The acquisition of independence by the Russian Orthodox Church. Union of Florence. The acquisition of autocephaly by the Russian Orthodox Church in the middle of the 15th century. Monk from the Kostroma Territory

The complex and gradual autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church was inevitable and timely. Autocephaly is the acquisition of independence, as well as the possibility of electing one's own bishops. “Kefali” is translated from Greek as “head”, and “auto” as the word “itself”. The Russian Church has always striven for independence from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. And in the end, this independence received.

Causes of Orthodox Independence

Everything in the world has a cause and effect. This statement is also applicable to the Florentine Union, because of which the process of separation of the Russian Church began.

The famous union was approved on July 6, 1439. According to its postulates, a new Kiev Metropolitan and his legate were elected. The papal legate Isidore, after signing the union, went to Moscow, but the opponents of this document arrived before him. And they proclaimed a new act of "betrayal" committed by the Greeks. Then Byzantium was profitable to cooperate with Rome. The Greeks were constantly attacked by Turkey, and were also actively preparing for war. And the union signed with Rome had political overtones.

The “betrayal” itself consisted in the fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, without the consent of the Russian Church, appointed Isidore Metropolitan of Moscow. His powers were to extend to the following lands:

• Lithuania;
• Rus;
• Livonia;
• Poland.

But not only in Rus' such an appointment received disagreement. The Metropolitan was refused recognition in Lithuania and Poland. Instead, the Russian Church appointed its own Metropolitan, Jonah of Ryazan.

When Isidore nevertheless got into the temple for a solemn service in the Assumption Cathedral, he was allowed to serve the service, and then expelled from the church. After the expulsion, by order of Grand Duke Vasily Isidor, he was placed under arrest. And then, according to one version, they allowed him to flee to Lithuania.

After these events, Prince Vasily wrote a letter to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In it, the prince pointed out differences in faith, rejected the union, and also refused to recognize the right of the Pope to be a teacher of the Christian church. Following this message, a softer version of the letter was sent to Constantinople.

When the unrest around the union subsided, the country was in turmoil. And the place of the Russian Metropolitan remained free for a long time. Prince Vasily fought for power with Dmitry Shemyaka, and in 1445 Khan Ulu-Mohammed came to the Russian territories with a war.

In 1446, Shemyaka seized power in Moscow and elected Jonah of Ryazan as metropolitan in order to enlist the support of the church. In 1447, Prince Vasily regained power, but preferred to agree with the candidacy of Jonah, and at the council he was again proclaimed metropolitan.

First, Jonah of Ryazan was chosen for the post of metropolitan by the cathedral of North-Eastern Rus'. At that time there was a real danger that the bishops of Lithuania would not support his appointment. But there was no embarrassment. Since during his stay in Lithuania, the legate Isidore tried to separate the western dioceses from Rus', but King Casimir the Fourth had already refused the support of Rome by that time. And Isidore's plans failed.

In Poland, they also supported the candidacy of Jonah because of disagreement with the text of the union. Grand Duke Basil repeatedly wrote letters to Constantinople, where he expounded his views on the institution of the Moscow Patriarchate. But one letter was never sent, and the fate of the second message remains unknown today.

Soft separation conflict

The Russian Orthodox Church has never openly clashed with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Moscow Patriarchate explained the reasons for its secession as political necessity. In Rus', they recognized the primacy of the Greek Church and hoped for understanding from the Bishops of Constantinople. Therefore, the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church took so long.

In 1454, after the election of the first on Greek soil Orthodox Patriarch Gennady Scholaria, relations between Constantinople and Moscow were restored. Very little is known about this historical process. And no documents about that time have been preserved.

After Jonah, Patriarch Nicholas took over his post, and then Calixta the Third came to replace him. King Casimir did not agree with this appointment. And he recognized as the Kyiv Metropolitan Gregory the Bulgarian, who was a Roman protege.

So there was a division of the Kyiv and Moscow dioceses. These events date back to 1459. Then in church history there was a long period of cooperation with the Jerusalem diocese. But ties with the Greek priests, despite the disagreements, still remained.

In the 15th century, the church lost a significant share of support from the state. But the construction of temples and household needs required money, so appeals to Constantinople were frequent, but unofficial.

Russian monks regularly visited Athos, Palestine, Sinai and Constantinople. In 1557, a delegation was sent to Constantinople to confirm the royal status of Ivan the Terrible. Official confirmation has been received. In 1586 Patriarch Joachim visited Moscow. Three years later, Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople paid a visit to the Moscow Patriarchate. Negotiations were held with him on the recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate. And in 1589 the legality of autocephaly in Rus' was recognized by the Western community. And then the rest of the world.

Attitude towards autocephaly today

At the time of separation, Rus' was not politically dependent on Byzantium. Only the church authorities closely cooperated with Constantinople. The long period without its own patriarch in Rus' is explained by the fact that at that time the Russian lands were subjected to raids by the Tatars, and the struggle for power in internal political circles made itself felt.

In 1453, Constantinople was captured by the Turks, and such a power as Byzantium was no more. Therefore, the separation of the Russian Church also gained political benefits. After all, at that time Rus' was the only Orthodox country that retained its unchanging spiritual integrity.

Unlike the Kyiv Patriarchate, in which the separation took place arbitrarily and without proper succession, the Russian Orthodox Church made attempts to resolve issues of autocephaly with Constantinople more than once. But not a single letter about autocephaly was answered. And then Union of Florence and ceased to be a valid document at all. And we can assume that the separation of the Russian Church was a necessary measure.

Orthodox doctrine defines autocephaly as something natural. After all, the main thing is that the church be organically united and based on grace-filled communion in the sacraments. At the same time, the administrative structure of the church can be anything.

The long-term autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church is recognized as quite justified and necessary. During its implementation, there was no goal of breaking ties with Byzantium. And isolation was an economically and territorially advantageous solution. And this decision was given to the Russian Church is not at all easy.

The middle of the 15th century was marked for the Orthodox Church by two tragedies - the Union of Florence and the fall of Constantinople. By this time, only Constantinople with its suburbs, a small part of the territory in southern Greece and several islands remained from the Byzantine Empire. All other territories that were part of the once mighty empire were occupied by the Turks or, in the West, by the Latins. The Byzantine emperor was in a vassal position with the Turkish sultan, and the days of the great Christian empire were counted.

Hoping to save the remnants of the empire from imminent death, Emperor John VIII Palaiologos decided to take a desperate step: on November 24, 1437, he went to Italy to Pope Eugene IV in the hope of receiving military assistance from the Latins against the Turks. Together with the emperor, about 600 people left, including the elderly Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph II, 22 bishops, numerous clerics and laity. The delegation included representatives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. On April 9, 1438, a council was opened in Ferrara, under the presidency of Pope Eugene, at which disagreements between the Greeks and Latins were to be discussed. For this purpose, a theological commission was created, which on the part of the Greeks included Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus, Metropolitan Bessarion of Nicaea, and several other persons, and on the part of the Latins, several cardinals. The official head of the Greek delegation during the entire Council was Emperor John Palaiologos, who often took part in the debate personally. The Greek delegation also included Isidore, who had been appointed Metropolitan of Kyiv shortly before.

The first question that the delegations discussed at the Council in Ferrara was the question of purgatory. According to Latin teaching, purgatory is a place of posthumous temporary torment of those persons who died in peace with the Church and who did not commit mortal sins: after the end of the period of torment, these people enter the Kingdom of Heaven. At the Council of Ferrara, the Latins asserted that "there is no need to pray for those who are in paradise, for they have no need of it, nor for those who are in hell, since they cannot be freed or cleansed from sins" , you can only pray for those who are in purgatory. The theology of the Eastern Church, however, did not know the doctrine of purgatory, and St. Mark of Ephesus, in his answer to the report of the Latins, asserted that the Church prays for all the departed, both those in heaven and those languishing in hell, with the hope that this prayer will be heard by God. No agreement was reached between the two parties on the first point of the controversy.

The second topic proposed for discussion in Ferrara was the Latin doctrine of the Filioque. Both Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nicaea opposed this doctrine in the debate, but the Latins stubbornly defended it. Again, no agreement was reached. After the meetings of the Council were transferred to Florence in February 1439, it was decided to abandon the discussion of the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed and limit itself to a general discussion of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. In Florence, the Latins declared that they recognized God the Father as the only reason for the procession of the Holy Spirit, having read out an excerpt from the letter of Maximus the Confessor to Marinus (mentioned by us above). Nevertheless, the Greeks were not satisfied with the explanations of the Latins, and Saint Mark of Ephesus presented a treatise entitled "Evidence of the procession of the Holy Spirit only from the Hypostasis of the Father" in refutation of the doctrine of the Filioque.

After a year and a half of intense theological discussions, the Latins delivered an ultimatum to the Greeks, which boiled down to the fact that the Greeks had to accept the Latin doctrine. At the same time, the pope promised military assistance to the Byzantine emperor. On July 4, 1439, the Greeks handed over to the Latins a statement with the following content: “We agree with your teaching and with your addition to the Symbol, made on the basis of the holy fathers; we enter into a union with you and recognize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one single Beginning and Cause. This statement was signed by all members of the Greek delegation, except for Saint Mark of Ephesus, who remained adamant.

Having received the statement of the Greeks, the pope demanded that they also agree with the Latin understanding of purgatory, with the practice of serving the liturgy on unleavened bread and with the Latin teaching about the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ when pronouncing the words “Take, eat, this is My Body” and “Drink from her all, this is My Blood” (the Greeks believed that the change of the Holy Gifts takes place not after the pronunciation of these words, but after the invocation of the Holy Spirit). The Greeks were also required to agree with the Latin doctrine of the primacy of the Pope of Rome, and not only of the primacy of honor, but also of the primacy of jurisdiction (i.e., that the eastern patriarchs enter into jurisdictional subordination to the Pope of Rome), to call the pope "the vicar of Christ ” and “the head of the Church”, so that they recognize his right to freely interfere in the affairs of the Orthodox Church. After much hesitation, 33 representatives of the Greek delegation finally signed the union on the terms put forward by the Latins. The only official member of the delegation who did not sign the union was Saint Mark of Ephesus. Patriarch Joseph, who had died by that time, also did not sign the union.

