among schismatics.” In 1908, the Synod issued “Rules for the organization of an internal mission,” according to which state power could not be involved in it. However, the reconstruction of missionary work proceeded very slowly.
At the Local Council of 1917-1918, the work of the Department for Issues of Common Faith and Old Believers was headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). Two reports were submitted to the plenary session, containing directly opposite points of view: Archpriest Simeon Shleev proposed a project for the establishment of coreligionist bishops subordinate to diocesan bishops, and Bishop Seraphim (Alexandrov) of Chelyabinsk feared that the establishment of a coreligionist episcopate would lead to a separation of coreligionists from the Church. After 1905, attitudes towards co-religionists also changed, therefore, by decision of the Council, 5 co-religionist episcopal sees were created. One of them, Okhtenskaya (in Petrograd), was occupied by Simeon (Shleev), who was ordained bishop. Having received bishops of the same faith, the coreligionists by no means left the Orthodox Church. Bishop Simeon proved his loyalty to the Orthodox Church by the fact that, without going into any schisms, he accepted martyrdom. At the Council of Bishops in 2000, he was canonized as a saint in the host of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. During the time of persecution of the Church, it was not possible to preserve the Edinoverie see in Russia.
At the Council of Bishops in 2004, it was decided to create a Commission for the Affairs of Old Believer Parishes and for Interaction with Old Believers, which opens new page in relation to the Old Believers.
Secretary of the Moscow Patriarchate Commission for Interaction with the Old Believers, Deacon Ioann Mirolyubov, in an interview with the Interfax-Religion portal, described in detail the reasons and nature of the warming of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Old Believers Church and assessed the remaining problems in their dialogue.
— What are the activities of the Moscow Patriarchate Commission for the Affairs of Old Believer Parishes and Interaction with the Old Believers, of which you are the secretary? What results have been achieved during its existence?
— The Commission was created by the decision of the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2004 with the aim of implementing the resolutions of the Councils and synodal definitions in the field of relations with the Old Believers and coordinating the ministry of their own Old Believer parishes, in cooperation with the diocesan bishops. It consists of 13 members appointed by the Synod, including seven bishops. The chairman of the commission is.
By Old Believer parishes we mean parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church that use ancient church rites and books during services. Previously, such parishes were called Edinoverie parishes and united adherents of church antiquity who did not want to be in schism.
Among the main tasks that the newly created commission is called upon to solve is summarizing the experience of the activities of these parishes, identifying problems and promoting their participation in general church life, publishing, information, educational and cultural activities. For example, the commission organized the section “The Old Rite in the Russian Orthodox Church: Past and Present” as part of the Christmas educational readings. The work of the section was headed by a member of the commission, and caused big interest participants in the readings, including Old Believers. Certain hopes for intensifying the activities of the commission in the field of coordinating the ministry of Old Believer parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate arise in connection with the blessing His Holiness Patriarch Alexy at the opening of the Patriarchal Old Believer Center in Moscow.
The creation of the commission made it possible to reach a qualitatively different level of relations with Old Believer agreements that are outside of unity with the Russian Orthodox Church. These relations began to be built on a systematic basis. Members of the commission hold regular working meetings and consultations with the primates and representatives of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church, the Russian Old Orthodox Church, and with the leadership of the Moscow Pomeranian Old Believer community.
Relations with the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church (Moscow Metropolis) are developing most actively and fruitfully. On March 3, 2006, Bishop Kirill met with a delegation of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church led by the newly elected Old Believer Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' Cornelius. At the meeting, which took place in an atmosphere of sincerity and mutual trust, prospects for cooperation were discussed. During his trips, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church maintains contacts with local eminences of the Russian Orthodox Church, receives Active participation in church and social events. In particular, a representative delegation of the Old Believer Moscow Metropolis took part in the work of the X World Russian people's council, public readings as part of the exhibition " Orthodox Rus'", Christmas educational readings. Last year, the Council of the Old Believer Metropolis formed a special commission headed by the Old Believer Archbishop of Kyiv and All Ukraine Savvaty for relations with the Russian Orthodox Church.
