To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism
Dateapprox. 1467–1560
Also known as"Schism of the Church of Moscow of 1467-1560" (by V. M. Lurie [ru])
TypeChristian schism
Cause1. Decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (July 1439) to enter in union with the Catholic Church at the Council of Florence
2. Fall of Constantinople
Participants1. Ecumenical Patriarchate
2. Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus' [uk] of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
3. Popes Eugene IV and Calixtus III

A schism between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and part of its <b>Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus'</b> [uk] (which later became the Moscow Patriarchate) occurred between approximately 1467 and 1560.[a] This schism supposedly de facto ended around 1560.

On 15 December 1448, Jonah became Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' without the agreement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which made the Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus' de facto independent. In 1467, Metropolitan Gregory the Bulgarian, which had been appointed by the Pope as the Uniate Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus', severed the Union with the Catholic Church, and recognized the jurisdiction of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Dionysius I of Constantinople. Dionysius demanded that all the Eastern Orthodox hierarchs of Muscovy submit to Gregory, but Moscow peremptorily refused. On the same year, Grand Prince Ivan III of Moscow declared a complete rupture of relations with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Relations were gradually restored and in 1560 the Patriarch of Constantinople considered the Metropolitan of Moscow to be his exarch. In 1589-1591, the Church of Moscow was recognized as autocephalous, and the Patriarch of Moscow later became the fifth Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

 

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    4 298 018
    1 390 122
    399
  • ✪ Russia, the Kievan Rus, and the Mongols: Crash Course World History #20
  • ✪ Church History: Complete Documentary AD 33 to Present
  • ✪ Persecution of Christians | Wikipedia audio article