Upon his return to Constantinople, Saint Mark of Ephesus wrote a roundabout epistle in which he decisively dissociated himself from the Ferrara-Florence Council. Regarding the Greeks, who signed a union with the Latins on it, Saint Mark wrote:

We must flee from them, as one flees from a snake... as from Christ's sellers and Christ's merchants... For together with Damascus and all the fathers we do not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son; and they, together with the Latins, say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. And we, together with the divine Dionysius, say that the Father is the only Source of the supernatural Divinity; and they, together with the Latins, say that the Son is also the Source of the Holy Spirit, obviously excluding the Spirit from the Godhead ... And we affirm, according to the fathers, that the will and energy of the uncreated and Divine nature are uncreated; and they, together with the Latins and Thomas, say that the will is identical with nature, and the Divine energy is a creature ... And we say that neither the saints do not yet perceive the Kingdom prepared for them and the indescribable blessings, nor the sinners have yet been sent to Gehenna, but both of them are each waiting for their lot, which will be received in the next century after the resurrection and judgment; but they, together with the Latins, desire that they immediately after death perceive according to their merits, and to those in between ... they give a purifying fire, which is not identical with Gehenna ... And we, listening to the commanding apostles, turn away from Jewish unleavened bread; and they, in the same act of union, proclaim that what the Latins celebrate is the Body of Christ. And we say that the addition in the Symbol arose lawlessly and against the law and against the fathers; but they claim that it is lawful and blessed... For us, the pope is presented as one of the patriarchs, and even if he were Orthodox, and they declare him with greater importance the vicar of Christ, the father and teacher of all Christians... So, brethren run away from them and from contact with them ...

The Ferrara-Florence Council had all the formal features of an Ecumenical Council: it was attended by the pope and the emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and representatives of other ancient Eastern Patriarchates, the primate of the Russian Church (which did not yet have autocephaly and was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople). IN Catholic Church this Council is recognized as Ecumenical. However, in the Orthodox East it was rejected on the grounds that the Orthodox Church was required to capitulate, to renounce its centuries-old theological tradition.

The Russian Church was the first to reject the union. When Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev, who represented the Russian Church at the Council of Florence, returned to Rus' two years after the end of the Council, on July 5, 1441, he served in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin: during the service, the name of the Pope of Rome was raised and the act of reunification with Rome was read. None of the boyars and bishops present at first expressed disagreement; on the contrary, according to the chronicler, "the boyars and others were silent, and even more so the bishops of Russia were silent, and slumbered and fell asleep." However, the Grand Duke of Moscow, Vasily Vasilyevich, declared Isidore a heretic and ordered his arrest. Then “all the bishops of Russia became excited; princes and boyars and many Christians then ... start ... call Isidore a heretic. They tried to force Metropolitan Isidore to renounce the union, threatening even death penalty: he remained adamant and eventually fled to Rome, where the pope made him a cardinal. So the Ferraro-Florence Cathedral was rejected by the Russian Church.

In 1442, at the Council in Jerusalem, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem refused to recognize the Ferrara-Florence Council, calling it "dirty, anti-canonical and tyrannical", and broke off communion with Patriarch Mitrofan II of Constantinople, who was elected to take the place of Patriarch Joseph, who died in Florence. Eight years later, at the Council in Constantinople, the Uniate Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory III Mamma was deposed, and the Council of Ferrara-Florence, in the presence of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, was anathematized by the Church of Constantinople. The general mood of the Greeks on the eve of the fall of Byzantium was expressed in the words of the Byzantine naval commander, the great Duke Luke Notaras: “I prefer to see the Turkish turban reigning in the city than the Latin tiara.” Fourteen years after the conclusion of the Union of Florence and three years after its condemnation at the Council of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire fell into the hands of the Turks, and Luke Notaras was beheaded by order of the Sultan along with his fourteen-year-old son.

As already mentioned, the Greeks signed the union in Florence in the hope that the Latins would give them military assistance against the Turks. However, help was limited to sending three Genoese galleys with several hundred volunteers on board, who, however, courageously fought side by side with the Greeks. In addition, Metropolitan Cardinal Isidore was sent to Constantinople (the same one who, on behalf of the Russian Church, signed the union, and then was expelled from Moscow in disgrace): the emperor allowed him to serve in the Hagia Sophia. When in April 1453 the Turks began the siege of Constantinople from land and from the sea, the Turkish army outnumbered the Byzantine army by 20 times. Despite this, the defense of Constantinople lasted seven weeks. On the night of May 28-29, 1453, the last Christian service took place in the Hagia Sophia. On the evening of May 29, the city was taken by the Turks, the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos died defending the city. By order of Sultan Mehmed II, the Hagia Sophia was turned into a mosque.

The capture of Constantinople was accompanied by a three-day robbery, during which the Turks, with the permission of the Sultan, killed and robbed everyone they wanted. By order of the Sultan, some of the surviving representatives of the Byzantine nobility and clergy were executed, but Cardinal Isidore managed to escape. Many churches were looted and desecrated. On the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople, on the initiative of Mehmed II, the learned monk Gennady Scholarius, a resolute opponent of the union, was elected: Mehmed II, in the likeness of the Byzantine emperors, personally presented him with the patriarchal baton. Gennady became the head of the mil-let - the Greek community, endowed with the rights of a self-governing ethnic minority. The sultan provided the patriarch with a letter-firman, giving him the rights of the spiritual and secular head of the Greek population of the Ottoman Empire (a mosaic depicting Mehmed II presenting a firman to Gennady is located in the building of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Istanbul).

The influence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople among the Christian flock of the empire was not only preserved, but even strengthened due to the fact that the patriarch received from the Sultan not only the church, but also some kind of political power. The religious and political structure of the newly formed empire was based on the principle of combining the spiritual and spiritual, characteristic of the Islamic world, secular power in one person. The Turkish sultan, being an absolute monarch and at the same time the religious leader of the empire, delegated some of his powers to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who became an intermediary between the sultan and the Christian population. De facto, the patriarch was forced to act as a conductor of the will of the Sultan, which gave him certain privileges within the Ottoman Empire, but deprived him of any possible ecclesiastical authority outside it. For several subsequent centuries, the fate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople turned out to be inextricably linked with the fate of the Ottoman Empire.

Although the Orthodox minority received, at the behest of the Sultan, a certain place in the structure of Turkish society, it soon became clear that Christianity was perceived as a second-class religion, and Christians as second-class citizens. They paid high taxes, wore special clothes, the Church was banned missionary activity and the conversion of a Muslim to Christianity was seen as a crime. For the right to take office, the patriarch had to pay the sultan a huge amount of money, and, as a rule, one of the applicants who was able to pay more could become the patriarch. The sultans were thus interested in changing the patriarchs as often as possible. The reason for the frequent change of patriarchs was also internal discord in the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the struggle for the patriarchal throne. In addition, any manifestation of disloyalty towards the Turkish regime was severely punished. As a result, of the 159 Patriarchs of Constantinople who occupied the throne between the 15th and 20th centuries, 105 were deposed by the Turks, 27 were forced to abdicate, 6 were put to death, and only 21 died a natural death while in office. The same person could become patriarch and be deposed several times.

After the capture of Constantinople, the Turks continued their aggressive campaigns, during which the primordially Orthodox lands were subjected to enslavement. In 1459 Mehmed II took possession of Serbia. In the first quarter of the 16th century, as a result of the military campaigns of Sultan Selim I, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem became part of the Ottoman Empire. After the transformation of Serbia into a province of the Ottoman Empire, the autocephaly of the Serbian Church was lost and the Church became part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (earlier, at the end of the 14th century, after the conquest of Bulgaria by the Turks, the Bulgarian Church became part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople). The ancient Eastern Patriarchates were not abolished, but were actually dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was the only head of the Orthodox Church on the territory of the Ottoman Empire, recognized by the state authorities.

The Turkish conquest to a large extent paralyzed the intellectual life of the Greeks and stopped the development of Orthodox theology. The main task for the Church was to survive and preserve its tradition. This was necessary not only in view of the constant oppression on the part of the Muslims, but also in view of the regular attempts of the Latin West to persuade the Greek Church to submit to Rome. In search of allies against the Latins, the Greeks established relations with European Protestants. The last quarter of the 16th century was marked by correspondence between Patriarch Jeremiah II and the theologians of the University of Tübingen. And the 17th century was marked by "Protestant turmoil" within the Greek Church, caused by the influence of Calvinist ideas on Patriarch Cyril I Lukaris of Constantinople. In 1629, in Geneva, the main center of European Calvinism, under the name of Lucaris, a Confession of Faith was printed, containing many Calvinist ideas. Cyril Lukaris himself, who became patriarch six times and was dethroned six times, ended his life tragically: he was strangled by the Janissaries, and his body was thrown into the Bosphorus. The ideas of Lucaris were subsequently repeatedly condemned at Church Councils held between 1638 and 1691.

The Turkish conquest was associated with the gradual weakening of many Athos monasteries during the 16th-17th centuries and the extinction of the Hesychasm tradition on Athos. Although the Turkish sultans patronized Athos, the arbitrariness of petty Turkish officials, the high taxes that the monks were forced to pay, and pirate raids - all this did not contribute to prosperity on Athos monastic life. TO XVII century many monasteries of the Holy Mountain fell into decay. Some revival in the spiritual life of Athos is observed in the middle of the 18th century, and it is associated with the movement of "Kollyvads" that swept the Athos monasteries and spread to continental Greece. The movement began with a dispute over the seemingly insignificant issue of the permissibility of commemorating the dead on Sunday. At the beginning of the 19th century, the dispute resumed, but the main thing now became the question of the regularity of communion: collivades insisted on the revival ancient practice frequent communion, while their opponents believed that communion should be two or three times a year. The spiritual program of collivades, however, was not limited to questions about the commemoration of the dead and about frequent communion. Kollyvades set the task of reviving that spiritual tradition that was associated with the names of St. Gregory Palamas and the hesychasts of the XIV century and which XVIII century was almost completely forgotten. The central point of the program was the revival of the practice of "smart doing" - the Jesus Prayer.