Relations are also developing with the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church, which has created a similar commission. Working meetings are held regularly, including with its primate, Patriarch Alexander (Kalinin), who sends representatives to significant church and public forums. Envoys from both Old Believer agreements, which have a church hierarchy, took part in the world religious summit in Moscow.
— Is it possible to talk about some warming, progress in the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believers in last years and why?
— Warming is obvious, and there are serious reasons for this. The main internal, actually church, basis is the abolition by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1971 of the previous oaths on the old Russian church rites and on the Orthodox Christians who adhere to them. An ancient, perhaps in many ways fatal, mistake was corrected, the grave consequences of which only now, through the prism of time, can one try to give a correct assessment. The conciliar act did not solve the problem of church reunification, but it destroyed the main obstacle to that. Therefore, the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church invariably returned again and again at all its subsequent Councils to the topic of the unhealed wound of church schism. A significant impetus in healing the consequences of the schism and establishing mutually friendly relations with the Old Believers was contained in the speech of Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad on this problem at the Council of Bishops in 2004. This speech found a response in the hearts of the Old Believers.
You can name many external reasons promoting the establishment of friendly relations. We all live in a world where Christian values are giving way to other aspirations. If three centuries ago, at the time of the culmination of the church schism, the world surrounding the Russian people was changing in a Western way and was secularized, now it is openly demonized. Only a blinded, spiritually failed person can argue that it is not useful for people who sincerely believe in Christ today to be together, to search together for ways of salvation and resistance to evil.
Now about the first part of the question. Today, both sides are only on the path to dialogue, and rather an analytical dialogue, when constructive goals are not clearly indicated. For now, we may not be talking about searching for prerequisites for real reunification, but about trying to find a common language for a potentially possible and desirable dialogue. However, what is happening now between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believers can be called the first phase of dialogue, when the time has come for interviews, meetings, discussions, preferably even informal ones, to clarify positions, identify disagreements, overcome mutual alienation and negative stereotypes of perceiving each other .
And this process of mutual recognition and habituation is now gaining momentum. Moreover, this concerns not only relations with the Moscow Old Believer Metropolis, but also with the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church.
Our relations also develop favorably with the spiritual centers of the Old Believers who do not have a priesthood - the Bespopovtsy, although there are difficulties in establishing dialogue. There are two trends here. On the one hand, it was from among the non-priests that the most numerous reunions with the Mother Church took place over the past two decades, including quite large communities. Of course, this testifies to the disappointment of many believers in their previous hope of finding salvation in circumstances where they were left, in essence, without the holy sacraments, and even in our sinful life. On the other hand, the leaders of non-priest associations are trying to counter this trend. Thus, last year at the All-Russian Congress of Pomeranian Old Believers, a special decision was made about “the historical exhaustion of the search for a pious priesthood in this world.” That is, the absence of the priesthood, conditioned by historical circumstances, is dogmatized and turned into a doctrinal doctrine. For me personally, this is especially bitter, since I belong to precisely this group of Old Believers, albeit that smaller part of it that longed for the restoration of the priesthood, never hiding it.
— What are the main problems that remain in the relationship between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church?
- Let me leave for the future the problems, so to speak, theoretical - historical, theological and psychological. Let's talk about practical matters.
This may seem unexpected to many, but a fairly big practical problem is the interference in our relations by external forces using certain media for this. It is well known that treating the illnesses of schism is always extremely difficult, and they are often completely incurable. There will always be “hawks” on both sides who strive to maintain the status quo at all costs. And now the first positive results have appeared; they cannot but rejoice and reassure the Christian heart. After all, “let them all be one” is one of the main Christian maxims. Who could be afraid of the strengthening of relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Old Believers at a stage when no one is talking about immediate or distant reunification, or that one of the parties should give up some principles, make a certain compromise! And against this background, one cannot help but be impressed by the painfulness with which some mass media react to any more or less successful progress in the matter of church unity. The so-called “human rights” journalists, who had until now wrinkled their noses at the “shaggy and bearded,” instantly fell in love with the Old Believers, but with a very selective and strange love, coupled with a suddenly inflamed jealousy to protect the Old Believers from the influence of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Ultimately, a peculiar situation has developed today: very friendly, even trusting, relationships are developing with the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, official workers of the Old Believer metropolis, and many venerable clergy, not only in Moscow, but also in many dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church, and in “human rights” dioceses. Articles protesting against this constantly appear in publications, usually anonymous, filled with speculation and an unacceptably easy treatment of facts.
