IN mid-17th century V. relations between the church and the authorities in the Moscow state became complicated. This happened at a time of strengthening autocracy and growing social tension. Under these conditions, transformations of the Orthodox Church took place, which led to serious changes in the political and spiritual life of Russian society and a church schism.
Reasons and background
The division of the church occurred in the 1650s - 1660s during the church reform initiated by Patriarch Nikon. The reasons for the schism of the church in Rus' in the 17th century can be divided into several groups:
- social crisis,
- church crisis,
- spiritual crisis,
- foreign policy interests of the country.
Social crisis was caused by the desire of the authorities to limit the rights of the church, since it had significant privileges and influence on politics and ideology. The Church was born low level professionalism of the clergy, its licentiousness, differences in rituals, interpretation of the contents of holy books. Spiritual crisis - society was changing, people understood their role and position in society in a new way. They expected the church to meet the demands of the times.
Rice. 1. Dual fingers.
Russia's interests in foreign policy also demanded changes. The Moscow ruler wanted to become the heir of the Byzantine emperors both in matters of faith and in their territorial possessions. To achieve what he wanted, it was necessary to bring the rituals into unity with the Greek models adopted in the territories of the Orthodox lands, which the tsar sought to annex to Russia, or take under its control.
Reform and schism
The split of the church in Rus' in the 17th century began with the election of Nikon as patriarch and church reform. In 1653, a document (circular) was sent to all Moscow churches about replacing the two-finger sign of the cross with the three-finger one. Nikon's haste and repressive methods in carrying out the reform provoked protest from the population and led to a split.
Rice. 2. Patriarch Nikon.
In 1658 Nikon was expelled from Moscow. His disgrace was caused by both his lust for power and the machinations of the boyars. The transformation was continued by the king himself. In accordance with the latest Greek models, church rites and liturgical books were reformed, which did not change for centuries, but were preserved in the form in which they received them from Byzantium.
TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this
Consequences
On the one hand, the reform strengthened the centralization of the church and its hierarchy. On the other hand, the trial of Nikon became the prologue to the liquidation of the patriarchate and the complete subordination of the church institution to the state. In society, the transformations that have taken place have created an atmosphere of perception of the new, which has given rise to criticism of tradition.
Rice. 3. Old Believers.
Those who did not accept the innovations were called Old Believers. The Old Believers became one of the most complex and contradictory consequences of the reform, a split in society and the church.
What have we learned?
We learned about the time of the church reform, its main content and results. One of the main ones was the schism of the church; its flock was divided into Old Believers and Nikonians. .
Evaluation of the report
Average rating: 4.4. Total ratings received: 16.
Schism of the Christian Church, Also The Great Schism And The Great Schism- church schism, after which the Church was finally divided into the Roman Catholic Church in the West, centered in Rome, and the Orthodox Church in the East, centered in Constantinople. The division caused by the schism has not been overcome to this day, despite the fact that in 1965 the mutual anathemas were mutually lifted by Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras.
Encyclopedic YouTube
-
1 / 5
In 1053, a church confrontation for influence in southern Italy began between the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cyrularius and Pope Leo IX. Churches in Southern Italy belonged to Byzantium. Michael Cerularius learned that the Greek rite was being replaced by the Latin rite there, and closed all the temples of the Latin rite in Constantinople. The Patriarch instructs the Bulgarian Archbishop Leo of Ohrid to compose a letter against the Latins, in which the service of the liturgy on unleavened bread would be condemned; fasting on Saturday during Lent; the absence of Hallelujah singing during Lent; eating strangled meat. The letter was sent to Apulia and was addressed to Bishop John of Trania, and through him to all the bishops of the Franks and "the most venerable pope." Humbert Silva-Candide wrote the essay “Dialogue”, in which he defended the Latin rites and condemned the Greek ones. In response, Nikita Stiphatus writes a treatise “Anti-Dialogue”, or “A Discourse on Unleavened Bread, Sabbath Fasting and the Marriage of Priests” against Humbert’s work.
Events of 1054
In 1054, Leo sent a letter to Cyrularius which, in support of the papal claim to full power in the Church, contained lengthy extracts from a forged document known as the Deed of Constantine, insisting on its authenticity. The Patriarch rejected the Pope's claims to supremacy, after which Leo sent legates to Constantinople that same year to settle the dispute. The main political task of the papal embassy was the desire to obtain military assistance from the Byzantine emperor in the fight against the Normans.
