Some trends in the correction of liturgical books under Patriarch Nikon

Sazonova Natalia Ivanovna, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University (TSPU), is engaged in the study of book rights under Patr. Nikon. It is mainly on the right side of the Trebnik and Horologion. On the right, it is viewed from a philological, semiotic, cultural and theological point of view. Additional sources are involved in the analysis - mainly polemical works of the Pustozero prisoners and other apologists of the Old Believers. Sazonova has numerous publications in periodicals and collections, she wrote and published a monograph on law. The defense of the doctoral thesis is being prepared, the second monograph is in print.

Church reform of Patriarch Nikon 1654-1666. for many years remains in the focus of attention of researchers as the most serious and large-scale in the history of the Russian Church. Attention to the reform is explained not only by its scale, but also by its consequences, the main of which was the church schism.

One of the most important areas of Nikon's reform was the reform of liturgical practice, which included the "correction" of liturgical books. These aspects were perceived by contemporaries of the events as the main direction of the reform. The formation of such a perception was facilitated by the fact that the reform itself began in 1653 with liturgical changes - the introduction of three fingers in the sign of the cross and the abolition of prostrations during the Lenten prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian. This was followed by the correction of liturgical books, which caused no less resonance in the Church and society, which had practically no precedents in Russian church history: in a short time, all liturgical books, without exception, were reformed. That is why the reformation of liturgical practice was perceived most sharply by the society.

It is no coincidence that Nikon's "correction" of liturgical books, along with other liturgical innovations, received considerable attention in historical science in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the works of A.A. Dmitrievsky, I.D. Mansvetova, S.A. Belokurova, D.S. Varakina, P.F. Nikolayevsky and other researchers summarized a large amount of material concerning the sources of correction of liturgical books, the passage on the right (to the greatest extent thanks to the works of A.A. Dmitrievsky, researchers at the beginning of the 20th century developed the theme of Nikon's correction of the Service Book). Scientists have considered the factors influencing the correction process and made a number of important conclusions as a result of the analysis of the sources and stages of transformation. So, according to many researchers, the declared principle of corrections - according to ancient Greek manuscripts - was not observed, and on the right was carried out according to Greek books of the 17th century. Thus, the reform was oriented towards Greek liturgical practice, modern reform.

The tradition of researchers of the late XIX - early XX centuries. continues and modern Russian science. The problems of textual criticism of the correction of liturgical books are posed in a number of works, both theoretical and concrete-historical. Thus, B.A. Uspensky, considering the problem of non-conventional attitude to the word in the 17th century. and the impact of this circumstance on the split that occurred, as well as referring to general characteristics textological picture of Nikon's reform. The course of book revision and the identity of the spravochnikov are also considered in the articles by M. Grinberg, V. K. Ziborov, M. D. Kagan, T. A. Isachenko-Lisova. A number of researchers study the textual criticism of the pre-reform liturgical books of the pre-reform period, the history of the publication of reformed liturgical books, in particular Trebnik. Church historians and theologians also often turn to the topic of Nikon's "right". Continuing the pre-revolutionary tradition of researching the history of the correction of liturgical books, modern scholars also focus on the sources of book right and the process of correcting the liturgical text itself.

Despite the importance of studying the process of correcting the liturgical text under Patriarch Nikon, it should be said that the text of liturgical books itself, which has undergone changes as a result of the reform, remains a little-studied area so far. An even more important problem is the problem of the influence of the newly amended text on the formation of a negative reaction to the reform.

As already mentioned, Nikon's reform differed from all previous ones in its scale. Naturally, the amount of work that lies ahead for the scholar is truly enormous, and a more or less unambiguous answer to the question of the role of textual changes in the schism can only be given by a complete study of the changes in all liturgical books. At the same time, preliminary conclusions can also be drawn from the results of studying one or more liturgical books, since such a sample can be considered representative in terms of identifying the main trends in the book right. It is precisely because of this that we will turn here to the consideration of the correction of only one of the liturgical books - the Trebnik.

The choice of this source is dictated, first of all, by its prevalence among believers: the Trebnik is one of the most important liturgical books. It contains the following of the performance of the main Sacraments of the Church (except for the Sacraments of the Eucharist and the Priesthood), the main rites and prayers performed by the priest at the request of the parishioners ("on demand", hence the name Trebnik, or Potrebnik). Thus, the Treasury is closely related to everyday life believers, which makes this source an interesting object of study. At the same time, the foregoing does not negate the need to identify and summarize changes in other liturgical books - the Service Book, Oktoikh, Prologue, etc., since only in this way can a complete textual picture of church reform be restored.

When analyzing the changes introduced by Nikon's reform to the text of the Trebnik, it seems most fruitful to compare Nikon's texts with the texts of liturgical books published during the activity of the "circle of zealots of piety" (the second quarter of the 17th century), since it was these pre-Nikon texts that were mainly perceived Old Believers as correct and true. In particular, these are trebniki of 1636, 1639, 1647 and 1651, copies of which have been preserved both in the funds of museums and libraries in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and in the funds of regional museums and libraries.

During the period of active participation of Patriarch Nikon in the reform, the Trebnik was published once - in 1658. Before the Councils of 1666-1667, but without the participation of the Patriarch, the publication of the Trebnik was undertaken again, in 1662. continuity has been preserved in the correction of liturgical books: the Trebnik of 1662 has practically the same composition as the Trebnik of 1658. At the same time, the publication also reflected a certain uncertainty and hesitation, apparently also present after Nikon's departure: in particular, prayers for the foundation of a house in the Trebnik of 1662 are given in the pre-reform edition. Editions of 1658 and 1662 have been preserved in the collections of the State Historical Museum, the State public library, Libraries of the Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation, in the funds of regional museums and libraries.

The number of changes made to the text of the Trebnik is very large. Among them, it is worth noting the adjustment of the composition of the book, associated with the removal of individual ranks, for example, the rank of consecration of the church (later included in the Bishop's Treasury), and with the introduction of new ranks and prayers; massive cuts the text (among the most serious, the reduction in the rank of Confession should be indicated; funeral ranks have undergone significant reductions); permutations of prayers in the ranks of Baptism, Wedding, Consecration of the Sick and many others. Finally, the most large group changes are several thousand synonymous and grammatical changes in the text of prayers. That is why it is quite possible to agree with the opinion of E.A. Ageeva, who believes that the scale and number of changes in the Treasury were so significant that one can speak not so much of a "correction" as of creating a fundamentally new text. The same opinion is confirmed by contemporaries of the events, for example, priest Nikita Dobrynin: "There is not a single psalm, nor a prayer, nor a troparion ... below in the canons of any verse, so that the dialect is not changed in them." At the same time, the sheer scale of the changes raises the question of their possible conceptual nature in the eyes of believers. That is why all of them should be the object of the closest study.