One of the main figures of the movement was St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountaineer (1748-1809), who wrote numerous original works, including the book On Frequent Communion, commentaries on the Epistles of the Apostle Paul and on liturgical texts. The book entitled "Invisible Scolding", which was widely distributed and translated into Russian at the end of the 19th century, is a revision of the work of the Latin Theatin monk Lorenzo Scupoli. However, the main work of Nicodemus is "Philocalia", or "Goodwill" - a multi-volume collection of works by Eastern Christian ascetic authors from the 4th to the 15th century on the topic of smart doing. It was thanks to the "Philocalia", first printed in Venice in 1782, that many works of ancient church writers, such as Evagrius of Pontus, Mark the Ascetic, Maximus the Confessor, Hesychius of Sinai, as well as Byzantine hesychasts - Nicephorus the Udinennik, Gregory of Sinai, Gregory Palamas. In 1793 The Philokalia was translated into Slavonic, at the end of the 19th century into Russian, and during the 20th century into several European languages. To this day, this collection remains one of the most books read among monastics and laity of the Orthodox Church.

The “Russian” Metropolitan Isidore, who received the cardinal rank from the pope and was endowed with the powers of the papal legate in Lithuania, Livonia, Rus' and “Lakhia” (Poland) had to implement the decisions taken at the Council of Florence in Eastern Europe ...

Information from various sources agree that the beginning of the conflict was marked by a solemn service in the Assumption Cathedral. The secular people present at the service were apparently most impressed by the public "commemoration" of the pope instead of the traditional commemoration of the Eastern Patriarchs. For the clergy, it was more significant that at the end of the service, on the order of the metropolitan, they publicly read the text of the bull of Pope Eugene IV outlining the conditions of the Union of Florence... numbers - “poimasha”, “planted”.

Indeed, we have no reason to think that in resolving this issue, the position of the Grand Duke could in some way diverge from the position of his spiritual and secular subjects. In the lands of North-Eastern Rus', where Orthodoxy has been the dominant religion since ancient times, the church union could not bring to the Russian Church those benefits that the Orthodox Church in the possessions of the Jagiellons could count on. There was no external danger here, to defend against which it would be necessary to "sacrifice principles." The situation was just the opposite. In the difficult times of the Tatar-Mongol domination, it was precisely in adherence to Orthodox faith Russian people drew the ability to resist. By the middle of the XV century. the power of the conquerors weakened, favorable conditions developed for the unification of Russian lands around Moscow and the restoration of sovereign statehood. Adherence to one's faith was reinforced by the experience of history, and the less justified seemed to Russian society to deviate from it. The Union of the Churches and the agreement with the Latins were undoubtedly perceived in Moscow as a refusal to fight against the “non-Christian” Lithuania, which subjugated the Russian lands to its power, there was already a strong idea that it was the Moscow Grand Dukes who were the legitimate heirs of Vladimir of Kiev. Under these conditions, the failure of Isidore's mission was inevitable.

METROPOLIT JONA

Jonah (d. 1461) - Bishop of Ryazan, later Metropolitan of Moscow, church leader and publicist. Iona was a native of the district principality of Galicia, whose princes were the main rivals of Vasily II; he took the vows as a monk in the same place - in the Galician land. Then he moved to the Moscow Simonov Monastery, and then became the bishop of Ryazan. Only in the 40s, after the condemnation and expulsion of Isidore, did Jonah have the opportunity to take the metropolitan throne ... Then Jonah took a kind of intermediate position between the two warring princes. In the summer of 1447, after the occupation of Moscow by Vasily the Dark, Dmitry Shemyaka and Ivan Mozhaisky, who fled from it, declared that Vasily II could not claim them to himself until “as long as our father, the metropolitan, is in our land.” By autumn, the metropolitan had already betrayed Shemyaka and went over to the side of Vasily the Dark, however, even after that he did not become a legitimate metropolitan in the eyes of his fellow hierarchs: in the accusatory letter of the Russian clergy against Shemyaka, sent in December 1447, Jonah is still referred to as a bishop Ryazan and named in third place - after Ephraim of Rostov and Abraham of Suzdal. Only in the following year, 1448, Jonah was finally elevated by his brother-bishops to the metropolitan throne.

ELECTION OF METROPOLIT JONA

The nomination of Jonah to the metropolitan throne took place, most likely, immediately after the death of Metropolitan Photius. The date of naming is unknown. According to the most reasoned point of view, this event took place in the 2nd half of 1432. Immediately after the naming, Jonah could not go to Constantinople for a blessing, because in 1431 the struggle for the grand prince's table resumed ... So there is no one it was necessary to send a Moscow candidate for metropolitan (as a rule, he was accompanied by the Grand Duke's ambassador). Vasily II returned to Moscow on June 29, 1432, but even now Jonah could not go to Constantinople, because the Lithuanian Grand Duke Svidrigailo sent his pretender there - Bishop Gerasim of Smolensk (until September 1, 1432), who was put on the chair . Various assumptions have been made in the literature about the timing of Jonah's trip. Most likely, it should be dated to the time after the burning in Lithuania on July 26, 1435 of Metropolitan Gerasim.

In Constantinople, it was not possible to achieve the appointment of Jonah to the metropolitan see: in 1436 the patriarch had already installed Isidore as Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'. Vasily II, in a message to Constantinople in 1441/43, expressed surprise at such a decision of the patriarch: for the sake of our message, or put your highest, so do it. In a letter to Emperor Constantine XI, dated July 1451 (or 1452), the Grand Duke emphasized that even "before his [Jonah's] arrival, the king and patriarch appointed ... Isidore as metropolitan" ...

The Byzantine authorities, refusing a request to appoint a named metropolitan to the ruler of such a large Orthodox country as Rus' was at that time, found a way to give Jonah general assurances. In messages written shortly after 1448, Jonah reported on the patriarchal blessing he had received on the metropolis in the event that Metropolitan Isidore died or “what would be different about him” ... x years. XV century, after the erection of Jonah to the metropolitan table by the Council of Russian Bishops, this argument was used as a justification ...

After Jonah was installed as a metropolitan, the Russian Church found itself in a state of de facto autocephaly. However, in the early years, the question of the canonical approval of this status was not raised. In July 1451 (or 1452), Grand Duke Vasily II wrote to the Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos that Jonah was appointed “for great need ... and not for arrogance or insolence” and that the Metropolis of All Russia from Constantinople “demands and seeks blessings.” .. After the fall of Byzantium in 1453, Jonah considered it his duty to help Greek co-religionists: he gave his blessing for the Greeks to collect donations throughout the metropolis...

UNSENT LETTER

To understand further events in Moscow, it is necessary to point out what happened in Constantinople ... Constantine XI was at first faithful to Orthodoxy, but when the immediate danger to Constantinople approached, he resorted to union, considering it the only means of salvation. The people, on the contrary, looked at the union as a way to attract the wrath of God to Byzantium ... After the overthrow of Isidore, he led. In 1441, the prince prepared a letter to the patriarch in which, accusing Isidore of betraying Orthodoxy, he asked for the appointment of Metropolitan Saint Jonah. But the letter was not sent. Apparently, they did not dare to turn to the Uniate patriarch, overthrowing Isidore for being a Uniate… In 1448, Jonah, having remained “named” all this time, was finally appointed metropolitan by a council of Russian bishops. In 1452 led. Prince Vasily wrote a letter to Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos, who at that time remained Orthodox ... In conclusion, he says that he intended to write to the patriarch, but does not know if there is one in Constantinople and what his name is. The letter to the emperor was not sent. Apparently, information came to Moscow that the emperor had become a Uniate, as happened in 1452 ... From that time on, a procedure was established to appoint metropolitans in Moscow itself and as their own Russian bishops, so that the metropolitans could in the future be virtually independent of the patriarchs ...

Talberg N. History of the Russian Church

ON THE WAY TO THE "THIRD ROME"

One of the first works reflecting the fact that the act of union was not accepted as a “papa’s message” in Moscow is the Message of the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily II Vasilyevich to Patriarch Mitrofan II of Constantinople (1441), the main content of which is a request for granting autocephaly to the Russian Church. The Epistle recognizes the exceptional canonical authority of the Church of Constantinople in granting Moscow the right to “freely appoint” metropolitans, which testified to the unwillingness of the Russian side to establish autocephaly “on a whim”, “self-proclaimed”. The Epistle draws attention to the identical titles of the Byzantine Emperor and Prince Vladimir of Kyiv as “kings”: Vladimir, “the pious king of the Russian land,” is “the great new Konstyantin”; like the last one Kyiv prince- "holy and equal to the apostle" ...

If the previous Epistle contained the desired model of relations between the two Churches, then the Epistle of Moscow Grand Duke Vasily II Vasilyevich to Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos (July 1451) describes the historically (“originally”) established model of relations between the “Russian land” and the empire. Addressing the emperor, the Grand Duke writes: “You took your great royal scepter, your fatherland, in affirmation of all the Orthodox Christianity of your powers, and our dominions of Russia of the earth, to all our piety, in great help” ... As in the Epistle to the Patriarch, Vasily II assures the emperor of "love and affection" and the desire to maintain unity ("union") with the Church of Constantinople, subject to its adherence to "ancient piety." Such was the official position of Moscow in relation to Byzantium and the Church of Constantinople on the eve of the death of the empire.

11. THE FALL OF BYZANTINE AND THE RUSSIAN CHURCH

The path to mutual damnation

<Принятие католических догматов тремя православными иерархиями>

It happened ... in 1439, even before the fall of Constantinople.

The Ecumenical Council at which this "event" took place was held in Florence, and Metropolitan Isidore of Vladimir was invited to it. The Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily strongly advised the Metropolitan not to go there. But Isidore (a Greek by birth) went, despite the fact that the prince clearly told him that Muscovy would not accept this union.