On July 16, 1054, after the death of Pope Leo IX himself, in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, the papal legates announced the deposition of Cyrularius and his excommunication from the Church. In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates.
Reasons for the split
The historical background of the schism goes back to late antiquity and the early Middle Ages (starting with the destruction of Rome by the troops of Alaric in 410) and is determined by the emergence of ritual, dogmatic, ethical, aesthetic and other differences between the Western (often called Latin Catholic) and Eastern (Greek) Orthodox) traditions.
The point of view of the Western (Catholic) Church
- Michael is wrongly called the patriarch.
- Like the Simonians, they sell the gift of God.
- Like the Valesians, they castrate newcomers and make them not only clergy, but also bishops.
- Like the Arians, they rebaptize those baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, especially the Latins.
- Like the Donatists, they claim that throughout the world, with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ, the true Eucharist, and baptism have perished.
- Like the Nicolaitans, altar servers are allowed marriages.
- Like the Sevirians, they slander the law of Moses.
- Like the Doukhobors, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (filioque) in the symbol of faith.
- Like the Manichaeans, they consider leaven to be animate.
- Like the Nazirites, the Jews observe bodily cleansing, newborn children are not baptized before eight days after birth, parents are not honored with communion, and, if they are pagans, they are denied baptism.
As for the view on the role of the Roman Church, then, according to Catholic authors, evidence of the doctrine of the unconditional primacy and ecumenical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter's have existed since the 1st century. (Clement of Rome) and further found everywhere both in the West and in the East (St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage, John Chrysostom, Leo the Great, Hormizd, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, etc.), so attempts to attribute only to Rome some kind of “primacy of honor” is unfounded.
Until the middle of the 5th century, this theory had the character of unfinished, scattered thoughts, and only Pope Leo the Great expressed them systematically and set them out in his church sermons, delivered by him on the day of his consecration before a meeting of Italian bishops.
The main points of this system boil down, firstly, to the fact that St. The Apostle Peter is the princeps of the entire rank of apostles, superior to all others in power, he is the primas of all bishops, he is entrusted with the care of all sheep, he is entrusted with the care of all the shepherds of the Church.
Secondly, all the gifts and prerogatives of the apostleship, priesthood and shepherdhood were given fully and first of all to the Apostle Peter and through him and no other way than through his mediation are given by Christ and all other apostles and shepherds.
Thirdly, primatus an. Peter's is not a temporary, but a permanent institution. Fourthly, the communication of the Roman bishops with the Supreme Apostle is very close: each new bishop receives the apostle. Peter in the department of Petrova, and hence the gift of the apostle. Peter, the power of grace flows onto his successors.
From this practically follows for Pope Leo:
1) since the entire Church is based on the firmness of Peter, those who move away from this stronghold place themselves outside the mystical body Church of Christ;
2) whoever encroaches on the authority of the Roman bishop and refuses obedience to the apostolic throne does not want to obey the blessed Apostle Peter;
3) whoever rejects the power and primacy of the Apostle Peter cannot in the least diminish his dignity, but the arrogant spirit of pride casts himself into the underworld.Despite the petition of Pope Leo I for the convening of the IV Ecumenical Council in Italy, which was supported by the royals of the western half of the empire, the IV Ecumenical Council was convened by Emperor Marcian in the East, in Nicaea and then in Chalcedon, and not in the West. In the conciliar discussions, the Council Fathers treated very restrainedly the speeches of the papal legates, who presented and developed this theory in detail, and the declaration of the pope they announced.
At the Council of Chalcedon, the theory was not condemned, since, despite the harsh form in relation to all eastern bishops, the content of the speeches of the legates, for example, in relation to Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, corresponded to the mood and direction of the entire Council. But nevertheless, the council refused to condemn Dioscorus only because Dioscorus committed crimes against discipline, not fulfilling the orders of the first in honor among the patriarchs, and especially because Dioscorus himself dared to carry out the excommunication of Pope Leo.
The papal declaration did not mention Dioscorus' crimes against the faith anywhere. The declaration also ends remarkably, in the spirit of papist theory: “Therefore, the most serene and blessed Archbishop of the great and ancient Rome Leo, through us and through the present holy cathedral, together with the most blessed and all-praised Apostle Peter, who is the rock and affirmation of the Catholic Church and the foundation Orthodox faith, deprives him of his bishopric and alienates him from all holy orders.”
