| Date | c. 1467–1560 |
|---|---|
| Cause | Decision of theEcumenical Patriarchate (July 1439) to enter in union with theCatholic Church at theCouncil of Florence Fall of Constantinople |
| Participants | Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople Russian Orthodox Church |
| Outcome | Grand Prince Ivan III of Russia refused to recognize Gregory the Bulgarian as head of Moscow's Church, which led to a rupture of communion between the Churches of Moscow and Constantinople in 1460. This break was mended by around 1560. |
Theschism between theEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and theRussian Orthodox Church occurred between approximately 1467 and 1560.[a] This schismde facto ended supposedly around 1560.
On 15 December 1448,Jonah became themetropolitan of Kiev and all Rus' within the Russian Orthodox Church without the agreement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which made the Russian Orthodox Churchde facto independent. In response, in 1458,Gregory the Bulgarian was appointed and consecrated by thePope of Rome as theByzantine Catholicmetropolitan of Kiev.[2] Metropolitan Gregory was then recognised by PatriarchDionysius I of Constantinople in 1466; since Constantinople maintained theUnion with theCatholic Church until 1484, Kiev returned under Constantinople's jurisdiction.[2] Dionysius therefore demanded in 1467 that all thehierarchs of theMuscovy submit to Gregory, but Moscow peremptorily refused. On the same year, Grand PrinceIvan III of Moscow declared a complete rupture of relations with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Relations were gradually restored and in 1560, the Patriarch of Constantinople considered the metropolitan of Moscow to be hisexarch. From 1589 to 1591, the Russian Orthodox Church was recognized asautocephalous, and thepatriarch of Moscow later became theeighth patriarch of theEastern Orthodox Church.
TheMetropolis of Kiev and all Rus' was ametropolis of theEastern Orthodox Church that was erected on the territory ofKievan Rus'. It existed between 988 AD and 1596 AD.Canonically, it was under the jurisdiction of theEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The episcopal seat (cathedra) was located in the city ofKiev.
Anecumenical council of theCatholic Church—theCouncil of Florence—took place from 1431 to 1449.[3] Although he resisted at first, theGrand Prince of Moscow—Vasily II of Moscow—eventually permitted theMetropolitan of Kiev and all Rus'—Isidore of Kiev—to attend the council on condition that Isidore should return with "the rights of Divine law and the constitution of the holy Church" uninjured.[4] The council healed theGreat Schism byuniting theRoman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The union was proclaimed on 6 July 1439 in the documentLaetentur Caeli[5][b] which was composed byPope Eugene IV and signed by theHoly Roman EmperorSigismund and all but one of the bishops present.[3] Some Greek bishops, perhaps feeling political pressure from theByzantine Emperor, reluctantly accepted the decrees of the council. Other Eastern bishops, such as Isidore, did so with sincere conviction.[6]Sylvester Syropoulos[7] and other Greek writers charge Isidore with perjury because he accepted the union, despite his promise to Vasili II.[8]
Following the signing of thebull, Isidore returned to theGrand Duchy of Moscow. In theKremlin'sDormition Cathedral, Isidore read the decree of unification aloud. He also passed a message to Vasili II from theHoly See, containing a request to assist the metropolitan in spreading the Union in Rus'. Three days later, Isidore was arrested by the Grand Prince and imprisoned in theChudov Monastery. He arranged for certain Rus' clergy to denounce the metropolitan for refusing to renounce the union with Rome. As a result, the Great Prince of Moscow voided the union in his lands and imprisoned Isidore for some time.[8] Having adjudged Isidore to have apostatized toCatholicism, he was deposed by a local synod.[9]
