The attitude of the Ecumenical Patriarchs to the deposition of Patriarch Nikon

Velikotskaya (Mozgunova) Nataliya Gennad'evna Lecturer, Cultural and Educational Center in the name of St. John Chrysostom 101000, Russia, Moscow, lane. Maly Zlatoustovsky, 5 fevroniya87@yandex.ru

By the middle of the 17th century, Russia remained the only independent Orthodox power pursuing an active foreign policy. One of its most important directions was the realization of the mission of the liberator of the Christian peoples under the rule of the Ottoman conquerors to create the universal Orthodox Church. In solving their material and political problems, the Eastern patriarchs turned to the Russian tsars for help. According to the letters of the Greek hierarchs, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich is "a firm pillar and an affirmation of faith and a helper in troubles and a refuge for us and liberation" ^{[1, pp. 179-181],[2, op. 1, 1654, No. 21, part III, L. 52-53],[3, pp. 179-198]}.

Patriarch Nikon fully shared the views of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who was convinced of his mission as the head of the entire Orthodox world, who was obliged to provide comprehensive support to the Orthodox Church throughout the world, using all resources: politics and diplomacy, finance and the army. Nikon's attitude to "Greek piety" and to the indisputable authority of the Eastern hierarchs as guardians of Orthodox truth were also known in the Orthodox East. The active position of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church Nikon in the implementation of this idea contributed to the growth of his authority and influence throughout the Orthodox world.   

The documents of the RGADA Foundation "Relations between Russia and Greece" reflect the personal contacts of the Greek clergy with Patriarch Nikon, testifying to his role in the tsar's entourage and the attitude of representatives of the Eastern Church towards him ^{[2, op. 1-4]}. According to the above facts, representatives of the Greek clergy repeatedly appealed directly to the petitioners personally to Nikon – "the great sovereign, the holy patriarch", without doubting his help and assistance ^{[2, op. 1, 1658, 3, l. 26-27]}.

In the second half of the 17th century, objective historical processes in the context of the formation of absolutism changed the position of the church in Russian society. The inevitable interference of the state in church affairs caused a conflict between the tsar and the patriarch, who consistently defended the legal and economic independence of the church. On July 10, 1658, Nikon informed Alexey Mikhailovich that he had left the department ^{[4, op. 1, 140a, part 1, l. 181]}. On the initiative of the tsar, a Local Council was assembled in 1660, condemning Nikon for his decision, forbidding his stay in the capital, subjecting him to isolation ^{[4, op. 1, d. 140, part 1, l. 156a-165],[5, 72 (№ 20)]}.

Among the hierarchs of the Orthodox East, despite their extremely poor situation, political and material dependence on Russia, there was no unity in relation to Nikon's disgrace. According to historian N.F. Kapterev, many of them, and these were educated theologians, sympathized with Nikon's theocratic views, paying tribute to his personal merits and the contribution he made to strengthening Orthodoxy, and did not want to condemn him at all ^{[1, part 1, pp.179-181]}. The attitude of the ecumenical hierarchs towards Nikon can be judged by their reaction to the events preceding the convocation of the Council of 1666, which deposed Nikon.

According to the published documents of the Nikon case, the issue of inviting the Eastern patriarchs to the court was officially determined by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1662. Thus, on December 21, he issued a decree on preparations for the council on the Nikon case ^{[6, part 1, pp. 242-246]}. On December 26, the tsar signed letters to the Eastern patriarchs, the contents of which are twenty–five issues related to the "Nikon case" ^{[6, part 2, pp. 561-578]}. The letters were drawn up and translated into Greek by the tsar's assistants, the Greeks Hierodeacon Meletius and Metropolitan Paisius Ligarides of Gaza, personal enemies of the disgraced Nikon. Extensive literature is devoted to their personality and activities ^{[7, p. 270],[8, p. 165-168]}. At the beginning of 1663, letters of commendation to the Eastern patriarchs with an invitation to come to Moscow for trial in the "Nikon case" were sent with the Greek Hierodeacon Meletius^{[4, op. 1, 140, part 3, l. 69]}.

An important document reflecting Nikon's views on the causes of his conflict with the tsar, on relations with the hierarchs of the Eastern Church, were the letters to the ecumenical patriarchs, which he tried to send to the East. Nikon's letters were intercepted by the authorities and served as another accusation at the Council of 1666 ^{[4, op. 1, 140, part 3, l. 69]}.

