Peter I remained in the history of our country as a cardinal reformer who abruptly turned the course of life in Russia. In this role, only Vladimir Lenin or Alexander II can compare with him. During the 36 years of independent rule of the autocrat, the state not only changed its status from a kingdom to an Empire. All spheres of life in the country have changed. The reforms affected everyone - from the homeless to the nobleman from St. Petersburg under construction.
The Church did not stand aside either. Possessing endless authority among the population, this organization was distinguished by its conservatism and inability to change and interfered with the growing power of Peter. Inertia and adherence to the traditions of priests did not prevent the emperor from making changes in religious circles. First of all, this is, of course, the Orthodox Synod. However, it would be wrong to say that the changes ended there.
The State of the Church on the Eve of Reform
The highest church body under Peter 1 at the beginning of his reign was the patriarchate, which still had great power and independence. The Crown Bearer, of course, did not like this, and on the one hand he wanted to subordinate all the higher clergy directly to himself, and on the other, he was disgusted by the prospect of his own Pope appearing in Moscow. The guardian of the throne of St. Paul did not recognize anyone’s authority over himself at all. Nikon, for example, strived for the same thing under Alexei Mikhailovich.
The young tsar's first step in relations with the Orthodox clergy was a ban on the construction of new monasteries in Siberia. The decree is dated 1699. Immediately after this, the Northern War with Sweden began, which constantly distracted Peter from sorting out his relationship with Orthodoxy.
Creating a Locum Tenens Title
When Patriarch Adrian died in 1700, the tsar appointed a locum tenens to the patriarchal throne. They became the Metropolitan of Ryazan. Adrian’s successor was allowed to engage only in “matters of faith.” That is, to engage in heresy and worship. All other powers of the patriarch were divided between orders. This concerned primarily economic activity on the lands of the Church. The war with Sweden promised to be long, the state needed resources, and the tsar was not going to leave extra funds to the “priests.” As it turned out later, this was a calculated move. Soon the parish bells began to be melted down for new cannons. The highest church body under Peter 1 did not resist.
The locum tenens had no independent power. On all important issues he had to consult with the other bishops, and send all reports directly to the sovereign. For the time being, the reforms were frozen.
At the same time, the importance of the monastic order increased. In particular, he was tasked with taking control of an ancient Russian tradition - begging. Fools and beggars were caught and taken to the order. Those who gave alms were also punished, regardless of rank and position in society. As a rule, such a person received a fine.
Creation of the Synod
Finally, in 1721, the Holy Governing Synod was created. At its core, it became an analogue of the Senate of the Russian Empire, which was responsible for the executive branch, being the highest body of the state, directly subordinate to the emperor.
The Synod in Russia implied such positions as president and vice-president. Although they were soon abolished, such a step perfectly demonstrates Peter I’s habit of using the practice of the Table of Ranks, that is, creating new ranks that have nothing in common with the past. Stefan Yarovsky became the first president. He did not enjoy any authority or power. The position of vice president performed a supervisory function. In other words, he was an auditor who informed the tsar about everything that happened in the department.
Other positions
The position of chief prosecutor also appeared, who regulated the relationship of the new structure with society, and also had the right to vote and lobbied for the interests of the crown.
As in secular ministries, the Synod had its own spiritual fiscals. In their sphere of influence was all spiritual activity in the country. They monitored the implementation of religious norms, etc.
As noted above, the Synod was created as an analogue of the Senate, which means it was in constant contact with it. The link between the two organizations was a special agent who delivered reports and was responsible for communication.
What was the Synod responsible for?
The responsibility of the Synod included both clergy affairs and matters related to the laity. In particular, the highest church body under Peter 1 was supposed to monitor the performance of Christian rituals and eradicate superstitions. It is worth mentioning here about education. The Synod under Peter 1 was the final authority responsible for textbooks in all kinds of educational institutions.
Secular clergy
According to Peter, the white clergy was supposed to become an instrument of the state that would influence the masses and monitor their spiritual condition. In other words, the same clear and regulated class as the nobility and merchants was created, with its own goals and functions.
Throughout its entire history, the Russian clergy was distinguished by its accessibility to the population. This was not a priestly caste. On the contrary, almost anyone could join there. For this reason, there was an overabundance of priests in the country, many of whom stopped serving in the parish and became vagabonds. Such ministers of the Church were called “sacral.” The lack of regulation of this environment, of course, became something out of the ordinary during the time of Peter 1.
A strict charter was also introduced, according to which during the service the priest was only supposed to praise the tsar’s new reforms. The Synod under Peter 1 issued a decree obliging the confessor to inform the authorities if a person admitted in confession to a state crime or blasphemy against the crown. Those who disobeyed were punished by death.
Church education
Numerous audits were carried out to check the education of the clergy. Their result was mass defrocking and reduction of social class. The highest church body under Peter 1 introduced and systematized new standards for obtaining the priesthood. In addition, now each parish could only have a certain number of deacons and no more. In parallel with this, the procedure for leaving one's rank was simplified.
Speaking about church education in the first quarter of the 18th century, we should note the active opening of seminaries in the 20s. New educational institutions appeared in Nizhny Novgorod, Kharkov, Tver, Kazan, Kolomna, Pskov and other cities of the new empire. The program included 8 classes. Boys with primary education were accepted there.
Black clergy
The black clergy also became the target of reforms. In short, the changes in the life of the monasteries boiled down to three goals. Firstly, their number has been steadily decreasing. Secondly, access to ordination became difficult. Thirdly, the remaining monasteries were to receive a practical purpose.
The reason for this attitude was the monarch’s personal hostility towards the monks. This was largely due to childhood impressions in which they remained rebels. In addition, the emperor was far from the lifestyle of a schema-monk. He preferred practical activities to fasting and prayer. Therefore, it is not surprising that he built ships, worked as a carpenter, and did not like monasteries.
Wanting these institutions to bring some benefit to the state, Peter ordered them to be converted into infirmaries, factories, factories, schools, etc. But the life of the monks became much more complicated. In particular, they were forbidden to leave the walls of their native monastery. Absentees were severely punished.
The results of church reform and its future fate
Peter I was a convinced statesman and, according to this conviction, made the clergy a cog in the overall system. Considering himself the only bearer of power in the country, he deprived the patriarchy of any power, and over time completely destroyed this structure.
After the death of the monarch, many excesses of the reforms were canceled, but in general terms the system continued to exist until the revolution of 1917 and the Bolsheviks coming to power. Those, by the way, actively used the image of Peter I in their anti-church propaganda, praising his desire to subordinate Orthodoxy to the state.
The era of Peter the Great in the life of the Russian church is full of historical content. Firstly, both the relationship of the church to the state and church governance became clearer and took on new forms. Secondly, the internal church life was marked by a struggle of theological views (for example, the familiar dispute about transubstantiation between the Great Russian and Little Russian clergy and other disagreements). Thirdly, the literary activity of church representatives revived. In our presentation we will touch only on the first of these points, because the second has a special church-historical interest, and the third is considered in the history of literature.
Let us first consider those measures of Peter I that established the relationship of the church to the state and the general order of church government; then we will move on to specific measures regarding church affairs and the clergy.
The relationship of the church to the state before Peter I in the Moscow state was not precisely defined, although at the church council of 1666–1667. The Greeks fundamentally recognized the primacy of secular power and denied the right of hierarchs to interfere in secular affairs. The Moscow sovereign was considered the supreme patron of the church and took an active part in church affairs. But church authorities were also called upon to participate in public administration and influenced it. Rus' did not know the struggle between church and secular authorities, familiar to the West (it did not exist, strictly speaking, even under Nikon). The enormous moral authority of the Moscow patriarchs did not seek to replace the authority of state power, and if a voice of protest was heard from the Russian hierarch (for example, Metropolitan Philip against Ivan IV), then it never left the moral ground.