The Council of Bishops of Moscow condemned Isidor and imprisoned him. They later sent a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople in which they listed Isidore's faults and requested that his case be considered. They also asked to be allowed to ordain a Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus' by themselves; apparently, they had no doubt that Isidore would be deprived of his dignity. This letter has been interpreted in two ways. According to the historian Golubinsky, Moscow offered Constantinople a kind of compromise: Moscow gets the opportunity to ordain a Metropolitan and in return it does not raise the issue of the Union, while remaining in formal dependence on theuniate Patriarch of Constantinople. According to the historian Florya, the Eastern Orthodox of Moscow were sure of the imminent failure of the Union supporters, and were hoping for this failure.[10]
However, the situation was different, and the new Patriarch of Constantinople was the uniateMetrophanes II, who continued to follow the decisions of the Council of Florence. The Eastern Orthodox of Moscow did not dare to judge Isidore themselves, so he was expelled from Moscow (it was officially announced that he had escaped); then, he was also expelled fromTver. He was also poorly met in LithuanianNavahrudak, because Lithuanian PrinceCasimir recognized theanti-pope Felix V who had been previously elected by theCouncil of Basel. In March 1443, Isidore had moved inBuda, possession of the newking of Poland and Hungary Vladislav III, and contributed to the publication of theprivilege, which formally equated the rights of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox clergy in kings' lands. Then he went to Rome.[11][10] It is known that at least one of the Eastern Orthodox bishops of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania accepted the ordination from Isidor, and repented of it, but other information on the situation in Lithuania is extremely rare.[10]
After the exile of Isidore from Moscow in 1441, the question of the subordination of theMetropolitan of Kiev and all Rus' to theChurch of Constantinople remained unclear for a long time. In Constantinople itself, there was a fierce struggle between pro- and anti-unionists. In fact, the Union was supported by a narrow group of elite from the capital of the dying Empire. RussianGrand Prince Vasiliy II supported the anti-unionists (those information are preserved his correspondence with the monks ofMount Athos).[10] After the death of the pro-unionistMetrophanes II in 1443, in Constantinople for a long time they did not manage to elect a new Patriarch. In 1444–1445 there were 15 public disputes between supporters and opponents of the Union.[12]
Gradually, the ranks of the pro-unionists were reduced and ten years after the Council of Florence, only four of the members of the Greek delegation remained faithful to the Union. Despite this, the firm supporter of the UnionGregory Mammas became the new Patriarch (in 1444 or 1445). His position remained fragile and he fled Constantinople in 1451 after the death of Byzantine emperorJohn VIII Palaiologos (one of the initiators of the Union).[12] Information about relations between Moscow and Constantinople during this period is extremely scarce and unreliable.[13]
After Vasily II regained his throne in 1447, Jonah was still officially only the bishop ofRyazan and his name was only in third place.[c] It is only in 1448 that the Council of bishops ofNorth-Eastern Rus' proclaimed Jonas Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'. This decision was not unanimous—the bishops ofTver andNovgorod (both cities were semi-independent from Moscow) did not sign the Charter of his election.[13]
In support of Jonah's claims, Moscow claimed that the previous Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus',Photios, had proclaimed Jonah as his successor, and that a Patriarch of Constantinople which they did not name had once promised Jonah that he would become Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' after Isidore. Some modern researchers doubt the validity of these claims.[13]
The election of Jonah was not accompanied by a clear break with Constantinople. For example, Vasily II composed a letter to the new EmperorConstantine XI Palaiologos (whom he wrongly considered an opponent of the Union). Vasily justified the unauthorized election of Jonah by extreme circumstances and asked for communion and blessings, but only if there would be an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch in Constantinople:[10]
We have done this from necessity, not from pride or insolence. Till the end of time we shall abide in the Orthodoxy that was given to us; our Church will always seek the blessing of the Church of Tsarigrad[d] and will be obedient in all things to the ancient piety.