At the same time, special attention should be drawn to changes that could be perceived most acutely, either because of their frequent repetition, or because they were introduced into the rites and rites, which had a special emotional impact on believers. It is these changes that will be discussed below.

One of the most important in the liturgical text is the concept of time, or the degree of proximity to the person of the events in question (primarily the events of Sacred History). The sharpness of the perception of the divine also determines the sharpness of the emotional perception of the text. In this regard, special attention is drawn to the predominance of aorist forms of the past tense of verbs in the pre-Nikonian Breviaries and the almost universal replacement of these forms with perfect ones - in Nikon's. This feature of Nikon's texts in general (and not just the text of Trebnik of 1658) is discussed by B.A. Uspensky, mentioning the linguistic considerations that may cause these changes (homonymy of the 2nd and 3rd person, for example, the aorist form "byst" could mean both "he was" and "you were").

It is worth noting, however, that the semantic meaning of both forms was not identical. The aorist describes events that have just happened (for example, it is this form that is used in the Paschal hymn: the words "Christ is risen" mean that Christ is "risen now"). When talking about an event that has passed and ended long ago, the perfect form is used with an auxiliary verb, for example, "you were". Researchers agree that the perfect denoted the result of a past action referred to the present. In the 17th century aorist forms gradually fell out of use in colloquial speech, but continued to be preserved in book speech until the start of Nikon's reform. Particular attention is drawn to the fact that the substitutions of the aorist for the perfect in the text of the Brebnik are present when mentioning the events of Sacred History.

For example, in the prayer at the service of the Great Blessing of Water, instead of the aorist form "become baptized in the Jordan" (we are talking about the Gospel event - the Baptism of Christ), there is a perfect "thou suffered", which emphasizes the "historicity" and completeness of the Gospel events. Another prayer in the same service also contains similar changes in aorist forms to perfect ones: the words "do not endure, Master ... see from the devil the tormented human race ... but come and save us" are replaced by "thou did not endure, Master ... but thou hast come and saved us," and the words "appear on earth and live with men" - on "thou appeared ... thou lived." Evangelical events are also discussed in the troparion of the Theotokos of the 6th tone, in the service of the Lesser Blessing of the Water, where the words "Be the Virgin" are replaced by "The Virgin has been" Thou shalt not sin to this" are replaced by "Behold, thou wast healthy...", and the words "and from the slander made thy eyes sound" are replaced by "thou didst".

In all these and many other cases (in total, there are more than 20 replacements of aorist forms by perfect ones in the Trebnik), the gospel events appear as historically completed in Nikon's edition and as taking place "at the moment" in the pre-Nikon text. The new, Nikonian, edition of the text, as it were, invites the believer to comprehend the meaning of the gospel events - the life of Christ, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection. Whereas the pre-Nikonian text offers to personally experience and feel. God in this text is next to a person, his perception is sharp, objective and very personal.

It is characteristic that reaching the level of generalization occurs not only in relation to the events of sacred and ecclesiastical history. Attention is drawn to a number of changes in the rite of burial of the laity, one of the most emotional in the Ritual. This rank, as already mentioned, has undergone quite serious reductions, many of which were of a conceptual nature. In particular, the reform removed more than 30 troparia and stichera, "naturalistically" describing death. Here is one example: "The deceased in the coffin, lying dead, collapsed, cries out to everyone: come to me, all the earth, and see the kindness of the bodily blackened ...". These words are replaced by a completely different chant, and in Nikon's edition instead of them stands: "Dominate souls and bodies, in his hand is our breath, offended consolation, rest in the land of the righteous, whom Thou didst repose Thy servant." And here we are no longer talking about death in all its horror, but about future life. And in one of the saddest stichera, which is sung directly at the burial, the words "Come, let us look at the coffin clearly, where is the kindness of the body, where is youth ..." are replaced by "Come, we will see clearly on the tombs ...".

In Nikon's edition, the word "behold" is used, meaning not only looking, but also understanding, understanding (the meaning of death). In addition, the word "coffin" is used in the plural - thus, we are not talking about a separate death, but about death, as the fate of all. Thus, as in the case of the replacement of aorist forms by perfect ones, Nikon's text reaches a generalized level of understanding, this time in the field of ideas about death.

At the same time, it is noteworthy that among the deleted text fragments there are many penitential sticheras and troparia on behalf of the deceased, "not able to speak", and his relatives. Here are just a few of them: "Come, we see a miracle beyond the mind, yesterday he was with us, but now he lies dead, come, we understand what we are doing restlessly, which is smeared with stench, which is stinking with a stench, which is already painted with gold, without beauty and without beauty lies..."; "The torment of the prodigally living will be countless, gnashing of teeth, darkness without light, tears are useless, the judge is inexorable ...". The removal of such emotional texts, of course, reduces the general repentance of the rank. This decrease occurs, as we see, against the background of the introduction into the text of the understanding of death as the death of a Christian in general, and not of an individual person, and, thus, it appears as a logical consequence of the transition from understanding concrete death to understanding death in general.

The same trend is observed in the rank of Confession, which is also one of the most acutely experienced by believers. Here, along with the removal of prayers of repentance and psalms, serious conceptual changes are made to the appeal of the priest to the confessor. Let us cite a characteristic fragment of this appeal (occupying up to several dozen pages) from the Donikon Trebnik: “And you, child, do not be ashamed of the face of man, we are all sinners, do not hide in yourself a single sin, even if you have sinned from youth to this hour .. Do not be ashamed of my face, but confess all of me, for all the Lord God knows ... confess without shame, for such is a man and more sinful than all men. Nikon's text of the same appeal is much shorter - less than a page - and, most importantly, has a completely different tone: "Behold, the child Christ stands invisibly, receiving Your confession. having rebuked all the people, thou hast made a fir-tree, that thou mayest receive forsakenness from our Lord Jesus Christ. imashi..." Here, as we see, there is no question of the personal sinfulness of the priest and his repentance. The priest acts not as "the same person" as the penitent, but as a bearer of the Grace of the priesthood, and his personal sinfulness in this case is much less relevant. Thus, the understanding of the meaning of the priest rises from the understanding of a particular person with his sins to the level of the priesthood in general. Within the framework of such an understanding, it seems quite logical both to reduce the address and to change its tone with the removal of the motive of personal repentance of the priest himself, which was one of the most important in the pre-Nikonian text. So, in this case, the reformers of the text introduce a generalized understanding into the text, this time - the priesthood.