The declaration was tactfully, but rejected by the Fathers of the Council, and Dioscorus was deprived of the patriarchate and rank for the persecution of the family of Cyril of Alexandria, although they also recalled his support for the heretic Eutyches, disrespect for bishops, the Robber Council, etc., but not for the speech of the Alexandrian pope against Pope of Rome, and nothing from the declaration of Pope Leo was approved by the Council, which so exalted the tomos of Pope Leo. The rule adopted at the Council of Chalcedon 28 on granting honor as the second after the Pope to the Archbishop of New Rome as the bishop of the reigning city second after Rome caused a storm of indignation. Saint Leo, Pope of Rome, did not recognize the validity of this canon, interrupted communication with Archbishop Anatoly of Constantinople and threatened him with excommunication.
The point of view of the Eastern (Orthodox) Church
However, by 800, the political situation around what had previously been a unified Roman Empire began to change: on the one hand, most of the territory of the Eastern Empire, including most of the ancient apostolic churches, fell under Muslim rule, which greatly weakened it and diverted attention from religious problems in favor of foreign policy, on the other hand, in the West, for the first time after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, its own emperor appeared (Charlemagne was crowned in Rome in 800), who in the eyes of his contemporaries became “equal” to the Eastern Emperor and on whose political power the Roman bishop was able to rely in his claims. It is attributed to the changed political situation that the Roman popes again began to pursue the idea of their primacy, rejected by the Council of Chalcedon, not in honor and Orthodoxy of teaching, which was confirmed by the vote of bishops equal to the Roman bishop at councils, but “by divine right,” that is, the idea of their the highest individual authority in the entire Church.
After the legate of the Pope, Cardinal Humbert, placed a scripture with an anathema on the throne of the Church of St. Sophia against the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Michael convened a synod, at which a reciprocal anathema was put forward:
With anathema then to the wicked writing itself, as well as to those who presented it, wrote it and participated in its creation with any approval or will.
The retaliatory accusations against the Latins were as follows at the council:
In various bishops' messages and conciliar decrees, the Orthodox also blamed the Catholics:
- Celebrating the Liturgy on Unleavened Bread.
- Post on Saturday.
- Allowing a man to marry the sister of his deceased wife.
- Catholic bishops wearing rings on their fingers.
- Catholic bishops and priests going to war and desecrating their hands with the blood of the slain.
- The presence of wives of Catholic bishops and the presence of concubines of Catholic priests.
- Eating eggs, cheese and milk on Saturdays and Sundays during Great Lent and non-observance of Great Lent.
- Eating strangled meat, carrion, meat with blood.
- Catholic monks eating lard.
- Carrying out Baptism in one rather than three immersions.
- The image of the Holy Cross and the image of saints on marble slabs in churches and Catholics walking on them with their feet.
The patriarch's reaction to the defiant act of the cardinals was quite cautious and generally peaceful. Suffice it to say that in order to calm the unrest, it was officially announced that the Greek translators had distorted the meaning of the Latin letter. Further, at the subsequent Council on July 20 for misbehavior In the temple, all three members of the papal delegation were excommunicated from the Church, but the Roman Church was not specifically mentioned in the decision of the council. Everything was done to reduce the conflict to the initiative of several Roman representatives, which, in fact, took place. The Patriarch excommunicated only legates from the Church and only for disciplinary violations, and not for doctrinal issues. These anathemas did not apply in any way to the Western Church or the Bishop of Rome.
Even when one of the excommunicated legates became pope (Stephen IX), this schism was not considered final or particularly important, and the pope sent an embassy to Constantinople to apologize for Humbert’s harshness. This event began to be assessed as something extremely important only a couple of decades later in the West, when Pope Gregory VII, who at one time was a protégé of the now deceased Cardinal Humbert, came to power. It was through his efforts that this story acquired extraordinary significance. Then, in modern times, it ricocheted from Western historiography back to the East and began to be considered the date of the division of the Churches.
Perception of the schism in Rus'
Having left Constantinople, the papal legates went to Rome by a roundabout route to notify other eastern hierarchs of the excommunication of Michael Cerularius. Among other cities, they visited Kyiv, where they were received with due honors by the Grand Duke and the clergy, who did not yet know about the division that had occurred in Constantinople.