Peter I did not grow up under such a strong influence of theological science and not in such a pious environment as his brothers and sisters grew up. From the very first steps of his adult life, he became friends with the “German heretics” and, although he remained an Orthodox man by conviction, he was more free in many rituals than ordinary Moscow people, and seemed infected with “heresy” in the eyes of the Old Testament zealots of piety. It is safe to say that Peter, from his mother and from the conservative patriarch Joachim (d. 1690), more than once faced condemnation for his habits and acquaintance with heretics. Under Patriarch Adrian (1690–1700), a weak and timid man, Peter found no more sympathy for his innovations; following Joachim and Adrian, he forbade barber shaving, and Peter thought to make it mandatory. At the first decisive innovations of Peter, all those protesting against them, seeing them as heresy, sought moral support in the authority of the church and were indignant at Adrian, who was cowardly silent, in their opinion, when he should have stood for orthodoxy. Adrian really did not interfere with Peter and was silent, but he did not sympathize with the reforms, and his silence, in essence, was a passive form of opposition. Insignificant in itself, the patriarch became inconvenient for Peter as the center and unifying principle of all protests, as a natural representative of not only church, but also social conservatism. The Patriarch, strong in will and spirit, could have become a powerful opponent of Peter I if he had taken the side of the conservative Moscow worldview, which condemned all public life to immobility.
Understanding this danger, after the death of Adrian, Peter was in no hurry to elect a new patriarch, but appointed Metropolitan of Ryazan Stefan Yavorsky, a learned Little Russian, as “locum tenens of the patriarchal throne.” Management of the patriarchal household passed into the hands of specially appointed secular persons. There is no need to assume, as some do, that immediately after the death of Adrian, Peter decided to abolish the patriarchate. It would be more accurate to think that Peter simply did not know what to do with the election of the patriarch. Peter treated the Great Russian clergy with some distrust, because many times he was convinced how much they did not sympathize with the reforms. Even the best representatives of the ancient Russian hierarchy, who were able to understand the entire nationality of Peter I’s foreign policy and helped him as best they could (Mitrofan of Voronezh, Tikhon of Kazan, Job of Novgorod), were also against Peter’s cultural innovations. For Peter, choosing a patriarch from among the Great Russians meant risking creating a formidable opponent for himself. The Little Russian clergy behaved differently: it itself was influenced by Western culture and science and sympathized with the innovations of Peter I. But it was impossible to install a Little Russian as patriarch because during the time of Patriarch Joachim, Little Russian theologians were compromised in the eyes of Moscow society, like people with Latin errors; For this, even persecution was brought against them. The elevation of a Little Russian to the patriarchal throne would therefore lead to a general temptation. In such circumstances, Peter I decided to remain without a patriarch.
The following order of church administration was temporarily established: at the head of the church administration were the locum tenens Stefan Yavorsky and a special institution, the Monastic Prikaz, with secular persons at the head; the council of hierarchs was recognized as the supreme authority in matters of religion; Peter himself, like previous sovereigns, was the patron of the church and took an active part in its governance. This participation of Peter led to the fact that Little Russian bishops, previously persecuted, began to play an important role in church life. Despite protests both in Rus' and in the Orthodox East, Peter constantly nominated Little Russian learned monks to the episcopal departments. The Great Russian clergy, poorly educated and hostile to the reform, could not be an assistant to Peter I, while the Little Russians, who had a broader mental outlook and grew up in a country where Orthodoxy was forced to actively fight against Catholicism, cultivated a better understanding of the tasks of the clergy and the habit of broad activities. In their dioceses they did not sit idly by, but converted foreigners to Orthodoxy, acted against the schism, founded schools, took care of the life and morality of the clergy, and found time for literary activity. It is clear that they were more in line with the desires of the converter, and Peter I valued them more than those clergy from the Great Russians, whose narrow views often got in his way. One can cite a long series of names of Little Russian bishops who occupied prominent places in the Russian hierarchy. But the most remarkable of them are: the above-mentioned Stephen of Yavorsky, St. Dmitry, Metropolitan of Rostov and, finally, under Peter, Bishop of Pskov, later Archbishop of Novgorod. He was a very capable, lively and energetic person, inclined to practical activity much more than to abstract science, but very educated and studied theology not only at the Kiev Academy, but also at the Catholic colleges of Lvov, Krakow and even Rome. The scholastic theology of Catholic schools did not influence Theophan’s lively mind; on the contrary, it instilled in him a dislike for scholasticism and Catholicism. Not receiving satisfaction in Orthodox theological science, which was then poorly and little developed, Theophan turned from Catholic doctrines to the study of Protestant theology and, being carried away by it, adopted some Protestant views, although he was an Orthodox monk. This inclination towards the Protestant worldview, on the one hand, was reflected in Theophan’s theological treatises, and on the other hand, helped him get closer to Peter I in his views on reform. The king, who was brought up in Protestant culture, and the monk, who completed his education in Protestant theology, understood each other perfectly. Having met Feofan for the first time in Kyiv in 1706, Peter in 1716 summoned him to St. Petersburg, made him his right hand in the matter of church administration and defended him from all attacks from other clergy, who noticed the Protestant spirit in Peter’s favorite. Theophan, in his famous sermons, was an interpreter and apologist for Peter's reforms, and in his practical activities he was his sincere and capable assistant.
Theophan was responsible for the development and, perhaps, even the very idea of that new plan of church government on which Peter I settled. For more than twenty years (1700–1721), temporary disorder continued, in which the Russian church was governed without a patriarch. Finally, on February 14, 1721, the opening of the “Holy Governing Synod” took place. This spiritual college forever replaced the patriarchal power. It was given guidance by the Spiritual Regulations, drawn up by Theophan and edited by Peter I himself. The regulations openly pointed out the imperfection of the patriarch’s sole management and the political inconveniences resulting from the exaggeration of the authority of the patriarchal power in state affairs. The collegial form of church government was recommended as the best in all respects. The composition of the Synod according to the regulations is determined as follows: a president, two vice-presidents, four advisers and four assessors (including representatives of black and white clergy). Note that the composition of the Synod was similar to the composition of the secular collegiums. The persons who were at the Synod were the same as those at the collegiums; The representative of the sovereign's person in the Synod was the chief prosecutor; under the Synod there was also a whole department of fiscals, or inquisitors. The external organization of the Synod was, in a word, taken from the general type of organization of the college.
Speaking about the position of the Synod in the state, one should strictly distinguish its role in the sphere of the church from its role in the general system of government. The significance of the Synod in church life is clearly defined by the Spiritual Regulations, according to which the Synod has “patriarchal power and authority.” All spheres of jurisdiction and the fullness of the ecclesiastical power of the patriarch are inherent in the Synod. The diocese of the patriarch, which was under his personal control, was also transferred to him. The Synod ruled this diocese through a special board called the dicastery, or consistory. (Based on the model of this consistory, consistories were gradually established in the dioceses of all bishops). Thus, in church affairs the Synod completely replaced the patriarch.