In general, it can be said that Nikon's liturgical text invites the priest to see himself not as a personally sinful person, but as a representative of the priesthood and the bearer of Grace, and for the layman to "rise" above his own sinfulness and comprehend himself as a Christian. Finally, all believers are invited to take a fresh, less emotional, but more generalized look at the events of Sacred History and their own lives. However, the controversy around the reform shows that the new approach to religion was not only not accepted by many, but often was not understood.

With the change in the sharpness of perception of sacred history and church history as a whole, it seems that the argument that has become a textbook about changes in the text of the Creed (the Creed is present in many liturgical texts, in particular, in the Ribbon it is contained in the rite of Baptism), which has become a textbook). The Old Believer "single az" from the Symbol has become a household name - we are talking about replacing the pre-Nikonian "born, not created" (speaking of Christ) with "born, not created." The opponents of the reform did not tire of pointing out that the adversarial union "a" was introduced during the struggle against Arianism, which spoke of the creation of the Son of God. They "did not understand" that the heresy of Arianism was part of the history of the distant first centuries of Christianity: for the opponents of the reform, the "first centuries of Christianity" were not history either, just as the Gospel events were not. In connection with this idea, there are also objections of the Old Believers regarding the replacement in the Creed of the words “His Kingdom will have no end” with “there will be no end” (we are talking about the Kingdom of Christ): the Old Believers understood the Kingdom of Christ as really existing at the moment, as well as all evangelical or church-historical events.

It seems that one of the main reasons for the misunderstanding was the radical and instantaneous, truly revolutionary, nature of the reform, which was accompanied not only by serious and textual changes, but also by the repression of opponents of the reform. It was the combination of these factors that caused the conflict between the two "images of piety" presented in two editions of the text - pre-Nikon's and Nikon's. First, this conflict touched the priesthood, and then spread to society, becoming one of the reasons for the church and public schism.

Dmitrievsky A.A. Correction of books under Patriarch Nikon and subsequent patriarchs. - M., 2004.

Mansvetov I.D. How we edited liturgical books. - M., 1883.

Belokurov S.A. Arseny Sukhanov. - Ch. 1-2. - M., 1891-1893.

Varakin D.S. Correction of books in the 17th century. - M., 1910.

Nikolaevsky P.F. Moscow Printing House under Patriarch Nikon // Christian Reading, 1890. - Part 2. - P. 1-26.

Uspensky N.D. Collision of two theologies in the correction of Russian liturgical books in the 17th century // Theological Works. - M., 1975. - No. 13. - S. 148-171.

Uspensky B.A. Schism and cultural conflict in the 17th century. // Uspensky B.A. Selected works. M., 1994. - T.1. - S. 333-367.

Uspensky B.A. History of the Russian literary language. - M., 2002. - S. 433-471.

Grinberg M. Moscow book printing in the middle of the 17th century // Bibliophile Almanac. - M., 1983. - Issue. 15. - S. 142-159; Ziborov V.K. Arseniy Grek // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness. - SPb., 1993. - Issue 3. - Part 1. - S. 105-108; Kagan M.D. Dionysius the Greek // Ibid. - S. 272-274; Isachenko-Lisovaya T.A. On the translation activities of Euthymius Chudovsky // Christianity and the Church in Russia in the Feudal Period. - Novosibirsk, 1989. - S. 194-210.

Siromakha V.G. Book references of the Printing House, 2nd floor. 17th century // Old Believers in Russia (XVII-XX centuries) - M., 1999. - P. 15-44; Siromakha V.G., Uspensky B.A. Quotation books of the 50s of the 17th century // Archeographic Yearbook for 1986. - M., 1987. - S. 75-84; Voznesensky A.V. On the history of pre-Nikon and Nikon book rights // Patriarch Nikon and his time. - M., 2004. - S. 143-161; Kazakova E.N. Apostle 1644: on the problem of the pre-Nikon book right // Patriarch Nikon and his time. - M., 2002. - S. 162-173.

Ageeva E.A. Trebnik 1658: the history of the publication // Patriarch Nikon and his time. - M., 2002. - S. 174-188.

Kanter A.A. Prophetic Songs in the Jerusalem Charter of the Donikon Edition // The World of the Old Believers: Living Traditions: Results and Prospects of Comprehensive Research: Materials of the International scientific conference. - M: Russian political encyclopedia, 1998. - Issue. 4. - S. 435-441; Pentkovsky A. M. On the features of some approaches to the reform of worship // Orthodox theology on the threshold of the third millennium / Proceedings of the Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church(Moscow, February 7-9, 2000). - M., 2000. - S. 331-332; Zheltov M.S., Pravdolyubov S. Divine service in the Russian Church of the X-XX centuries. // Orthodox Encyclopedia: Russian Orthodox Church / Ed. Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II. - M., 2000. - C. 485-518.

Trebnik, 1662, State Historical Museum (hereinafter - GIM) Syn. Pech. F. No. 317, L. 274v.; Trebnik, 1662, National Library of Russia (hereinafter - RNL) Inv. No. 1341, L. 274v.

Ageeva E.A. Trebnik 1658: the history of the publication // Patriarch Nikon and his time. - M., 2002. - S. 188.

Suzdal cathedral priest Nikita Konstantinov Dobrynin (Pustosvyat) petition to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich for the book Tablet and the newly corrected church books // Materials for the history of the schism for the first time of its existence. - T. 4., Part 1. - M., b.g. - S. 155.

Uspensky B.A. Schism and cultural conflict of the 17th century. // Uspensky B.A. Selected works. - M., 1994. - T. 1. - S. 347.

Alipiy (Gamanovich). Grammar of the Church Slavonic language. - M., 1991. - S. 204.

