The acquisition of independence by the Russian Orthodox Church from Constantinople. Metropolitan ion and the establishment of the autocephaly of the Russian Church. The threat of losing the western part of the metropolis

“And our Russian Church, the Most Holy Metropolitan of Russia, the Holy Ecumenical Assemblies of the Apostolic Church of the Wisdom of God, Saint Sophia of Constantinople, demands and seeks blessings, and obeys in everything according to ancient piety; and that our father Jonah, the Metropolitan of all Rus', therefore, in every possible way demands blessings and union from there, unless [ except for, with the exception of arctus] of the current emerging controversy. And we pray to the holy kingdom, that you will be about everything to that our father Jonah Metropolitan of good will, and then we love you from the holy kingdom.<…>Hotekhom same ubo about all these matters about the church<…>write letters to the most holy Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarch<…>but not vemy, if already there<…>His Holiness Patriarch, or not…”

The title of the Patriarch of Constantinople is " His Divine All Holiness Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch"- is ghostly and is just a historical memory. New Rome with its emperor is long gone. There is also no non-Christian sultan who exercised the highest leadership of the Constantinople Orthodox Church during the period of the Ottoman yoke. There is no Greek Constantinople, but there is Turkish Istanbul. All that remains of the former Christian empire that once ruled from the City of the World is a complex of nine buildings tightly compressed on a small piece of land. This place is called "Phanar", and since 1599 it has been the center of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, living under the rule of the Muslim Turks. Ironically, the residence and the patriarchal church on Phanar were built with money - a thousand rubles, "donated" by the Russian tsar Fedor Ioannovich Constantinople Patriarch Jeremiah for the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia.

***
Sourced from: "

DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLIT JONA

What was left to do? Wait for more favorable circumstances? But Russia had already been waiting for a very long time, and for about seven years it remained without a metropolitan. And besides, it was not known whether such circumstances would come and how soon such circumstances would come in Constantinople. And so Vasily Vasilyevich decided on the last resort that he had left - he decided to convene all the bishops of his land and invite them to appoint a metropolitan for Russia, and namely Jonah, Bishop of Ryazan, as he had been chosen for that even before. At the call of the Grand Duke, the bishops arrived in Moscow: Ephraim of Rostov, Avramy of Suzdal, Varlaam of Kolomna, Pitirim of Perm, and the bishops - Evfimy of Novgorod and Elijah of Tver sent their letters, in which they expressed their consent to the appointment of Jonah as metropolitan. The cathedral opened in the Church of the Holy Archangel Michael, and besides the saints, many archimandrites, abbots and other clergy were present here. First of all, they turned to the canons of the holy apostles and councils and found that these canons not only do not forbid, on the contrary, command the bishops of a certain region to appoint a greater saint or metropolitan. They felt that in Russia the consent and blessing of the Patriarch of Tsaregrad was needed for this, and they referred to the fact that the patriarch, with his consecrated Council, had long ago blessed Jonah to be a metropolitan after Isidore, when Jonah traveled to Constantinople. They recalled that in Russia, even before, metropolitans were appointed out of necessity by the Council of their bishops: Hilarion under the Grand Duke Yaroslav and Clement under Izyaslav. As a result of all this, Jonah, Bishop of Ryazan, on December 5, 1448, was appointed metropolitan. The very appointment consisted in the fact that when Jonah celebrated the Divine Liturgy, the metropolitan omophorion was placed on him, and in his hands was given the great metropolitan staff - a symbol of metropolitan power. This was the first metropolitan appointed by his bishops in Moscow proper, while the previous two experiments were made in Kyiv.

