Conciliar Life of the Pre-Schism Russian Church: The Struggle Against Heresies
A brief context of the Stoglav Council
This little essay by Roman Atorin is a nice, broad overview of the historical context and importance of the Stoglav Council of 1551. I am posting this as a preface to the next post, of some of the chapters from the Stoglav Council itself. This was from a reader request (it is a joy to have requests). Stoglav (100 Chapters), as a Council, confirmed the practices of Apostolic Eastern Christianity, as practiced in Russia, as handed down to them by the Byzantines. It is a conciliar confirmation of the liturgical, pious, and spiritual practice of the greatest of the Russian saints, most prominently embodied by Sergi of Radonezh. The council of 1666 declared Stoglav to be heretical, and with it Russian Christianity, the jewel of Byzantine, Eastern Apostolic Christianity. As such, and for many more reasons, 1666 was a satanic council that set the stage for the almost immediate and complete spiritual collapse of Holy Russia. For my traditionalist Roman Catholic readers and friends, 1666 was, in my opinion, the blueprint for your own Vatican II, which was a gentler version of 1666, which is bearing the same poisoned fruit for the whole, while strengthening those who resist. Solzhenitsyn famously quipped that the 17th year (1917 - the year of the Communist/Atheist revolution) could not have happened without the 17th century (1666). -OB
To strengthen the canonical order and Christian piety, the Russian Church regularly held Holy Councils, which addressed various issues related to different aspects of church and public life. Based on the Holy Scriptures, the definitions of the Ecumenical and Local Councils, and the rules of the holy fathers, the Church of Russia, led by its pious hierarchs and princes, built and strengthened Orthodoxy in their homeland.
In 1274, under Prince Daniel Alexandrovich, the Vladimir Council was held (in the city of Vladimir). The Council approved a new edition of the Kormchaya Book, established various canonical prohibitions concerning certain pagan customs, drunkenness, and simony among the clergy. Guidelines were also developed for performing the Sacrament of Baptism, the Proskomedia, and definitions regarding the Cross and holy water.
The so-called "Council on Widowed Priests" of 1503, convened in Moscow under Prince Ivan III Vasilyevich, confirmed the age limits for clergy and decreed the defrocking of priests for a second marriage. The Council also addressed various issues related to monastic life.
The "Macarian Councils" of 1547 and 1549 under Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible are notable because during these Councils, great Russian ascetics were canonized for universal veneration: Jonah of Moscow, Paphnuti of Borovsk, Alexander of Svir, Evfimi of Novgorod, and others.
The Moscow Council of 1620 under Michael Feodorovich Romanov decreed that baptism should be performed for Latins and Uniates. This decision was later annulled and replaced by chrismation during the infamous Moscow Council of 1666, which anathematized the old rite.
However, the most doctrinally significant council for Muscovite Russia was the Stoglav Council of 1551, held under the presidency of Saint Macarius of Moscow (c. 1482 – December 31, 1563).
This article analyzes the acts of one of the most significant church councils in Russia—the Stoglav Council of 1551—and identifies the cultural and historical conditions of its convening. The study emphasizes the importance of preserving the living ecclesiological status of the 1551 conciliar acts in modern Old Belief, as well as highlighting the issue of the loss of canonical relevance of the Stoglav in contemporary life of the ROC MP.
In 1551, a very important event occurred in Muscovite Russia, which essentially marked the realization and implementation of Russian national consciousness in accordance with Orthodox doctrine. Over nearly five hundred years of Christianity in Russia, it was comprehended through the prism of the popular worldview, representing a unique harmonic synthesis of Universal Orthodoxy and national sentiment—introducing into church life the domestic details of Russian life. E. Trubetskoy called these processes the expression of a "new spiritual mood of the people". The result of the religious and spiritual development of Ancient Russia was the famous Stoglav Council, which became a kind of fixation of national Orthodox religious identity. The renowned church historian Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov called Stoglav "the most important of all councils that have ever been in the Russian Church". Many prominent church figures of that time attended the Council. These included the wise and enlightened Saint Macarius of Moscow, Saint Acacius of Tver, the future primate of the church—Metropolitan Philip Kolychev, later canonized, Gurias and Barsanuphius of Kazan, who were renowned for their holy lives, and others. Despite its distinctly Russian character, Stoglav used the Holy Tradition and the experience of the Universal Church as its primary sources for its decisions: based on the Holy Scriptures, church statutes, the rules of the holy apostles, and the Great Ecumenical and Local Councils, it addressed many important church issues. Historians are still amazed by their multifaceted nature. The Council participants had to consider and make decisions mainly of a canonical nature, regulating the rules and norms of church order and pious Christian behavior. The chapters of the Council's decisions addressed church services, iconography, book correction, the morals and customs of the clergy and laity, church governance, courts, and more. Most researchers of Stoglav believe that the author of the one hundred questions to be resolved at the Council was Metropolitan Macarius himself, with the participation of Tsar Ivan the Terrible's confessor—Protopriest Sylvester. However, it is also possible that many questions were penned by the young tsar.