But in the sphere of public administration, the Synod did not completely inherit patriarchal authority. We have different opinions about the significance of the Synod in the overall composition of the administration under Peter. Some believe that “the Synod was compared in everything to the Senate and, along with it, was directly subordinate to the sovereign” (this opinion is held, for example, by P. Znamensky in his “Guide to Russian Church History”). Others think that under Peter, in practice, the state significance of the Synod became lower than the significance of the Senate. Although the Synod strives to become independent of the Senate, the latter, considering the Synod as an ordinary college for spiritual affairs, considered it subordinate to itself. This view of the Senate was justified by the general thought of the reformer, which formed the basis of the church reform: with the establishment of the Synod, the church became dependent not on the person of the sovereign, as before, but on the state, its management was introduced into the general administrative order and the Senate, which managed the affairs of the church until the establishment of the Synod , could consider himself above the Theological College, as the supreme administrative body in the state (this view was expressed in one of the articles by Prof. Vladimirsky-Budanov). It is difficult to decide which opinion is fairer. One thing is clear that the political significance of the Synod never rose as high as the authority of the patriarchs stood (about the beginning of the Synod, see P. V. Verkhovsky “Establishment of the Spiritual Collegium and Spiritual Regulations,” two volumes. 1916; also G. S. Runkevich " Establishment and initial structure of the Holy Ave. Synod", 1900).
Thus, with the establishment of the Synod, Peter I emerged from the difficulty in which he had stood for many years. His church-administrative reform retained authoritative power in the Russian Church, but deprived this power of the political influence with which the patriarchs could act. The question of the relationship between church and state was resolved in favor of the latter, and the eastern hierarchs recognized the replacement of the patriarch by the Synod as completely legitimate. But these same eastern Greek hierarchs under Tsar Alexei had already resolved, in principle, the same issue and in the same direction. Therefore, Peter's church reforms, being a sharp novelty in their form, were built on the old principle bequeathed to Peter by Muscovite Russia. And here, as in other reforms of Peter I, we encounter the continuity of historical traditions.
As for private events on the affairs of the church and faith in the era of Peter I, we can only briefly mention the most important of them, namely: about the church court and land ownership, about the clergy black and white, about the attitude towards Gentiles and the schism.
Church jurisdiction under Peter was very limited: a lot of cases from church courts were transferred to secular courts (even the trial of crimes against faith and the church could not be carried out without the participation of secular authorities). For the trial of church people, according to the claims of secular persons, the Monastic Order with secular courts was restored in 1701 (closed in 1677). In this limitation of the judicial function of the clergy one can see a close connection with the measures of the Code of 1649, in which the same tendency was reflected.
The same close connection with ancient Russia can be seen in the measures of Peter I regarding immovable church property. The land estates of the clergy under Peter were first subjected to strict control by state authorities, and were subsequently removed from the economic management of the clergy. Their management was transferred to the Monastic Order; they turned into state property, as it were, part of the income from which went to the maintenance of monasteries and rulers. This is how Peter tried to resolve the age-old question of the land holdings of the clergy in Rus'. At the turn of the XV and XVI centuries. the right of monasteries to own estates was denied by part of monasticism itself (Nile of Sorsky); by the end of the 16th century. The government drew attention to the rapid alienation of lands from the hands of service people into the hands of the clergy and sought, if not to stop completely, then to limit this alienation. In the 17th century zemstvo petitions persistently pointed out the harm of such alienation for the state and the noble class; the state lost lands and duties from them; the nobles became landless. In 1649, the Code finally introduced a law prohibiting the clergy from further acquisition of land. But the Code has not yet decided to return to the state those lands that were owned by the clergy.
Concerned about raising morality and well-being among the clergy, Peter paid special attention to the life of the white clergy, poor and poorly educated, “nothing different from the arable men,” as a contemporary put it. Through a series of decrees, Peter tried to cleanse the environment of the clergy by forcibly diverting its excess members to other classes and occupations and persecuting its bad elements (wandering clergy). At the same time, Peter tried to better provide for the parish clergy by reducing its number and increasing the area of parishes. He thought to improve the morality of the clergy through education and strict control. However, all these measures did not produce great results.
Peter I treated monasticism not only with less concern, but even with some hostility. She proceeded from Peter’s conviction that the monks were one of the reasons for popular dissatisfaction with the reform and stood in opposition. A man with a practical orientation, Peter poorly understood the meaning of contemporary monasticism and thought that the majority of monks become monks “from taxes and laziness, so that they can eat bread for nothing.” Without working, the monks, according to Peter, “eat up other people’s labors” and, in inaction, breed heresies and superstitions and are doing something other than their own: stirring up the people against innovations. With this view of Peter I, it is understandable that he wanted to reduce the number of monasteries and monks, to strictly supervise them and limit their rights and benefits. The monasteries were deprived of their lands, their income, and the number of monks was limited by the states; not only vagrancy, but also the transition from one monastery to another was prohibited, the personality of each monk was placed under the strict control of the abbots: practicing writing in cells was prohibited, communication between monks and laity was difficult. At the end of his reign, Peter I expressed his views on the social significance of monasteries in his “Announcement on Monasticism” (1724). According to this view, monasteries should have a charitable purpose (the poor, sick, disabled and wounded were placed in monasteries for charity), and in addition, monasteries should serve to prepare people for higher spiritual positions and to provide shelter for people who are inclined to a pious contemplative life . With all his activities regarding the monasteries, Peter I sought to bring them into line with the indicated goals.
In the era of Peter I, the attitude of the government and the church towards Gentiles became softer than it was in the 17th century. Western Europeans were treated with tolerance, but even under Peter, Protestants were favored more than Catholics. Peter's attitude towards the latter was determined not only by religious motives, but also by political ones: Peter I responded to the oppression of Orthodox Christians in Poland by threatening to initiate a persecution of Catholics. But in 1721, the Synod issued an important decree allowing marriages of Orthodox Christians with non-Orthodox people - both Protestants and Catholics alike.
Peter was partly guided by political motives in relation to the Russian schism. While he saw the schism as an exclusively religious sect, he treated it rather softly, without touching the beliefs of the schismatics (although from 1714 he ordered them to take a double tax salary). But when he saw that the religious conservatism of the schismatics led to civil conservatism and that the schismatics were sharp opponents of his civil activities, then Peter changed his attitude towards the schism. In the second half of the reign of Peter I, repressions went hand in hand with religious tolerance: schismatics were persecuted as civil opponents of the ruling church; at the end of the reign, religious tolerance seemed to decrease, and there followed a restriction of the civil rights of all schismatics, without exception, involved and not involved in political affairs. In 1722, the schismatics were even given a certain outfit, the features of which seemed to be a mockery of the schism.
The attitude of researchers towards the church reform carried out by Peter I is not the same. This topic causes controversy among scientists. In an attempt to give his assessment of these controversial transformations, the author reveals the essence of the reform, and also analyzes its impact on the Orthodox Church in Russia and on the religious sentiments of people of that time.
Introduction
Bishop Feofan Prokopovich, in his speech at the funeral of Peter the Great, assessed the role of the emperor in the life of Russian Orthodoxy: “Behold, yours, about the Russian Church, and David and Constantine. His business, the Synodal government, his care are written and verbal instructions. Oh, how the heart uttered this about the ignorance of the path of the saved! Colic of jealousy against superstition, and staircase porches, and the schism nesting within us, insane, hostile and destructive! He had such a great desire and search for the greatest art in the rank of pastoralism, the most direct wisdom among the people, the greatest correction in everything.” And at the same time, many of Peter’s contemporaries considered him the “king-antichrist”...
There are also very different opinions about the impact of the church reform of Emperor Peter I on the life of the Russian Orthodox Church. Some church leaders and researchers noted its positive side, pointing out that it was a movement towards church conciliarity. The ideologist of the reform, Bishop Feofan (Prokopovich), was the first to speak about this. Another point of view is that the reform was exclusively destructive for Russian Orthodoxy and was aimed at subordinating the Church to the state in Russia, while taking as a basis the examples of Protestant states, in particular England, where the king is also the leader of the Church.