The appointment of Metropolitan Jonah, although it had all the properties of legality, but as going out of the ordinary, naturally had to attract attention and arouse opinions and rumors. Therefore, the saint himself recognized the need to clarify the meaning of this event to believers. As soon as he ascended to his chair, he wrote in his district charter to all Russian Christians among other things: “You know, children, how many years the Church of God has been widowed without a greater hierarch, without a metropolitan, and because of this much hardship and languor has been caused to the Christianity of our land. And now, by the will of God, the bishops, and archimandrites, and abbots, with all the great priesthood of God of our land, have gathered at the sacred Council, and, remembering the previous command of the holy king about us and the blessing of the holy Ecumenical Patriarch and the entire holy Ecumenical Council, they appointed me metropolitan according to Divine rules and according to the thought of the lord son of my grand duke Vasily Vasilyevich and his younger brethren - princes who, while Orthodoxy was in Constantinople, received from there both the blessing and the metropolitan.

Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. History of the Russian Church. Book 3. Section 2. Chapter 1. http://magister.msk.ru/library/history/makary/mak3201.htm#number

“BUT IN MOSCOW THE AGREEMENT IS NOT ACCEPTED…”

Under the long-suffering Prince Vasily Vasilyevich, an important event in the life of the Russian Church. As you know, in 1439, at the cathedral of the Orthodox and Catholic clergy in Florence, the union of the churches of the east and west was performed. The Emperor and the Partiarch of Constantinople sought this union, hoping that when the ecclesiastical strife between East and West was destroyed, then the Pope and Western sovereigns would help the Greeks in their struggle against the Turks. Dying at the hands of the Turks, the Greek authorities were ready to make any concessions to the pope, and therefore the union was arranged in such a way that the Greeks retained their church rite, but recognized all Catholic dogmas and the primacy of the popes. At the very time when they were preparing for the council in Tsargrad, it was necessary to appoint a metropolitan to Rus'. They appointed a learned Greek, very prone to union, Isidore. Arriving in Moscow, he immediately began to gather for a council in Italy, went there with a large retinue, and there he became one of the most zealous champions of union with Latinism. Caressed by the pope, he returned in 1441 to Moscow and announced an agreement with Rome. But in Moscow, the agreement was not accepted, since the Greeks themselves for centuries brought up hatred for Catholicism in Russians. Isidore was taken into custody and managed to escape, "left without a door", hid in Lithuania and from there moved to Italy. And in Moscow they decided to separate from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which had betrayed Orthodoxy to the pope, and henceforth to appoint themselves a metropolitan after the election of a council of Russian bishops. By the new order, the bishop of Ryazan, Jonah, was appointed metropolitan of Moscow. At the same time, in southwestern Rus', in the old Kievan metropolis, special metropolitans settled, still appointed from Constantinople.

Platonov S.F. A complete course of lectures on Russian history. St. Petersburg, 2000 http://magister.msk.ru/library/history/platonov/plats003.htm#gl15

CHURCH MATTERS

With his last misfortune, as if reconciled with fate and in his blindness, showing more State foresight than hitherto, Vasily began to assert his power and the strength of the Moscow Principality. Having restored calm within it, he first of all gave the Metropolitan of Russia, whom we had not had for eight years due to the strife of the Constantinople Clergy and our own turmoil. Bishops Ephraim of Rostov, Avramy of Suzdal, Varlaam of Kolomna, Pitirim of Perm gathered in Moscow; and Novogorodsky and Tverskoy sent letters, expressing their unanimity with them. They, to please the Sovereign, consecrated Jonah to the Metropolitans, referring, as it is said in some chronicles, to the blessing given to him (in 1437) by the Patriarch; but Jonah in his letters, written by him at the same time to all the Bishops of Lithuanian Russia, says that he was elected according to the charter of the Apostles by the Russian Hierarchs, and severely reproaches the Greeks by the Florentine Council. At least since that time, we have already become completely independent of Constantinople in church matters: which serves to honor Basil. The spiritual guardianship of the Greeks cost us dearly. In the course of five centuries, from St. Vladimir to the Dark, we find only six Russian Metropolitans; in addition to the gifts sent to the Tsars and Patriarchs, the foreign Primates, always ready to leave our fatherland, took, as likely, measures for this case, accumulated treasures and forwarded them to Greece in advance. They could not have a ardent zeal for the state benefits of Russia; could not respect its Sovereigns as much as our united earthmen. These truths are obvious; but the fear of touching the Faith and a change in its ancient customs to seduce the people did not allow the Grand Dukes to free themselves from the bonds of spiritual Greek power; the disagreements of the Constantinople Clergy on the occasion of the Council of Florence presented Basil with the convenience of doing what many of his predecessors wanted, but feared. - The election of the Metropolitan was then an important State affair: he served the Grand Duke as the main tool in curbing other Princes. Jonah also tried to subdue the Lithuanian Dioceses: he proved to the Bishops there that Isidore's successor, Gregory, was a Latin heretic and a false pastor; however, he did not achieve his goal and only aroused the anger of Pope Pius II, who, by an immodest Bull (in 1458), declared Jonah an evil son, an apostate, and so on.

Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. T.5. Chapter III http://magister.msk.ru/library/history/karamzin/kar05_03.htm

SWORD SPIRITUAL

If the Russian clergy, in the person of their representative, the metropolitan, contributed so much to the exaltation of Moscow, they equally powerfully contributed to the establishment of autocracy, because at that time the clergy, more consciously than other estates, could look at the aspiration of the Grand Dukes of Moscow, fully appreciate this aspiration. Imbued with the concepts of royal power, power received from God and not dependent on anyone or anything, the clergy, for this very reason, had to be constantly in a hostile attitude towards the old order of things, towards tribal relations, not to mention the fact that strife the princely ones were in direct opposition to the spirit of religion, and without autocracy they could not stop. That is why, when the Moscow princes began to strive for autocracy, their aspirations completely coincided with the aspirations of the clergy; it can be said that along with the secular, grand-ducal sword, the spiritual sword was constantly directed against the specific princes

The most likely scenario is that Constantinople will return the status of the Kyiv Metropolis in its patriarchate, and then give it autocephaly, says Archdeacon Andrei Kuraev. It is difficult to predict what will happen next: “The Kiev Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate will be against such a transition, but it must be taken into account that Ukrainian legislation considers the community to be the owner of the temple building (in Russia, the diocese manages the temple building). That is, parishioners, not bishops, will vote on the transition of the parish,” says Kuraev. He also recalls that there is a precedent for the coexistence of two patriarchates - Constantinople and Moscow in one country, Estonia.

The main thing about the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church:

1. Why the patriarchs will meet in Istanbul

Cyril and Bartholomew do not see each other often: their previous meeting took place two years ago in Chambesy, Switzerland, at a meeting of primates of autocephalous Orthodox churches. Prior to that, they met in March 2014 at the same event in Istanbul. Judging by official reports, since 2009 there have been five meetings.

According to the announcement of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, issues of "mutual interest" will be discussed. Cyril's visit to Istanbul will serve to strengthen personal ties between the two patriarchs, they will discuss common problems of relations and the Ukrainian issue arising from these relations, religious scholar Roman Lunkin told RBC. According to the expert, Kirill's visit is a step of good will, he "gave up his church pride in order to save Ukraine." Kirill opposes granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and Bartholomew, according to Ukrainian politicians and BBC sources, has already decided to grant independence to the Ukrainian Church.

2. Why does Ukraine need autocephaly

From the first days of his tenure, President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko announced his intention to achieve independence of the Ukrainian Church from the Russian one. “Autocephaly is not just a problem for the Ukrainian Orthodox. This is a matter of our independence. This is a matter of our national security. That is why Moscow and its fifth column in Ukraine are putting up such fierce resistance,” Poroshenko said in June 2018. He was supported former presidents countries Leonid Kravchuk, Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Yushchenko. For Poroshenko, resolving the church dispute is one of the few ways to boost his popularity in the run-up to the 2019 presidential election, said Aleksey Makarkin of the Center for Political Technologies. In his speech at the Ukrainian Independence Day parade on August 24, the president returned to this topic: “We are determined to put an end to the unnatural and uncanonical dependence of the majority of our Orthodox community on the Russian Church.”