In Kiev there were Latin monasteries (including the Dominican - from 1228), on lands subject to the Russian princes, Latin missionaries acted with their permission (for example, in 1181, the princes of Polotsk allowed the Augustinian monks from Bremen to baptize the Latvians and Livs subject to them in Western Dvina). In the upper class there were (to the displeasure of the Greek metropolitans) numerous mixed marriages (with Polish princes alone - more than twenty), and in none of these cases anything resembling a “transition” from one religion to another was recorded. Western influence is noticeable in some areas of church life, for example, in Rus' there were organs before the Mongol invasion (which then disappeared), bells were imported to Rus' mainly from the West, where they were more widespread than among the Greeks.
This situation persisted until the Mongol-Tatar invasion. [ ]
Removal of mutual anathemas
In 1964, a meeting took place in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras, the primate of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and Pope Paul VI, as a result of which mutual anathemas were lifted in December 1965 and a joint declaration was signed. However, the “gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness” (Joint Declaration, 5) had no practical or canonical meaning: the declaration itself read: “Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his Synod are aware that this gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness is not sufficient to to put an end to the differences, both ancient and recent, that still remain between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church."
Christianity is the largest religion in the world by number of followers. But today it is divided into many denominations. And an example was set a long time ago - in 1054, when the Western Church excommunicated Eastern Christians, rejecting them as if they were aliens. Since then, many more events have followed that only worsened the situation. So why and how the division of churches into Roman and Orthodox happened, let's figure it out.
Prerequisites for the split
Christianity was not always the dominant religion. Suffice it to remember that all the first Popes, starting with the Apostle Peter, ended their lives as martyrdom for the faith. For centuries, the Romans tried to exterminate an obscure sect whose members refused to make sacrifices to their gods. The only way for Christians to survive was unity. The situation began to change only with the coming to power of Emperor Constantine.
Global differences in the views of the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity clearly revealed themselves only centuries later. Communication between Constantinople and Rome was difficult. Therefore, these two directions developed on their own. And at the dawn of the second millennium they became noticeable ritual differences:
But this, of course, was not the reason for the split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The bishops in charge increasingly began to disagree. Conflicts arose, the resolution of which was not always peaceful.
Photius schism
This split occurred in 863 and lasted for several years.. The head of the Church of Constantinople was then Patriarch Photius, and Nicholas I was on the Roman throne. The two hierarchs had difficult personal relationships, but formally the reason for disagreement was given by Rome’s doubts about Photius’ rights to lead the Eastern churches. The power of the hierarchs was complete, and it still extends not only to ideological issues, but also to the management of lands and finances. Therefore, at times the struggle for it was quite tough.
It is believed that the real reason for the quarrel between the heads of the church was the attempts of the Western governor to include the Balkan Peninsula under his guardianship.The election of Photius was the result of internal dissensions, who then reigned in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Patriarch Ignatius, who was replaced by Photius, was deposed thanks to the machinations of Emperor Michael. Supporters of the conservative Ignatius turned to Rome for justice. And the Pope tried to take advantage of the moment and take the Patriarchate of Constantinople under his influence. The matter ended in mutual anathemas. The next church council that took place temporarily managed to moderate the zeal of the parties, and peace reigned (temporarily).
Controversy over the use of unleavened dough
In the 11th century the complication of the political situation resulted in another aggravation of the confrontation between the Western and Eastern rituals. Patriarch Michael of Constantinople did not like the fact that the Latins began to displace representatives of the Eastern churches in the Norman territories. Cerularius retaliated by closing all the Latin churches in his capital. This event was accompanied by rather unfriendly behavior - unleavened bread was thrown into the street, and the priests of Constantinople trampled it underfoot.
The next step was theological rationale for the conflict - message against the Latin rite. It brought forward many accusations of violating church traditions (which, however, had not previously bothered anyone):
The work, of course, reached the head of the Roman throne. In response, Cardinal Humbert composed the “Dialogue” message. All these events took place in 1053. There was very little time left before the final divergence between the two branches of the single church.
Great Schism
In 1054 Pope Leo wrote to Constantinople, demanding recognition of his full power over the Christian Church. As justification, a forged document was used - the so-called deed of gift, in which Emperor Constantine allegedly transferred the management of churches to the Roman throne. The claims were rejected, to which the Supreme Bishop of Rome equipped an embassy. It was supposed, among other things, to obtain military assistance from Byzantium.