However, historians interpret this story differently. For example, V. Cherevansky in the book "The Last Breath of Byzantium" writes:

“Moscow allowed its Metropolitan Isidore to go to the west, to Florence, to take a closer look at the Latin spiritual orders there and, returning to the fatherland, report to the prince about everything he had seen and heard. Isidore exceeded the authority given to him and looked at the Western order so closely that the pope allowed him to celebrate mass, as if he had served in the rank of cardinal. The rumor about his renegade reached Moscow before he appeared at the Kremlin shrines. For betraying Orthodoxy, he was tried by a special council, the priesthood was removed from him and imprisoned. From prison he fled to the Latins. As a reward for his zeal for Catholicism, he was presented in Florence with a red robe, a red cap, a ring and an umbrella - symbols of donation and the last drop of blood for the benefit of St. Catholic Church".

The prince was not going to comply with the decision of the Union of Florence. In 1448, at the Council of the Russian Orthodox Clergy, at the direct proposal of Vasily, a new metropolitan was elected - Bishop of Ryazan and Murom, Jonah.

Since then, for more than a hundred years, Moscow metropolitans have been elected without the ordination of the Patriarch of Constantinople. And in 1589 the first Russian Patriarch Job was elected.

Historians believe that because of this, the Russian Orthodox Church ceased to be apostolic.

But they don’t ask at all whether the Patriarchate of Constantinople remained apostolic, if it actually ceased to be ecumenical (independent), but submitted to the Latins and even changed dogmas in favor of those that were distorted by the Pope (compared to those approved at the first seven ecumenical councils) . Who knows, perhaps it was the Russian Orthodox Church that retained its “apostolic” essence more than others and had every reason to assert this.

On January 6, 1449, Constantine was proclaimed emperor. “The position of Byzantium was already such that the consent of the Sultan was secretly requested for the election of the emperor; the embassy with this petition was carried out by a personal friend of Konstantin Franz, who remained his sincere and intelligent adviser until last minutes his life. The colossal Byzantium now consisted of only one district of Constantinople.

After the Union of Florence and the fall of Constantinople (1453), the Muscovite tsar takes the place of the Byzantine emperor - the guardian and guardian of the true faith.

And who else was supposed to declare himself as such? Renegades? The revisionists of the decisions of the first seven councils, who corrected the equal size of the churches and voluntarily renounced their Orthodox dogmas?

This decision had its own logic.

(Recall that according to our hypothesis, this was the time of the life of Plato - Gemistus Pleton, perhaps the sunset of his life - and at this sunset he also saw the religious, ecclesiastical essence of the "Zevus rebellion", logically arising from the political essence - but it was in in this sphere, called upon to observe the moral pillars of human nature, there was a monstrous corruption and apostasy, permissiveness and cynicism proclaimed the norm; who knows, maybe it was these events that became the last straw that overwhelmed the philosopher’s patience and forced him to find a way, bypassing the prohibitions , to tell about an ideally arranged empire, where everything was fine, where peoples flourished and a high system of thought dominated. Moreover, Plato was, perhaps, a participant in the Florentine Council - after all, he lived - Gemist Pleton - in Florence.)

Having existed on “illegal” grounds until 1589 (perhaps in the hope that the Patriarchate of Constantinople would regain its independence and get out from under the boot of the Pope of Rome, but without waiting for this), Moscow Orthodoxy introduced its own patriarchy.

Thus, the break was fixed not only with Catholicism, but also with European Orthodoxy, which became so Catholicized over time,

which did not even consider it necessary to mention that at one time, initially, three fingers were adopted in the four Orthodox patriarchates.

(When Patriarch Nikon conceived his “reform” and turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople for confirmation of the truth and fidelity of the “three fingers”, he evasively replied that it doesn’t matter at all how many fingers to baptize and bless, as long as “the one who blesses and is blessed remembers that the blessing comes from Jesus Christ.)

Outlining this situation, which arose in the middle of the long-suffering and critical 15th century, we want to draw the attention of readers to the fact that from that moment on, two-fingeredness (and also the abbreviated Jesus, fasting on Saturday, baptism from left to right and double, especially hallelujah - they are important or no) for the three Orthodox patriarchates who went under the wing of the Roman curia, it became quite acceptable, but for Russia it was not.

But still, the pressure of the Christian world on Muscovy and the penetration of "Latin charms" took place - because the Pope did not leave the thought of subjugating Muscovy under him. The heresy of two-fingeredness and other revisionist Latinism more and more penetrated into Rus'. That is why, in the end, Patriarch Nikon was forced to "carry out reform", and later those who leaned towards heresy were called Old Believers. Indeed, they adhered to the "old" rite, and it existed in Rus' for 100-150 years - during the greatest weakening of the imperial metropolis. As soon as it began to gain strength, heresy began to be fought. And they named her

quite right - the old rite. And not at all true, not dilapidated, not ancient. The true, original, orthodox, apostolic was exactly what Patriarch Nikon was trying to restore. He knew this very well. And in order to confirm the originality of the true apostolic Orthodox rite, he turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople. But the patriarch betrayed Orthodoxy for the second time. After all, he was already in the service of the Pope! What was left for him to do if he was dependent on the Pope?

But from all this history, we can once again see something that confirms our original hypothesis. Namely, that in Muscovy, a miserable fragment of the imperial metropolis, the Orthodox clergy, formally submitting to the Patriarch of Constantinople, in fact, really submitted to the Grand Duke - that is, in reality, the highest spiritual power in Rus' (both secular and judicial) belonged to the prince. All Orthodox hierarchs understood this and perceived it as a natural state of affairs (with the exception of the Greek foreigner Isidore, who, having arrived in Rus', harbored Western illusions).

This is how Plato (Gemist Pleton) described the order in Atlantis, the Poseidon empire. Let us also recall that, apparently, after the death of Poseidon, he was deified and a temple was built in his honor - the temple of Poseidon. The author of the dialogue "Critias" clearly indicates to us the peculiarity of the power he describes - here the kings are equal in size to the gods.

Was there anything similar in European countries? Were kings and emperors deified there? Were temples built in their honor? Yes, Lucian, for example, recalls the temple of Alexander the Great, but scoffs at this as the imposture of the king, and he clearly considers the subjects who built the temple to be flatterers and swindlers.

But the temple of Poseidon in Atlantis was. And in connection with him, no satirical discussions were conducted - so with Plato in Critias.

Let's see how this information correlates with what was in Rus' at the time of its greatest weakening.

At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries in Rus', in church circles, there were discussions about the nature of royal power. A supporter of the official church, Joseph Volotsky argued with Nil Sorsky.

Iosif Volotsky won.

“Joseph Volotsky proclaimed the divine nature of the tsar, who is only similar in nature to a man, “the power of the rank is like from God.” Volotsky called for obeying the Grand Duke and fulfilling his will, “as if the Lord were working, and not a man.”

That is, in other words, the official Orthodox Russian Church insisted on the divine nature of the tsar, that is, recognized his supreme power in the spiritual sphere as well.

To the supporters of the Western Church in Rus' and the Western Church itself, this seemed strange and unacceptable. But nevertheless, in Rus' it was so. And if Plato (Gemist Pleton), describing Atlantis, had in mind the collapsed empire (according to the new chronology - Rus'-Horde, Mongolian Rus'), then it was this difference that he had to fix as the main semantic difference. What distinguished Atlantis from the Catholic world he knew.

Here we will once again say that Plato, casually, fleetingly mentioning that the kings of Atlantis conquered many peoples and countries (“before Tirrenia and Egypt”), does not mention in a word that in this multinational state formation they could go violent religious wars. But it was precisely this circumstance that distinguished medieval Rus' from Western Europe- while in civilized Catholic countries there were wars between different areas of Catholicism, and between Catholics and Muslims - there was nothing like this in Russia. None of the European travelers says anything about the fact that Orthodox Christians, infidels and pagans are in hostile relations.

As we remember from the book about the “discovery” of the Moscow kingdom by the English representatives of the trading company, the charter of the Moscow tsar issued by them was favorably accepted by the rulers of many lands, regardless of the religion of its inhabitants.

History of the Russian Church- the history of the Orthodox Church on the territory of historical Rus'.

Contemporary both ecclesiastical and secular historiography of the Russian Church usually has as its starting point the year 988; more traditional ecclesiastical historiography traced the history of the Church within Rus' to the apostolic era. Reliable information about the existence of Christian communities in Kyiv dates back to the second half of the 9th century.

An autocephalous church organization with a center in Moscow with a regulated canonical status arose in 1589, when the Moscow Metropolitan was recognized in the dignity of a patriarch as an independent primate of the Moscow Church, that is, the Church in the northeastern part of historical Rus'.

The history presented in this article is the history of the modern Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate); also, up to this or that historical milestone, it is the history of other religious associations and movements, from the point of view of the historiography adopted in them, for example, the Old Believers, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and others.

As part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

The spread of Christianity in Rus' was facilitated by its proximity to the Christian power - the Byzantine Empire. It is known that a Christian community existed in Kyiv already in the second half of the 9th century. Its appearance is usually associated with the so-called Photius baptism of Rus' in the first half of the 860s. A number of historians suggest that the first Russian baptizers could be the brothers Cyril and Methodius, sent by Photius on a mission to Khazaria. According to Byzantine sources, from 862/863 there was the "eparchy of Russia", later the "metropolis of Russia". According to some sources, in the same year 862, an episcopal chair was established in Kyiv: the first bishop, with reference to Byzantine sources, is called “Archbishop Alexy, sent by Patriarch Photius”; there are no reliable data about the Kyiv bishops up to the end of the 10th century.

According to hagiographic literature, in 983 Theodore and John, revered by the Russian Church as the first martyrs of Russia, were martyred at the hands of the Kiev pagans.

The Kiev Grand Duchess Olga in 957 (or 954/5) was baptized in Constantinople. Her grandson, Prince (Kagan) Vladimir of Kiev, according to chronicle stories, was baptized in Chersonese Tauride, receiving the name Basil, in honor of St. Basil the Great, and also in honor of his successor, Roman Emperor Basil. Traditional historiography places the Baptism of Rus' in 988, although, according to some church historians, there is reason to believe 987 is a more probable date.