Historical grammar of the Russian language. Morphology. Verb. / ed. R.A. Avanesov and V.V. Ivanov. - M., 1982. - S. 90; Nikiforov S.D. The verb, its categories and forms. - M., 1952. - S. 149-155; Gorshkova K.V., Khaburgaev G.A. Historical grammar of the Russian language. - M., 1997. - S. 320-326.

Trebnik, Moscow, Pech. Yard, 1651, RNB Inv. No. 934, L. 59v.; Trebnik, Moscow, 1639, Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (hereinafter - RGADA), BMST / SPK 1381, L. 75v.; Trebnik, Moscow, 1636, RGADA, BMST/SPK 1753, L. 75v.; Trebnik, Moscow, 1658, Library of the Academy of Sciences (hereinafter - BAN) No. 195 SP, S. 212-213; Trebnik, Moscow, 1658, National Library of Russia (hereinafter - RNL) Inv. No. 970, pp. 212-213; Trebnik, Moscow, 1658, RGADA SPK 92, pp. 212-213; Trebnik, Moscow, 1662, State Historical Museum Syn. Pech. F. No. 317, L. 16v.; Trebnik, Moscow, 1662, RNB Inv. No. 1341, L. 16v.; Trebnik, Moscow, 1662, RGADA BMST/SPK 17, L. 16v.

Trebnik, Moscow, Pech. Yard, 1651, RNB Inv. No. 934, L. 66v.-67; Trebnik, Moscow, 1639, RGADA, BMST/SPK 1381, L. 74v.; Trebnik, Moscow, 1636, RGADA, BMST/SPK 1753, L. 74v.; Moscow, 1658, RGADA BMST/SPK 5657, pp. 179-182; Trebnik, Moscow, 1658, BAN No. 195 SP, S. 179-182; Trebnik, Moscow, 1658, RNB Inv. No. 970, pp. 179-182; Trebnik, Moscow, 1658, State Historical Museum Shchap. No. 1095, pp. 179-182; Trebnik, Moscow, 1658, RGADA SPK 92, pp. 179-182; Trebnik, Moscow, 1662, State Historical Museum Syn. Pech. F. No. 317, L. 4-4v.; Trebnik, Moscow, 1662, RNB Inv. No. 1341, L. 4-4v.

Trebnik. M., 1651. Tomsk Regional Museum of Local Lore (hereinafter - TOCM) 7904/57. L. 68v.-69; Trebnik, Moscow, Pech. Yard, 1651, RNB Inv. No. 934, L. 68v.-69; Trebnik, Moscow, 1639, RGADA, BMST/SPK 1381, L. 75v.-76; Trebnik, Moscow, 1636, RGADA, BMST/SPK 1753, L. 75-77.; Trebnik, Moscow, 1658, RGADA BMST/SPK 5657, pp. 194-196; Trebnik, Moscow, 1658, BAN No. 195 SP, S. 194-196; Trebnik, Moscow, 1658, RNB Inv. No. 970, pp. 194-196; Trebnik, Moscow, 1658, State Historical Museum Shchap. No. 1095, pp. 194-196; Trebnik, Moscow, 1662, State Historical Museum Syn. Pech. F. No. 317, L. 6v.-7; Trebnik, Moscow, 1662, RNB Inv. No. 1341, L. 6v.-7; Trebnik, Moscow, 1662, RGADA BMST/SPK 2283, L. 6v.-7.

Trebnik - Moscow, 1651, RNB Inv. No. 934 - L. 333-334; Trebnik - Moscow, 1647, NLR Inv. No. 1055 - L. 212-214.

Trebnik - Moscow, 1658, RGADA BMST / SPK 5657 - S. 319-323; Trebnik - Moscow, 1658, NLR Inv. No. 970 - S. 319-323; Trebnik, Moscow - 1662, Syn. Pech. F. No. 317 - L. 149v.-151; Trebnik - Moscow, 1662, RNB Inv. No. 1341 - L. 149v.-151.

Trebnik - Moscow, 1651, RNB Inv. No. 934 - L. 336; Trebnik - Moscow, 1647, NLR Inv. No. 1055 - L. 217-221; Trebnik - Moscow, 1658, RGADA BMST / SPK 5657 - S. 327-331; Trebnik - Moscow, 1658, NLR Inv. No. 970 - S. 327-331; Trebnik - Moscow, 1658, RGADA SPK 92 - S. 327-331; Trebnik - Moscow, 1662, State Historical Museum Syn. Pech. F. No. 317 - L. 153-156; Trebnik - Moscow, 1662, RGADA BMST / SPK 17 - L. 153-156.

Sreznevsky I.I. Materials for the dictionary of the Old Russian language. - St. Petersburg, 1903. - T. 3. - Stb. 1174-1175.

Trebnik - Moscow, 1651, RNB Inv. No. 934 - L. 328-331; Trebnik - Moscow, 1647, NLR Inv. No. 1055 - L. 202 rev.-208 rev.

Trebnik - Moscow, 1651, RNB. - Inv. No. 934 - L. 147v. - 150; Trebnik, Moscow, 1651 - RGADA, SPK 3518 - L. 147 rev. - 150; Trebnik - Moscow, 1647, State Historical Museum, Schap. No. 177 - L.16 rev. - 19 about.

Trebnik - Moscow, 1658, RGADA BMST / SPK 5657 - S. 65; Trebnik - Moscow, 1662, State Historical Museum Syn. Pech. F. No. 317 - L. 54v.; Trebnik, Moscow - 1662, NLR Inv. No. 1341 - L. 54v.

Sazonova Natalia Ivanovna

Job title: Professor, Head of the Department of Russian History and Methods of Teaching History and Social Science.

Academic degree: doctor of philosophical science

Academic title: docent.

Teaching disciplines: Introduction to Patrology; Story; Methodology for the study of the sacred text; Practice for getting professional skills and experience professional activity; Undergraduate practice; Religious cultures and secular ethics; Modern approaches to teaching the history of Russia; Contemporary Issues religious studies; Philosophy of a religious cult; Excursion activities in the teaching of religious disciplines; Ethno-confessional interaction in the history of Tomsk in the 17th - 20th centuries.

Management of the scientific content of the master's program for the 2018-2019 academic year: Direction of study: 47.04.03 Religious studies, orientation (profile): Historical and religious education (Order of the rector dated 08.30.2018 No. 360/1).