Extensive historiography is devoted to the study of the church reform of Emperor Peter I; It is not possible to consider all of it within the framework of the article. In this regard, when writing it, only some of the works were used, the authors of which held different views on the problem. A sharply negative assessment is given by Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), Metropolitan John (Snychev) also agrees with her, the more balanced works of Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, I.K. Smolich, N. Talberg, and even the book written in the conditions of atheistic Soviet Russia by N.M. Nikolsky do not contain unambiguous assessments. Of particular interest is A. Bokhanov’s study on autocracy, and a brief history of Russia written by S. G. Pushkarev.
1. Different views on the church reform of Peter I
As I.K. wrote Smolich, considering the assessments that were given to Peter’s reform in church life, “Theophanes repeatedly emphasizes that the Synod is a “conciliar government” and, therefore, more than just a collegial governing body. Already in the manifesto, this expression is deliberately used to evoke in the reader associations with church councils. In the official textbook of Russian church history of 1837, the Holy Synod is directly referred to as a “continuous Local Council.” In the “History of the Russian Church” by Philaret Gumilyovsky it is said: “The Holy Synod in its composition is the same as a legitimate church council.” Already in 1815, Filaret Drozdov, later Metropolitan, made an attempt to present the Holy Synod as the personification of the conciliar principle of the ancient Church. In his essay “Conversations between the inquisitive and the confident about the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Catholic Church,” the doubter is given an explanation that every time a patriarch died in a Church, a Council, or in Greek Synod, gathered in it, which took the place of the patriarch.” This Council had the same power as the patriarch. When the Russian Church received the Holy Synod as the highest authority of its governance, it “came closer to the ancient image of the hierarchy.”
A. Bokhanov in his book also considers different points of view not only on Peter’s reforms, but also on his personal religiosity: “There are different judgments regarding Peter’s religiosity; This is one of the most unclear aspects of the historical portrait of this amazing personality, contradictory in all its directions. Few consider him an unbeliever; discrepancies begin when assessing the nature of his faith. L.A., who specifically considered this topic. Tikhomirov noted that “despite the blasphemous parodies of the church hierarchy with the “Prince Pope” at its head, he undoubtedly believed in God and in Christ the Savior. But he really had strong Protestant inclinations. He generally regarded Luther very highly. , in front of the statue of Luther in the Wartburg, he praised him for the fact that “he stepped so courageously on the pope and all his army for the greatest benefit of his sovereign and many princes.” Praise for a religious reformer is not so flattering, but it well depicts Peter’s own views on the Church ".
The obvious inclination of the Russian Tsar towards European rationalistic regulation in matters of faith came into conflict not only with historically established forms of worldview, familiar to a certain, privileged circle, but also with popular ideas. As noted by G.V. Florovsky, “the novelty of Peter’s reform is not in Westernism, but in secularization. It is in this that Peter’s reform was not only a turn, but also a revolution.” The monarch arbitrarily planted the “psychology of a coup”, initiating a genuine Russian split. Since that time, “the well-being and self-determination of power has changed. State power is asserting itself in its self-pressure, asserting its sovereign self-sufficiency.” Florovsky was sure that Peter had created a “police state”, that state care had acquired the character of “guardianship”. From now on, the human personality began to be assessed not from the standpoint of moral qualities, but from the point of view of suitability for “political and technical goals and objectives.” If Florovsky is not very convincing in his particular assessments of Peter’s transformations, then his general conclusion that the Tsar-Emperor introduced management techniques and power psychology into Russia not just “from Europe,” but namely from Protestant countries - this conclusion seems justified.
<...>According to N.M. Karamzin, the transformer’s plan was to “make Russia Holland.” This statement can be considered exaggerated. However, made long before the Slavophiles, the historiographer’s conclusion that since Peter “we became citizens of the world, but in some cases ceased to be citizens of Russia,” cannot but be considered historically adequate.”
At the same time, as I.K. Smolich wrote, “it is hardly fair to assume that Peter’s religiosity was imbued with the spirit of Western rationalism. He revered icons and the Mother of God, as he confessed to Patriarch Adrian during the procession regarding the execution of the archers; he reverently kissed the relics, willingly attended services, read the Apostle and sang in the church choir. His contemporaries knew that he was well-read in the Bible, from which he aptly used quotes both in conversations and in letters. Feofan Prokopovich notes that “like all armor (Peter - ed.) there were dogmas studied from the Holy Scriptures, especially Paul’s epistle, which he firmly cemented in his memory.” The same Theophan says that Peter “and in theological and other conversations to hear and not remain silent, not only, as others were accustomed to, was not ashamed, but was also willing to try and instruct many in doubts of conscience.” .
Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) and Metropolitan John (Snychev) give unequivocally negative assessments of the activities of the first Russian emperor in church matters. According to Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), “the harm from the anti-church reforms of Peter I was not limited to the fact that Protestantism even under him began to spread strongly through the multiplication of sects in Russian society. The main evil here was that Peter instilled Protestantism into the Russian people, which had in itself a great temptation and attractiveness, due to which they began to live in Russia even after Peter. Protestantism is attractive because it apparently elevates the human personality, since it gives precedence to reason and freedom over the authority of faith and seduces with the independence and progressiveness of its principles.<...>But this does not exhaust the evil that Peter caused to Russia. The Russian Church could successfully combat the deviation from the Orthodox faith of the Russian people on the basis of Protestantism through school education. But Peter took away property from the Church. Because of this, the enlightenment of the Russian people was not under the jurisdiction of the Church, it did not spread on the primordial historical principles of our Orthodox faith, but since the 19th century it even introduced a negative attitude towards faith and therefore concealed the death of Russia.”
According to Metropolitan John (Snychev), “the convulsive era of Peter, which scattered Russian antiquity in pursuit of European innovations, was replaced by the dominance of a series of temporary workers who loved Russia little and understood even less the unique features of its character and worldview.<...>The Orthodox Church was humiliated and weakened: the canonical form of its government (patriarchy) was eliminated, the confiscation of church lands undermined the well-being of the clergy and the possibilities of church charity, and the number of monasteries - the beacons of Christian spirituality and Orthodox education - was sharply reduced. Autocracy as a principle of government (implying a religiously conscious attitude towards power as church service and obedience) was increasingly distorted under the influence of the ideas of Western European absolutism.”
2. The essence of the church reform of Emperor Peter I
The first Russian emperor, apparently, brought the idea of reforming church governance in Russia from Europe. “A lot of evidence has been preserved about Peter’s broad interest in the church life of England, not only in its official, but also in its sectarian parts. He talked with the Canterbury bishops themselves and with other Anglican bishops all about church affairs. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York appointed special theologian consultants for Peter. The University of Oxford also joined them, appointing a consultant for its part. William of Orange, who received the English crown, but was brought up in a left-wing Protestant spirit, citing the example of his native Holland and England itself, advised Peter to become the “head of religion” himself in order to have full monarchical power. When talking abroad about church issues, Peter nevertheless exercised great caution, pointing out to his interlocutors that they were in charge of the highest church authorities in Russia. The general question of collegial management interested him.”