However Constantine XI, in a desperate search for allies against theTurks, agreed to theUnion. Soon, in 1453, Constantinople fell and the question of recognizing Jonah remained uncertain until his death.[10]
TheEcumenical Patriarchate wrote in an official letter in 2018: "the Holy Metropolitanate of Kiev has always belonged to the jurisdiction of the Mother Church of Constantinople, founded by it as a separate Metropolitanate, occupying the 60th position in the list of the eparchies of the Ecumenical Throne. Later on, the local Synod in the state of Great Russia—upon an unfounded pretext—unilaterally cut itself off from its canonical authority, i.e. the Holy Great Church of Christ (1448), but in the city of Kiev other Metropolitans, authentic and canonical, were continually and unceasingly ordained by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, since the Kievan clergy and laity did not accept their subjection to the center of Moscovy."[14][15]
After his election,Metropolitan Jonah tried to assert his jurisdiction over the Eastern Orthodox of Lithuania. He succeeded because theGrand Duke of Lithuania Casimir, who was recently (in 1447) electedking of Poland, andVasily II (his brother-in-law) were able to agree on this. In 1451, Casimir IV sent a charter to the Eastern Orthodox of Lithuania in which he called them to obey Jonah as Metropolitan.[16][17]
In 1454, after theyconquered Constantinople, theOttomans removedEcumenical Patriarch Athanasius II and imposed a new Ecumenical Patriarch,Gennadios, "who promptly renounced the Filioque."[18]
However, in 1458 the Patriarch-UniateGregory Mammas, who had fled from Constantinople to Rome, ordainedGregory the Bulgarian as new Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'. Previously, also in 1458,Pope Calixtus III had divided the Metropolis of Kiev into two parts: "Superior Russia" centered about Moscow and "Inner Russia" centered about Kiev.[19]
Casimir IV was forced to cede to the demands ofPope Calixtus III and to recognize Gregory as Metropolitan, restoring the Union in Lithuania. Jonah resisted this decision, and in 1459 he assembled the Council and demanded that its members swear allegiance to him or to his successor, as well as to sever relations with the Uniate Metropolitan Gregory. In case of any persecution by the authorities, Jonah promised the bishops refuge in theMoscow Principality, but only one Bishop, Evfimy of Bryansk and Chernigov, took advantage of this offer (he became Bishop ofSuzdal). In 1461, Jonah died.[16][17] Despite the victory of Gregory the Bulgarian over the Eastern Orthodox bishops, he faced resistance to the Union at the grassroots level (at this time the firstOrthodox "brotherhoods" were formed).[17]
At the same time, in Constantinople, which was ruled bythe Turks, the Union was finally rejected. As a result, Gregory decided to leave the Catholic Church, and returned to the jurisdiction of PatriarchDionysius I of Constantinople. In February 1467 Dionysius sent a letter to Moscow, in which he called all the Russian lands, and especiallyGreat Novgorod, to accept Gregory as the only legitimate Metropolitan recognized by Constantinople. In addition, in the same letter Dionysius claimed that his HolyCatholic Church "did not accept, does not hold, and does not name as metropolitans" Jonah and other metropolitans, ordained in Moscow after him.[1][10][17] At this time,Philip I was the metropolitan in Moscow, since 1464; he replacedTheodosius, whom Jonah had appointed as his successor.[16]
Grand PrinceIvan III of Russia refused to recognize Gregory the Bulgarian, which led to a rupture of relations between Moscow and Constantinople. In 1470,Ivan III wrote to theArchbishop of Novgorod that he did not recognize Gregory as a Metropolitan; Ivan added concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople: "we do not demand him, nor his blessing, nor his disregard, we consider him, the very patriarch, alien and renounced". These words were a clear confirmation of the formal break with Constantinople, which arose because of the autocephaly of the church of Moscow.[20] Soon theNovgorod Republic tried to get out from the influence of Moscow, recognizingCasimir of Poland and Lithuania as their liege, and Gregory as their Metropolitan. But Ivan III suppressed this attempt bymilitary force, executing leaders of the opposition (1471).[21]
InEastern Orthodox Christianity, the role of theRoman emperor as the solesecular head of all Eastern Orthodox was very prominent. Thus, in 1393Patriarch Anthony IV of Constantinople wrote to Grand PrinceVasily I of Moscow:[33]
The holy emperor has a great place in the church, for he is not like other rulers or governors of other regions. This s [sic] so because from the beginning the emperors established and confirmed the [true] faith in all the inhabited world. They convoked the ecumenical councils and confirmed and decreed the acceptance of the pronouncements of the divine and holy canons regarding the correct doctrines and the government of Christians. [...] The basileus [note: the Greek term for emperor] is anointed with the great myrrh and is appointed basileus and autokrator of the Romans, and indeed of all Christians. Everywhere the name of the emperor is commemorated by all patriarchs and metropolitans and bishops wherever men are called Christians, [a thing] which no other ruler or governor ever received. Indeed he enjoys such great authority over all that even the Latins themselves, who are not in communion with our church, render him the same honor and submission which they did in the old days when they were united with us. So much more do Orthodox Christians owe such recognition to him....