The fateful date was July 16, 1054. On this day the unity of the Christian Church formally ceased. Although by that time Leo I. X. had already died, the papal legates still came to Michael. They entered the Cathedral of St. Sophia and placed on the altar a letter in which the Patriarch of Constantinople anathematized. The response message was drawn up 4 days later.What happened main reason division of churches? Here the opinions of the parties differ. Some historians believe that this is the result of a struggle for power. For Catholics, the main thing was the reluctance to recognize the primacy of the Pope as the successor of the Apostle Peter. For Orthodox important role plays a dispute about the Filioque - the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Rome's arguments
In a historical document, Pope Leo for the first time clearly formulated the reasons, according to which all other bishops should recognize the primacy of the Roman see:
- Since the Church stands on the firmness of Peter’s confession, moving away from it is a big mistake.
- Anyone who questions the authority of the Pope also renounces Saint Peter.
- He who rejects the authority of the Apostle Peter is an arrogant proud man who independently plunges himself into the abyss.
Arguments of Constantinople
Having received an appeal from the papal legates, Patriarch Michael urgently assembled the Byzantine clergy. The result was accusations against the Latins:
For some time, Rus' remained aloof from the conflict, although initially it was under the influence of the Byzantine rite and recognized Constantinople, not Rome, as the spiritual center. The Orthodox have always made the dough for prosphoras using sourdough. Formally, in 1620, a local council condemned Catholic rite use unleavened dough for church sacraments.
Is a reunion possible?
Great Schism(translated from ancient Greek - schism) occurred quite a long time ago. Today, relations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are no longer as strained as in past centuries. In 2016, there was even a brief meeting between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis. Such an event seemed impossible 20 years ago.Although mutual anathemas were lifted in 1965, the reunification of the Roman Catholic Church with the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches (and there are more than a dozen of them, the Russian Orthodox Church is only one of those professing Orthodoxy) today is unlikely. The reasons for this are no less than a thousand years ago.
It is not so important in what year the schism of the Christian church occurred. The more important thing is that today the church represents many movements and churches- both traditional and newly created. People failed to preserve the unity bequeathed by Jesus Christ. But those who call themselves Christians should learn patience and mutual love, and not look for reasons to move further apart from each other.
Church schism(Greek σχίσματα (schismata) - schism) - a violation of intra-church unity due to differences not related to the distortion of the true teaching about and, but for ritual, canonical or disciplinary reasons. The founders and followers of the schismatic movement are called schismatics.
Schism should be distinguished from other forms of apostasy - and self-inflicted gathering (). Following St. , the ancient holy fathers called schismatics those who were divided in opinions about certain church subjects and about issues that allowed for healing.
According to the outstanding commentator on canon law, John Zonar, schismatics are those who think sensibly regarding faith and dogma, but for some reason move away and form their own separate assemblies.
According to the expert on church law, Bishop of Dalmatia-Istra, schisms are formed by those who “think differently about certain church subjects and issues, which, however, can easily be reconciled.” According to St. , a schism should be called “a violation of complete unity with the Holy Church, with the exact preservation, however, of the true teaching about dogmas and sacraments.”
Comparing schism with heresy, St. asserts that “schism is no less evil than heresy.” The saint teaches: “Remember that the founders and leaders of the schism, violating the unity of the Church, oppose, and not only crucify Him a second time, but tear apart the Body of Christ, and this is so serious that the blood of martyrdom cannot atone for it.” Bishop Optatus of Milevitsky (IV century) considered the schism one of the greatest evils, greater than murder and idolatry.
In today's sense, the word schism is found for the first time in St. . He was in schism with Pope Callistus (217-222), whom he accused of weakening the requirements of church discipline.
The main reason for the schisms in the Ancient Church was the consequences of persecution: Decius (Novata and Felicissima in Carthage, Novatian in Rome) and Diocletian (Heraclius in Rome, Donatists in the African Church, Melitian in Alexandria), as well as a dispute about the baptism of heretics. Serious disagreements were caused by the question of the procedure for acceptance into the “fallen” - those who renounced, retreated and stumbled during persecution.
In the Russian Orthodox Church, there were schisms: the Old Believer (overcome by the Edinoverie communities), the Renovationist (overcome) and the Karlovac (overcome on May 17, 2007). Currently in a state of schism Orthodox Church in Ukraine.
What happened in 1054: the split of the Ecumenical Church in two or the split of one of its parts, the Roman Local Church?
In theological historical literature There is often a statement that in 1054 there was a split of the One Ecumenical Church of Christ into Eastern and Western. This opinion cannot be called convincing. The Lord created one single Church, and it was about one, and not about two and, especially, not about several Churches that He testified that it would exist until the end of time and that it would not be overcome ().