As S.V. wrote Pushkarev, “with his utilitarian-practical approach to all life issues and with his desire to drag all his subjects to work and to serve the state, Peter was not sympathetic and even hostile to monasticism, especially since in the “bearded men” he so disliked he saw either felt obvious or hidden opposition to his reforms. From 1700 until the end of his reign, Peter systematically took a number of measures in order to limit and neutralize monasticism. In 1701, the management of monastic and episcopal estates was removed from the hands of the spiritual authorities and transferred to the hands of secular officials of the Monastic Prikaz. An annual “dacha” of money and bread was allocated for the maintenance of monks and nuns. It was ordered to rewrite the monasteries and all the monks and nuns in them, and henceforth no one would be tonsured a monk again without a royal decree; It was completely forbidden for men under 30 years of age to be tonsured as monks, and for “decreased places” it was ordered that mostly retired soldiers, old and disabled, be tonsured as monks. Income from the monastery estates was to be used for charitable purposes.”
According to the memoirs of A.K. Nartov, “His Imperial Majesty, being present at a meeting with the bishops, noticing some of the strong desire to elect a patriarch, which was repeatedly proposed by the clergy, took with one hand from his pocket the Spiritual Regulations prepared for such an occasion and gave them, said to them menacingly: “You are asking patriarch, here is a spiritual patriarch for you, and for those who think against this (pulling the dagger out of its sheath with the other hand and hitting it on the table) here is a damask patriarch!” Then he got up and walked out. After this, the petition for the election of a patriarch was left and the Holy Synod was established.
Stefan Yavorsky and Feofan Novgorodsky agreed with Peter the Great’s intention to establish the Theological College, who helped His Majesty in the composition of the Rules, of whom he appointed the first chairman of the synod, and the other vice-president, he himself became the head of the church of his state and once talked about conflict between Patriarch Nikon and the Tsar, his parent Alexei Mikhailovich, said: “It’s time to curb the power that does not belong to the elder. God has deigned to correct my citizenship and clergy. I am both of them - the sovereign and the patriarch. They forgot, in ancient times this was together.”
“Theophanes was one of the few contemporaries of Peter who knew what the king wanted to do and how. We must pay tribute to Feofan’s subtle instinct: he understood Peter at a glance, in a certain sense, he even ran ahead, thus giving Peter the impression that in front of him was a person whom he could rely on. All this was the reason that Feofan received the task of developing a plan for the reorganization of church administration."
As N.M. wrote Nikolsky, “The Spiritual Regulations, published on January 25, 1721, together with Peter’s manifesto, established, in the language of the manifesto, a “conciliar government” in the Church in fact, as the Spiritual Regulations bluntly stated. The Spiritual Collegium, which was henceforth to govern the Russian Church, was conceived and organized in the form of one of the other collegiums, i.e. institutions corresponding to modern ministries; thus, the new “conciliar government” became just one of the spokes in the wheel of an absolutist state. The new legislative act was prepared without any participation of the Church, for, although the Pskov Bishop Feofan Prokopovich drafted the Regulations, he only carried out Peter’s task - to establish a collegium for the governance of the Russian Church on the model of Protestant spiritual consistories.”
Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin described the history of the promotion of Bishop Feofan (Prokopovich): “The son of a Kyiv merchant, in baptism he was named Eleazar. Having successfully graduated from the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, Eleazar studied in Lvov, Krakow and at the Roman College of St. Athanasius. In Rome he became the Basilian monk Elisha. Returning to his homeland, he renounced Uniatism and was tonsured in the Kiev-Brotherly Monastery with the name Samuel. He was appointed professor at the academy and soon, as a reward for his success in teaching, he was awarded the name of his late uncle Feofan, the rector of the Mogila Academy. From Rome, Prokopovich brought back disgust for the Jesuits, for school scholasticism and for the entire atmosphere of Catholicism. In his theological lectures, he used not the Catholic, as was customary in Kyiv before him, but the Protestant presentation of dogma. On the day of the Battle of Poltava, Feofan congratulated the king on his victory. The word he spoke during worship on the battlefield shocked Peter. The speaker used the victory day of June 27, which commemorates the Monk Samson, to compare Peter with the biblical Samson, who tore the lion (the coat of arms of Sweden consists of three lion figures). Since then, Peter could not forget Feofan."
Another prominent church figure of the Peter the Great era, Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky), was also not a clear-cut personality.
According to the description of I.K. Smolich, “appointed locum tenens, Stefan Yavorsky was a new and alien person for church circles in Moscow. He belonged to immigrants from Little Russia, who were not very favored in Moscow and whose Orthodoxy was in great doubt. It can be said that Stefan’s worldly biography (he was only 42 years old at the time) gave rise to such doubts.<...>To enter the Jesuit school, Yavorsky, like his other contemporaries, had to accept the Union or Catholicism and received the name Simeon - Stanislav. In southwest Russia this was commonplace. However, the Jesuit teachers had little faith in the fact that the change of religion occurred out of conviction; in many cases, upon graduation from the college, students returned to Orthodoxy. As for Yavorsky, his Catholic training did not pass without a trace for him. Returning to Kyiv in 1689, he again converted to Orthodoxy, but the Roman Catholic influence was present in his theological views all his life, affecting especially strongly in his sharp rejection of Protestantism, which later made Yavorsky an opponent of Feofan Prokopovich. These facts from Yavorsky’s life later served as a reason for his enemies to call him a “papist.”
Metropolitan Stefan, who became the first president of the Synod, had practically no influence on the course of synodal affairs, where the emperor’s favorite Theophan was in charge. In 1722, Metropolitan Stefan died. After his death, the position of president was abolished. Formally, the church hierarchy was headed by the first vice-president, Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod, but while Emperor Peter was alive, Archbishop Theophan remained the most influential in the Synod.”
“On January 25, 1721, the Emperor issued a manifesto on the establishment of the “Ecclesiastical Collegium, that is, the Spiritual Council Government.” And the next day, the Senate transferred for the highest approval the staff of the created board: a president from metropolitans, two vice-presidents from archbishops, four advisers from archimandrites. Four assessors from the archpriests and one from the “Greek black priests”. The staffing table corresponded exactly with the staff of other colleges, right down to the presence of a “Greek priest” in the Theological College. The fact is that Peter established such a procedure - to appoint foreigners to the board, who were supposed to teach Russians how to properly conduct business. Peter still could not seat a Protestant German on the Orthodox Church Collegium, which is why a Greek was included in the “Spiritual Collegium.” The staff of the collegium was also proposed, headed by the president, Metropolitan Stephen, and the vice-presidents, archbishops Theodosius of Novgorod and Feofan of Pskov. The Tsar imposed a resolution: “Summoning these to the Senate, declare them.”
As N.M. wrote Nikolsky, “The organization of the synod, as the spiritual college was soon called, transfers the management of the church entirely into the hands of the state.<...>Having wide scope for choosing members of the synod, the imperial power does not provide the same scope to the synod in replacing vacant chairs. The Synod only “witnesses” candidates before the emperor, i.e. indicates them, but the imperial power does not at all undertake the obligation to appoint exactly those persons whom the synod indicates. True, the synod, immediately after its establishment, achieved the abolition of the Monastic Order and received all those functions that previously belonged to the latter; but on the other hand, the government immediately took measures to ensure that the administrative and economic management of the synod stood under the strict eye of the state. Control was entrusted to the chief prosecutor of the synod, a secular official called in the official instructions of 1722 “the eye of the sovereign and the attorney for state affairs.” He, like the Chief Prosecutor of the Senate, was obliged to “see closely that the synod maintains its position in all matters... truly, zealously and decently, without wasting time, according to regulations and decrees,” “he also must firmly see that the synod in acted righteously and unhypocritically in his rank." In case of omissions or violations of decrees and regulations, the chief prosecutor had to propose to the synod “to correct it”; “and if they don’t listen, then he must protest at that hour and stop another matter, and immediately inform us (the emperor) if it is very necessary.” Through the chief prosecutor, the synod also received all government decrees and orders.”
As Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin wrote, “unlike the Synod under the Eastern Patriarchs, our Synod did not supplement patriarchal power, but replaced it. Likewise, it replaced the Local Council as the highest body of church power. The abolition of the primate throne, as well as the disappearance of Local Councils from the life of the Russian Church for more than 200 years, was a gross violation of the 34th apostolic canon, according to which “it is fitting for bishops of every nation to know the first in them, and to recognize him as the head, and nothing more their power is not to create without his reasoning... But the first one does not create anything without the reasoning of everyone.” The first member of the Synod, at first with the title of president, no different in his rights from its other members, only symbolically represented the first bishop, the first hierarch, without whose permission nothing should happen in the Church that would exceed the power of individual bishops. The Synod, consisting of only a few bishops and elders, was not a full-fledged replacement for the Local Council.
Another sad consequence of the reform was the subordination of the church government to the secular supreme power. An oath was drawn up for the members of the Synod: “I confess with the oath of the extreme judge of this Spiritual College to be the most all-Russian monarch, our most merciful sovereign.” This oath, contrary to the canonical principles of the Church, lasted until 1901, almost 200 years. The “Spiritual Regulations” unequivocally proclaimed that “the governmental collegium under the sovereign monarch exists and was established by the monarch.” The monarch, with the help of a seductive play on words, instead of the traditional name of him “anointed,” was called in the “Regulations” “Christ of the Lord.”
In the terminology adopted in Soviet times, but, in fact, basically accurately, although more simplified than it was in general in reality, N.M. describes. Nikolsky, how the synodal reform affected diocesan bishops and priests: “diocesan bishops who turned into spiritual officials, and the white clergy, in cities wholly dependent on bishops, and in villages on local landowners who interpreted rural priests as a “vile race of people” ".
“The Synod was the highest administrative and judicial authority of the Russian Church. He had the right to open new departments, elect hierarchs and place them in dowager departments. He exercised supreme supervision over the implementation of church laws by all members of the Church and over the spiritual enlightenment of the people. The Synod had the right to establish new holidays and rituals and to canonize holy saints. The Synod published the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, and also subjected the supreme censorship to works of theological, church-historical and canonical judgment. He had the right to petition the highest authorities about the needs of the Russian Orthodox Church. As the highest ecclesiastical judicial authority, the Synod was the court of first instance for accusing bishops of anti-canonical acts; it also served as an appellate court for cases decided in diocesan courts. The Synod had the right to make final decisions on most divorce cases, as well as on cases of defrocking clergy and anathematization of laity. Finally, the Synod served as the body of canonical communication of the Russian Church with the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, with Ecumenical Orthodoxy. In the house church of the leading member of the Synod, the names of the Eastern Patriarchs were raised during the service.
On the issue of relations with the Senate, the Synod, in a request to the emperor, wrote that “the ecclesiastical board has the honor, strength and authority of the patriarch, or perhaps greater, than the cathedral”; but Peter in 1722, setting off on the Persian campaign, officially subordinated the Synod to the Senate.”
According to Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, “the establishment of the Holy Synod opened a new era in the history of the Russian Church. As a result of the reform, the Church lost its former independence from secular authorities. A gross violation of the 34th rule of the holy apostles was the abolition of the high priesthood and its replacement by a “headless” Synod. The causes of many ailments that have darkened the church life of the past two centuries are rooted in Peter's reform. There is no doubt that the management system established under Peter is canonically defective. The reform confused the church conscience of the hierarchy, clergy, and people. Nevertheless, it was accepted by both the law-abiding clergy and the believing people. This means that, despite its canonical defects, nothing was seen in it that would distort the structure of church life so much that the Russian Church would fall out of the catholic unity of Ecumenical Orthodoxy.”
3. The influence of the reform on church life in Russia
As A. Bokhanov wrote, “Peter was not a herald of secular sentiments in Russia; they have practically always existed. But he became the first king to consider the “royal service” outside the framework of “God’s work.” In this new expression of the state ideocratic attitude, the main line of historical division between Russia “before” and Russia “after” Peter appeared. The new “feeling of power” was poorly, one might even say, did not correlate at all with the traditional state “feeling of well-being” of the people, which inevitably led, according to Florovsky, to “polarization of the mental existence of Russia.”
Peter's Christian "modernism" could not but be reflected in the external manifestations of the priestly royal service. In this area, he simultaneously instituted something fundamentally new and modified established techniques. When the monarch assumed the title of emperor in 1721, no church enthronement ritual followed in this case. The monarch, as it were, remained once and for all “appointed king,” having only adopted a new designation.<...>The church rite of crowning the kingdom has undergone changes, which was reflected in the coronation of the Emperor’s wife Catherine (1684-1727) in May 1724. The main innovation was that from now on the monarch began to play a key role in the ceremony. If earlier the crown was placed on the head of the crowned person by the metropolitan or patriarch, now this function has passed to the tsar.”
According to I.K. Smolich, “as in other matters of public administration, Peter I in church affairs was content, first of all, with the establishment of a new supreme body - the Holy Synod, in the hope that circumstances would gradually develop in the spirit of his instructions, in this case - the “Spiritual Regulations.” During the reign of Peter, the Holy Synod remained at the initial stage of its development. Under Peter's successors, changes took place due to the interests of state power."
According to a somewhat simplified assessment of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), “as a result of Peter’s anti-church reforms in the life of the Russian people, there was a cooling towards the Orthodox faith and all external forms of its manifestation. Freethinkers multiplied, condemning Protestant ritualism. Even Peter’s contemporary Russian educated society, imbued with European Protestant views, began to be ashamed of its former childish and simple-minded religiosity and tried to hide it, especially since it was openly condemned from the heights of the throne and by the authorities.”
Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin reveals this idea in more detail: “in the era of Peter the Great, a split, fatal for the fate of the state, began between the upper stratum of society and the common people, who traditionally remained faithful to the precepts of their ancestors.<...>At that time, one after another, orders were issued with a Peter-Theophanian “enlightenment” orientation, such as decrees on “burning in vain” church candles or on “non-use of the Holy Mysteries for apothecary medicine.” There were also decrees that grossly insulted popular piety, decrees against the construction of chapels, against the custom of wearing icons in homes, against rich vestments, expensive bells, and precious vessels. The tsar's real obsession with exposing popular superstitions, which meant ancient pious rituals, caused a great temptation among the people. For divulging false rumors about miracles, visions and prophecies, he imposed a severe punishment - tearing out the nostrils and exile to the galleys. Even worse, confessors were ordered to report to the authorities if anyone confessed in confession to spreading false rumors about miracles. Both secular and spiritual authorities were obliged to persecute the people's "prophets", holy fools, and cliques. Cliquers and demoniacs were ordered to be tortured until they confessed to pretense. Sorcerers were subject to death penalty. The “enlightenment direction” in Peter’s decrees was combined with the most dense barbarism.”
At the same time, “in order to promote the cause of spiritual education, Peter I issued a decree according to which children of the clergy who were not educated in schools were not allowed to hold church positions. Without certificates, “priests” were forbidden to be accepted into the ranks of the “civil service”, except for the “soldier rank”. While the number of regular ecclesiastical schools was small, as a temporary measure, it was ordered to establish elementary “numerical” schools at bishops’ houses and large monasteries, where children from all classes were accepted, and all children of clergy were obliged to attend these schools under the threat of forced soldiery. The “Spiritual Regulations” declared compulsory education for the children of clergy and clergy. Untrained ignoramuses were subject to exclusion from the clergy.”