Therefore, my son, you are wrong to affirm that we have the church without an Emperors for it is impossible for Christians to have a church and no empire. The Baslleia [empire] and the church have a great unity and community—indeed they cannot be separated. Christians can repudiate only emperors who are heretics who attack the church, or who introduce doctrines irreconcilable with the teachings of the Apostles and the Fathers. [...] Of whom, then, do the Fathers, councils, and canons speak? Always and everywhere they speak loudly of' the one rightful basileus, whose laws, decrees, and charters are in force throughout the world and who alone, only he, is mentioned in all places by Christians in the liturgy.[34]
— Letter of Patriarch Anthony to Vasily I
Thebasileus gave the Patriarchate of Constantinople an enormous prestige, although this position of Eastern Orthodox emperor was challenged; indeed, the rivalry forprimacy with thebasileus of theByzantine empire was especially strong among the Eastern Orthodox Slavs in theBalkans, who soughtautocephaly for their churches and gave their rulers the title oftsar (emperor).[e] The capital of theBulgarian Tsardome,Tarnovo, was even called "New Rome". The Patriarchs of Constantinople, however, did not recognize these rulers as equal to abasileus of theByzantine Empire.Muscovy also shared this feeling of rivalry with the Byzantine empire over the secular primacy in theEastern Orthodox Church.[1][35]
The expulsion ofMetropolitan Isidore and the independent ordination of Jonah were the response of Moscow to the Union. However, even after thePatriarchate of Constantinopleofficially rejected the Union in 1484, its jurisdiction over Moscow was not restored because there was noEastern Roman emperor anymore.
In1453, Constantinople was captured by theTurks, and the last fragment of the Byzantine Empire,Trebizond, fell in 1461 to the Turks. Even before the fall of Constantinople, the Orthodox Slavic states in the Balkans had fallen under Turkish rule. The fall of Constantinople caused tremendous fears, many considered the fall of Constantinople as a sign theEnd time was near (in 1492 it was 7000Anno Mundi); others believed that the emperors of theHoly Roman Empire (although he was a Roman Catholic) now took the place of the emperors of Constantinople. There were also hopes that Constantinople would be liberated soon. Moreover, the Orthodox Church was left without its Eastern OrthodoxBasileus. Therefore, the question arose of who would become the newbasileus. At the end of the various"Tales" about the fall of Constantinople [ru], which gained great popularity inMoscow Russia, it was directly stated that theRus' people would defeat theIshmaelites (Muslims) and their king would become thebasileus in theCity of Seven Hills (Constantinople). TheGrand Prince of Moscow remained the strongest of the Eastern Orthodox rulers;Ivan III marriedSophia Paleologue,broke his formal subordination to theGolden Horde (already divided into severalTatar kingdoms) and became an independent ruler. All of this strengthened Moscow's claims to primacy in the Eastern Orthodox world. However, the liberation of Constantinople was still far away—theMoscow State had no opportunity to fight theOttoman Empire. At the end of the 15th century, the emergence of the idea thatMoscow is a truly a new Rome can be found.Metropolitan Zosima, in 1492, quite clearly expressed it, calling Ivan III "the new TsarConstantine of the newcity of Constantine—Moscow."[35] This idea is best known in the presentation of the monkPhilotheus of the early 16th century:[36][37][38]
So know, pious king, that all the Christian kingdoms came to an end and came together in a single kingdom of yours, two Romes have fallen, the third stands, and there will be no fourth [emphasis added]. No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom according tothe great Theologian [cf.Revelation 17:10] [...].