Transcription

Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course: World History and today we’re going to talk about Russia, which means we get to talk about this guy again! We haven’t talked about Russia much so far because 1. It’s complicated, and 2. Ya actually gavarou pa russki a little bit, because I had some Russian in college and that makes it difficult to mispronounce things, which is my thing! Mr. Green, Mr. Green! Why’d you take Russian? Well, because I had this big crush on a Russian major. But, anyway, I’m sure I’ll still mispronounce everything. [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] So, today we’re going to talk about persistent stereotypes about Russia, and how Russia came to take its current shape, a turn of events we owe largely to the Mongols. [Savage, brassy swarm of Mongol-tage doom calls…] But before we discuss the Mongol conquest of Russia, let’s discuss exactly what got conquered. So before there was a Russian empire, or even a Russian kingdom, there was the Kievan Rus. We know Kiev was a powerful city-state, but who exactly founded it is a subject of debate. Most historians now believe that the settlers of Kiev were Slavic people who migrated from around the Black Sea. But there’s an older theory that the settlers of Kiev were actually, like, Vikings. That theory goes that Vikings came down to Kiev from rivers like the Dnieper and founded a trading outpost similar to ones they’d founded in Iceland and Greenland. Which is an awesome idea and everything, but Russian, the language that developed from what the Rus spoke, sounds a lot more Slavic than it sounds, you know, Swedish. To illustrate, here is a Swede fighting with a Russian over who founded Kiev. [Russian: Kiev was founded by the slavic ancestors of the Rus.] [Swede: No. Clearly Kiev was founded by Swedes.] Right, okay, so trade was hugely important to Kiev. Almost all of their wars ended with trade concession treaties, and their law codes were unusually devoted to the subject of commerce. The Rus traded raw materials like fur, wax, and also slaves— We’re not gonna venture into the astonishingly intense etymological debate over whether the word slav derives from the Latin word for slave because there's nothing more terrifying and verbose than an etymologist flame war. But, yeah, the Rus traded slaves. They also relied on agriculture— and your relationships to the land determined both your social status and your tax burden. And if you fell into tax debt, which a lot of peasants did, then you became bonded to the land you farmed for the rest of your life, I guess that slave-like dynamic is okay as a model for social organization, but if you step on the proletariat for too long, you might end up with a Communist revolution. But I’m getting way ahead of myself. Couple more things about Kiev: First, the ruler of Kiev was called the Grand Prince, and he became the model for future Russian Kings. Also, the early grand princes made a fateful decision: They became Byzantine Christians. According to legend, prince Vladimir chose to convert the Rus to Byzantine Christianity in the 11th century. He purportedly chose Christianity over Islam because of Islam’s prohibition on alcohol saying: “Drink is the joy of the Russian.” Anyway, the Kievan Rus eventually fell in 1240 when these guys [Mongol-tage horns horn it up] showed up and replaced them. By that time the Rus had been at war with pastoral nomads for centuries; from the Khazars to the Pechengs to the Cumans, and they were tired. Which made them easy targets. The period of Mongol “rule” over Russia is also known as Appanage Russia. An Appanage is princedom, and this period basically featured a bunch of Russian princes vying for control over territory, which is not a recipe for political stability or economic growth, another theme that will re-emerge in Russian history. By the way, I’m describing all of this as Russia even though if you did that in the 13th century, people would look at you funny. They’d be like, “What do you mean, Russia? Also, where’d you get those pants? And all those teeth?” “MMMM...YOU SMELL PRETTY.” Right. So, to discuss how important the Mongols were to Russia, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The Mongols did set up the Khanate o f the Golden Horde in Russia, but it didn’t leave much lasting impact on the institutions of the region, which had already been set up by the Kievans. But they did bring about a population shift— away from the South, where Kiev was, toward the Northeast. This was partly to get away from the Mongols and their massacring, but that noted, the Mongols were comparatively light rulers: They were happy to live in their yurts and collect tribute from the ever-bickering Russian princes. And all the princes had to do in exchange for their relative freedom was recognize the Mongol khans as their rulers and allow the Mongols to pick the Grand Prince from among the Russians. Perhaps most importantly, Mongol rule cut the Russians off from the Byzantines and further isolated them from Europe, leaving Russia not Byzantine, not European, and not really Mongol either, since they hated the Mongols and generally believed the Mongols were a scourge sent from God to punish them for their sinfulness and everything. But the Mongols did help propel Moscow to prominence and in doing so, created the idea that this was Russia. And as an aside, they also did what Napoleon, Hitler, and many others couldn’t: The Mongols successfully conquered Russia in the winter. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So how did the Mongols help catapult Moscow and its princes to prominence? Well, first, they named Muscovite princes The Grand Prince on more than one occasion. More importantly, the Muscovite princes won— that is to say purchased— the right to collect tribute on behalf of the Khan from other princes. That’s a good gig because it’s easy to skim a little bit off the top before you send it down the line to [Mongol-taging a bit more for good measure] the Mongols. Which is precisely what the Muscovites did to enrich themselves— in fact, one prince who was particularly good at this was known as Ivan Kalita. Using my Russian, I can tell you that that translates to “Johnny Moneybags.” As my Russian professor would tell you, I’m a “creative” translator. All this extra loot helped Moscow expand their influence and buy principalities. The Mongols also helped them more directly by attacking their enemies. Plus Moscow was at the headwaters of four rivers which made it well-positioned for trade. And because they were kind of the allies of the Mongols- the Mongols rarely attacked them- which meant that lots of people went to Moscow because it was relatively safe. Including “churchy” people. In fact, Moscow also became the seat of the Eastern Orthodox church in 1325, when the Metropolitan Peter moved there. So you might think that the Muscovites would be grateful for all this help from the Mongols, but you would be wrong. As the Mongols’ position weakened in Russia in the latter half of the 14th century, one of Moscow’s princes Dmitrii Donskoi made war on them and inflicted the first major defeat of Mongols in Russia at battle of Kulikovo Field. This showed that the Mongols weren’t invincible, which is always really bad for an imperial force. Plus it made Moscow look like the hero of the Russians. And that helped strengthen the idea of a unified Russia, just as you’ll remember the Persians helped unify the Greeks a long time ago. Aiding this growth was stability, which Moscow owed largely to luck: Muscovite princes usually had sons which allowed them to have successors. In fact, there was only one major succession struggle and it was between two blind guys named Basil. That’s not a joke by the way. Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter? [Swoodilyscoots by globey to get his fireside chat on] An Open Letter to Basil and Basil: But first, let’s see in the Secret Compartment. Oh, it’s Grizzlor! Yeah, I guess that is kind of how the Russians saw the Mongols. Dear Basils, The 15th century Muscovite civil war was insanely complicated, but it culminated with you guys essentially blinding each other. First, Basil II, the eventual winner of the civil war, had Basil the cross-eyed blinded. Because being cross-eyed wan’t bad enough. And that was seen as the end of the political career of Basil the Cross-Eyed. But then Basil the Cross-Eyed’s brother tracked down Basil II and he was like “I’ma blind you back!” And of course, everybody thought that would end Basil II’s political career, but they were wrong. It turns out you can rule Russia like a Boss even if you’re blind. Best Wishes, Johnny Bookwriter After Basil the Blind came the real man who expanded Moscow’s power, Ivan III, later known as Ivan the Great. First, he asserted Russian independence from the Mongols and stopped paying tribute to the khan-- after the khan had named him Grand Prince, of course. Then, Ivan purchased, negotiated for or conquered multiple appanages, thus expanding Muscovite power even more. Ivan later declared himself sovereign of all Russians and then married the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, thus giving him even more legitimacy. And he took titles autocrat and tsar, which means Caesar. Basically, Ivan created the first centralized Russian state and for doing that he probably deserves title “the Great.” And that would be a good place to stop, except then we won’t see the type of absolute rule that characterized Russia for most of the rest of its history, even unto Putin. OH GOD. JUST KIDDING PUTIN! YOU’D NEVER RIG AN ELECTION.. N-NO...PLEASE DON’T PUT ME IN JAIL! While Ivan III consolidated Muscovite power, the undeniable brutal streak in Russian governance comes not from the Mogols, but from Ivan IV. Better known as Ivan the Terrible. Ivan IV ruled from 1533 to 1584, taking the throne at age 16, yet more evidence that adolescents should not be trusted with emerging empires. Ivan the Terrible’s reign represents the end of princely power and the beginning of the autocracy that Russia is famous for. But in the beginning, he was really an innovative leader. As a young king, he worked with a group of advisers called the Chosen Council, which certainly sounds like a good thing. He also called the very first meeting of the zemskii sobor, a grand council of representatives similar to the estates general that would become so important in France two hundred years later. And also reformed the army, emphasizing the new technology of muskets. But in the second part of his reign, Ivan earned his nickname, the Terrible— which can mean either bad or just awe-inspiring, depending on your perspective. Psychological historians will point out that things started go terribly wrong with Ivan after the death of his beloved wife, Anastasia Romanov. Or they might point to the fact that he enjoyed torturing animals when he was a kid. Regardless, Ivan set out to break the power of the nobility-- the former princes and landowners called the boyars. They were the last link to princely rule. And after an odd episode that saw him briefly “abdicate,” Ivan returned to Moscow and declared he had the right to punish all traitors and evildoers. To help him in this effort, Ivan created the oprichnikii a corps of secret police who rode around on black horses, wearing all black, whose job it was to hunt down and destroy any enemies of the tsar. See also: Nazgul and Dementors. So this was the first of Russia’s purges. And over the latter half of Ivan’s reign, whole towns were destroyed. It was, in effect, a civil war, except with no resistance. One historian called it a civil massacre. In the end, Ivan IV established absolute control of the tsar over all the Russian people, but he also set the precedent of accomplishing this through terror, secret police, and the suspension of law. And that would echo through the ages of Russian history… I mean, until Vladimir Putin heroically put an end to it. His little eyes. They’re scary... So, hence the stereotype of Russian brutality and barbarism, but here’s the truth; the rest of Europe also knew a lot about brutality and secret police forces. But for centuries, Russia was seen by western Europe as both European and not, an “Other” that was to be doubly feared because it was not fully Other. And when we think of all these historical stereotypes about Russia, it’s worth remembering that what you see as barbaric about others is often what they see as barbaric about you. Thanks for watching, and I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher Raoul Meyer and myself. Our graphics team is ThoughtBubble, Last week’s Phrase of the Week was: "Nobody's business but the Turks" If you want to suggest future phrases of the week or guess at this week’s you can do so in comments where you can also ask questions related to today's video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching. and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a Unicorn.