It should be noted that Patriarchs Dionysius of Constantinople and Nectarius of Jerusalem repeatedly tried to reconcile the tsar and the patriarch and were in no hurry to assist in the condemnation of Nikon ^{[6, part 1, pp. 650-653, 655-657]}. Despite the fact that they confirmed in writing the right of the sovereign to elect a new head of the Russian Church, by the spring of 1664 it became known that none of them agreed to go to Moscow. In his letter To Alexei Mikhailovich on March 20, 1664, Patriarch Nectarius of Jerusalem highly appreciated Nikon's work.  In his opinion, thanks to Nikon's patriarchal policy, the Russian Church has preserved "harmony and adherence to ancient rules" ^{[7, vol. 2, p. 298]}. But the actions of Nectarius and his archdeacon Dositheus could not change the current situation: the Moscow government sought the final condemnation of Nikon. The decision of the Moscow Council had already been predetermined by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the opinion of the Eastern clergy was necessary only to give theological legitimacy.

Nikon's correspondence with the Greeks, published by researcher S. K. Sevastyanova, makes it possible to trace the activities of his supporters ^{[9, pp. 571-638]}. One of Nikon's devoted supporters was Metropolitan Athanasius of Iconium, who arrived in Moscow on April 23, 1664. At a meeting with the tsar, he conveyed to him the request of Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople about the need for reconciliation of the "great sovereign" with Nikon. A month after Athanasius' arrival, the tsar's envoy Meletius the Greek also returned to Russia with letters from the eastern bishops containing answers about the power of the tsar and the patriarch and permission for the Council to "install the Moscow patriarch." Metropolitan Athanasius of Iconium stated that the signatures on the Greek letters brought by the tsar's envoy Meletius the Greek were not real. He again asked the tsar to reconcile with Nikon. Later, during the investigation, it turned out that the letters and signatures on the letters were obtained by Meletius in various ways, including very dubious ones, but with the direct or indirect consent of the heads of the Eastern Church ^{[4, op. 1, 140, part 7],[10, pp. 571-583]}. After the infidelity of Metropolitan Athanasius' testimony was determined, he was arrested and exiled to the Simonov Monastery in the summer of 1665. While in exile, Metropolitan Athanasius wrote several letters to Nikon in 1665. The published correspondence between them gives an idea of the attempts of the Russian government at any cost to obtain the letters of the Eastern hierarchs condemning Nikon, about the attitude of the majority of the Greek clergy towards him, about the role of the Greeks – personal enemies of the disgraced patriarch: Meletius and Paisius Ligarides in the preparation of the Council of 1666-1667 ^{[9, pp. 84-135]}.

Another attempt at reconciliation between the tsar and Nikon was the actions of the ambassador of Patriarch Nectarius of Jerusalem and Archdeacon Dosifey Savva Dmitriev ^{[9, pp. 584-609]}. He brought two letters to Moscow on January 2, 1665: one for Alexei Mikhailovich, the second for Nikon ^{[4, op. 1, 140, part 7, l. 27a]}. The content of the translation of the letter and Savva's oral remarks amounted to an attempt to justify Nikon and to doubt the correctness of his conviction. Thus, according to Sava, the Patriarch of Jerusalem said that no one could be on the patriarchal throne except Nikon and therefore refused to go to Moscow for the Council ^{[4, op. 1, 140, part 7, l. 18, 19]}.

All this contradicted the content of the earlier received letters of the heads of the Eastern churches and caused obvious dissatisfaction with the tsar, determining the fate of the letter-bearer: he was interrogated, taken into custody and sent to prison, where he remained until 1666. During this time, despite strict supervision, he was able to maintain contact with Nikon. The published correspondence between them reflects the ambiguous attitude of the Greek clergy towards the events preceding the Moscow Council of 1666 ^{[9, pp. 584-589]}.

The authority of the disgraced Nikon in the East was so great that even persuasions and promises of material rewards did not force the patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem to come to Moscow for trial. At the end of 1666, after persuasion and promises of alms, Patriarchs Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch arrived in Moscow. Thus, the necessary conditions for giving theological legitimacy to the Council of 1666-1667 were already outwardly met: the personal participation of the two Eastern patriarchs, their assertion that they, with the consent of the patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, have the right to judge Nikon on behalf of all the Eastern patriarchs.

Let us turn to the official document – the Conciliar Charter, which defined the conditions for the meeting of the Eastern bishops traveling through Astrakhan to Moscow ^{[5, No. 44, pp. 247-249]}. They arrived in Astrakhan on July 23, 1666, where they were given a solemn reception. Patriarch Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch were met by representatives of the Russian Church hierarchy – personal enemies of Nikon: Metropolitan Pitirim of Novgorod, Metropolitan Pavel Krutitsky, Archbishop Hilarion of Ryazan, Archimandrite Joachim of the Chudovsky Monastery. They became the most active participants in Nikon's accusation. According to the list of the Conciliar Charter, when the Eastern Bishops met, they strictly followed the instructions given by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich – to be careful if there was a question about the "Nikon case": "everyone should be dangerous and careful" ^{[5, No. 44, p. 249]}. The documents of the Palace ranks reflect the fact: from the arrival to the departure of the ecumenical patriarchs, they were accompanied everywhere only by the king's trusted representatives – bailiffs ^{[11, vol. 3, stb. 654, 661, 663, 834, 837]}. That is, all conditions were created to obtain the necessary decision of the Council for the monarch – the condemnation and deposition of the patriarch.