The Moscow scholars explained the fall of Constantinople as thedivine punishment for thesin of the Union with the Catholic Church, but they did not want to obey the Patriarch of Constantinople, although there were no unionist patriarchs since the Turkish conquest in 1453 and the first Patriarch since then,Gennadius Scholarius, was the leader of the anti-unionists. At the next synod,held in Constantinople in 1484, the Union was finally declared invalid. Having lost its Christianbasileus after the Turkish conquest, Constantinople as a center of power lost a significant part of its authority. On the contrary, theMoscow rulers soon began to consider themselves realTsars (this title was already used byIvan III), and therefore according to them the center of the Eastern Orthodox Church should have been located in Moscow, and thus the bishop of Moscow should become the head of the Orthodoxy.[35] The text of the bishop's oath in Muscovy, edited in 1505–1511, condemned the ordination of metropolitans in Constantinople, calling it "the ordination in the area of godlessTurks, by the pagan[f]tsar."[39]
"Theliturgical privileges that the Byzantine emperor enjoyed carried over to the Muscovite tsar. In 1547, for instance, whenIvan IV was crowned tsar, not only was heanointed as the Byzantine emperor had been after the late twelfth century, but he was also allowed to communicate in thesanctuary with the clergy."[40]
"The Russian Orthodox Church declared itself autocephalous in 1448, on the basis of explicit rejection of the Filioque, and the doctrine of "Moscow as the Third and Final Rome" was born. This rejection of the Idea of Progress embodied in the Council of Florence is the cultural root of subsequent Russian imperial designs on the West."[18]
When breaking off relations with Constantinople in 1467–1470, ambassadors of the Ecumenical Patriarch were forbidden to enter the possession of the Moscow Grand Prince Ivan III. As a result, direct contacts were completely interrupted for almost half a century. However, Moscow continued to intensively communicate with the monks ofMount Athos and in 1517 PatriarchTheoleptus I of Constantinople used this channel of communication. Together with the elders of Athos, among whom was the famousMaximus the Greek, he sent his ambassadors, Gregory (Metropolitan ofZichnai) and the patriarchaldeacon, to the Grand PrinceVasily III.[41]
The question of who initiated this contact remains unresolved. It is known that Vasily III was childless for a long time in his first marriage, and many attempts were made to beg for an heir from the Higher powers. The monks of Athos who accompanied the ambassadors reported that they fulfilled the request to pray for the childbearing of PrincessSolomonia in the monasteries of the Holy Mountain. Modern researchers (Dm. Kryvtsov, V. Lurie) believe that the initiative came from the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the real goal (in addition to the request for financial assistance) was to restore the canonical jurisdiction of Constantinople over Moscow. The story of this embassy in the Moscow chronicles was seriously reworked, and some documents were withdrawn, but the original evidence is preserved in the materials of the trial of Maximus the Greek. It follows from them that the Patriarch's ambassadors were met extremely coldly; the Grand Prince andMetropolitan Varlaam did not accept the blessing from the Patriarch's envoy.[41]
In the ensuing controversy about the right to autocephaly, Moscow had no serious canonical arguments. However, Muscovites believed that if God was dissatisfied with the ordination of Jonas in 1448, He would somehow have shown it. In particular, afterlife miracles of former Metropolitans of Moscow,saint Alexius andsaint Peter—saint Alexius having been canonized by Jonah in 1448 -, were cited to prove that those saints were in favor of the ordination of Metropolitan Jonah. In addition, Muscovites recalled precedents—the proclamation of autocephaly of theSerbian andBulgarian churches and similar miracles performed by therelics of thePatriarch of Bulgaria. According to the Moscow scholars, those miracles could not have been possible if God did not want the Bulgarians to have their own independentprimate. The embassy of the Patriarch of Constantinople was in Moscow for a year and a half, and at this time (1518–1519) sources record a series ofmiraculous healings from the relics ofMetropolitan Alexius (hiscanonization was the first act of Metropolitan Jonah after his ordination in 1448). In honor of these healings, magnificent celebrations were arranged with the participation of theGrand Duke, Metropolitans, bishops and other members of the clergy, who had to show the "Greeks" the legitimacy of the Moscow autocephaly. The possession of ancient Byzantineicons as a symbol of continuity and preservation of "pure" Orthodox traditions was also demonstrated to the "Greeks". In 1518,Metropolitan of Moscow Varlaam made a public prayer for the ending of prolonged rains. When the rains came to an end, it was also regarded as an approval of the legitimacy of Varlaam's ordination.[41]