Education:

Basic: Tomsk State University, Faculty of History, 1987-1992 Specialty History, qualification Historian. Lecturer in History and Social Studies.

Postgraduate:

1994-1998 - postgraduate study of TSU, specialty 07.00.02 Domestic history. Candidate of Historical Sciences (1999). The topic of the dissertation is “The split of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century. and correction of liturgical books under Patriarch Nikon”, scientific adviser, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor A.N. Zheravin.

2005-2008 - doctoral studies at TSPU, specialty 09.00.13 Religious studies, philosophical anthropology, philosophy of culture. Doctor of Philosophy (2010). Topic of the dissertation: "Changing the Liturgical Text as a Direction for the Transformation of Religious Consciousness: Based on the Material of the Liturgical Reform of Patriarch Nikon".

Training:

CPC under the program "History and Philosophy of Science (Social and Humanitarian Sciences)". Kazan, FGAOUVPO Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University (72 hours). 05/10/2010-05/25/2010 Certificate No. 2638.

CPC under the program "Distance Technologies in Education". Tomsk, FBGOU VPO "Tomsk State Pedagogical University". May-October 2010

"Training in first aid" 16. h. FSBEI HE "Tomsk State Pedagogical University", February 2018

diploma of professional retraining No. 702404944308 dated 12/30/2016, under the program "Religious Studies", 510 hours FSBEI HE TSPU from 03/01/2016 to 12/30/2016;

certificate of advanced training No. 702405761382 dated 02/08/2018, "Anti-Corruption", 40 hours FSBEI HE TSPU;

certificate of advanced training No. 702405761417 dated February 16, 2018, "Training in first aid", 16 hours FGBOU VO TSPU;

Certificate of advanced training No. 702408202251 dated November 2, 2018 "Design and implementation educational activities in the field of historical disciplines during the transition to the Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education 3++", 108 hours FGBOU VO TSPU

General work experience / work experience in the specialty: 24 / 22

Achievements, awards: laureate Tomsk region in the field of science and education (2011), Certificate of honor Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation (2012), Certificate of Honor of the Governor of the Tomsk Region and the Metropolitan of Tomsk and Asinovsky (2015)

Scientific interests: history of Russia, history and philosophy of religion

Grants: Grant of the Russian Humanitarian Foundation No. 13-13-70001 "Visual Anthropology: Models of Sociocultural Communications". Tomsk, 2013–2014, performer

Participation in scientific events:

9th International Scientific Conference "Ethnography of Altai and adjacent territories", dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Center for Oral History and Ethnography of the Laboratory of Local History of the Altai State Pedagogical University (28-10-2015 - 30-10-2015), Barnaul.
XXIV Spiritual and Historical Readings in Memory of the Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius (19-05-2014 - 25-05-2014), Tomsk.
Krasnoyarsk Regional Christmas Educational Readings (2014-2015).
X regional forum of teachers-innovators (27-11-2015), Tomsk.
Visual semiotics of the modern city(06-10-2017), Wroclaw, Poland.
International scientific readings “Religion. Society. Human". April 27-29, 2018, Simferopol - Partenit.

Selected publications:

Scientific works:

Sazonova, N.I. Changing the liturgical text and the transformation of religious consciousness. On the material of the liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon. Saarbrucken, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2011. 260 p.
Sazonova, N. I. At the origins of the schism of the Russian Church in the 17th century: correction of liturgical books under Patriarch Nikon (on the materials of the Trebnik and the Book of Hours) / N. I. Sazonova. - Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State. ped. un-ta, 2008. - 296 p. (17.2 p.l.). Sazonova N.I. Orthodoxy and Russian model interethnic and interreligious world. // Globalization and problems of the world: research discourse and educational practices: Proceedings of the IV international scientific conference. (St. Petersburg, November 19-20, 2010) St. Petersburg, 2011. P. 196-198.
Sazonova N.I. The Space of Religious Cult and the Sacred Topic of the City: Eastern Christian Tradition // PAΡΑΞΗMΑ. Problems of visual semiotics (PΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics). 2018. Issue. 1 (15). pp. 93-119.
Sazonova N.I. The rite of the cave action and the interpretation of sacred history in the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 16th–17th centuries. // ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Problems of visual semiotics (PΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics). 2016. Issue. 2 (8). - S. 37-52.
Sazonova N.I. The Liturgical Reform of Patriarch Nikon: Two Views on the Trinitarian Dogma // A Believer in the Cultures of Russia: Proceedings of the International Conference / Ed. ed. T.V. Chumakov. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 2011. S. 52-60.
Sazonova N.I. Structuralism and hermeneutics in the analysis of the sacred text: to the formulation of the problem // Bulletin of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University. 2011. Issue No. 11. P. 199-202.
Sazonova N.I. “For a single “az”: some aspects of the textology of the liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon // Siberian Journal of Philology. No. 3. 2012. S. 43-48.
Sazonova N.I. The liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon (1654–1666): the theological aspect (on the material of Nikon's right Trebnik and Hours) // Bulletin of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2012. Issue. 9 (124). pp.192-196.
Sazonova N.I. Liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon (1654–1666) and the idea of ​​an Orthodox kingdom (on the material of the correction of the Trebnik) // Bulletin of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University. 2012. Issue. 3. S. 9-12.
Sazonova N.I. Time in a religious cult and time in culture: to the problem of interaction and mutual influence // Bulletin of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University. 2012. Issue. 2. S. 227-230.
Sazonova N.I. The liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon: an ecclesiological aspect (based on Nikon's "correction" of Trebnik) // Proceedings of the Tomsk Theological Seminary. T.1. Tomsk: Publishing House. Red Banner, 2012. S. 240-252.
Sazonova N.I. The problem of liturgical changes in the religious consciousness of Byzantium and Russia // Yearbook of Historical and Anthropological Research, 2012. M .: ECON-INFORM, 2012. P. 116-124.
Sazonova N.I. The split of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century and the problem of changes in the liturgical text // IV Historical Readings of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University. Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 2012. P. 161-165.
Sazonova N.I. Liturgical Reform of Patriarch Nikon (1654-1666) and State-Church Relations (Based on the Materials of Nikon's Book of Trebnik) // Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. Story. 2012. No. 4. S. 169-171.
Sazonova N.I. Existential Consciousness in the Sacred Text: Problems of Transformation (on the Example of the Liturgical Reform of Patriarch Nikon) // Synchrony and Diachrony: Modern Paradigms and Modern Concepts: Proceedings of the I Youth Scientific School with International Participation (2012-06-13 - 2012-06-14). Tomsk, Publishing House of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 2012. P. 35-38.
Sazonova N.I., Matveev D.M. History of Tomsk. Tutorial. Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 2011. 288 p.
Sazonova N.I., Matveev D.M. Tomsk. History and modernity: to help the teacher. Tutorial. Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 2012. Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 2012. 318 p.
Sazonova N.I. On the problem of interaction between verbal and visual elements in sacred space // Vestn. Volume. state university 2014. No. 378. - S. 90-95.
Sazonova N.I. Orthodox liturgical text as historical

From the editor:
Some time ago, an article by Doctor of Philosophy, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Professor of Tomsk State Pedagogical University was published on our website Natalia Ivanovna Sazonova""? This material aroused great interest, especially among priests. In particular, in the Old Believer environment, the article was printed by many readers and widely discussed.