According to a survey conducted by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation and the Razumkov Center in June, 31% of citizens support the creation of an autocephalous local Orthodox Church in Ukraine, while 20% oppose it. Among supporters of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), only 23% support the idea of ​​creating a local church, 40% oppose it. And only 11% of Ukrainians believe that the creation of a local church is one of the top-priority issues in the life of the country.

However, the UOC-MP still believes that their church is the largest in Ukraine, and such opinion polls are conducted “in order to protect themselves from possible accusations from international institutions of discrimination against the largest religious organization in Ukraine.”

3. Three churches

There are three Orthodox churches in Ukraine, but only one is canonical - the UOC-MP. Its primate is Metropolitan Onufry. The Church does not support the movement for autocephaly. Since 1990, the UOC-MP has been a self-governing church. Moscow claims that it is she who has the right to ask for autocephalous status.

According to the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, his petition for autocephaly was signed by two Churches - the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. The first was founded in 1992 by people from the UOC. Its primate, Metropolitan Filaret, was anathematized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 2008.

28.7% of the polled citizens of the republic consider themselves parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, 12.8% of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. 0.3% of respondents called themselves parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church, 23.4% said that they were “simply Orthodox”, 1.9% found it difficult to answer. This is evidenced by the data of a study conducted by the Razumkov Center in the spring of 2018.

4. Who and how can grant autocephaly

When it comes to granting autocephaly, the parties refer to various procedures. The Ukrainian side presents the case in such a way that the tomos (decree) can be issued by the Patriarch of Constantinople after consultations (but do not specify with whom).

Representatives of the ROC object - the decision to grant autocephaly should be a single decision of all local churches (there are 15 in total), and it can only be granted to an already existing canonical church, which the ROC in Ukraine considers the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

“In Ukraine, there is only one local church recognized by world Orthodoxy, and this is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. She did not ask for autocephaly from anyone, she is already independent in her administration, ”said Metropolitan Hilarion.

5. What autocephaly will cost the ROC
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is the largest church in Ukraine. According to the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine at the beginning of 2017, the UOC-MP had at its disposal 11,392 places of worship throughout the country, as well as 12,328 communities of believers. There are also three laurels under the jurisdiction of the UOC-MP: Kiev-Pechersk, Pochaevsko-Uspenskaya and Svyatogorskaya Uspenskaya. The Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate is in charge of 3,784 churches and 5,114 communities. At the same time, the Russian Orthodox Church, together with parishes abroad, has 36,878 churches and other premises where the Divine Liturgy is celebrated.

The third largest community and church in Ukraine is the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church: it has 1,195 communities and 868 churches.

The parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate will have to decide whether to join the UOC-KP or not, Patriarch Filaret told the Voice of Ukraine at the end of June: “Those who do not join will not be able to be called the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but will only be a metropolia or exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine.” .

6. Why the ROC does not agree with the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church

There are two main claims: the first is that everything is done not according to the canons, the second is a politically motivated action, and the church should be separated from the state. “The material side plays the last role, the main thing is the political, spiritual and cultural role, without Ukraine, the ROC is, roughly speaking, the church of the Moscow kingdom during the Tatar-Mongol yoke, it is no longer a large-scale formation,” explains Roman Lunkin.

The ROC believes that if autocephaly is nevertheless proclaimed, a split will occur. Granting autocephaly to non-canonical Orthodox churches in Ukraine would be similar to the Great Schism of 1054, which split Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, told TASS in July.

The schism of 1054, also known as the Great Schism, divided the church into Roman Catholic in the west (Rome) and Orthodox in the east (Constantinople), mutual anathemas were lifted only in 1965.