Contents

Background

Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus'

Kievan Rus' in the 11th century

The Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus [uk] had always been a metropolis under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

In 1299, Maximus, Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus', "moved his official seat from Kiev to Vladimir, demonstrating the shift of the centre of Rus from the south-west to the north-east. The title though remained Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus and the metropolitan was supposed to be responsible for all Orthodox Christians in Rus, including those in Galicia, which became a kingdom in 1253, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which had gained control of the former Polotsk Principality after the Mongol Invasion."[2]

In 1325, the seat was moved from Vladimir to Moscow[3] by the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus' Peter of Moscow at the invitation of Ivan of Moscow.[4]

Premises of the schism

Council of Florence, union with the Catholic Church

After the death of Metropolitan Photios in 1431, Bishop Jonah of Ryazan and Murom was chosen by the grand prince and the council of bishops as the new Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus' at the end of 1432. However, due to internal strifes in Muscovy, he did not hurry to Constantinople to receive his ordination and did not decide to go to Constantinople until the middle of 1435. Meanwhile, at the request of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Švitrigaila, bishop Gerasim of Smolensk [ru] was appointed Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus', but the latter did not come to Moscow and remained Metropolitan only in Lithuania. Soon, Švitrigaila suspected Gerasim of treason and executed him in 1435.[5][6]

When Jonah finally arrived to Constantinople in 1436, the Ecumenical Patriarch had already chosen the Greek bishop Isidore and appointed the latter as the new Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'. Isidore came to Moscow in 1437 and made a good impression there with his diplomatic skills and knowledge of the Slavonic language. However, only 5 months later, in September 1437, he left Moscow to participate to the Council of Florence, where the unification of the Churches of Rome and Constantinople should be adopted.[7]

The Church of Constantinople officially accepted the union with the Catholic Church in July 1439 at the council of Florence and was therefore at that time in full communion with the pope.[8][9] Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus', Isidore of Kiev, had also accepted the union in the name of the whole Metropolis of Kiev, which included Moscow. Abraham of Suzdal and others who had come from Moscow with Isidore refused to accept the union.[10] Both pro-union priests of the Church of Constantinople and Isidor of Kiev were met with an important backlash by their respective Churches for having accepted the union and the filioque.[10]

Isidore was an ardent supporter of the union, and after its adoption in July 1439, Pope Eugene IV bestowed on him the title of apostolic legate in all the Eastern lands of Lithuania, Livonia, Galicia and all Rus'; in December 1439[11] Isidore also received the title of cardinal.[7][10][12]

Metropolitan Isidore and his mission in Eastern Europe and Moscow

Isidor was sent as a papal legate for all Russia and Lithuania and went to Moscow to announce the decision of the Council of Florence.[9] However, in Moscow, bishops and the nobility did not accept the union with the Catholic Church and Isidor was deposed by bishops of the Metropolis of Kiev and sent to prison.[10][12]

On the way back, through the Rus' lands belonging to the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, Isidor announced the Union and conducted services of Eastern Orthodox priests in Catholic churches and vice versa, commemorated the Pope and claimed that the rites performed by Eastern Orthodox have the same power as the Catholic ones. This caused discontent among both Catholics and Orthodox, but the Eastern Orthodox nobles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania favored Isidore. Some researchers believe that they recognized him only as an Eastern Orthodox metropolitan, not as the cardinal and legate of the Pope, but others doubt it.[13] The situation was complicated by the fact that Poland and Lithuania were leaning on the side of the Council of Basel, which soon put forward his anti-Pope; the Grand Duchy of Lithuania rejected the Council of Florence and the position of Isidore as the legate of Pope Eugene IV.[13]

On March 19, 1441, Isidore came to Moscow. Three days later he held a mass in the Dormition Cathedral.[10][13] During this mass, he commemorated the Pope and read the papal bull of the Union, which listed all the concessions, including dogmatic, made in Florence by the Eastern Orthodox; while he was reading the bull, he was arrested by the Grand Duke Vasily II of Moscow "who ar­rested him and tried him as an apostate to the Orthodox faith."[10] Then, at Grand Duke Vasily II's command, "six Russian bishops met in a synod, deposed Isidore, and shut him up in prison."[10][12][13]

Prior to that event in Dormition Cathedral, in Moscow, they had not understood well the conditions under which the Union was concluded, but when the details became clear, the Council of Bishops of Moscow condemned Isidor and imprisoned him in the monastery.[13] Later, a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople was drawn up, in which Isidore's faults were listed and a request was made to consider his case. Then the authors of the message asked to allow the bishops in Russia to ordain a Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus' by themselves; apparently, they had no doubt that Isidore would be deprived of his dignity. This letter has been interpreted in two ways. According to the historian Golubinsky, Moscow offered Constantinople a kind of compromise: Moscow gets the opportunity to ordain a Metropolitan and in return it does not raise the issue of the Union, while remaining in formal dependence on the uniate Patriarch of Constantinople.[13] According to the historian Florya, the Eastern Orthodox of Moscow were sure of the imminent failure of the Union supporters, and were hoping for this failure.[13]