We turned to Natalya Ivanovna on this issue not by chance. In 1999, she defended her Ph.D. thesis on the topic “The Schism of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century and the Correction of Liturgical Books under Patriarch Nikon (Based on the Book of Hours)”. In 2009 she defended her doctoral dissertation in philosophical sciences on the topic “Changing the Liturgical Text as a Direction for Transforming Religious Consciousness: Based on Patriarch Nikon’s Liturgical Reform”. Since 2011 is the head. Department of History of Russia and Methods of Teaching History and Social Studies of the Faculty of History and Philology of the TSPU and head master's program in the direction of "Religious Studies". Today we are talking with Natalya Ivanovna on a number of the most interesting and contentious issues concerning the problem of the schism of the Russian Church and changes in liturgical texts.

***

What caused your scientific interest in the problem of church schism in the 17th century?

I began to deal with the topic of the church schism and its causes when I was still in my 2nd year at the university. Initially, it was a study of polemical literature (Old Believer and " Nikonian”), which arose around the reform. Gradually, I began to realize that the tough controversy surrounding the reform of Patriarch Nikon hides a serious tragedy underneath. So, a very sharp contrast with the general tone of polemical writings is the very behavior of the opponents of Patriarch Nikon at the Church Council of 1666, which excommunicated adherents from the church " split". The 17 most stubborn opponents of the patriarch were subjected to trial and condemnation at the council. The materials of the Council testify that the majority (12 out of 17) " the leaders of the split”brought repentance to the cathedral for their deeds. It's a priest John Nero, « pop Nikita"from Suzdal (Nikita Dobrynin), former Abbot of the Zlatoust Monastery Feoktist, Anthony, former archimandrite of the Spassky Monastery in Murom, elder Abraham(Nizhny Novgorod), elders Sergei Saltykov, Ephraim Potemkin, Serapion « former Smolensk archpriest», Fedor « former patriarchal clerk", Solovetsky elder Gerasim Firsov. In addition, the materials state the consent to the adoption of the reform of the Solovetsky brethren and the contradictory situation in the monastery in this regard, and the uncertainty about the elders who were absent from the Council Bogolep Lvov, Savvatey Bashmak and desert dweller old man Herman. The fact of repeated repentance of almost all persons condemned by the Council, recorded in the materials of the Council, seems important, thus, repentance was not the first for almost any of them. So, it is recorded that John Neronov, Deacon Fyodor, repeatedly addressed the schism at the time of the beginning of the Council after repentance " fled", repeatedly repented and went to" split"also Ephraim Potemkin, Elder Sergiy Saltykov and other persons.

The sources also reflect the dramatic story of the elder Gerontius from the Solovetsky Monastery. Elder Gerontius was one of the leaders of the resistance in the Solovetsky Monastery, the author of a petition addressed to the Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich. In the "Reply" of the voivode besieging the monastery I. Meshcherinova in the name of the king, it is said about defectors who went out to the royal troops. Among these monks who came out against the armed resistance to the tsarist troops, who were imprisoned by the rebels for this and subsequently went to the camp of the besiegers, was the elder Gerontius. Arriving at the camp of the tsarist troops, they explained their position by their categorical rejection of the military way of resolving the church dispute and deeply regretted what had happened. After clarifying the reasons for the transition of the monks to the royal troops, the elders were asked if they had reconsidered their views on what had happened and on the church reform itself. It seemed quite logical to hear from the defector monks repentance for their deeds, especially since they did not and could not have any illusions about the fate of the supporters of the schism and the government's position on this issue. However, a completely different answer from Elder Gerontius is included in the “Reply”: “ And the newly corrected printed books without evidence with ancient charate books to listen to him and with three fingers cross on himself imagine doubtfully, and is afraid of the Last Judgment of God". This is also the position of a number of other defectors. Forced throughout environment to the adoption of the reform, the monks refuse this step, preferring to endure persecution in the future, which indicates their fear of reform (“ and afraid of the Last Judgment”), significantly exceeding the fear of reprisals.

Thus, the polemical literature and documentary sources capture a picture of a serious tragedy, the causes of which must be thoroughly understood. When a priest, who has been teaching his flock all his life that there is no salvation outside the Church, finds himself outside the Church, the reasons for this deserve close attention.

In your dissertation, you argue that “the main innovation of the reform is a new, different from the pre-Nikonian, idea of ​​time, which is introduced into the text by replacing the aorist forms of verbs (meaning recent events) with perfect ones (meaning the completion and remoteness of events in time).” What impact could this grammatical reform have on the theological and philosophical content of the texts?

The impact was direct. There are several forms of the past tense in Church Slavonic. All of them describe past events, but have a number of semantic nuances. So, when talking about events that have just happened, the aorist is used (cf. the text of the Easter hymn, where the words “ Christ is Risen" means that Christ "is risen now"). When talking about an event that has passed and is long over, the perfect form with an auxiliary verb is used, for example, “ you were». « The perfect expresses the speaker's retrospective orientation, that is, looking back, delivers the process that he designates outside the main context that constitutes the action of the story and reflects the speaker's lively participation. Thus, the speaker uses the perfect to express certain actions and facts that have an objective meaning in his mind. The meaning of objectivity in the perfect could be paraphrased with the words "this is an indisputable fact" or "as everyone knows it well" . Linguists note that the aorist gives the text “dynamism, activity”, it is characterized by “a special significance of action in a narrative text describing dramatic events that are especially significant, for example, ritual actions". The perfect in the early period was used when directly addressing God and the saints and " with a repentant story about their deeds and sins» . B. A. Uspensky defines the perfect as denoting " a state marked at its end, that is, something that has happened but is no longer the case» . Here is the vision the state marked at its end" and " no longer in place” in the newly corrected texts refers primarily to the events of the Sacred History of both the Old and, especially, the New Testament. These events were previously experienced existentially and felt by a person as happening now, but after the reform they are perceived as “ historical', completed, completed in time. Hence the decrease in the emotionality of religious experience, which means a certain rationality, an emphasis on understanding events, and not on experiencing them.