“A significant phenomenon in the church life of the Peter the Great era was the conversion of many thousands of pagans and Mohammedans to Christ. As in previous centuries, Christian enlightenment was carried out in Russia without violence or coercion. Expressing the spirit of the primordially Russian sense of justice - religious tolerance characteristic of our people, Peter the Great wrote in a decree of 1702: “We do not want to force human conscience and willingly leave it to everyone to take responsibility for the salvation of their souls.” The government, however, did not avoid encouraging measures towards converted foreigners. Baptized serfs were released from their unbaptized landowners. From 1720, all converts were given a three-year exemption from taxes and recruitment.”
The greatest creation of Russian spiritual literature of the Peter the Great era was the “Chets Menaion” of St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov.
“Conflicting opinions were expressed about Peter’s church reform. The deepest assessment of it belongs to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. In his words, “The Spiritual College, which Peter took over from the Protestant... God’s Providence and the church spirit turned into the Holy Synod.”
Conclusion
“Two popular historiosophical statements that reveal the theme of the Tsar and the Church do not seem to be entirely historically accurate. First, under Peter the state simply “emancipated itself from the church” (I.A. Ilyin). Secondly, Peter “secularized the Russian kingdom and introduced it to the type of Western enlightened absolutism” (N.A. Berdyaev). F.A. is probably right. Stepun, who wrote that under Peter, as before, “both swords” - the secular and the spiritual, remained in the hands of the supreme ruler of Russia, but under him the subordination of the spiritual sword to the secular only intensified. According to the figurative expression of this philosopher, Peter did not strive for the separation of church and state, he intended, as it were, to “involve it in state circulation.” In a more dramatic form, a similar idea was expressed back in 1844 in his master’s thesis by the famous Slavophile Yu.F. Samarin, who believed that “Peter the Great understood religion only from its moral side, how much it was needed for the state, and this expressed his exclusivity, his Protestant one-sidedness. From his point of view, he did not understand what the Church is, he simply did not see; for its sphere is higher than the practical sphere, and therefore he acted as if it did not exist, denying it not maliciously, but rather out of ignorance."
Different views on the church reform carried out by Emperor Peter I show its complexity and ambiguity. The own views of the authors who studied it have a decisive influence on the conclusions they draw.
The essence of the reform was a radical transformation of the system of church government in Russia. The replacement of the Patriarch by the Holy Synod, in fact a state body, whose members had to take a state oath, the transformation of diocesan bishops into officials, restrictions on monasticism, and the complicating the life of the parish clergy - its quite obvious consequences. In many ways, there is a desire to take England as a model, where the king is the head of the Anglican Church. Given that many of Peter the Great’s successors were alien to Orthodoxy, the reform ultimately led to the fact that the Orthodox Church in Russia became increasingly dependent not only on the emperor, but also on officials. This was started by Peter I himself, who subordinated the Synod to the Senate during one of his absences.
The reform had a great influence on church life in Russia. A rationalizing view of the processes taking place in it and a lack of understanding of its essence led to many sad consequences, among which are attempts to solve spiritual issues with police measures, and the departure from Orthodoxy of many representatives of the educated part of Russian society. At the same time, serious steps were taken to develop church education and missionary work; at the same time, the reform marked the beginning of the Synodal period, the consequences and results of which are generally difficult to assess positively.
List of sources and literature used
Sources
1. Feofan Prokopovich. Sermon on the funeral of Peter the Great // Peter the Great. Memories. Diary entries. Paris - Moscow - New York, 1993. pp. 225-232.
2. Nartov A.K. Memorable narratives and speeches of Peter the Great // Peter the Great. Memories. Diary entries. Paris - Moscow - New York, 1993. pp. 247-326.
Literature
3. Bokhanov A. Autocracy. M., 2002.
4. John (Snychev), Metropolitan. Russian symphony. St. Petersburg, 2002.
5. Nikolsky N. M. History of the Russian Church. M., 1988.
6. Pushkarev S.G. Review of Russian history. Stavropol, 1993.
7. Seraphim (Sobolev), archbishop. Russian ideology. St. Petersburg, 1992.
8. Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700-1917. M., 1996.
9. Talberg N. History of the Russian Church. M., 1997.
10. Tsypin V., prot. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal and modern periods. 1700-2005. M., 2007.
Speaking briefly about the progress of Peter I's church reform, it is important to note its thoughtfulness. At the end of the reform, Russia, as a result, received only one person with absolute full power.
Church reform of Peter I
From 1701 to 1722, Peter the Great tried to reduce the authority of the Church and establish control over its administrative and financial activities. The prerequisites for this were the protest of the Church against the changes taking place in the country, calling the king the Antichrist. Having enormous authority, comparable to the authority and complete power of Peter himself, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' was the main political competitor of the Russian reformer tsar.
Rice. 1. Young Peter.
Among other things, the Church had accumulated enormous wealth, which Peter needed to wage war with the Swedes. All this tied Peter’s hands to use all the country’s resources for the sake of the desired victory.
The tsar was faced with the task of eliminating the economic and administrative autonomy of the Church and reducing the number of clergy.
Table “The essence of the reforms being carried out”
|
Events |
Year |
Goals |
|
|
Appointment of the “Guardian and Manager of the Patriarchal Throne” |
Replace the election of the Patriarch by the Church with an imperial appointment |
Peter was personally appointed as the new Patriarch |
|
|
Secularization of peasants and lands |
Elimination of the financial autonomy of the Church |
Church peasants and lands were transferred to the management of the State. |
|
|
Monastic prohibitions |
Reduce the number of clergy |
It is forbidden to build new monasteries and conduct a census of monks |
|
|
Senate control over the Church |
Restriction of administrative freedom of the Church |
Creation of the Senate and transfer of church affairs to its management |
|
|
Decree limiting the number of clergy |
Improving the efficiency of human resource allocation |
Servants are assigned to a specific parish and are prohibited from traveling |
|
|
Preparatory stage for the abolition of the Patriarchate |
Get full power in the empire |
Development of a project for the establishment of the Theological College |
January 25, 1721 is the date of the final victory of the emperor over the patriarch, when the patriarchate was abolished.
TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this
Rice. 2. Prosecutor General Yaguzhinsky.
The relevance of the topic was not only under Peter, but also under the Bolsheviks, when not only church power was abolished, but also the very structure and organization of the Church.
Rice. 3. Building of 12 colleges.
The Spiritual College also had another name - the Governing Synod. A secular official, not a clergyman, was appointed to the position of Chief Prosecutor of the Synod.
As a result, the reform of the Church of Peter the Great had its pros and cons. Thus, Peter discovered for himself the opportunity to lead the country towards Europeanization, however, if this power began to be abused, in the hands of another person Russia could find itself in a dictatorial-despotic regime. However, the consequences are a reduction in the role of the church in society, a reduction in its financial independence and the number of servants of the Lord.
Gradually, all institutions began to concentrate around St. Petersburg, including church ones. The activities of the Synod were monitored by fiscal services.
Peter also introduced church schools. According to his plan, every bishop was obliged to have a school for children at home or at home and provide primary education.
Results of the reform
- The position of Patriarch has been abolished;
- Taxes increased;
- Recruitment from church peasants is underway;
- The number of monks and monasteries has been reduced;
- The Church is dependent on the Emperor.
What have we learned?
Peter the Great concentrated all branches of power in his hands and had unlimited freedom of action, establishing absolutism in Russia.
Test on the topic
Evaluation of the report
Average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 241.