For the first five centuries, the Russian Church was one of the metropolises of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, who headed the Russian hierarchy, was appointed by the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, but in 1051 the Kiev prince Yaroslav the Wise managed to achieve the placement of the first Russian, Metropolitan Hilarion, one of the most educated people of that time, on the primatial throne.

Other dioceses were formed: in Belgorod (now the village of Belogorodka near Kiev), Veliky Novgorod, Rostov, Chernigov, Vladimir-Volynsky, Polotsk, Turov. Diocesan bishops were elected locally by the respective specific princes or veche (in Veliky Novgorod since the middle of the 12th century) - as a rule, Russians.

Evgeny Golubinsky, discussing the attempts of Prince Vladimir to establish enlightenment among his boyars at the level of Byzantine standards of that time, wrote: “Vladimir wanted and tried to introduce enlightenment to us, but his attempt was unsuccessful. After him, we no longer made any attempts and were left without education, with only literacy, with only the ability to read.

From the very beginning of the official spread of Christianity, monasteries began to be established: in 1051 Reverend Anthony Pechersky brought the traditions of Athos monasticism to Kyiv, founding the famous Kiev-Pechersky Monastery, which became the center of the spiritual life of the ancient Russian state in the pre-Mongolian period. Monasteries played the role of religious and cultural centers. In them, in particular, chronicles were kept that brought to our days information about significant historical events; iconography and the art of book writing flourished.

In view of the decline in the importance of Kyiv as a political center after its defeat by the Tatar-Mongols (1240), in 1299 the Kiev Metropolitan Maxim moved his residence to Vladimir-on-Klyazma; at the end of 1325, Moscow became the seat of the Kyiv metropolitans. During the period of the Horde domination, the Russian clergy enjoyed significant property and immunity privileges.

The last metropolitan in Moscow, installed in Constantinople, was the Bulgarian Isidore (1437-1441). Representing the Russian Church, as well as Patriarch Dorotheos I of Antioch (1435-1452) at the Ferrara-Florence Council (1438-1445), on July 5, 1439, he signed the Council Decision on the Union, which adopted all the new dogmas of the Roman Church. In Constantinople, the Unia suffered a complete collapse already in 1440, due to the general rejection of it by the population: only the court of the emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople himself adhered to the Unia. The Council of Constantinople in 1484, with the participation of all the Eastern Patriarchs, recognized the Latins as "heretics of the second category", who were subject to joining Orthodoxy through chrismation.

Break with Constantinople. The beginning of the autocephaly of the Russian Church

In 1441, Metropolitan Isidore, upon his arrival in Moscow from the Florentine Cathedral, served a liturgy at which he commemorated Pope Eugene IV, and also read out a document on the Unia. Immediately after that, on the orders of Grand Duke Vasily II (Dark), he was taken into custody, but subsequently fled. The Grand Duke ordered not to pursue Isidore.

Convened on this occasion in 1441 in Moscow, the Council of Bishops of Eastern Rus' (the Grand Duchy of Moscow), condemned Metropolitan Isidore as a heretic and apostate and rejected the Union. The Moscow Council of 1448, convened by Grand Duke Vasily, on December 15 appointed Bishop of Ryazan Jonah to the Russian Metropolis without the consent of the Uniate Patriarch of Constantinople (the Patriarch and Emperor of Constantinople were in Unia until the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, until May 29, 1453), with the title " Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'.

On December 15, 1448, the Russian Church becomes autocephalous. After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks and the destruction of the Union in it, communication between the Russians and the Greeks was restored. In 1458, under the pressure of the Pope Callixtus III, the Polish king Casimir IV took away the Russian dioceses located in Lithuania from the Moscow Metropolitan Jonah, and put Uniate Metropolitan Gregory at their head. Gregory left the union in 1470 and was received into communion by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople. Two metropolises were formed. One of them is Moscow, which was an autocephalous church; and the second - Kiev, which was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Beginning with the reign of John III, a religious-historiosophical and political ideology, according to which, due to the political fall of Byzantium, the only state stronghold universal orthodoxy became Moscow, which received the dignity of the Third Rome. In a somewhat modified form, this idea was formally enshrined in Laid Diploma 1589 on behalf of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople. In the Russian Church during this period, a view was formed of Russian piety as the only intact and saving teaching of Christ in the whole world. Christians of other confessions were not considered as such and were subject to re-baptism upon joining Orthodoxy (q. v. in the article Latinism). As a result, a specifically Moscow religiosity was formed with a special emphasis on external ritual, the absolute immutability of liturgical forms, as well as what some researchers call "everyday confession"

The Moscow principality and its clergy in 1478 liquidated the jurisdictional autonomy of the Novgorod diocese.

After gaining independence, the Russian Church experienced a long period of isolation: in 1458, the Kievan (Kyiv-Lithuanian) Metropolis returned to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Moscow Metropolis from 1470 to 1504 was shaken by the heresy of the Judaizers, from the end of the 15th century to the middle of the 16th century, the struggle between non-possessors and Josephites. The victory of the latter was finally fixed by the acts of the Stoglavy Cathedral in 1551. A number of doctrinal definitions of the Council are of a frivolous nature for the Council, elevating to the level of dogma the opinion about “unshaven beard” and “not cutting the mustache”, about double-fingering, a special (double) hallelujah, etc.

First patriarchal period

In 1589-1593, the Moscow Metropolitans received the dignity of Patriarchs and the formal recognition of autocephaly from the Eastern Patriarchs. hallmark The management of the Moscow Church in comparison with other patriarchates was the absence under the Patriarch of a permanent council of bishops - the Synod, which by that time had already taken shape as one of the authorities in other local Churches.

The main business of the first Patriarch of Moscow, Job (1589-1605), was to carry out transformations in the Russian Church, outlined by the Council Code of 1589. Almost all episcopal sees were raised in rank, and several new ones were opened. Job elevated four metropolitans, five archbishops (out of six), and one bishop for the seven planned new dioceses. He established general church holidays for some previously recognized saints, and canonized a number of new ones. The patriarch contributed to the spread of Christianity among the aliens of Siberia, the Kazan Territory, and the Korelskaya Oblast (Karelia). In Moscow, in order to establish greater deanery in the lower clergy, eight priestly elders were established. For refusing to recognize False Dmitry I, he was deprived of his chair and exiled to the Staritsky Assumption Monastery. The patriarchal throne was occupied by the henchman of False Dmitry Ignatius (1605-1606), but immediately after the murder of False Dmitry, he was deprived not only of the patriarchal, but also of the hierarchal rank.

Patriarch Hermogenes (1606-1612) was an outstanding church writer and preacher, one of the most educated people of his time. Under him, a new printing house building was erected in Moscow, a printing press was installed, books were printed. He was an active opponent of the Poles, for which he was imprisoned in the Miracle Monastery, where he died of starvation.

The Moscow Patriarchs reached their highest power under Patriarch Filaret (1619-1634), the father of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. In 1625 the king issued Non-conviction letter, according to which the court over all churches, monasteries and peasants on church and monastic lands was transferred to the Patriarch, which turned the Patriarchate into status in status. Under Filaret, two Zemsky Sobors were convened (in 1619 and 1632), the Tobolsk and Siberian archdioceses were established, a Greek school for children was opened, and printing was developed. In 1619-1630, the publication of a major work was prepared - a 12-volume Menaia of the Months.

Tsar Michael and his inner circle, and Filaret himself, who chose Archimandrite Ioasaph as his successor, would like to see a person less bright and less prone to political activity as the successor of Patriarch Filaret. Under Patriarch Joseph (1642-1652), the largest (compared with the previous patriarchates) number of books was published - 38 titles (some of which lasted up to eight editions). The patriarch supported rapprochement with the Greek East and Kiev.

In the middle of the 17th century, under Patriarch Nikon, a correction was made liturgical books and other measures to unify Moscow liturgical practice with Greek. The reform of Patriarch Nikon was not accepted by part of the Church, as a result of which a split occurred, and the Old Believers arose. Last years Nikon's patriarchates were marked by a conflict with the tsar, which led to the deposition of the patriarch in December 1666.

During the patriarchate of Joasaph II (1667-1672), the Great Moscow Council of the Russian and Eastern clergy took place, cursing the Old Believers, at the same time betraying them to state criminal prosecution. Joasaph II made efforts to enforce the prohibitions imposed by the Moscow Cathedral. At the same time, Joasaph II did not have enough energy to carry out a number of the most important decisions of the Moscow court: the recommendation of the cathedral on the widespread establishment of schools (schools) and the establishment of new dioceses in Russia remained unfulfilled (only one was approved - Belgorod). Struggling with the penetration of the Western European style into Russian icon painting, the patriarch sought to legitimize the Byzantine style. Under Joasaph II, sermons were resumed in churches. On his initiative, Orthodox missionaries operated in the Far North (up to the islands of Novaya Zemlya), the Far East (up to Dauria). On the Amur, not far from the border with the Qing Empire (China).

The content of the activity of Patriarch Joachim (1674-1690) was the upholding of antiquity, the prestige of the church in the clergy. The most important event of his patriarchate was the reassignment in November 1685 to the Moscow Patriarchate of a part of the autonomous Kiev Metropolis (Diocese of Kiev and Chernigov), which had previously been under the jurisdiction of the Throne of Constantinople: in 1686, Patriarch Dionysios of Constantinople, with the consent of other Eastern Patriarchs, sent a letter approving the decree of the Metropolitan Gideon Chetvertinsky at the head of the Kiev Metropolis, attached to the Moscow Patriarchate; the successors of Gideon Chetvertinsky, who was de facto elected to the Kyiv Metropolis by the Cossack foreman, headed by Hetman Samoylovich, canonically submitted to the Moscow Patriarchate. Patriarch Dositheos II (Notara) of Jerusalem, who took an active part in Russian affairs, was a staunch opponent of the resubordination of the Kyiv Metropolis, who considered such resubordination to be contrary to the canons. Metropolitan Gideon was awarded the title of Patriarch Joachim of Moscow Lesser Russia, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, as well as the right to present the Cross in his diocese; The Kyiv Department was recognized initial in Russia. Soon, Metropolitan Gideon began to lose the privileges given to him in Moscow: in January 1688, he was deprived of the right to be called Metropolitan "Little Rus'", and in July the Chernigov diocese and the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra were removed from his jurisdiction, which undermined his prestige. During the synodal period Kyiv Metropolitans became diocesan bishops with the preservation of the metropolitan title.