It must also be said that this innovation practically did not lend itself to reflection and verbalization, being perceived on an intuitive level, since at that time the Russian language did not yet have a codified " metalanguage”, a grammar that describes grammatical forms and their semantic meaning. The first grammars appeared at the end of the 17th century. This means that people who perceive the text could not rationally and logically explain the reasons for its rejection, which created additional tension.

Simultaneously with the correction of liturgical texts, the music itself also changes. First, new chants appeared - Greek, Kievan, then Polish cants began to spread, in the 18-19 centuries, first Italian and then German harmonization of church chants took place. In your opinion, is it possible to talk about the influence not only of the changed text, but also of new types of melodies and harmony on religious consciousness?

The point is that the concept liturgical text” in the semiotic sense includes the entire set of elements of worship, and not just a verbal text. In the order of scientific abstraction and in the way scientists are used to working, we can, of course, single out and study individual elements of this most complex text (written texts, iconography, architecture, music, etc.), but it must be remembered that in religious consciousness these are not different texts, but elements of a single " text» services. And, of course, changing one of the elements entails an impact on others. Thus, the transition in the understanding of Sacred History from experience to comprehension (as mentioned above) immediately leads to changes in other elements of the liturgical text, for example, icon painting, where a direct perspective appears. As shows A. M. Lidov, the icon, painted according to the laws of reverse perspective, suggests that the plot depicted does not unfold " inside» icons, and in the space between the plane of the icon and « spectator”, which can be called so only conditionally, since it is not a spectator, but a participant in the depicted events.

In fact, the icon, written in reverse perspective, " communicates" with a person looking at her (not without reason, in Russian villages, peasants, about to do something obviously sinful, hung icons, feeling uncomfortable under them " views"). On the contrary, the icon of direct perspective (similar to " Photo», « paintings) not so straight forward configured”to communicate with the one who is praying, leaving him room for something else, not related to the spiritual life. Church singing is transformed in the same way: “ Znamenny» Singing is the unity of word and sound, when each sound has a semantic meaning, and singing itself is a prayer. singin' by notes” is the separation of sound from the meaning of words, which is why now many singers in Orthodox churches complain that it is difficult to pray while on the kliros: all the forces go to the correct sound, regardless of the meaning of the words. In this case, it seems to me, we can speak not about the influence of other melodies on consciousness, but about the spread of partes singing as a manifestation of the transformation of religious consciousness that has already taken place.

In your opinion, are there, besides the rites themselves, any differences and some features in the religious worldview of the Nikonians and the Old Believers?

Without being a specialist in modern Old Believers, it is difficult to answer this question. If we talk about the 17th century, yes, there are differences. At the same time, then we could not talk about " Nikonians" and " Old Believers”, worldview transformations were the problem of the entire then still unified Church. Here is the problem of the secularization of culture, and the search for a church response to this challenge, including by future Old Believers. The answer that was found by Patriarch Nikon, of course, led to worldview transformations on the scale of the entire Church - through the tragedy of its schism. The main ideological difference then, it seems, was the attitude to Sacred History, which for the Old Believers was not " history" generally. Became a household name Old Believer " single az"from the Creed - we are talking about replacing the pre-Nikonian" born, not made"(of Christ) to" born, not created". If the opponents of the reform did not get tired of pointing out that the opposing union " a"was introduced during the fight against Arianism, which spoke of the creation of the Son of God, and, therefore, its removal is a manifestation of the Arian heresy, then the opponents of the Old Believers perceive the Arian heresy as a historical event, completed in time, which gives the right in new historical conditions change text. On the contrary, for the Old Believers the first centuries of Christianity were not history, just as the Gospel events were not.

Is it possible to talk about the differences in religious consciousness among the Old Believers of different consents?

I am not a specialist in the current Old Believers, so I can not correctly answer this question.

How justified, in the light of your conclusions, is the introduction of Edinoverie in 1800 and the decision to cancel the oaths of 1929-1971? Isn't the presence of “biritualism” in the Russian Orthodox Church nonsense?

With regard to unity. One of the prerequisites for the emergence of common faith was a rather ambiguous attitude towards Nikon's liturgical reform on the part of the reformers themselves. Already a patriarch Nikon, after reuniting with the dominant church of one of the leaders of the Old Believers, a priest John Nero, personally allowed him to serve according to the old books and be baptized with two fingers (which contradicted the decisions of the Councils of 1666-1667, which excommunicated everyone who did not recognize the ritual reform of Patriarch Nikon), since “ wallpapers are kind”, i.e., both old printed and new books.

From the "Life of Archpriest Avvakum" the position of the Bishop of Tobolsk is known Simeon, also allowed to serve in the pre-reform rank. Later in the XVII-XVIII centuries. so did some other bishops. Some Old Believer communities, experiencing a shortage of priests, turned to the clergy of the dominant church with a request to perform services according to the old rite. Thus, in particular, the situation was in Siberia, where there was often no sufficient number of newly printed " Nikon's» liturgical books. Another prerequisite for the emergence of common faith was the desire of the Old Believers themselves, mainly priests, who recognized both the need for a hierarchy and the problem of a shortage of clergy, which arises as early as the end of the 17th century, with the physical departure of priests ordained before Nikon's reform. There were also entire categories of the population who were allowed to observe the old rite. For example, the Terek Cossacks, who back in the 18th century. there was an unspoken agreement with the synodal church: they recognized the authority of the Astrakhan bishop, but they also had the right to observe the old rites.