The question arises: in the Russian Orthodox Church there is a serious and structured opposition to the current course of its own hierarchy towards improving relations with the Moscow Patriarchate, or does someone urgently need a “storm in a teacup”? If the opposition exists, then why do the protest publications belong to the same people (no more than two or three authors from the Russian Orthodox Church), who usually hide themselves behind fictitious names? Why do they constantly distort the facts, reaching the point of outright falsification? Why do they use the same sources of information that are known to be biased? Why, finally, when the true names of the “zealots of the purity of ancient Orthodoxy” are discovered, it turns out that these are neophyte Old Believers, often completely unchurched, and who also managed to visit many other confessions?
Another practical problem that hinders the elimination of mutual alienation is property. In the approach to solving it, the differences in the behavior of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church (note: actually elected at all levels) and the volunteer “zealots” are especially clearly visible.
- What exactly do you mean? Can you elaborate on this?
- Here is a case that was recently actively discussed on sites prone to inflating unhealthy sensations - about the alleged donation of an Old Believer reliquary icon to Patriarch Alexy during his visit to the St. Nicholas-Ugreshsky Stavropegic Monastery on his patronal feast day. The icon was presented by the director of the Kolomenskoye museum-reserve Lyudmila Kolesnikova, and this alone should have made one treat the “news” with some degree of critical reflection: can museum directors really so easily change the ownership of the museum fund, presenting exhibits even to the Patriarch? And so, while the above-mentioned “zealots”, shouting over each other, tried to stir up a scandal in online publications that helpfully turned up for this, the Old Believer Metropolitan Korniliy decided, together with his closest assistants, to visit the Kolomenskoye Museum. There it turned out that the icon was not given as a gift at all, but for open exhibition in the monastery, where Orthodox people, including Old Believers, now have the opportunity to venerate the relics. It also turned out that the metropolis does not have a legal basis to legally claim the ownership of the Kolomna reliquary icon: it was requisitioned from the Old Believer chapel by the Bolsheviks in the most gangster manner before the war, but this chapel was not in the same Old Believer hope as the Rogozhians.
Next, the Old Believer Metropolitan takes one more step, worthy of respect and indicating his administrative maturity. Instead of shouting about “sacrilege” and “ignoring the elementary constitutional rights of Christian Old Believers,” he invites him to an excursion and conversation in Rogozhskaya Sloboda, who readily responds to the invitation. As a result of the meeting, problematic issues and cooperation plans are discussed. But this is not interesting to the new “friends” of the Old Believers.
— In some circles you can hear accusations against the Russian Orthodox Church of “claims” to the property and churches of the Old Believers. How do the commission evaluate these controversial issues, and what steps are taken to resolve them?
— Indeed, it is advisable to dwell in more detail on the property side of the relationship with the Old Believers. “Analysts” hidden behind pseudonyms are loudly broadcasting that the Moscow Patriarchate today is committing “seizure of property” and “expropriation of churches” against Old Believers. That’s why the real names hide the fact that they know very well what they are doing: they are doing their best to contribute to a new round of mutual alienation.
What is the reality like? Almost a century has passed since the Bolshevik experiments. During this time, the composition of the population has changed dramatically in many places. The Old Believers, a significant part of whom belonged to the social strata subject to destruction, became many times smaller. As a result, often, sadly, the Old Believers can no longer fill their former churches with worshippers, especially in the provinces, or maintain them.
The voice of conscience, the moral law demand: everyone must return what is theirs, in accordance with the religion of the creators of the temple. But there is no law on the restitution of property, in particular church property, in Russia. That is, questions of use former temples are decided by the local administration, which in fact may have its own preferences and ideas about the positive public image of a particular denomination. It is also not difficult to understand that the administration is naturally interested in providing former religious buildings to those denominations that tomorrow will not again ask for assistance in their restoration and maintenance.