7. Were there any precedents for the independence of the Orthodox Churches?

The last church to receive autocephaly from the Patriarch of Constantinople was the Polish Orthodox Church in 1924. It is to this precedent that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is now referring, explaining its right to grant the tomos of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church. In Moscow, the decision of 1924 is considered erroneous, to which the Ecumenical Patriarch had no right. As in the case of the Polish Church, secular authorities, and not church hierarchs, insisted on autocephaly now, RIA Novosti quotes the opinion of church historian Vladislav Petrushko.

Autocephaly was recognized by other local churches, but not by the Moscow Patriarchate, which broke communion with the Polish Metropolitan Dionysius and the episcopate of Poland. After World War II and the establishment of the communist regime in the country, the Polish Church invalidated its autocephaly and turned to Moscow Patriarch Alexy I with repentance. The Patriarch and the Synod restored canonical prayer and liturgical communion with the Polish Orthodox Church and gave it the right to complete independent government.

8. Is there a difference for parishioners

In the autocephalies of the new time, the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, as a rule, did not transfer to the newly formed churches the right to independently chrismate (preparation and consecration of a special aromatic oil used in church sacraments. - RBC), stipulating in tomos the need to receive chrism from Constantinople. Unlike Constantinople, the Russian Orthodox Church granted autocephaly with the right to chrismate.

The main problem of gaining independence, according to Kuraev, is whether Kyiv will be able to ensure the rights of citizens who disagree with autocephaly. “This topic is missing from the talks between secular and ecclesiastical Russian authorities and Ukrainian ones,” he says. “People have a traditional inertia of thinking. They can adhere to the Kyiv point of view on the issue of Crimea or Donbass, but not recognize the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church. This is not a matter of politics for them, but of religious beliefs. The question is what the Kyiv authorities will do with them,” he clarifies.

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople will make a decision without regard to other local churches, in the event of “very loud objections” from other churches, the process could slow down, the BBC reported in July.

Ecumenical Orthodoxy is rather conditionally divided into two parties, gravitating towards Constantinople and Moscow, the Greek and the Russian. In the first - Constantinople itself, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Hellas, Albania, in the second - Moscow, Antioch, Georgia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Poland and the Czech Republic-Slovakia. There is also an Orthodox Church in Romania, but it remains neutral.

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 this sphere, called upon to observe the moral pillars 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 overflowed the philosopher’s patience and forced him to find a way, bypassing 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 Florence Cathedral - 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 XV - early XVI 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 wars were going on in civilized Catholic countries 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.

Pages from the history of the Russian Church are opened before the reader in an article by Vladislav Andreevich Tulyanov. Describing the conditions under which the Russian Church received autocephalous status, and finding out the reasons for this, the author refers to the difficult period of the XIV-XV centuries, when the fall of Constantinople was approaching, and the Byzantines tried in every possible way to enlist the support of the Pope.

As is commonly believed, Rus' became a Christian power in 988 thanks to the decision of the great Kiev prince Vladimir I. Together with the Christian religion, the Byzantine clergy arrived in Rus', and the Kiev Metropolis was organized, canonically part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This meant that after the death of the next Metropolitan of Kyiv in Constantinople, a new one was appointed, most often from the Greeks. Some grand dukes attempted to install a natural Rusich as metropolitan of Kyiv, but for a long time this practice remained very rare. One such example is the church turmoil of the 1970s. 14th century

Some researchers believe that the church turmoil involving Dmitry Donskoy, Metropolitans Cyprian, Pimen and priest Mityai was provoked by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Cyprian was appointed metropolitan to Lithuania, which was part of the Kyiv Metropolia together with Moscow Rus during the lifetime of Metropolitan Alexei - this divided the unified Kyiv Metropolis into two parts. After the death of Alexei, Dmitry Donskoy did not want to receive Cyprian, apparently considering him a protege of Lithuania, and therefore an enemy of Moscow. Then the idea arose to elect a Russian metropolitan. It is possible that Prince Dmitry even wanted to establish an autocephalous church, because, as the chronicle says, his henchman Mityai, even before his trip to Constantinople, dressed in bishop's clothes and settled in the metropolitan court. Mityai was sent to Constantinople, but died on the way. In Constantinople, nevertheless, they appointed the Russian archimandrite Pimen, who accompanied Mityai, to the Kyiv metropolitans. After the death of Pimen, Metropolitan Cyprian was finally received in Moscow, and the Kiev Metropolis was again united under the authority of the Greek Metropolitan.