At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. a number of church leaders are trying to come up with a justification for the possibility of the coexistence of two liturgical traditions within the framework of one church. So, in 1765 the hieromonk Plato(Levshin, the future Metropolitan of Moscow) writes “Exhortation to affirm the truth and in the hope of the action of Gospel Love”, in which the idea of ​​“ equivalence of the old and new rites. Archbishop of Kherson Nikifor he was also the author of the theological justification for unity with the Old Believers and even accepted into church communion some Old Believer parishes, which, however, caused irritation Holy Synod, but at the same time inspired the church leadership to discuss the issue of common faith. On the part of the Beglopopovsky Old Believers, the most active figure, one of the creators of the common faith, was the monk of the Beglopopovsky consent Nicodemus, who came from the Starodub Old Believers, who, after his visit to St. Petersburg and a reception with the Empress, reunited with the church on the basis of 12 rules, which included the right to the old rite, autonomy in matters of organization inner life, the appointment of a bishop, subordinate directly to the Holy Synod. In 1798 Pavel I confirmed the permission for the Old Believers to return to the bosom of the church with the preservation of worship according to the old rite. After that, a petition was filed in the name of the emperor by the Rogozhsky Old Believers, similar to the rules of the monk Nikodim, but supplemented by a request for the possibility of Eucharistic communion between the Old Believers and members of " Greek-Russian Church". Thus, there was a mutual desire to overcome the split. Another thing is that at the beginning of the XIX century. There was also a different approach to unity. The same Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin) changed his approach to the principles of common faith and developed a form of reunification of the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church, in which the old rites are called the fruit of " delusions”, and common faith was understood not as a real reunion with the church, but as a temporary solution on the way to it. Hence the negative attitude towards unity.

As for biritualism in the ROC. No, I don't think it's nonsense. I know a church in Moscow where Vespers and Liturgy are served regularly (and with the blessing of Patriarch Kirill) in the old rite. This is the Church of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in Strogino. There is an awareness in the Russian Orthodox Church that irreparable liturgical and human losses have been incurred, and the appeal to the pre-Nikonian liturgical tradition is seen as a positive, not a negative fact.

You have identified and shown the conceptual and dogmatic changes in the books of the Nikon edition. Taking into account the fact that the book on the right was carried out according to Greek and Little Russian sources, is it possible to say that similar changes were made there earlier?

Indeed, there are conceptual changes, dogmatic ones have not been revealed at all. There are other accents in the understanding of dogmas, but not the introduction of new ones and not the abolition of existing ones, so the question is not quite correctly posed. As for the sources on the right, science knows for sure that:

And that's basically it. It is possible to draw conclusions about the sources on the right only by understanding exactly which sources ALL liturgical books were corrected from. So far, unfortunately, this understanding is infinitely far away, so it is hardly worth discussing the question of what changes have been made. previously» in certain texts.

What, in your opinion, explains the difference - the development of academic theological science in the Russian Orthodox Church and its “rudimentary” state in the Old Believers?

The fact that for most of its history, the Old Believers were under persecution. Moreover, science is the fruit of a rationalistic approach to reality, or, if you like, the secularization of culture. Which culture is more " worldly" is quite obvious. In fact " rudimentary»The state of theological science in the Old Believers is a real disaster, this, as I think, is one of the reasons for such a poor study of the reform of Patriarch Nikon as a whole in science, and it is the Old Believers who should be most interested in clarifying the causes and mechanisms of what happened.

Did religious crises take place in the Byzantine Empire during the times of “state” Orthodoxy (similar to our crisis of the 17th century) and how were they resolved?

Religious crises always take place. As for Byzantium, of course, the question is more for the Byzantines. I can only say that " similar» crises focused on « around» Divine services are not typical for Byzantium at all. Byzantine worship has its source personal experience Communion of the Apostles with Christ, then their disciples, and so on. Accordingly, changes in worship occur with a change in the conditions of worship (for example, the architectural features of the temple, as in the case of the rite of the Great Entrance), but do not affect the dogmatic content of the cult, which the church itself closely monitors: any " increments of meaning”, correlated with the content of the cult, are recognized, while semantic transformations that do not correspond to the content are rejected. The speed, scale, forms of change in the cult in this case depend on changes in the same historical and geographical conditions, and that is why the process, as a rule, takes decades, or even centuries. Well, for example, H. Mateos indicates that in the IV century. the beginning of the liturgy was preceded by a procession, and " what is now called the Small Entrance was nothing more than a real entry into the temple of the people and the clergy, either as part of a religious procession, or an entrance without certain ceremonies". However, by the 10th c. " The action, which consisted in the entrance of the people and the clergy in the procession into the church, gradually reduced to the entrance of one patriarch» . Or, for example, at work R. Taft"Great Entrance" describes the origin of the Great Entrance, associated with the peculiarities of the architecture of the church of St. Sophia in Constantinople.

The situation in Russia was different. If we recall the chronicle story about the choice of faith book. Vladimir, we will see that the prince's ambassadors for the first time joined Christianity through worship, that is, if the Byzantine worship arose around the experience of direct communion with God, then Russia received this very experience of communion with God through worship. Hence the uncritical, non-reflective nature of the perception of the cult in Russia: those moments of the cult that in Byzantium were caused by historical, geographical, cultural realities, as well as the dogmatic content of the cult, are perceived equally reverently in Russia, since the entire cult as a whole broadcasts new religious values ​​for culture . And if in Byzantium in the religious consciousness it is possible to conditionally divide the cult into " immutable" and " changeable"parts, then in Russia (then - in Russia, and to this day) there is no such division. In a sense, we are all ritual believers”, this is not good and not bad, this is a feature of the country where religion tradition came through worship. Therefore, such reforms and splits, I believe, were generally impossible in Byzantium.

Acts of the Council of 1666 // Materials for the history of the schism during the first period of its existence. T. 2. M., 1878 S. 9-19.
. Pervushin M.V. Edinoverie in Russia before and after Metropolitan Platon Levshin // http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/315404.html#_ftn12. Scientific theological portal, 2009 [ Electronic resource].
. Pervushin M.V. Edinoverie in Russia before and after Metropolitan Platon Levshin // http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/315404.html#_ftn12. Scientific theological portal, 2009 [Electronic resource].
. Ageeva E. A. Trebnik 1658: the history of the publication // Patriarch Nikon and his time. M., 2002. S. 174-188.
. Mateos, H. History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. - V. 1. Ministry of the Word in the Byzantine liturgy: Historical essay / H. Mateos / Per. from French S. Golovanova. - Omsk: Publisher S. Golovanov, 2010. S. 65-66.