The significance of the Stoglav Council is hard to overestimate. For the church life of that time, it was of truly exceptional importance. Many of its decrees are relevant and applicable in the context of contemporary spiritual processes occurring in Russia. In particular, in iconography, the rules and best traditions of Andrei Rublev and other ancient Russian and Byzantine artists are still observed. The alignment with the examples of Saint Andrei is documented in decrees 5, 27, 43, and 74 of the Stoglav: "The image of our Lord Jesus Christ and... the venerable fathers should be painted according to their likeness and essence, looking at the images of ancient painters, and copied from good models, and if the current master painters so pledge, live accordingly, keep all these commandments, and strive for the work of God, the tsar should reward such icon painters and the bishops should protect and honor them above ordinary people". Moreover, in the Old Belief, the provisions of the Stoglav Council are one of the main sources of church law norms. Many church positions defended by the Old Believers were canonically enshrined in this authoritative religious and doctrinal document. For instance, Chapter 27 spoke about the rules of book correction and iconographic canon, Chapters 31 and 32 were dedicated to the form of making the sign of the cross. It should be noted that Stoglav considers the two-fingered sign of the cross the only true apostolic sign. The prohibition on shaving beards is mentioned in Chapter 40, and the triple alleluia in Chapter 41.
The important decrees of the Council were aimed at developing spiritual enlightenment, strengthening piety among the Russian people, and eradicating vices. The provisions of Stoglav contributed to the preservation and flourishing of church painting, "caring for the uniformity of church ranks, the council members unanimously confirmed the ancient apostolic customs".
Only in the mid-17th century, with the beginning of the secularization of public life, was the canonical and cultural-historical significance of the Great Council of 1551 diminished. Participants of the Moscow Council of 1666 declared Stoglav heretical.
The canonical relevance of the Stoglav Council of 1551 has never ceased in the Old Belief. On the contrary, modern specialists in canonical law place Stoglav among the last in the list of authoritative church-law sources, below the decrees of episcopal councils, definitions, and orders of the Synod and local ruling bishops. Today, the acts of the Stoglav Council are regarded by many canonists, including representatives of the dominant ROC MP, as merely a monument of medieval Russian spiritual literature, having lost its practical church significance for them.
However, the canonical relevance of the Stoglav Council of 1551 has never ceased in the Old Belief. In 2002, to mark the 450th anniversary of the Stoglav Council of 1551 and the 455th anniversary of the coronation of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, the Saint Petersburg publishing house "Voskresenie" prepared and published a second edition of the collection of the Council's acts. The acts of Stoglav require further scholarly understanding and canonical evaluation.
Thus, the activity of Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow has epochal significance in the history of our God-protected homeland.
In history and philosophy, it is commonly believed that the Enlightenment era in Russia is closely linked to French enlightenment and the names of Catherine II, Alexander Radishchev, Mikhail Lomonosov, and others. However, looking at our past, our Orthodox traditions, and history, we have reason to believe that Russian Christian Enlightenment is most directly associated with the name of Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow.
Enlightenment in Russia was traditionally linked not with scientific achievements, not with acquiring a set of knowledge in various sciences, not with university education (although that did not hinder it). Enlightenment, in the Orthodox patristic sense, is the creation of a person’s Personality, their integrity, the illumination of the mind, and the acquisition of the evangelical virtues of humility, repentance, and love. In the Christian worldview, the first signs of the soul’s enlightenment (Enlightenment!) are found in the recognition of one’s sins and the desire to amend one’s life.
Based on the above, it is in this sense that Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow played a significant role in the Christian Enlightenment of Russia. Through his efforts, an enormous library was collected, which became the foundation for the creation of the famous "Great Menaion Reader of Macarius." This collection of books became the basis for hagiographical and historical literature in Russia.
At the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church, held in 2002, a single day of his commemoration was established—December 30th, old style.
Not everything was peaceful and quiet in the life of the Russian Church before the 17th century. At times, certain forces emerged with the goal of sowing discord, social strife, and spreading some false teachings contrary to the Church of Christ. In response to various false doctrinal claims, the Russian Church gave a worthy rebuff, preventing the spread of various heresies.
The Strigolniki heresy arose in the city of Pskov. Its founders were a certain Carp and a former deacon named Nikita. Simony (ordination for money) was actively suppressed in the Church, and some clergymen caught in this canonical crime were defrocked, including both the ordained and the ordainer. However, in opposing simony, the founders of the Strigolniki heresy went so far as to completely deny the priesthood of Christ itself, eventually asserting that the Sacraments themselves were without grace. From Pskov, the heresy spread to Novgorod. To eradicate the heresy, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Nilus, and Antony, sent several letters to Russia. The admonitions of Metropolitan Photius of Moscow also proved effective.