Moreover, the Messiah made it clear that “every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and every city or house divided against itself cannot stand” (). This means that if the Church had really been divided against itself, then, according to His assurance, it would not have stood. But she will definitely resist (). The fact that there cannot be two, three, one thousand three Churches of Christ is also supported by the image according to which the Church is the Body of Christ (), and the Savior has one Body.
But why do we have the right to claim that it was the Roman Church that broke away from the Orthodox Church in the 11th century, and not vice versa? - There is no doubt that this is so. The true Church of Christ, according to the words of the Apostle, is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (). Therefore, that one of the two Churches (Western, Eastern) that did not stand in the truth, did not preserve it unchanged, and broke away.
Which one couldn't resist? - In order to answer this question, it is enough to remember which particular Church, Orthodox or Catholic, preserves it in the immutable form in which it received it from the apostles. Of course, this is the Ecumenical Orthodox Church.
In addition to the fact that the Roman Church dared to distort, supplementing it with a false insertion about the procession “and from the Son,” it distorted the teaching about the Mother of God (we mean the dogma of immaculate conception Virgin Mary); introduced a new dogma about the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, calling him the vicar of Christ on earth; interpreted the doctrine of man, etc., in the spirit of crude jurisprudence.
Split
Doctor of Theology and Philosophy
Archpriest Alexander FedoseevA schism is a violation of complete unity with the Holy Church, with the exact preservation, however, of the true teaching about dogmas and sacraments. The Church is unity, and its entire existence is in this unity and unity about Christ and in Christ: “ For we are all baptized into one body by one Spirit" (). The prototype of this unity is the Trinity Consubstantial, and the measure is catholicity (or catholicity). Schism, on the contrary, is separation, isolation, loss and denial of conciliarity.
The question of the nature and meaning of church divisions and schisms was raised with all its severity already in the memorable baptismal disputes of the 3rd century. The saint then with inevitable consistency developed the doctrine of the complete lack of grace of any schism, precisely as a schism: “ We must beware of deception, not only obvious and obvious, but also that which is covered with subtle slyness and cunning, as in the enemy’s invention of a new deception: to deceive the unwary by the very name of a Christian. He invented heresies and schisms to overthrow faith, pervert truth, and dissolve unity. Whoever cannot be kept on the old path by blindness is led astray and deceived by the new path. It delights people from the Church itself and, when they were apparently already approaching the light and getting rid of the night of this age, a new darkness again spreads over them, so that they, not adhering to the Gospel and not preserving the law, nevertheless call themselves Christians and, wandering in darkness, they think they are walking in the light"(Book on the Unity of the Church).
In a schism, both prayer and alms are fueled by pride - these are not virtues, but opposition to the Church. For them, schismatics, ostentatious goodness is only a means to tear people away from the Church. The enemy of the human race is not afraid of the prayer of a proud-hearted schismatic, for the Holy Scripture says: “ Let his prayer be a sin" (). The devil finds their schismatics, vigils and fasts funny, since he himself does not sleep or eat, but this does not make him a saint. Saint Cyprian writes: “ Is it possible for someone who does not adhere to the unity of the Church to think that he keeps the faith? Is it possible for someone who resists and acts contrary to the Church to hope that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul, discussing the same subject and showing the sacrament of unity, says: one body, one Spirit, just as the calling is fast in the one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God" ()? It is characteristic that schismatics consider all other schisms, except their own, to be disastrous and false, arising under the influence of passions and pride, and they accept their own schism, which is not much different from others, as the only happy exception in the entire history of the Church.
Raskolniks, shedding crocodile tears regarding the “violation” of the canons of the Church, in fact, a long time ago they threw under their feet and trampled all the canons, because the true canons are based on faith in the unity and eternity of the Church. The canons are given to the Church, outside the Church they are invalid and meaningless - so the laws of the state cannot exist without the state itself.
Hieromartyr Clement, Bishop of Rome, writes to the Corinthian schismatics: “ Your division has corrupted many, plunged many into despondency, many into doubt and all of us into sadness, and your confusion still continues" The unrepentant sin of schism is even more terrible than the sin of suicide (a suicide destroys only himself, and a schismatic destroys both himself and others, therefore his eternal fate is worse than that of a suicide).