However, the situation was different, and the new Patriarch of Constantinople was the uniate Metrophanes II, who continued to follow the decisions of the Council of Florence. The Eastern Orthodox of Moscow did not dare to judge Isidore themselves, so he was expelled from Moscow (it was officially announced that he had escaped); then, he was also expelled from Tver. He was also poorly met in Lithuanian Navahrudak, because Lithuanian Prince Casimir recognized the anti-pope Felix V who had been previously elected by the Council of Basel. In 1443, Isidore moved in Buda, possession of the new king of Poland and Hungary Vladislav III, and contributed to the publication of the privilege, which formally equated the rights of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox clergy in kings's lands. Then he went to Rome.[12] It is known that at least one of the Eastern Orthodox bishops of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania accepted the ordination from Isidor, and repented of it, but other information on the situation in Lithuania is extremely rare.[13]

Question of the subordination of the Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus' and the union

After the exile of Isidore from Moscow in 1441, the question of the subordination of the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus' to the Church of Constantinople remained unclear for a long time. In Constantinople itself, there was a fierce struggle between pro- and anti-unionists. In fact, the Union was supported by a narrow group of elite from the capital of the dying Empire. Russian Grand Prince Vasiliy II supported the anti-unionists (those information are preserved his correspondence with the monks of Mount Athos).[13] After the death of the pro-unionist Metrophanes II in 1443, in Constantinople for a long time they did not manage to elect a new Patriarch. In 1444–1445 there were 15 public disputes between supporters and opponents of the Union.[14]

Gradually, the ranks of the pro-unionists were reduced and ten years after the Council of Florence, only four of the members of the Greek delegation remained faithful to the Union. Despite this, the firm supporter of the Union Gregory Mammas became the new Patriarch (in 1444 or 1445). His position remained fragile and he fled Constantinople in 1451 after the death of Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaiologos (one of the initiators of the Union).[14] Information about relations between Moscow and Constantinople during this period is extremely scarce and unreliable.[15]

Election of Metropolitan Jonah of Kiev and all Rus'

Meanwhile, there was a long civil war between Vasily II and his cousins in the Moscow Principality, during which both sides sought support from Jonah. In 1446 Dmitry Shemyaka seized power in Moscow, and in exchange for help he promised Jonah that he (Johah) would become Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'[b] and let him take the Palace of the Metropolitan in Moscow. However, after Vasily II regained his throne in 1447, Jonah was still officially only the bishop of Ryazan and his name was only in third place.[c] It is only in 1448 that the Council of bishops of North-Eastern Rus' proclaimed Jonas Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'. This decision was not unanimous – the bishops of Tver and Novgorod (both cities were semi-independent from Moscow) did not sign the Charter of his election.[15]

In support of Jonah's claims, Moscow claimed that the previous Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', Photios, had proclaimed Jonah as his successor, and that a Patriarch of Constantinople which they did not name had once promised Jonah that he would become Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' after Isidore. Some modern researchers doubt the validity of these claims.[15]

The election of Jonah was not accompanied by a clear break with Constantinople. For example Vasily II composed a letter to the new Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos (whom he wrongly considered an opponent of the Union). Vasily justified the unauthorized election of Jonah by extreme circumstances and asked for communion and blessings, but only if there would be an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch in Constantinople:[13]

We have done this from necessity, not from pride or insolence. Till the end of time we shall abide in the Orthodoxy that was given to us; our Church will always seek the blessing of the Church of Tsarigrad[d] and will be obedient in all things to the ancient piety.

However Constantine XI, in a desperate search for allies against the Turks, agreed to the Union. Soon, in 1453, Constantinople fell and the question of recognizing Jonah remained uncertain until his death.[13]

The Ecumenical Patriarchate wrote in an official letter in 2018: "the Holy Metropolitanate of Kiev has always belonged to the jurisdiction of the Mother Church of Constantinople, founded by it as a separate Metropolitanate, occupying the 60th position in the list of the eparchies of the Ecumenical Throne. Later on, the local Synod in the state of Great Russia — upon an unfounded pretext — unilaterally cut itself off from its canonical authority, i.e. the Holy Great Church of Christ (1448), but in the city of Kiev other Metropolitans, authentic and canonical, were continually and unceasingly ordained by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, since the Kievan clergy and laity did not accept their subjection to the center of Moscovy."[16][17]

Schism

Gregory the Bulgarian, division of the Metropolis of Kiev, and beginning of the schism

After his election, Metropolitan Jonah tried to assert his jurisdiction over the Eastern Orthodox of Lithuania. He succeeded because the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir, who was recently (in 1447) elected king of Poland, and Vasily II (his brother-in-law) were able to agree on this. In 1451, Casimir IV sent a charter to the Eastern Orthodox of Lithuania in which he called them to obey Jonah as Metropolitan.[18][19]

In 1454, after they conquered Constantinople, the Ottomans removed Ecumenical Patriarch Athanasius II and imposed a new Ecumenical Patriarch, Gennadios, "who promptly renounced the Filioque."[10]

However, in 1458 the Patriarch-Uniate Gregory Mammas, who had fled from Constantinople to Rome, ordained Gregory the Bulgarian as new Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'. Previously, also in 1458, Pope Calixtus III had divided the Metropolis of Kiev into two parts: "Superior Russia" centered about Moscow and "Inner Russia" centered about Kiev.[20]

Casimir IV was forced to cede to the demands of Pope Calixtus III and to recognize Gregory as Metropolitan, restoring the Union in Lithuania. Jonah resisted this decision, and in 1459 he assembled the Council and demanded that its members swear allegiance to him or to his successor, as well as to sever relations with the Uniate Metropolitan Gregory. In case of any persecution by the authorities, Jonah promised the bishops refuge in the Moscow Principality, but only one Bishop, Evfimy of Bryansk and Chernigov, took advantage of this offer (he became Bishop of Suzdal). In 1461, Jonah died.[18][19] Despite the victory of Gregory the Bulgarian over the Eastern Orthodox bishops, he faced resistance to the Union at the grassroots level (at this time the first Orthodox "brotherhoods" were formed).[19]