A more insidious and dangerous heresy, the Judaizers, appeared in the second half of the 15th century, propagated by a learned Jew named Zechariah. Possessing extensive erudition, Zechariah managed to convince some people to deny the dogma of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the dignity of the Most Holy God-bearer, and the saints. This led to open physical mockery of Orthodox sacred objects: crosses, icons, and relics. The Judaizers, relying on cunning and hypocrisy, almost exactly following the tradition of the Pharisees who crucified Christ, outwardly seemed to be ascetics but in essence rejected the foundations of the Christian Faith. The heresy enticed many from among the authoritative clergy and laity. The most famous of these were Metropolitan Zosimus of Moscow, the deacon Theodore Kuritsyn, and Princess Elena.
To defend Orthodoxy, Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod (1410 – December 4, 1505) and the aforementioned Venerable Joseph, abbot of Volokolamsk, took a stand.
To prevent disturbances, at the Council of 1492 in Moscow, the archbishop presented a Paschalia calculated for 70 years, and Venerable Joseph composed a remarkable dogmatic work called "The Enlightener," which represents almost a complete exposition of the foundations of the Orthodox Faith. The heresy was gradually eradicated, and in 1504, at the insistence of Joseph of Volokolamsk, a Holy Council was convened in Moscow, which anathematized the heresy dangerous to the church and society.
A separate story is the ongoing attempt of the Latins to Catholicize Orthodox Russia. The first efforts were made by Latin emissaries during the disgraceful Ferrara-Florence Union of 1438 for the Greek Church, when the Catholics, after long efforts, achieved their goal: the Greeks retained the "Eastern rite," but accepted the main Catholic dogmas and the supremacy of the pope. Only one Greek metropolitan, Mark of Ephesus, and the metropolitan of the Greek city of Heraclea remained faithful to Orthodoxy.
Among the hierarchs of the Russian Church, there were also traitors. In the most shameful manner, Metropolitan Isidore, who accepted the union and effectively committed apostasy, was expelled from Orthodox Moscow. As he entered Moscow, a four-pointed cross, a symbol of Latinism, was carried before him, which caused particular outrage among the people.
It would take another two hundred years before the real destruction of the three-barred Cross of the Lord would begin in Russia, which would be replaced everywhere with the Latin cross as if in mockery of the Russian faith.
The Russian Church did not recognize the union, Isidore fled to Rome, and there ended his days as a cardinal. A new period begins in the history of our homeland—full and justified independence (autocephaly) of the Church. From this moment, the Russian Church began the practice of independently electing its primate. Thus, after the tragic events of the Ferrara-Florence Union, in 1448, Bishop Jonah of Ryazan (December 15, 1448 – March 31, 1461) was elected to the metropolitan see without any positive sanctions from the Patriarchate of Constantinople (Jonah was canonized among the saints in 1547).
The doctrinal authority of the Greeks in the eyes of the Russians significantly diminished, as the former had severely discredited themselves with their lack of steadfastness in faith. Around 1480, a solemn promise was included in the episcopal oath of Russian bishops not to accept Greeks for the metropolitanate or episcopate.
Thus, Russia remained the only state in the world that maintained fidelity to Orthodoxy because the Eastern hierarchs had accepted the main Catholic dogmas and united the Patriarchate of Constantinople with the Roman see into one church system under the latter's leadership.
This leads to the conclusion that the spiritual ideology of "Moscow as the Third Rome," whose inception occurred not without the influence of the ecclesiastical-historical events of 1438 in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, has not a national-patriotic foundation but an ecclesiastical-canonical one originally.
Only after some time did the assessment of the union in Russia acquire a national-ideological and political character, expressed in the doctrine of the Pskov elder Philotheus: "Moscow is the Third Rome—there will be no fourth."
Thus, the Russian Church was always vigilant against any teachings contrary to the Divine Revelation given to us in the Holy Scriptures and Tradition.
In 1589, under Tsar Boris Godunov, the patriarchate was established in the Russian Church. The first Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia was Job (1589–1605).
Thus, until the mid-17th century, the Russian Church was headed by Patriarchs Ignatius (June 30, 1605 – May 1606), Hermogenes (June 3, 1606 – February 17, 1612), Philaret (June 24, 1619 – October 1, 1633), and Joasaph (February 6, 1634 – November 28, 1640). The last pre-schism Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, who professed the ancient piety, was Joseph (May 27, 1642 – April 15, 1652).
Wonderful history lesson, thank you. 🙏
Just to clarify, when I see Vatican II as a comparable event for Catholics, I mean in its purpose and its effect (the utter desctruction of traditional liturgical practices and of the systematic piety of the people). They are not similar in their executions. Vatican II did not curse and condemn to hell those who practiced the Latin rite as heretics to the faith, nor did it punish with tortures, imprisonments, and executions all who resisted. However, in being so kind and gentle, the extent of resistance among the Catholics and their perception of the meaning and implications of the council were not at all inflamed to the extent it was in Russia, in a broad and popular way. 1666 instantly made zealots out of millions who were willing to flee to utter isolation in the most remote and uninhabitable places, and even live without a priesthood rather than betray their faith. Such a test did not occur in the west, and may never occur, as their ecclesiastical structure is fundamentally different from that of the east.