According to the documents of the Nikon case, all the Greek bishops present at the Council of 1666 agreed with the verdict of conviction against him. Among them was Metropolitan Athanasius of Iconium, who had previously "fervently stood for Nikon," and this fact revealed the contradictory position of the Greek clergy ? supporters of the disgraced patriarch. On December 12, 1666, at the next meeting, the council verdict was read out, first in Greek, and then in Russian. The Ecumenical patriarchs announced that Nikon was deprived of the patriarchate and would be sent to the Ferapontov Monastery for repentance ^{[5, No. 123, pp. 438-451]}.

According to N. F. Kapterev, most Greeks were extremely sympathetic and did not want to condemn him at all. This is confirmed by the decision of Patriarch Parthenius of Constantinople to deprive Paisius and Macarius of their patriarchal chairs for going to Moscow to try Nikon ^{[1, pp.179-181]}.

When, according to the decision of the Council of 1666, Nikon was exiled to the Ferapontov monastery, the Greek hierarchs made repeated attempts to help him, trying to have a beneficial effect on his fate.

The archival documents of the Nikon case reflect the possibility of a connection between the deposed patriarch, who is in exile, and his Greek supporters. So, on December 4, 1668, the Archimandrite of the Novospassky monastery, Joseph, announced that Nikon was waiting for a new council, organized at the request of the Patriarch of Constantinople. At the same time, Joseph claimed that Nikon personally showed him a copy of the letter ^{[4, op. 1, d. 140a, part 1, l. 124-128, 129–147a.]}.

In the spring of 1668, Patriarch Parthenius of Constantinople once again appealed to the "great sovereign" Alexei Mikhailovich to pardon Nikon ^{[12, pp. 191, 192]}. The documents of the Nikon case allow us to trace the participation of Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem both during the preparation of the trial and during the exile of the disgraced patriarch. Dositheus, a disciple and receiver of Patriarch Nectarius, who entered the patriarchal see on January 23, 1669, was one of the most active supporters of Nikon in the Orthodox East. Being a famous scientist and theologian of the XVII century, an expert in church history and law, he remained an active supporter of the reconciliation of the tsar with Nikon and the latter's return to the patriarchal chair ^{[10, pp. 278-281]}. According to N. F. Kapterev's research, it was Dosifey who repeatedly advised Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to pardon Nikon ^{[1, p. 219]}.

Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich was able to fulfill the dying will of his father, who not only asked for forgiveness from Nikon, the "great lord of the most holy", "hierarch and blessed shepherd", but also expressed a desire that the patriarchal dignity be returned to him ^{[7, vol. 2, pp. 362-363]}. According to researchers, when in 1681 Fyodor Alekseevich sent letters to the ecumenical patriarchs with a personal request for "permission and forgiveness" to Nikon, for the return of the patriarchal dignity to him, it was Dositheus who was "the main organizer of this case" ^{[7, vol. 2, pp. 362-363]}. According to the conducted research of archival documents, the permits of the ecumenical patriarchs were delivered by deacon P. Voznitsyn to Moscow in 1682, i.e. after Nikon's death ^{[13, pp. 108-128]}.

Thus, the facts considered, testifying to the position of the Greek hierarchs in the conflict between Nikon and the tsar, allow us to draw the following conclusions. Some of the highest Greek clergy sympathized with the disgraced and then deposed Patriarch Nikon, considering his condemnation unfair, but at the same time not openly demonstrating their position. As it was noted earlier, Nikon's guilty verdict was signed by all the Greek bishops present at the Council of 1666. The above research facts allow us to draw a conclusion about the regularity of the contradictory position of the Greek clergy in the "Patriarch Nikon case", explained by their political and economic dependence on Russia.

At the same time, it should be noted that the activities of Patriarch Nikon and his relationship with the tsar and the Orthodox East have repeatedly aroused the interest and understanding of researchers from other Christian denominations. Thus, in the works of professors of the University of Oxford, historians and theologians V. Palmer and A. Stanley, Nikon's actions as a defender of the rights of the Church and the interests of the entire Christian world are highly appreciated ^[14],[15].