« The Church is one, and she alone has all the fullness of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit. Whoever, no matter how, departs from the Church - into heresy, into schism, into an unauthorized gathering, he loses the communion of God's grace; We know and are convinced that falling away into schism, heresy, or sectarianism is complete destruction and spiritual death", - this is how he expresses Orthodox teaching about the Church hieromartyr.
People susceptible to distortion of faith even try to use the word “schism” less. They say: “official Church” and “unofficial”, or “different jurisdictions”, or prefer to use abbreviations (UOC-KP, etc.). Saint: " Orthodoxy and schism are so opposed to each other that the patronage and defense of Orthodoxy should naturally constrain the schism; condescension to schism should naturally embarrass the Orthodox Church».
History of the Orthodox Church in the countries of the post-Soviet space recent years full of important and dramatic events, many of which continue to have a powerful influence on the current state of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Soviet Union has collapsed, social stratification of society is growing, and problems related to information inequality are growing. The Russian Orthodox Church has preserved its unity throughout the entire territory of the former Soviet Union, creating new forms of church structure. Behind last decade Autonomous Local Churches were formed, which reflects new political realities modern world. It is appropriate to talk about radical changes in the CIS countries related to the understanding of the unity of the Church today. We are talking primarily about the canonical and social aspects of Orthodox ecclesiology.
Negative phenomena, of course, include the processes of rapid politicization religious life in the countries of the former Soviet camp. The involvement of nationalist political parties in it created the basis for the subsequent formation of political-religious structures hostile to Orthodoxy such as the UGCC, UAOC, UOC-KP, IOC, etc. But no less dangerous are internal contradictions, disagreements and disciplinary-psychological splits within the church. parish life.
The main feature of disciplinary-psychological splits, from which all other parachurch movements are derived, is their emergence in the era of the collapse of socialism and in the midst of the death of mass atheism. Because it doesn't exist yet scientific literature, which specifically treats the activities of church schisms and new sects, it seems appropriate to briefly characterize a number of features that distinguish them from traditional sectarianism.
First of all, disciplinary-psychological splits do not spread primarily in rural areas, and in big cities, with a dense cultural and educational infrastructure. As studies have shown, church schisms find the most fertile soil among specialists with secondary and higher education. Hence the active professional orientation of the newest schisms: they try to religiously comprehend and “sanctify” the activity of man as a specialist. It is the specialty that is the area of the most intense sectarian and schismatic self-awareness and self-determination. Therefore, new sectarians are often grouped according to professional characteristics - of course, associations of this kind can also include ordinary amateurs who show interest in this profession. Associations of a schismatic type are created among writers, historians, doctors, and physicists who are trying to give a religious interpretation of the facts in their subject area.
Some people like to justify schismatics, saying that they were allegedly forced to retreat from the Church by some difficult circumstances - some of them were treated poorly or unfairly, offended, etc. But these excuses are not worth a damn. This is what St. said about them. , in a letter to the schismatic Novat: “ If, as you say, you separated from the Church involuntarily, then you can correct this by returning to the Church of your own free will" Priest once said: “ I would rather sin with the Church than be saved without the Church" Florensky wanted to say that only in the Church is salvation and that by leaving the Church, a person commits spiritual suicide. Schisms were born with shouts of victory, and died with dull groans, but the Church still lived! Condemned to death by schismatics, she exists, she is full of spiritual powers, she remains the only source of grace on earth.
In order to prevent the emergence of heresies, the Russian Orthodox Church has always tried, through exhortation and persuasion, to return those who have fallen away to the path of true faith, genuine Christian piety, and has tried again and again to gather its lost sheep, who have lost the voice of their shepherd. We must not forget about the great danger to the spiritual health of every person emanating from a possible fall into heresy through schism, since a heretical worldview penetrates much more deeply into the soul and infects it with the sores of sin, which are very difficult to get rid of.
The Holy Fathers recognize the possibility and necessity of healing the schism in the spirit of church economy. The saint in the Rules from the First Canonical Epistle indicates the peculiarities of accepting repentants from schisms:
« For example, if someone, having been convicted of sin, was removed from priestly service, did not submit to the rules, but he himself retained the position and priesthood, and some others retreated with him, leaving Catholic Church, - this is an unauthorized gathering. To think about repentance differently than as existing in the Church is a schism... To accept the baptism of schismatics, as not yet alien to the Church; and those in unauthorized gatherings - to correct them with decent repentance and conversion, and to re-join the Church. Thus, even those in church ranks, having retreated along with the disobedient, when they repent, are often accepted again into the same rank».