At the same time, in Constantinople, which was ruled by the Turks, the Union was finally rejected. As a result Gregory decided to leave the Catholic Church, and returned to the jurisdiction of Patriarch Dionysius I of Constantinople. In February 1467 Dionysius sent a letter to Moscow, in which he called all the Russian lands, and especially Great Novgorod, to accept Gregory as the only legitimate Metropolitan recognized by Constantinople. In addition, in the same letter Dionysius claimed that his Holy Catholic Church "did not accept, does not hold, and does not name as metropolitans" Jonah and other metropolitans, ordained in Moscow after him.[1][13][19] At this time, Philip I was the metropolitan in Moscow, since 1464; he replaced Theodosius, whom Jonah had appointed as his successor.[18]

Complete rupture with the Ecumencal Patriarch by Ivan III

Grand Prince Ivan III of Russia refused to recognize Gregory the Bulgarian, which led to a rupture of relations between Moscow and Constantinople. In 1470, Ivan III wrote to the Archbishop of Novgorod that he did not recognize Gregory as a Metropolitan; Ivan added concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople: "we do not demand him, nor his blessing, nor his disregard, we consider him, the very patriarch, alien and renounced". These words were a clear confirmation of the formal break with Constantinople, which arose because of the autocephaly of the church of Moscow.[21] Soon the Novgorod Republic tried to get out from the influence of Moscow, recognizing Casimir of Poland and Lithuania as their liege, and Gregory as their Metropolitan. But Ivan III suppressed this attempt by military force, executing leaders of the opposition (1471).[22]

Consequences of the fall of Constantinople

Role of the Byzantine emperor in the Eastern Orthodox Church

  • The Byzantine Empire was a theocracy, the Emperor was the supreme authority in both church and state.[23][24][25][26] "The king is not God among men but the Viceroy of God. He is not the logos incarnate but is in a special relation with the logos. He has been specially appointed and is continually inspired by God, the friend of God, the interpreter of the Word of God. His eyes look upward, to receive the messages of God. He must be surrounded with the reverence and glory that befits God's earthly copy; and he will 'frame his earthly government according to the pattern of the divine original, finding strength in its conformity with the monarchy of God'.[27]"[28]
  • In the East, endorsement of Caesaropapism, subordination of the church to the religious claims of the dominant political order, was most fully evident in the Byzantine Empire at the end of the first millennium,[29] while in the West the decline of imperial authority left the Church relatively independent.[30][31][32][33]

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the role of the Roman emperor as the sole secular head of all Eastern Orthodox was very prominent. Thus, in 1393 Patriarch Anthony IV of Constantinople wrote to Grand Prince Vasily I of Moscow:[34]

The holy emperor has a great place in the church, for he is not like other rulers or governors of other regions. This s [sic] so because from the beginning the emperors established and confirmed the [true] faith in all the inhabited world. They convoked the ecumenical councils and confirmed and decreed the acceptance of the pronouncements of the divine and holy canons regarding the correct doctrines and the government of Christians. [...] The basileus [note: the Greek term for emperor] is anointed with the great myrrh and is appointed basileus and autokrator of the Romans, and indeed of all Christians. Everywhere the name of the emperor is commemorated by all patriarchs and metropolitans and bishops wherever men are called Christians, [a thing] which no other ruler or governor ever received. Indeed he enjoys such great authority over all that even the Latins themselves, who are not in communion with our church, render him the same honor and submission which they did in the old days when they were united with us. So much more do Orthodox Christians owe such recognition to him....
Therefore, my son, you are wrong to affirm that we have the church without an Emperors for it is impossible for Christians to have a church and no empire. The Baslleia [empire] and the church have a great unity and community - indeed they cannot be separated. Christians can repudiate only emperors who are heretics who attack the church, or who introduce doctrines irreconcilable with the teachings of the Apostles and the Fathers. [...] Of whom, then, do the Fathers, councils, and canons speak? Always and everywhere they speak loudly of' the one rightful basileus, whose laws, decrees, and charters are in force throughout the world and who alone, only he, is mentioned in all places by Christians in the liturgy.[35]

— Letter of Patriarch Anthony to Vasily I

The basileus gave the Patriarchate of Constantinople an enormous prestige, although this position of Eastern Orthodox emperor was challenged; indeed, the rivalry for primacy with the basileus of the Byzantine empire was especially strong among the Eastern Orthodox Slavs in the Balkans, who sought autocephaly for their churches and gave their rulers the title of tsar (emperor).[e] The capital of the Bulgarian Tsardome, Tarnovo, was even called "New Rome". The Patriarchs of Constantinople, however, did not recognize these rulers as equal to a basileus of the Byzantine Empire. Muscovy also shared this feeling of rivalry with the Byzantine empire over the secular primacy in the Eastern Orthodox Church.[1][36]

Moscow, third Rome

The expulsion of Metropolitan Isidore and the independent ordination of Jonah were the response of Moscow to the Union. However, even after the Patriarchate of Constantinople officially rejected the Union in 1484, its jurisdiction over Moscow was not restored because there was no Eastern Roman emperor anymore.