The transformations of Peter I provoked protest from the conservative boyars and clergy. The head of the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Adrian, openly spoke out against wearing foreign clothes and shaving the beard. During the execution of the rebel archers on Red Square, the patriarch, begging for their mercy, came with a procession to Peter in Preobrazhenskoye, but the tsar did not accept him. After the death of Adrian (1700), Peter decided not to appoint a new patriarch, around whom opponents of the reforms could concentrate. He appointed Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky as “locum tenens of the patriarchal throne”, but did not grant him the rights belonging to the patriarch. The king himself openly said: “My father dealt with one bearded man, and I dealt with thousands.”
Peter was tolerant of Protestants and Catholics and allowed them to perform their services. At first, Peter was tolerant of schismatics, but the proximity of prominent supporters of the schism to Tsarevich Alexei dramatically changed matters. Dissenters were subject to a double capitation salary, were not allowed into public service and had to wear a special dress.
The schismatics saw in barber shaving heresy, a distortion of the face of a person created in “God’s likeness.” In the beards and long clothes, the schismatics saw the difference between the Russian people and the “busurmans” - foreigners. Now, when the tsar himself and his entourage shaved, wore foreign clothes, smoked “the godless antichrist herb” (i.e. tobacco), legends arose among schismatics that the tsar was replaced by foreigners in “Glass” (i.e. in Stockholm) . In 1700, the book writer Grigory Talitsky was tortured in the Preobrazhensky Prikaz for writing a letter in which it was stated “as if the last time had come, and the Antichrist had come into the world, and that Antichrist was the sovereign.” In the handwritten works of the readers, in the personal apocalypses, the Antichrist was depicted as similar to Peter, and the Antichrist servants as Peter’s soldiers, dressed in green uniforms. The severity of the opposition in the schism was largely an expression of peasant protest against growing oppression.
Peter fought against the schismatics by sending “exhorters,” while at the same time ordering that in case of “cruel stubbornness” they be brought to trial. Relations with the moderate part of the split, which abandoned opposition to the government, developed differently. Peter was tolerant of the famous schismatic monastery on the Vyga River, founded by Denisov. The inhabitants of the monastery worked at the Olonets ironworks.
In general, Peter I followed the path of transforming church services into state ones.
Even during his first trip abroad in the 90s of the 17th century, the young tsar was keenly interested in church life in European states. For more than two hours, Peter talked with the English king and his daughter on the topic of organizing the Anglican Church. It was then that the English monarch gave advice to the young Russian Tsar “to become the head of the Russian Church himself, in order to have full state power, following the example of England.” The Protestant spirit of the church structure finally captured Peter when he visited Saxony, the homeland of Martin Luther. Standing in front of the statue of the first reformer, Peter declared: “This man, for the greatest benefit of his sovereign, so courageously stepped on the power-hungry pope that he truly deserved the greatest respect from his people.”
According to the Protestant church system, all churches located on the territory of any state depend on the head of this state for their highest governance. This dispensation completely coincided with the ideas of Peter's church transformation. He wanted the sovereign, without anyone’s complaints, to be able not only to interfere in the affairs of the Church, but also to manage it.
However, about twenty years passed before Peter brought his ideas to life. To implement them, he needed a like-minded person in the church environment. And such a person was found. This was the Kiev Archimandrite Feofan (Prokopovich). The process of the birth of church reform took place in complete secrecy from the Church and its hierarchy.
The enrichment of the concept of “public service” is facilitated by the analysis of its varieties, in particular such original ones as the state service of the clergy and its subtype - the state spiritual service. Although the Table of Ranks of 1722 provided only for military, civil, and court ranks, without mentioning spiritual ones, the service of the Orthodox clergy can be recognized as a special type of public service. During the period of development and adoption of the Table, the state spiritual service was not yet completely objectified: global church-administrative reform was carried out in parallel. Subsequently, the real situation could not be reflected in the Table for ideological reasons: the secular authorities did not dare to advertise the incorporation of the institutions of the Orthodox Church into the state mechanism. As a result, the legal regulation of the state religious service was determined by a set of precedents and was only indirectly and/or partially reflected in the regulatory legal acts of Anderson M.S. Peter the Great. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2007. - P.94.
Civil service in the Russian Empire was determined by activities “in the order of subordinate management of the state” and was characterized by subjective (a specific person as a representative of a governing body) and objective (the activities of the person himself in the government apparatus) aspects. The main thing in the civil service became “authority” for subordinate activities in the field of management. Accordingly, the main features of the civil service are: a set of certain actions; actions are performed in the interests of public administration; a certain way of performing actions; being within the limits of official authority History of Russia. From ancient times to the end of the century. - M.: AST, 2001. - P.122. In our opinion, the service of the Orthodox clergy has these characteristics. Thus, confessors at correctional institutions were endowed with a certain competence, including performing the sacraments of faith. These actions of the clergy were carried out in the interests of state administration, if only because, as is known, under Emperor Peter I, in the event of reporting information in confession about an impending crime against state power or the reigning dynasty, the clergyman was obliged to report this to law enforcement agencies. In addition, clergy in correctional institutions were not limited solely to the purpose of performing the sacraments, but also carried out educational and educational functions in the prison environment on the basis of both secular state acts - university statutes, etc., and state-corporate acts of the Church. This corresponds to the characterization of management as a subordinate administrative activity.
The pre-revolutionary theory of law did not see the difference between the church and any other union subordinate to the supreme power and promoting the goals of public well-being. Secular power, being the highest and exclusive authority for the common good, recognized itself as having the right to govern the church in the same way as any other institution or union pursuing public goals. By the beginning of the 20th century. The religious and ecclesiastical evolution, which began with the transformations of Peter the Great, ended. As a result of a set of reforms, the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church and the clergy turned out to be more illusory than real. The clergy became a special kind of “service class” through attachment to the civil service. The Church in the Russian Empire lost its independence, becoming, in essence, a state Department of Orthodox confession. The most striking example of the merging of the responsibilities of the state with the competence of a church corporation is the maintenance of civil status records in the form of metric books.
At a certain stage of development, the Russian Orthodox Church also became a kind of “mass media” of state power: By the Decree of 1718 it was ordered that it was compulsory to go to church on Sundays and holidays, since there, after mass, new Decrees were read, about which those who could not read could find out only during such hearings. In addition, one cannot help but notice the interference of the Governing Senate in the organization of church parishes, the composition of clergy and the procedure for admission to clergy. The granting of the title “imperial” to theological academies was made with the only meaning inherent in this - the training of cadres of “ecclesiastical officials”. The church was involved in the promotion of ideas and activities useful for the autocracy, including credit, insurance, and forms of farming. The black clergy was entrusted with the work of education and charity, and in addition - the responsibility of maintaining the monastic states History of Russia: In 2 vols. T. 1: From ancient times to the end of the 18th century. /Edited by A. N. Sakharov. - M.: AST Publishing House LLC: NPP Ermak CJSC: Astrel Publishing House LLC, 2008. - P.311.
Thus, all the clergy were recruited into public service and formed a special semi-privileged service class of the state spiritual service. According to authoritative pre-revolutionary researchers of church law, the reform of church life finally went not along the path of establishing self-government, but along the bureaucratic path.
Peter rejected all persistent requests from the higher clergy for the election of a patriarch. For the first time, Peter mentioned the upcoming reform only in 1718, responding to another complaint from the patriarchal locum tenens and reproaching him for his helplessness. The Tsar stated that “from now on, for the best, it seems that there will be a spiritual college, so that it would be more convenient and possible to correct such great matters as church governance.” At the same time, he instructed Theophan, who had already become the Bishop of Pskov, to write a draft for this board and a word in its defense.