Another important event during the patriarchate of Joachim was the establishment of the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy.

Under Joachim, the repeated attempt of the tsar at the Council of 1682 to increase the number of dioceses and introduce metropolitan districts ended in failure.

The last patriarch of the pre-Synodal period Adrian (1690-1700) was a conservative and opponent of the reforms of Tsar Peter I; his relationship with the young king was strained. Under him, two councils were held: in 1697 and in 1698.

Synodal period 1700-1917

After the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700, Peter I forbade the election of a new patriarch and, after 20 years, established the Theological Board, soon renamed the Holy Synod, which, being a state body, performed the functions of general church administration from 1721 to January 1918, with the emperor (until March 2, 1917) as "extreme Judge of this College".

Until the time of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918, the main external (state-legal) regulatory document for the Church was the Spiritual Regulations of 1721, and later also the Charter of Spiritual Consistories.

Under Peter I, the clergy turned into a closed class, access to which for persons from other classes in the interests of public service and tax was very difficult. The system of theological schools that arose under Peter (the seminary and theological schools) also had an estate character. Education was arranged according to the Little Russian model: Latin dominated (both as a subject and as the language of instruction) and scholasticism. The introduction of school education for the children of the clergy proceeded with extreme difficulty and met with massive resistance.

In 1763 and 1764, a series of decrees abolished the monastic estates and introduced states. As a result, the Church ceased to play the role of the most important subject of the socio-economic life of the country. The clergy lost their financial independence and found themselves on the payroll of the state treasury, turning into a special category of bureaucracy. Four-fifths of the monasteries in Great Russia were abolished as a result of the secularization of monastic estates. The response of the church to this was the revival and spread in some monasteries of such a phenomenon as eldership.

In the 19th century, the most significant figures in church politics were the Moscow Metropolitan (1821-1867) Filaret (Drozdov) and the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod (1880-1905) Konstantin Pobedonostsev. The first, being a brilliant preacher, dogmatist and administrator, played a significant role in the development of the Russian theological school, free from Latin scholasticism. The second, pursuing a protective policy and using significant influence on Alexander III, contributed to the further social isolation of the clergy and the decline in the prestige of the Church in society. In the 19th century, an almost complete secularization and departure from the Church of a significant part of the educated layer of the Russian people took place. At the same time, at the end of the century, there was a noticeable awakening of interest in religion among the creative intelligentsia, a movement arose for the renewal of church life and the restoration of the conciliar principle in governance, the forerunners of which were Aleksey Khomyakov, Vladimir Solovyov, Lev Tikhomirov and others. Vladimir Solovyov wrote in 1881: “ The Council of the Russian Church must solemnly confess that the truth of Christ and His Church do not need forced unity of form and forcible protection.<…>Having thus renounced external police power, the church will acquire internal moral authority, true power over souls and minds. No longer needing the material protection of the secular government, she will be freed from his guardianship and will become in her proper worthy relationship with the state.

In 1901-1903, "religious and philosophical meetings" of representatives of the secular intelligentsia and clergy were held in St. Petersburg under the chairmanship of Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Yamburg; the idea of ​​the need to convene a local council and reorganize the highest church administration finally matures. By the Highest Decree, the government headed by Count Sergei Witte in December 1904 began the development of a bill On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance, published by the Supreme Manifesto on April 17, 1905.

The result of the changed legislation was a situation where the Orthodox Church, having lost its former state-legal privileges, actually found itself in the role of a discriminated confession, as it continued to be under direct state control. The attempts of the leading member of the Synod Anthony (Vadkovsky) to find ways to correct the abnormal situation were torpedoed by Pobedonostsev.

Nevertheless, in response to the discussion that began among the episcopate about the canonical structure of church government, on January 16, 1906, Nicholas II approved the composition of the "Pre-Council Presence" - the commission for preparing for the Council - which opened on March 8, 1906. But in the conditions of reaction after the turmoil of 1905, the Court considered the demands for the convening of the Council as revolutionary sentiments in the "department of the Orthodox confession." By the highest command of February 28, 1912, “at the Holy Synod, a permanent pre-council meeting was established, until the convocation of the council” (in a more limited composition than Presence, - for "all kinds of preparatory work for the council, which may be necessary"), the chairman of which on March 1 of the same year, the emperor approved, at the suggestion of the Synod, Archbishop of Finland Sergius (Stragorodsky). After the death of Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg on November 2, 1912, an editorial in the right-wing newspaper Moskovskiye Vedomosti under the heading "Conciliar election of the primordial metropolitan" called for "this is the smallest of small restorations of the canonical order", explaining that this is not about the Local Council, but the “episcopal council” (the successor of Anthony was appointed by the usual procedure for the synodal era).

At the end of this period, a number of radical nationalist and monarchist, so-called "Black Hundred" organizations emerged, based in their ideology on Russian Orthodoxy: "Russian Assembly", "Union of the Russian People", "Russian Monarchist Party", "Union of Michael the Archangel" and others. Representatives of the black and white clergy participated in the monarchical movement, holding leadership positions in some organizations until 1913, when the Holy Synod issued a decree prohibiting the clergy from engaging in party political activities.

The majority of the church hierarchy met the fall of the monarchy in Russia on March 2, 1917, either indifferently or sympathetically. On March 6, the Holy Synod at its meeting issued Determination No. 1207 About the publication in Orthodox churches acts of 2 and 3 March 1917, which read, in particular: “The aforementioned acts should be taken into account and executed and announced in all Orthodox churches, in urban ones on the first day after receiving the text of these acts, and in rural areas on the first Sunday or holiday, after Divine Liturgy, with the performance of a prayer to the Lord God for the pacification of passions, with the proclamation of many years to the God-protected Power of the Russian and its Blessed Provisional Government. Prince N. D. Zhevakhova, who was then a comrade of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, later in exile in the 1920s, recalled the “memorable” meeting of the Holy Synod on February 26, 1917, when Petrograd was completely paralyzed by turmoil: the leading member of the Synod, Metropolitan of Kiev Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) rejected the prince’s proposal to appeal to the population, which, according to the prince, should have become “a formidable warning to the Church, entailing, in case of disobedience, church punishment,” telling him: “It is always like this. When we are not needed, then they do not notice us: and at the moment of danger, they are the first to turn to us for help. It is noteworthy that Zhevakhov explained this behavior of the members of the Synod not as a "refusal of the highest church hierarchy to help the state at the moment of danger, but the most ordinary manifestation of the opposition of the Synod to the Chief Prosecutor's Office. Characteristic is the leading article in the official publication "The Church Bulletin" (April 1917), written by the editor, a member of the State Council, a member of the Council of the Russian Assembly, Professor-Archpriest Timofey Butkevich: "<…>But if the behavior of the former tsar was not the result of a mental abnormality, then it is inevitable to come to the conclusion that no one has ever discredited the principle of autocracy as Nicholas II.<…>After all, it's no secret to anyone that instead of Nicholas II, Russia was ruled by the depraved, ignorant, greedy whip-horse thief Rasputin!<…>The influence of Rasputin on the tsar in the life of the Orthodox Church was especially hard. Like a whip, Rasputin was the most implacable enemy of the Church. Therefore, all the orders of the king on church affairs were of a hostile nature - the nature of Julian's persecution. Dominance in the church was given to the Khlysts. And the church was managed, in fact, by Rasputin.<…>". Such a leader of Russian Orthodoxy, who has a reputation as an extreme nationalist and monarchist, as Archpriest John Vostorgov, immediately after the February Revolution, wrote about the "slavery" of bishops and the Synod "in the old system."

On April 29, 1917, the Synod, reorganized by the new chief prosecutor V.N. Lvov, appealed to Epistle to the archpastors, pastors and all the faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church, which announced the introduction of an elective principle in church administration and announced the convening of a Local Council. The definition of the Holy Synod of May 5 (O.S.), 1917, No. 2668 “On attracting the clergy and flock to a more active participation in church administration”, in particular, decided: “<…>To attend to the convening in the coming days of emergency diocesan congresses of the clergy with the participation of representatives from parishes endowed with the confidence of the parishioners and representatives from local theological educational institutions to discuss at these congresses not only issues related to this diocese, but also general questions about the position of the Orthodox Church in Russian state, in connection with the changes that have taken place in the structure of state administration and the upcoming convocation Church Council and the Constituent Assembly, as well as questions about desirable transformations in church administration and church and public life, so that the decisions adopted by the congresses and the wishes expressed on general issues were reported to the Holy Synod, in view of the upcoming convocation of the Pre-Council Council<…>»

In the summer of 1917, elections were held for bishops in the dioceses, a phenomenon unprecedented in the synodal period: Tikhon (Bellavin) in Moscow, Veniamin (Kazansky) in Petrograd, Sergius (Stragorodsky) in Vladimir were elected to the corresponding sees.

Second patriarchal period

In the early 1900s, despite the resistance of Konstantin Pobedonostsev, preparations began for the convocation of the All-Russian Local Council, which opened with a liturgy on August 15 (O.S.) 1917 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. His biggest decision was the restoration on October 28 of the same year of the patriarchal leadership of the Russian Church, which remains to this day. The Pre-Conciliar Council, which worked earlier, in the summer of 1917, in Petrograd, under the influence of a number of professors from the Theological Academies (the Council consisted of 40 laity, 10 priests and 12 bishops), passed a decision against the restoration of the patriarchate, finding it incompatible with the idea of ​​catholicity. At the meetings of the Cathedral Department on the Higher Church Administration (one of the 22 departments formed at the Council), most of the reports were directed against the patriarchate. At the Council itself, which began the debate on the issue on October 11 (O.S.), the positive resolution of the issue on October 28 was largely due to the sharp radicalization of the political situation in connection with the seizure of power in Petrograd by the Bolsheviks three days before and the armed clashes in Moscow on that day between supporters of the Bolsheviks and the Junkers.