The Greeks could not do anything against such arguments. Even if they were not directly expressed, the very atmosphere of the continuous triumph of "Russian Orthodoxy" made useless any attempt to officially raise the question of the subordination of the Moscow autocephalous church to the Patriarch of Constantinople. So the envoys of the Ecumenical Patriarch returned with nothing. The next envoy of the Patriarch of Constantinople appeared in Moscow only 37 years later, in 1556.Maximus the Greek stayed in Moscow and tried to debate, explaining the uncanonical character of the Moscow autocephaly and the fact that the Metropolitan of Moscow was ordinated "not according to divine scripture, nor according to the rules of the Saints Fathers". This ended for him with a trial and a very long imprisonment, despite the sympathetic attitude of a part of the clergy who, to the best of their strength, facilitated his fate and made it possible for him to continue his writings.[41]
In 1539,Grand Prince Vasily III died. As a result of court intrigues,Metropolitan Daniel was dismissed, andJoasaph (Skripitsyn), abbot of theTrinity Lavra of St. Sergius, was put in his place. Joasaph was a famous book lover and patron of scribes and calligraphers; he opposed toJosephites and was a friend ofMaximus the Greek. Ascending the post, Joasaph did not renounce the patriarch of Constantinople, as his predecessors Moscow metropolitans did and as his successors would; Joasaph did not declare Moscow's Orthodoxy as being the only true one. HistorianVladimir Lurie [ru] believes that the actions of Joasaph can be considered as an attempt to bring Moscow out of the schism. However, Joasaph's rule was short-lived, in 1542 he was removed from theSee of Moscow.[1][42]
The exact time of the end of the schism is not known for sure. The Church historianAnton Kartashev believed that theexcommunication imposed by Constantinople for the rejection of Isidore "was never lifted from the Russian Church in formal and documented way. It gradually melted in the course of history, and at the time the Moscow Patriarchate was approved in 1589, it was not even remembered".[43] On the other hand, the modern historian of the Church,Vladimir Lurie [ru], believes that in 1560–1561 the Metropolis of Moscow returned to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, while losing its self-proclaimed autocephaly. This conclusion was made as a result of a detailed analysis of a set of documents relating to the Embassy ofArchimandrite Theodorite of 1557 and the Embassy of Archimandrite Joasaph of 1560–1561. The main issue of negotiations was to confirm thecoronation ofIvan the Terrible as a real Eastern Orthodoxtsar (emperor). In one letter, thepatriarch of Constantinople Joasaph calls the metropolitan of Moscow "theexarch of thecatholic patriarch" (Greek:ώς εξαρχος πατριαρχιός καθολικός). Such a title meant administrative subordination, and beyond that it was specially noted in this letter that "he has power from us" (that is, from the Patriarch of Constantinople) and only in this way could he act as ahierarch.[1]
The Russian Orthodox Church considers that it becamede facto autocephalous in 1448,[44] yet theother Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs recognized its autocephaly only in 1589–1593. "This was done by means of two letters signed, not by the Ecumenical Patriarch alone, but also by otherPatriarchs of the East. In these letters the Patriarchal rank of the primate of the Russian Church was recognized and thePatriarch of Moscow was placed fifth indiptych after the fourPatriarchs of the East."[44][45]
Eastern Orthodoxy
Politics
That is why we consider the theory definitively formulated by Philotheus to occupy a central place in Muscovite ideology: it forms the core of the opinions developed by the Muscovites about their fatherland and erects them into a doctrine.
| Autocephalous churches |
|  | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autonomous churches |
| |||||||
| Diaspora Assemblies | ||||||||
| History | ||||||||
| Liturgy | ||||||||
| Other | ||||||||
 Christianity portal
| ||||||||
Cultural area ofChristian traditions that developed sinceEarly Christianity in theMiddle East,Eastern Europe,North andEast Africa,Asia Minor,South India, and parts of theFar East. | ||||||||
| Main divisions |
| |||||||
| History |
| |||||||
| Scriptures | ||||||||
| Theology | ||||||||
| Worship | ||||||||