In 1453, Constantinople was captured by the Turks, and the last fragment of the Byzantine Empire, Trebizond, fell in 1461 to the Turks. Even before the fall of Constantinople, the Orthodox Slavic states in the Balkans had fallen under Turkish rule. The fall of Constantinople caused tremendous fears, many considered the fall of Constantinople as a sign the End time was near (in 1492 it was 7000 Anno Mundi); others believed that the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire (although he was a Roman Catholic) now took the place of the emperors of Constantinople. There were also hopes that Constantinople would be liberated soon. Moreover, the Orthodox Church was left without its Eastern Orthodox Basileus. Therefore, the question arose of who would become the new basileus. At the end of the various "Tales" about the fall of Constantinople [ru], which gained great popularity in Moscow Russia, it was directly stated that the Rus' people would defeat the Ishmaelites (Muslims) and their king would become the basileus in the City of Seven Hills (Constantinople). The Grand Prince of Moscow remained the strongest of the Eastern Orthodox rulers; Ivan III married Sophia Paleologue, broke his formal subordination to the Golden Horde (already divided into several Tatar kingdoms) and became an independent ruler. All of this strengthened Moscow’s claims to primacy in the Eastern Orthodox world. However, the liberation of Constantinople was still far away — the Moscow State had no opportunity to fight the Ottoman Empire.[36] At the end of the 15th century, the emergence of the idea that Moscow is a truly a new Rome can be found. Metropolitan Zosima, in 1492, quite clearly expressed it, calling Ivan III "the new Tsar Constantine of the new city of Constantine — Moscow."[37][f] This idea is best known in the presentation of the monk Philotheus of the early 16th century:[38][39][40]

So know, pious king, that all the Christian kingdoms came to an end and came together in a single kingdom of yours, two Romes have fallen, the third stands, and there will be no fourth [emphasis added]. No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom according to the great Theologian [cf. Revelation 17:10] [...].

The Moscow scholars explained the fall of Constantinople as the divine punishment for the sin of the Union with the Catholic Church, but they did not want to obey the Patriarch of Constantinople, although there were no unionist patriarchs since the Turkish conquest in 1453 and the first Patriarch since then, Gennadius Scholarius, was the leader of the anti-unionists. At the next synod, held in Constantinople in 1484, the Union was finally declared invalid. Having lost its Christian basileus after the Turkish conquest, Constantinople as a center of power lost a significant part of its authority. On the contrary, the Moscow rulers soon began to consider themselves real Tsars (this title was already used by Ivan III), and therefore according to them the center of the Eastern Orthodox Church should have been located in Moscow, and thus the bishop of Moscow should become the head of the Orthodoxy.[36] The text of the bishop's oath in Muscovy, edited in 1505-1511, condemned the ordination of metropolitans in Constantinople, calling it "the ordination in the area of godless Turks, by the pagan[g] tsar."[41]

"The liturgical privileges that the Byzantine emperor enjoyed carried over to the Muscovite tsar. In 1547, for instance, when Ivan IV was crowned tsar, not only was he anointed as the Byzantine emperor had been after the late twelfth century, but he was also allowed to communicate in the sanctuary with the clergy."[42]

"The Russian Orthodox Church declared itself autocephalous in 1448, on the basis of explicit rejection of the Filioque, and the doctrine of "Moscow as the Third and Final Rome" was born. This rejection of the Idea of Progress embodied in the Council of Florence is the cultural root of subsequent Russian imperial designs on the West."[10]

Attempts to restore relations

When breaking off relations with Constantinople in 1467-1470, ambassadors of the Ecumenical Patriarch were forbidden to enter the possession of the Moscow Grand Prince Ivan III. As a result, direct contacts were completely interrupted for almost half a century. However, Moscow continued to intensively communicate with the monks of Mount Athos and in 1517 Patriarch Theoleptus I of Constantinople used this channel of communication. Together with the elders of Athos, among whom was the famous Maximus the Greek, he sent his ambassadors, Gregory (Metropolitan of Zichnai) and the patriarchal deacon, to the Grand Prince Vasily III.[43]

The question of who initiated this contact remains unresolved. It is known that Vasily III was childless for a long time in his first marriage, and many attempts were made to beg for an heir from the Higher powers. The monks of Athos who accompanied the ambassadors reported that they fulfilled the request to pray for the childbearing of Princess Solomonia in the monasteries of the Holy Mountain. Modern researchers (Dm. Kryvtsov, V. Lurie) believe that the initiative came from the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the real goal (in addition to the request for financial assistance) was to restore the canonical jurisdiction of Constantinople over Moscow. The story of this embassy in the Moscow chronicles was seriously reworked, and some documents were withdrawn, but the original evidence is preserved in the materials of the trial of Maximus the Greek. It follows from them that the Patriarch's ambassadors were met extremely coldly; the Grand Prince and Metropolitan Varlaam did not accept the blessing from the Patriarch's envoy.[43]

In the ensuing controversy about the right to autocephaly, Moscow had no serious canonical arguments. However, Muscovites believed that if God was dissatisfied with the ordination of Jonas in 1448, He would somehow have showed it. In particular, afterlife miracles of former Metropolitans of Moscow, saint Alexius and saint Peter - saint Alexius having been canonized by Jonah in 1448 -, were cited to prove that those saints were in favor of the ordination of Metropolitan Jonah. In addition, Muscovites recalled precedents – the proclamation of autocephaly of the Serbian and Bulgarian churches and similar miracles performed by the relics of the Patriarch of Bulgaria. According to the Moscow scholars, those miracles could not have been possible if God did not want the Bulgarians to have their own independent primate. The embassy of the Patriarch of Constantinople was in Moscow for a year and a half, and at this time (1518-1519) sources record a series of miraculous healings from the relics of Metropolitan Alexius (his canonization was the first act of Metropolitan Jonah after his ordination in 1448). In honor of these healings, magnificent celebrations were arranged with the participation of the Grand Duke, Metropolitans, bishops and other members of the clergy, who had to show the "Greeks" the legitimacy of the Moscow autocephaly. The possession of ancient Byzantine icons as a symbol of continuity and preservation of "pure" Orthodox traditions was also demonstrated to the "Greeks". In 1518, Metropolitan of Moscow Varlaam made a public prayer for the ending of prolonged rains. When the rains came to an end, it was also regarded as an approval of the legitimacy of Varlaam's ordination.[43]