The act of the Council was not a mechanical restoration of the patriarchate in the form in which it existed before the synodal period: along with the institution of the patriarchate, the Council established 2 permanent collegiate bodies (the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council). The jurisdiction of the Synod included matters of a hierarchical-pastoral, doctrinal, canonical and liturgical nature, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Church Council - matters of church and public order: administrative, economic, school and educational. Particularly important church-wide issues related to the protection of the rights of the Church, preparations for the upcoming Council, the opening of new dioceses, were to be decided by the joint presence of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council. The new bodies of supreme power assumed the powers of the abolished Holy Synod on February 1 (14), 1918, in accordance with the decision of the Council of January 31.

In addition to its Chairman, the Patriarch, the Synod included 12 more members: the Metropolitan of Kiev ex officio, 6 bishops elected by the Council for three years, and 5 bishops called in turn for a period of one year. Of the 15 members of the Supreme Church Council, headed, like the Synod, by the Patriarch, 3 bishops were delegated by the Synod, and one monk, 5 clergy from the white clergy and 6 laity were elected by the Council.

Before 1941

Already in December 1917, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (the Bolshevik government) adopted a number of acts that abolished the functions of the Orthodox Church as a state institution enjoying state patronage.

On January 23 (old style), 1918, the Decree approved on January 20 by the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR was published by which the Church was separated from the state and from the public school, deprived of the rights of a legal entity and property; Religion has become an exclusively private matter of citizens. The Bolsheviks, who took power in Russia (the RSFSR, later the USSR), openly proclaimed as their task to promote the "withering away of religious prejudices"; The political messages of Patriarch Tikhon, which were distributed in 1918 in the form of printed leaflets, were taken by the authorities as calls for sabotage.

Patriarch Tikhon, condemning the fratricidal civil war, after 1919 sought to take a neutral position in the conflict of parties, but such a position was unacceptable for the Bolsheviks. In addition, most of the hierarchy and clergy, who were in the territory controlled by the "whites", emigrated in connection with their defeat and created their own church structure abroad - the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

A sharp conflict between the structures headed by Patriarch Tikhon and the authorities flared up in the spring of 1922 during a campaign to seize church valuables for the purchase of food abroad. Violent confiscation sometimes led to bloody excesses. Patriarch Tikhon was prosecuted for publishing his appeal of February 28. In Moscow, Petrograd and other cities, trials were held against "churchmen" with severe sentences, including the highest measure of "social protection" - execution.

The authorities also sought to weaken the Church by encouraging controversy and schismatic groups. Supported by government authorities renovationism (q.v.), which was officially recognized by state authorities as the Russian Orthodox Church. At their council in April 1923, the Renovationists adopted a resolution in support of the Soviet socialist system, condemned the "counter-revolutionary clergy", and declared Patriarch Tikhon deposed.

According to the testamentary order of Patriarch Tikhon, after his death (March 25 (April 7), 1925), the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Krutitsy Peter (Polyansky) became at the helm of the Russian church administration of the Patriarchal Church. From December 10, 1925, the actual head of the church administration with the title of Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens was Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod, who, like his predecessors, made attempts to normalize the position of the Russian Church in the new state.

On July 29, 1927, under pressure from the authorities, Metropolitan Sergius issued a message known as the "Declaration". The reaction to the statement of Metropolitan Sergius in church circles was extremely controversial. The foreign (Karlovatsk) synod rejected and condemned it. Some of the hierarchs within the country, regarding the act of the Metropolitan as a betrayal of the interests of the Church, openly announced their departure from him, some stopped the commemoration of Metropolitan Sergius. Part, not being in solidarity with a number of provisions of the Declaration, assessed its nature as forced, retained confidence in Sergius as the leader of the Church. However, the hopes of the metropolitan and his supporters regarding the authorities were not justified. The Synod, headed by Sergius, did not receive legal recognition and in May 1935 was forced to "self-liquidate", the arrests of the clergy and the administrative closure of churches resumed with new force since 1929. So, in 1937, more than 8 thousand churches were closed, 70 dioceses and vicariates were liquidated. During 1937-1938, the NKVD carried out mass operations everywhere to arrest and shoot the clergy. At the end of this special operation on April 16, 1938, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR decided to liquidate the Commission of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR on cults. The repressions of 1937-1938 also affected the renovationists. If at the beginning of 1938 they had 49 ruling bishops and 11 who were at rest, then by the summer of 1941 there were 2 ruling Renovationist bishops, the rest of the survivors were at rest or in prison.

By 1939 the church structure throughout the country had been virtually destroyed; dioceses as administrative units actually disappeared, most of the clergy were exterminated physically or were in camps. Nevertheless, by the same 1939, it became clear to Stalin that attempts to solve the task of completely eradicating religion in the USSR had failed. Some researchers believe that the existence of the Catacomb Church in the USSR was one of the important, if not the main, reasons why the Patriarchal Locum Tenens managed to keep several hundred parishes and church administration reduced to a minimum by 1939. The situation seriously changed in September 1939, when, as a result of the annexation by the USSR of the eastern territories of Poland, and in 1940 of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, more than 7,500 thousand Orthodox believers of Western Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic countries, organized in dioceses, found themselves on the territory of the USSR and parishes active monasteries, educational institutions, editorial offices of church newspapers, etc. At this time, there was a temporary curtailment of anti-church actions. The government turned out to need the activity of the Moscow Patriarchate: “For the first time since he headed the Church, Sergius found himself in such a position that he could demand concessions from the government.” There are no accurate and reliable statistics on churches operating on the eve of the Great Patriotic War, but, according to some sources, their number before the start of the war was 3,732 churches of all “orientations” (that is, including Renovationist and Uniate, and Catholic), of which about 3,350 were to the western recently annexed republics, and the number of clergymen, according to TASS, is 5,665, of which about 90% fell to Western Ukraine and Belarus, Moldova and the Baltic states.

1941-1991

On June 22, 1941, Metropolitan Sergius, returning to the office of the Patriarchate from the Sunday liturgy in the Cathedral of the Epiphany, printed with his own hand Epistle to the shepherds and flocks of Christ's Orthodox Church, in which he called on everyone to stand up for the defense of the Motherland. The appeal was sent to all dioceses. On June 26, Metropolitan Sergius served a prayer service at the Epiphany Cathedral in Moscow About giving victory, after which such prayers began to be performed in all the churches of the Russian Church. An extensive campaign was organized to raise funds, which were used to build and transfer to the army a tank column named after Dmitry Donskoy and a squadron named after Alexander Nevsky.

In the conditions of a forced military-political alliance with Great Britain and the USA, J.V. Stalin faced the need to stop the anti-religious and anti-church campaigns in the USSR, which had an extremely negative impact on public opinion allied powers; Roosevelt directly conditioned the provision of assistance on the weakening of repressions against religion in the USSR. “Already at the end of October 1941, his [F. D. Roosevelt] personal representative A. Harriman informed Stalin about the concern of the American public about the fate of the Russian Church, conveyed the president's request to improve its legal and political situation in Russia.

Another serious factor in the weakening of repressions against religion was the church revival in the territories of the USSR under the control of Germany: the Armed Forces and the punitive bodies of the USSR, which went on a strategic offensive, for reasons of political expediency, could not immediately resume the former repressive practice in the occupied territories. On January 25, 1944, the psalm-reader of the Nikolo-Konetsky parish of the Gdov district, S. D. Pleskach, wrote to Metropolitan Alexy: “I can report that the Russian people completely changed as soon as the Germans appeared. Destroyed temples were erected, church utensils were made, vestments were delivered from where it was preserved. Peasant women hung clean, self-embroidered towels on the icons. There was only joy and consolation. When everything was ready, then a priest was invited and the temple was consecrated. At that time there were such joyful events that I cannot describe.

On June 5, 1943, I. V. Stalin signed a secret decree of the State Defense Committee On the approval of measures to improve the foreign work of the intelligence agencies of the USSR, in which religious organizations were for the first time classified as objects of interest to the foreign intelligence agencies of the USSR.

In the run-up to the Tehran Conference, held at the end of 1943, “his [Stalin's] intention was to push again to open a second front, and also to seek more aid. He decided that the time had come to make a public gesture and demonstrate his loyalty to the Church. He believed that the West would appreciate such a signal and this would entail the desired response.

On August 30, NKGB officer G. G. Karpov (the future Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church) urgently delivered Patriarchal Locum Tenens Sergius and his staff from Ulyanovsk, where the church leadership of the Patriarchate had been evacuated since October 1941, to Moscow.

While in evacuation, Metropolitan Sergius used every opportunity to recreate the church-administrative structure of the Moscow Patriarchy: as a result of his efforts, the number of "registered" bishops in the Russian Federation increased from 7 (in mid-October 1941) to 18.

On September 4, 1943, I. V. Stalin met with Patriarchal Locum Tenens Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Metropolitans: Alexy (Simansky) of Leningrad and Nikolai (Yarushevich) of Kiev, who was constantly in Moscow. (The actual church authority in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, created on August 20, 1941, then belonged to the "Administrator of the Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church" Archbishop Polycarp (Sikorsky), appointed in December 1941 by Metropolitan Dionysius (Valedinsky) of Warsaw on the basis of instructions from Patriarch Benjamin of Constantinople and in agreement with the authorities of the Reichskommissariat) . At the meeting, on behalf of the government of the USSR, according to the notes of G. G. Karpov, Stalin stated: “that the church can count on the full support of the Government in all matters related to its organizational strengthening and development within the USSR”; It was decided to create a special government body - Council for the Russian Orthodox Church, headed by G. G. Karpov.