In turn, this state of affairs saved Rus' from cruel internal strife and wars with Lithuania, which was part of the Kyiv Metropolis. For example, metropolitans late XIV- early 15th century Cyprian and Photius, appointed in Constantinople, more than once reconciled the Moscow principality with Lithuania.

Again the question of a Russian metropolitan was raised in the 1930s and 1940s. XV century, during the reign of Grand Duke Vasily II. Due to the fact that this attempt was not only crowned with success, but the Russian Church acquired autocephaly, we will dwell on this episode of Russian history in more detail.

In 1431, Metropolitan Photius, who was the guarantor of the power of Vasily II, died. Prince Vasily, obviously, at the prompt of his entourage, because. at that time he was only 16 years old, he wanted to appoint his protege, one of the Russian bishops, as the new metropolitan. Zimin A.A. claims that the Russian clergy unconditionally supported the Grand Duke. Some bishops were even "plundered" by Vasily II's rival Yuri Zvenigorodsky for this support.

The choice of the Grand Duke fell on the Ryazan Bishop Jonah. However, they did not have time to send Jonah to Constantinople to enter the rank because of the struggle for grand princely power that broke out in 1433 between Vasily II and Yuri Zvenigorodsky, the so-called. Feudal War. Only by 1436, when Vasily II managed to finally gain a foothold in Moscow for a short time and defeat the troops of the Zvenigorod prince, Jonah was sent to Constantinople, but it was too late.

In Constantinople, Jonah met the already appointed new Metropolitan of Kyiv, Isidore, a close associate of the Byzantine Emperor John VIII. Byzantium was living out its last days and, under the onslaught of the Turks, saw its salvation in the person of the Pope, who promised to gather a new crusade against the Muslims. However, dad had to pay something. The pope considered the conclusion of a church union between Catholics and Orthodox to be a worthy price to pay for the help of the Western Catholic world. For this purpose, it was planned to convene a cathedral in Florence in 1438-1439. Thus, having barely arrived in Moscow, Isidore had to leave almost immediately for Italy.

Arriving in Moscow in the summer of 1438, Isidore handed the Grand Duke a message from Emperor John VIII and Patriarch Philotheus with a request to let him go to the Florentine Cathedral. After a long squabble, Isidore was nevertheless released.

At the council, the Orthodox delegation had to sign a union on the terms of the Pope. Simeon of Suzdalets, who accompanied Isidore, accused the Greeks of "love of money" and "love of gold", apparently alluding to the bribery of many Greek hierarchs by the pope. And this is not surprising: judging by the descriptions of the once great Constantinople that have come down to us, at that time the capital of the empire was extremely poor. “Pero Tafur wrote in 1437 about the rare and amazingly poor population of Constantinople. In some of its districts, it seemed that you were in the countryside with thickets of wild roses blooming in spring and nightingales singing in the groves.

Characteristically, the Russian Bishop Abraham, who was part of the retinue of the Kyiv Metropolitan, refused to sign a union with the Catholics. For this, on the orders of Isidore, Abraham was sent to prison, where, a week later, he nevertheless signed the union. By such behavior of the Russian bishop, who did not advocate the salvation of Constantinople at any cost (even at the price of selling his own faith), one can judge the legality of concluding a union.