St. very aptly defines the schism. : " Christ will judge those who cause schisms - those who do not have love for God and who care more about their own benefit than about the unity of the Church, who, for unimportant and random reasons, cut and tear apart the great and glorious body of Christ and, as much as depends on them, destroy it, saying about peace and those who make war" (Five Books Against Heresies, 4.7).
As we can see from the statements of the holy fathers and a small analysis of the problem of schisms, they need to be healed, or even better, prevented. It is quite obvious that, in addition to the personal charisma of the next dissenter, a big role is played by the low spiritual education of his followers, political unrest in the state, and personal motives. The time has come to develop a large-scale project to prevent church schisms, covering all possible sides this problem. It is absolutely necessary to create some body, a church structure with extensive powers, capable of providing the proper level of monitoring of the spiritual state of believers and promptly nipping in the bud schismatic movements in the ranks of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Schism is real danger not only the integrity of the Church, but first of all spiritual health Raskolnikov. Such people voluntarily deprive themselves of saving grace and sow division within the unity of Christians. The split cannot be justified from any point of view: neither political, nor national, nor any other reasons can be considered as a sufficient reason for the split. There can be neither sympathy nor understanding for the schism and its leaders - with church division it is necessary to fight, to eliminate, so that something worse does not happen.
Disagreements between the Pope (Western Church) and the Patriarch of Constantinople (and four other patriarchates - Eastern Church), which began at the beginning of the 5th century, led to the fact that in 1054 the Pope was refused the demand to recognize him as the head of the entire church. The prerequisites for such a demand were the threat of invasion by the Normans and, as a consequence, the need for military and political assistance. As a result of the refusal, the next Pope, through his legates, informed the Patriarch of Constantinople about his deposition and excommunication. To which he responded with an anathema against the legates and the Pope.
To deny the ancient Western commitment to arrogance and the desire to be above everyone else is pointless. It is thanks to these qualities that Western countries have become the dominant power throughout the world. Therefore, we can say with confidence that the schism occurred due to the arrogance of the Western Church and the pride of the Eastern. Arrogance because instead of standard diplomatic methods of gaining allies (which is what the Pope required), a position of strength and superiority was used. Pride because, instead of following the church canons about forgiveness, love for one’s neighbor, and so on, the request for help (albeit quite well veiled) was answered with a proud refusal. Consequently, the cause of the split was ordinary human factors.
Consequences of the split
The split was inevitable, since in addition to cultural differences and differences in the interpretation of faith and rituals, there was such an important factor as a sense of self-worth and irreconcilability with the fact that someone is superior. It is this factor that has played a leading role many times throughout history, both world history in general and church history in particular. The separation of churches such as the Protestant (much later) occurred precisely according to the same principle. However, no matter how much you prepare, no matter how much you predict, any division will certainly lead to a violation of established traditions and principles, and the destruction of possible prospects. Namely:
- The schism introduced discord and dissonance into the Christian faith, became the pre-final point of division and destruction of the Roman Empire and contributed to the approach of the final one - the fall of Byzantium.
- Against the backdrop of the strengthening of Muslim movements to unite the Middle East under the banners of one color and the increase in the military power of direct opponents of Christianity, the worst thing that could be imagined is division. If by joint efforts it was possible to restrain the hordes of Muslims even on the outskirts of Constantinople, then the fact that the west and east (the churches) turned away from each other contributed to the fact that the last stronghold of the Romans fell under the onslaught of the Turks, and then he himself found himself under a real threat Rome.
- The schism, initiated by the “Christian brothers” with their own hands, and confirmed by the two main clergy, became one of the worst phenomena in Christianity. For if you compare the influence of Christianity before and after, you can see that “before” the Christian religion grew and developed practically on its own, the ideas promoted by the Bible themselves fell into the minds of people, and the Islamic threat was an extremely unpleasant, but solvable problem. “After” - the expansion of the influence of Christianity gradually faded away, and the already increasing area of coverage of Islam began to grow by leaps and bounds.
Then many people appeared who protested against Catholicism, and so the Protestants appeared, led by the Augustinian monk Martin Luther in the 15th century. Protestantism is the third branch of Christianity, which is quite widespread.
And now the schism in the Ukrainian church is causing such confusion in the ranks of believers that it’s becoming scary, what will all this lead to?!Gdeshinsky Andrey