The Greeks could not do anything against such arguments. Even if they were not directly expressed, the very atmosphere of the continuous triumph of "Russian Orthodoxy" made useless any attempt to officially raise the question of the subordination of the Moscow autocephalous church to the Patriarch of Constantinople. So the envoys of the Ecumenical Patriarch returned with nothing. The next envoy of the Patriarch of Constantinople appeared in Moscow only 37 years later, in 1556. Maximus the Greek stayed in Moscow and tried to debate, explaining the uncanonical character of the Moscow autocephaly and the fact that the Metropolitan of Moscow was ordinated "not according to divine scripture, nor according to the rules of the Saints Fathers". This ended for him with a trial and a very long imprisonment, despite the sympathetic attitude of a part of the clergy who, to the best of their strength, facilitated his fate and made it possible for him to continue his writings.[43]

In 1539, Grand Prince Vasily III died. As a result of court intrigues, Metropolitan Daniel was dismissed, and Joasaph (Skripitsyn), abbot of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, was put in his place. Joasaph was a famous book lover and patron of scribes and calligraphers; he opposed to Josephites and was a friend of Maximus the Greek. Ascending the post, Joasaph did not renounce the patriarch of Constantinople, as his predecessors Moscow metropolitans did and as his successors would; Joasaph did not declare Moscow's Orthodoxy as being the only true one. Historian Vladimir Lurie [ru] believes that the actions of Joasaph can be considered as an attempt to bring Moscow out of the schism. However, Joasaph's rule was short-lived, in 1542 he was removed from the See of Moscow.[1][44]

End of the schism and recognition of Moscow's autocephaly

The exact time of the end of the schism is not known for sure. The Church historian Anton Kartashev believed that the excommunication imposed by Constantinople for the rejection of Isidore "was never lifted from the Russian Church in formal and documented way. It gradually melted in the course of history, and at the time the Moscow Patriarchate was approved in 1589, it was not even remembered".[45] On the other hand, the modern historian of the Church, Vladimir Lurie [ru], believes that in 1560-1561 the Metropolis of Moscow returned to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, while losing its self-proclaimed autocephaly. This conclusion was made as a result of a detailed analysis of a set of documents relating to the Embassy of Archimandrite Theodorite of 1557 and the Embassy of Archimandrite Joasaph of 1560-1561. The main issue of negotiations was to confirm the coronation of Ivan the Terrible as a real Eastern Orthodox tsar (emperor). In one letter, the patriarch of Constantinople Joasaph calls the metropolitan of Moscow "the exarch of the catholic patriarch" (Greek: ώς εξαρχος πατριαρχιός καθολικός). Such a title meant administrative subordination, and beyond that it was specially noted in this letter that "he has power from us" (that is, from the Patriarch of Constantinople) and only in this way could he act as a hierarch.[1]

The Russian Orthodox Church considers that it became de facto autocephalous in 1448,[46] yet the other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs recognized its autocephaly only in 1589-1593. "This was done by means of two letters signed, not by the Ecumenical Patriarch alone, but also by other Patriarchs of the East. In these letters the Patriarchal rank of the primate of the Russian Church was recognized and the Patriarch of Moscow was placed fifth in diptych after the four Patriarchs of the East."[46][47]

Notes

  1. ^ V. M. Lurie [ru] in his work called this period the "schism of the Church of Moscow of 1467-1560"[1]
  2. ^ Dmitry Shemyaka needed help to get the children of overthrown and blinded Vasily, who had taken refuge in Murom and Jonah was the bishop of Ryazan (and Murom). It is often assumed that Jonah "managed the affairs" of the metropolis after the death of Photios until a new metropolitan was appointed, but these are only assumptions[15]
  3. ^ "In the accusing charter of the Russian clergy against Shemyaka, sent in December 6956 (1447) Jonah is still referred to as "the bishop of Ryazan" and is named on the third place - after Efrem of Rostov and Abraham of Suzdal"[15]
  4. ^ Constantinople, literally "The City of Tsars" which mean "The City of Emperors"
  5. ^ For example, the tsar of Bulgaria or the emperor of the Serbs.
  6. ^ V. M. Lurie [ru] in his work called this period the "schism of the Church of Moscow of 1467-1560"[1]
  7. ^ The term "pagan" has been used to refer to any adherent of a different faith and had a very negative connotation. In this case, it is used to designate pejoratively the muslims.