Having signed the union, the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' went back to his metropolis to plant new Uniate orders there. On March 5, 1440, he sent a district message to his metropolis. In it, he only spoke about the very fact of the conclusion of the union, without talking about the terms of this agreement. Isidore advised Orthodox Russians and Catholics from among Lithuanians and Poles: “for now, come to the Latin priests and receive the body of God from them, and the Latins should also go to their church and listen to divine services.” Thus, apart from the fact that Catholics and Orthodox should go to the same church and celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist together, Isidore said nothing more about the conditions of the union.

Before going to the usual residence of Russian metropolitans (Moscow), Isidore long time traveled to the rest of his metropolis - the Lithuanian lands. Here he met with full recognition and humility. This is explained by the fact that he was seen, as before, as an Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv, and not a newly-appeared Uniate cardinal. After all, judging by the news that has come down to us, during his trip to Lithuania, the metropolitan never informed the flock of the conditions for concluding the union. The situation was different in Moscow.

Simeon of Suzdalets and the Tver boyar Foma, who accompanied Isidor to the cathedral, fled as soon as they learned about the conditions for concluding the union. Here is what Simeon himself writes: “I, having seen such a lie and a great heresy, I will run away ... and I will run to the ambassador Thomas ... to Novgorod”. It would be natural to assume that rumors began to spread from Novgorod that Metropolitan Isidore had betrayed Orthodoxy and signed the Unia, subordinating Rus' to the Pope.

Among these rumors, Isidore arrived in Moscow, as the chronicler says: "hiding the charm of the Latin heresy in himself." It should be assumed that the Grand Duke Vasily, knowing the rumors about the "heretics" of Isidore and wanting to check it personally, was preparing a meeting for him, at which Isidore himself was supposed to give himself away. So the chronicler emphasizes that after Isidore's arrival in Moscow, the Grand Duke "ordered him to serve." There he gave himself away, commemorating the pope instead of the Patriarch of Constantinople at the church service. Apparently, it was at this moment that “reveal his madness from Abraham, Bishop of Suzdal, and from Vasily, a deacon with the nickname Charles.” Most likely, Isidore initially did not plan to disclose the terms of the union with Rome in Moscow, but after such a denunciation he had to do it.

A local cathedral was assembled in Moscow. It considered an agreement on concluding a union with the Catholics and was recognized as heretical. However, the Grand Duke and the people of Moscow did not dare to declare Isidore a heretic. The prince was not yet firmly seated on his “table”, because the conflict with the Zvenigorod princes had not yet ended, and the Muscovites were afraid to go against the protege of the Ecumenical Church. Isidore was offered to abdicate, he refused and was imprisoned in a monastery. Then the Grand Duke decided to apply directly to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

In his message, Vasily II resorts to the well-known opinion of Vladimir I about Western Christianity. He writes: “Latins ... heresies (Vladimir - T.V.) are in no way intelligible, ... spitting in every way possible.” Thus, if the holy ancestor himself rejected Western delusions (although Vladimir himself was baptized before the actual division of the Ecumenical Church into Catholic and Orthodox, but already in his time there were noticeable ritual and dogmatic differences between Rome and Constantinople), then Basil II simply does not have the right change this decision.

The message also says that Isidore brought with him from Italy "many things that are strange and foreign to the Orthodox Christian faith." And after conferring with the local Russian bishops, the Grand Duke decided not to accept these innovations.

In conclusion, the Grand Duke, in order to avoid such troubles, as in the case of Isidore, asks that “in our fatherland in Rustei, the God-loving bishops of our fatherland ... whoever chooses a man of good spiritual husband, by Orthodox faith, let us appoint a metropolitan to Rus'.” And further: “It is in no way separate from you to have our Orthodox Christianity until the age.” Thus, the Grand Duke asks the Patriarch for the right to independently elevate the metropolitan to the rank, i.e. about the so-called ecclesiastical autonomy, but not about autocephaly, which implies that the autocephalous church receives a whole range of different rights.

However, having learned that the Patriarch was also a Uniate, the Grand Duke did not order to send messages to Constantinople. Instead, it was decided to turn to the unquestioning authority in the Orthodox world - Holy Mount Athos - for advice.