And so that the situation does not seem sad and hopeless to the Old Believers, we will have to say the following. Firstly, the law still requires that the previous religious affiliation of churches be taken into account. Secondly, in my personal opinion, with an unambiguously directive return of churches to the previous owner, it is the Old Believers who will be the losing side: they today occupy at least 15 churches (according to the most preliminary estimates) that previously belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church: two in St. Petersburg, two in Novgorod, as well as in Kursk, Tula, Pskov, Kostroma, Yaroslavl, Kolomna and other cities, not to mention villages. At the very least, the situation will be close to equilibrium, and both parties will suffer greatly in the redistribution of property. In such circumstances, the best option is to conduct periodic mutual consultations in a spirit of mutual respect.
Although the capabilities of the Old Believer Commission under the DECR in the matter of returning church property are very modest, in some cases its intervention turns out to be positive. Thus, through considerable efforts of the members of the commission, including its chairman, they managed to return their former temple to the Old Believers of Samara.
So far it has not been possible to find a worthy solution regarding the ownership of Old Believer churches in Ivanovo - here the majority of parishioners converted to Edinoverie a few years ago - and on Khavskaya Street in Moscow, where, while the Old Believer metropolitanate, apparently, showed slowness in restoring rights to the temple, which housed a cheerful restaurant, the building was bought from the city as private property by an Orthodox entrepreneur to avoid shame. In both cases the situation is very complicated and required large application strength of the commission members. The Ivanovo diocesan administration has already proposed its own version of the solution, which so far does not suit the Old Believer side. As for the temple on Khavskaya, the situation is even more complicated: it is located in private property(legal or not, only a court can determine), therefore, it is hardly possible to achieve the desired with rallies and religious processions, if the desired is not that a temple of the Russian Orthodox Church should not be opened there under any circumstances.
In general, one can humanly understand the concern of the Old Believers with the topic of returning church utensils. But at the same time, it is important to realize that such a return is difficult if there are no marks of the previous owner or reliable information about him, because there are several Old Believer consents. It is a different matter when, as a result of historical cataclysms, an object fell into the hands of one of the parties, be it an icon, reliquary, bell, church vessel or anything else, containing the previous owner’s inscription. In this case, one should act in a Christian manner and return the lost property to the owner. The commission can provide assistance in such matters, although the final decision can only be made by the current owner. In practice, the disposal of church property is carried out at the level of diocesan administration bodies.
— Let’s return to the Old Believer parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate. Please describe the current situation and prospects for the development of these parishes.
— Today, there are about 20 such parishes under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, some are only at the stage of formation. In a number of dioceses, the bishops are showing interest in opening new parishes. It is unknown how long the current trend will last, but for now we can talk about a gradual increase in their number.
Not so long ago, Edinoverie parishes were considered solely as a missionary means of bringing Old Believers into the fold of the united Church. Significant rethink national history, including the church one, fundamentally changes the concept of existence of these parishes. In 2000, at the celebrations in honor of the 200th anniversary of the establishment of common faith, Patriarch Alexy said: “The children of the Russian Orthodox Church need to remember that ancient church rites form part of our common spiritual and historical heritage, which should be preserved as an absolute treasure in the liturgical treasury of the Church.” Ultimately, this means that Old Believer parishes today are viewed not as separate and isolated communities, but as integrated into general church life, open to all parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church and capable of creating an attractive image of ancient church piety.
This task cannot be considered simple. It is necessary to preserve the special specificity of the communities of the old rite - the principles of conciliarity, communalism, acceptance of the clergy, but at the same time avoid manifestations of ritual faith, xenophobia, and fanaticism.
— At the last Christmas readings, information about the Patriarchal Old Believer Center was presented for the first time. At what stage is the process of its creation?
— Now the hierarchy is considering organizational issues related to the Patriarchal Old Believer Center: for this purpose, an ancient pre-schism Moscow church has been selected, the staff of clergy and employees is being specified, and sources of funding are being searched. It is too early to talk about the future, but I express my readiness to return to this topic again after some time through your information channel. I would like to express the hope that the center will serve both to consolidate the Old Believer communities of the Moscow Patriarchate and unite Orthodox lovers of ancient worship around itself, and to strengthen good relations with the Old Believers, and will become a place of meetings and discussions.