See also

Eastern Orthodoxy

Politics

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f V. M. Lurie [ru], Прекращение московского церковного раскола 1467—1560 годов: финал истории в документах (also on Academia.edu) (in Russian)
  2. ^ "14th Century Russia | Rusmania". rusmania.com. Retrieved 2020-01-12.
  3. ^ Gleason, Abbott (2009-04-06). A Companion to Russian History. John Wiley & Sons. p. 126. ISBN 978-1-4443-0842-6.
  4. ^ Tsygankov, Andrei P. (2014). "Emergence and Development". The Strong State in Russia: Development and Crisis. Oxford University Press. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-19-933621-0.
  5. ^ Shubin 2004, pp. 124—125.
  6. ^ Zheltov, Mikhail, Historical-Canonical Basis for the Unity of the Russian Church (in Russian: Историко-канонические основания единства Русской Церкви) (also in Russian on Academia.edu)
  7. ^ a b Shubin 2004, pp. 125—126.
  8. ^ "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope Eugene IV". www.newadvent.org. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  9. ^ a b "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Council of Florence". www.newadvent.org. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i Hamermann, Nora (Spring 1992). "The Council of Florence: The Religious Event that Shaped the Era of Discovery" (PDF). Fidelio. 1 (2): 23–36 – via Schiller Institute.
  11. ^ Kenneth Meyer Setton (1976). The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The fifteenth century. American Philosophical Society. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-87169-127-9.
  12. ^ a b c d "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Isidore of Thessalonica". www.newadvent.org. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l "Флорентийская уния и Восточная Европа (конец 30-х — конец 60-х гг. XV в.)". Церковно-Научный Центр "Православная Энциклопедия" (in Russian). Retrieved 2018-12-07.
  14. ^ a b Dezhnyuk 2015, chpt. 3 "The Bitter End".
  15. ^ a b c d e Лурье, Яков (1991). "Как установилась афтокефалия русской церкви в XV в.?" [How was the autocephaly of the Russian church established in the 15th century?]. Вспомогательные исторические дисциплины (in Russian). XXIII.
  16. ^ "Patriarch Bartholomew explains Metropolitan Onufriy reasons for Ukraine church's autocephaly (Letter)". www.unian.info. 7 December 2018. Retrieved 2018-12-08.
  17. ^ "ΑΠΟΚΛΕΙΣΤΙΚΟ | Βαρθολομαίος σε Ονούφριο: Δεν μπορείτε να έχετε πλέον τον τίτλο Κιέβου". ROMFEA (in Greek). 7 December 2018. Retrieved 2018-12-08.
  18. ^ a b c Shubin 2004, pp. 132-133.
  19. ^ a b c d Карташев, Антон (1959). "Митрополит Григорий Болгарин (1458-1473 гг.)" [Metropolitan Gregory the Bulgarian (1458-1473)]. Очерки по истории Русской Церкви (in Russian). 1. Archived from the original on May 2009. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  20. ^ Philippides, Marios; Hanak, Walter (2018). Cardinal Isidore (c.1390–1462): A Late Byzantine Scholar, Warlord, and Prelate. Routledge. p. 422. ISBN 978-1-351-21488-9.
  21. ^ Карташев, Антон (1959). "Филипп (I) (1464–1473 гг.)". Очерки по истории Русской Церкви (in Russian). 1. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  22. ^ Shubin 2004, pp. 136.
  23. ^ Herrin, Judith (2013). Margins and Metropolis. Princeton University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-69115301-8.
  24. ^ VanVoorst, Jenny Fretland (2012). The Byzantine Empire. Capstone. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-75654565-9.
  25. ^ Stefoff, Rebecca (2007). Monarchy. Marshall Cavendish. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-76142630-1.
  26. ^ Dawson, Christopher (2008). The Formation of Christendom. Ignatius Press. p. 140. ISBN 978-1-58617239-8.
  27. ^ "CHURCH FATHERS: Oration in Praise of Constantine (Eusebius)". www.newadvent.org. Retrieved 2018-12-18.
  28. ^ Steven Runciman. The Byzantine Theocracy. Cambridge University Press, 1977.
  29. ^ Church and State in the Byzantine Empire. Archived from the original on 31 October 2009.
  30. ^ Church and State in Western Europe. Archived from the original on 31 October 2009.
  31. ^ John C. Dwyer, Church History (Paulist Press 1998 ISBN 978-0-8091-3830-2), p. 118.
  32. ^ Matthew Bunson, Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire (Facts on File 2002 ISBN 978-0-8160-4562-4), pp. 115–116.
  33. ^ Deno John Geanakoplos, Constantinople and the West (University of Wisconsin Press 1989 ISBN 978-0-299-11884-6), p. 226.
  34. ^ Runciman 1985, Book I, chpt. 3 "Church and State".
  35. ^ "Medieval Sourcebook:
    Patriarch Anthony: 
    Defending the Emperor, 1395"
    . sourcebooks.fordham.edu. Internet History Sourcebooks Project. Retrieved 2019-10-19.
  36. ^ a b c Strémooukhoff, Dimitri (1953). "Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrine". Speculum. 28 (1): 84–101. doi:10.2307/2847182. JSTOR 2847182.
  37. ^ Cite error: The named reference speculum19532 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  38. ^ Strémooukhoff, Dimitri (1953). "Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrine". Speculum. 28 (1): 84–101. doi:10.2307/2847182. JSTOR 2847182. That is why we consider the theory definitively formulated by Philotheus to occupy a central place in Muscovite ideology: it forms the core of the opinions developed by the Muscovites about their fatherland and erects them into a doctrine.
  39. ^ Подосокорский, Николай (2017-07-10). "Послание старца Филофея великому князю Василию III о содомском блуде". philologist.livejournal.com. Retrieved 2019-10-30.
  40. ^ "ПОСЛАНИЯ СТАРЦА ФИЛОФЕЯ". pushkinskijdom.ru. 31 October 2019.
  41. ^ Kryvtsov 2001, p. 51.
  42. ^ Ostrowski, Donald (1998). Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304-1589. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (published 2002). p. 211. ISBN 9780521894104.
  43. ^ a b c d Kryvtsov 2001.
  44. ^ Дмитриева, Руфина (1988). "Иоасаф (Скрипицын), митрополит Московский". In Лихачёв, Дмитрий (ed.). Словарь книжников и книжности Древней Руси. Вып. 2 (вторая половина XIV-XVI в.), часть 1. Ленинград: Наука.
  45. ^ Kartashev, Anton (1992). Очерки по истории русской церкви. Moscow: Терра. pp. 377–378. ISBN 5-85255-103-1.
  46. ^ a b "Primacy and Synodality from an Orthodox Perspective". mospat.ru. The Russian Orthodox Church. 9 November 2014. Retrieved 2018-12-20.
  47. ^ "Russian Orthodox Church | History & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-10-18.

Sources

Further reading

This page was last edited on 17 January 2020, at 19:13
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.