In his message, the Grand Duke asks the monks of the Holy Mountain about what to do with Metropolitan Isidore, who tried to plant Catholicism in Rus'. Basil the Dark, meanwhile, reminds the monks of Athos about "the former from the bad Latins of violence on the Holy Mountain." This seems to be a completely deliberate and logical move by the Grand Duke: after 1204, when Constantinople was captured by the troops of the Fourth Crusade, the monks of Athos were oppressed by the Catholic crusaders for a long time. Naturally, there could be no other than the approval of the prince's policy against Isidore by the Athonites.

Soon the Grand Duke received an answer from Athos, in which his policy was indeed approved and supported. The message says: “... even if you keep the faith without blemish, for the sake of that, for the sake of it, there is much reward for you in heaven.” Thus, Basil II received a completely satisfactory confirmation of his policy towards the Latin heresy of Isidore.

During this correspondence, Isidore fled from the monastery. The Grand Duke, obviously, should have been pleased with his flight, since he did not know what to do with him next. He could not execute him, he could not expel him either, therefore, when Isidore fled, the Grand Duke did not send chase after him.

In addition to all of the above, we can say that in Rus' by the 40s. 15th century formed its own negative attitude towards the "Latin" West.

In Rus' since the XIII century. were familiar with the atrocities of the Catholic crusaders in 1204 in conquered Byzantium. Even then, the Russian people began to adopt from the Greeks a negative attitude towards the "Latin faith". In addition, the thirteenth century was marked by a direct onslaught of the Catholic West on the Russian lands. Firstly, the mission of the Dominican order in Rus' ended unsuccessfully, the purpose of which was the conversion of Russians to Catholicism. In 1233, Catholic churches were closed almost everywhere in Rus'. Secondly, the onslaught of the crusaders, repulsed by Alexander Yaroslavich in the Battle of the Neva and on the ice of Lake Peipsi, could well threaten Novgorod and most of North-Western Rus' with a forced conversion to Catholicism. In addition, the middle of the XIV century. was marked by the onslaught of Catholic Sweden on the lands of the Novgorod Republic. The Swedish king Magnus wanted to convert the Novgorodians to Catholicism and possibly include them in his own state. The Swedes treated Karelians and Izhorians very harshly, who refused to convert to Catholicism.

All this gave rise to the image of a Catholic in the mind of a Russian person, who was embodied in the person of Pope Eugene, described by Simeon Suzdalets: faith, who fell away with the love of gold and the love of money, ... proud and magnified, and by the cunning and teaching of the malevolent Pope Eugenias. Of course, the Russian people could not want to unite in the faith with such a "evil-tempered pope."

Thus, in the second half of the XIV - the first half of the XV centuries. the Russian princes did not raise the question of the complete independence of the Russian Church from Constantinople. They would be quite satisfied independent choice metropolitan in Rus', with his further elevation to the dignity in Constantinople. However, Rus' did not want to be a “bargaining chip” in solving the problems of Byzantium, and therefore Isidore was not accepted with his innovations. The Grand Duke needed an ally in solving the internal problems of Rus', like Metropolitan Photius, who died in 1431, and the acting Metropolitan Isidore, who was absent for almost a year and a half and did nothing to solve these problems, advocated only for the salvation of Byzantium. The Grand Duke was not ready to cut ties with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As we found out, Vasily II claimed only the independent choice of a new metropolitan, while he specifically pointed out that only in unity with Constantinople in Rus' could there be true Orthodox Christianity. However, having learned that the patriarch was also a Uniate, there was simply no other way out than to self-proclaim the Russian church autocephalous. Thanks to this policy of Basil II, Rus' for some time was generally the only Orthodox power in the world. This, in the eyes of the Russian scribes, made the Grand Duke what he was before. Byzantine emperor- defender Orthodox faith and a true Orthodox monarch. This was reflected in the annals, many chroniclers call Vasily the Dark none other than "king"