On September 8, 1943, at the residence of the former German ambassador in Chisty Lane, a Council of Bishops was held, electing Sergius Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'; on the same day, the Holy Synod "under the Patriarch" was formed, which included 3 permanent members: Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) of Leningrad, Nikolai (Yarushevich) of Kiev and Sergius (Grishin), Archbishop of Gorky and Arzamas. The Patriarchal Church was legalized de facto and received its current official name - Russian Orthodox Church instead of the one used before: the Local Russian Orthodox Church, which also meant the actual non-recognition of the renovationist structures by the state. The patriarchate was recreated without the Supreme Church Council provided for by the Council of 1917-1918, but the Holy Synod as a body was preserved and its existence was enshrined in the Regulations on the management of the ROC, adopted at the Council of 1945. The New Synod differed from the Provisional Synod under the Deputy Locum Tenens in that it became an organ of power, and was not only an advisory body under the First Hierarch.

On October 12, 1943, I. V. Stalin decided to liquidate the renovationist church structures. Since that time, at the initiative of the authorities, the process of accelerated admission of Renovationist clergy and bishops to the Patriarchal Church began, and the Council for Orthodox Church Affairs began to impose former Renovationists for appointment to the cathedra.

From September 19 to September 28, 1943, at the invitation of the Patriarchate, the second oldest hierarch of the Church of England, Archbishop Cyril Garbett of York, was in Moscow ( Cyril Forster Garbett), which meant the resumption of foreign policy activities of the leadership of the Patriarchate. On September 21, Cyril Garbett, in liturgical vestments, was present at the altar during the celebration of the liturgy by Patriarch Sergius in the Cathedral of the Epiphany. September 24 The New York Times quoted Archbishop Garbett as saying that "he is convinced that there is complete freedom of religion in the Soviet Union."

Temples opened by the German authorities, as a rule, were not closed; a number of previously closed churches, the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, spiritual educational institutions were opened; under the Holy Synod, the Publishing Department (1945), the Educational Committee and the Department for External Church Relations (1946) were organized. In 1948, in its explanatory note to the Politburo, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church provided the following data on the number of churches and prayer houses in the USSR:

According to the note of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1948: “As of January 1, 1948, there were 14,329 active churches and prayer houses (11,897 churches and 2,432 prayer houses, which is 18.4% of the number of churches, prayer houses and chapels in 1914, when there were 77,767). The number of churches in the Ukrainian SSR is 78.3% of their number in 1914, and in the RSFSR - 5.4% ... The increase in the number of active churches and prayer houses occurred for the following reasons: a) during the war in the territory subjected to German occupation, 7547 churches were opened (in fact, even more, since a significant number of churches ceased to function after the war due to the departure of the clergy along with the Germans and due to the seizure by us of the religious communities of school, club, etc. buildings occupied by them during the occupation for prayer houses) ; b) in 1946, 2491 parishes of the Uniate (Greek Catholic) Church in the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR converted to Orthodoxy; c) for 1944-1947. reopened with the permission of the Council of 1270 churches, mainly in the RSFSR, from where there were numerous and persistent requests from believers.

The original intentions of the USSR authorities to hold in Moscow in 1948 ecumenical council for “to resolve the issue of conferring the title of Ecumenical to the Moscow Patriarchate” were rebuffed in the Eastern Patriarchates; in July 1948, a Conference of the Heads and Representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches was held in Moscow, at which there were no primates of the leading Greek patriarchal sees.

Some change in the policy of the authorities in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church and its hierarchy takes place in the second half of July - August 1948: there are repressions against individual active bishops, the interference of the Council in the personnel policy of the Patriarchate is intensifying. Not a single church was opened from 1948 until Stalin's death. From February 1949 to March 1953, consecrations ceased, with the exception of a small number for Ukraine and foreign dioceses.

As of January 1, 1952, there were 13,786 churches in the country, of which 120 were not in operation, as they were used to store grain. The number of priests and deacons decreased to 12,254, leaving 62 monasteries, only in 1951 8 monasteries were closed.

In 1955-1956, some bishops and priests returned from camps and exile. The number of registered Orthodox societies (parishes) as of January 1, 1957 was 13,477.

However, despite the “thaw” in relations between the Church and the state, the Church was constantly under state control, and any attempts to expand its activities outside the walls of churches were rebuffed, up to administrative sanctions. Since the late 1950s, there has been a new wave of pressure on the church. The justification was no longer political accusations, but the struggle against "religious survivals" in the minds of people. During 1958-1965 the number of registered Orthodox societies dropped to 7,551. Since the late 1950s, a targeted personnel policy began to be implemented to qualitative change composition of the clergy (preparation for the "show the last priest"), as the authorities were afraid of comprehensively trained clergy.

The number of registered clergy was not only sharply reduced, but they were removed from direct control over the financial and economic activities of parishes: Bishops' Cathedral July 18, 1961 40 monasteries were closed (in particular, in Moldova, out of 15, 1 survived), 5 theological seminaries out of 8, and admission to each of the remaining ones was limited. The network of operating churches has been reduced everywhere, especially in the eastern regions of Ukraine, where there are no more than 20-25% of the post-war level left (for example, in the Dnipropetrovsk region, after the liquidation of 85 parishes of functioning churches in 1958-1963, only 25 remained). At the same time, the authorities sought to use the authority of the Church to strengthen the positions of the USSR in the international community, for the purpose of which, in 1961, the entry of the Russian Orthodox Church (and a number of other Christian religious organizations) into the World Council of Churches was initiated.

The period 1965-1985 was a time of relative stability in the relationship between the state and the church, with some signs of its internal strengthening and growth appearing. The rejuvenation of the cadres of the clergy began, the growth of their educational level and theological training; in connection with the migration of the population from rural areas to cities, the proportion of urban communities increased.

Great importance in the development of the human rights movement in the USSR and the revival of interest in the Church among the intelligentsia had an “Open Letter” by dissident priests Nikolai Ashliman and Gleb Yakunin in November 1965.

According to the Chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR K. M. Kharchev, the personnel decisions of the party and state leadership of the USSR in relation to the hierarchy of the ROC in the late 1980s were made as follows: “Then the opinion of the Central Committee on the episcopate of the ROC was formed based on information as KGB, and the council. And if the two points of view coincided, then a decision was made. Particular attention was paid by the KGB organs to the international activities of the Moscow Patriarchate: the selection of clergy candidates for work abroad became the main direction of the joint activity of the KGB and the Council for Religious Affairs. In 1993, retired KGB general and defector Oleg Kalugin testified: “<…>In addition, people were recruited on "compromising evidence". This was especially often practiced in relation to the hierarchs and priests of the Orthodox Church.

Beginning in 1987, within the framework of the policy of glasnost and perestroika pursued under Mikhail Gorbachev, a gradual process of transferring buildings and property that were previously under the jurisdiction of the Church began to the use of the Patriarchy, dioceses and communities of believers; there was a liberalization of the regime of control over religious life and restrictions on the activities of religious associations.

On January 28, 1988, the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR canceled the regulations that restricted the activities parishes. The turning point in the relationship of the life of the Church was the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' in 1988. Lighting ban lifted religious life in the USSR on television: for the first time in the history of the Soviet Union, people were able to watch live broadcasts of divine services on television. Confirmation of a fundamental change in the religious policy of the state in the conditions perestroika was the election in 1989 of about 300 ministers of various religions, including 192 Orthodox, people's deputies of the Soviets of various levels.

The full status of a legal entity was acquired by the Russian Orthodox Church on May 30, 1991, when the Ministry of Justice of the RSFSR registered Civil Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, approved by the Holy Synod on January 31 of the same year, which became possible with a change in the legislation on freedom of conscience and religious organizations in the USSR. Prior to that, the legal status of the ROC was regulated by the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on religious associations of April 8, 1929, issued on the basis of the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of January 20, 1918 On the separation of church from state and school from church.

The collapse of the USSR caused centrifugal tendencies in the church as well. Church structures independent from the Russian Orthodox Church began to be created on the territory of the former Soviet republics (often with the support of the authorities). In conflict conditions, a certain number of parishes in Ukraine were actually separated from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate) was formed on their basis. In Moldova, part of the parishes passed into the jurisdiction of the Romanian Patriarchate (Metropolis of Bessarabia). In Estonia, part of the parishes also left the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, accepting the patronage of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The peculiarity of the position of the ROC that arose after the collapse of the USSR (end of December 1991) is the transnational nature of its exclusive jurisdiction within the former USSR (without Georgia): for the first time in the entire history of its existence, the Moscow Patriarchate began to consider its “canonical territory” (the term was introduced into circulation in 1989) the territory of many sovereign and independent states. As a result, its administrative and canonical divisions (dioceses, metropolitan district and a number of self-governing churches), being in different countries, function in very different state-legal, socio-political and confessional-cultural conditions.

In the early 1990s, there were statements in the press about the connections of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Soviet bodies of political investigation and espionage; it was stated that the archives reveal the degree of active involvement of the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate in the activities of the KGB abroad.

The Patriarchate of Patriarch Alexy II was characterized by a significant quantitative growth of parishes, monasteries and dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church, the preservation of the schism in Ukraine, and the growing role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the socio-political life of Russia and some other countries of the former USSR.

On May 17, 2007, the Act of Canonical Communion between ROCOR and ROC was signed, according to which the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia became "an integral self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church."

On January 27, 2009, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church elected Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev) of Smolensk and Kaliningrad to the Moscow Patriarchal throne, on whose initiative the administrative structure of the Moscow Patriarchate was reformed, in particular, a number of new synodal institutions (departments) were created, and the Church became more actively present in the life of society.

In 2011, the reform of the diocesan structure began, which consists in the creation of new dioceses, the Russian Orthodox Church, as a result of which the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as in a number of other local churches, will have a three-stage system: Patriarchate - metropolia - diocese.

On April 3, 2012, the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church issued an Appeal in which 4 cases of “desecration” of churches and a number of “loud accusations and statements by enemies of the faith”, i.e. individual actions of private “anti-church” persons that have always taken place, are compared with the events of the "beginning of the twentieth century"