Belyakova Elena V.,
Candidate of Historical Sciences, Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To the Study of the History of the Councils of 1666 and 1666–1667
DOI: 10.31518/2618-9100-2019-2-5
The article states that in the Russian Church in the XVI–XVII centuries there was the same process of confessionalisation as in other European countries. Patriarch Filaret played a special role in it, when at the Council of 1620 the baptism by immersion was recognized as the only correct one and the features that distinguished Moscow Orthodoxy from both Catholics and other churches were formulated. Under Filaret, a merger of the state and church systems of governance took place, and city laws began to be applied against violators of church rules. The reforms of Alexei Mikhailovich started a new stage of confessionalisation, however, at this stage there was a change of already approved symbols, which was perceived as the introduction of the “new faith”. This is how the fifth Solovetsky petition determines innovations. For the reception of the resolutions of the Councils, much work was needed to retrain the Orthodox population, to replace seals for prosphoras and to distribute new books. The article deals with the handwritten materials of the Councils of 1666 and 1666–1667, which were not previously the subject of source studies, and attempts to answer the question why they were not copied and not published in their entirety. The book of Acts of the Council of 1666–1667 was kept in the Patriarch's Treasury and was available only to the Patriarch. The created Synod spent almost two years to obtain this manuscript. It is shown that only that part of the Acts of 1666–1667, which was included in the 1667 Sluzebnik, became known to contemporaries. The author notes textual coincidences of the 11th Act of Council 1666 and the first Act of Council 1666–1667 are noted; states that the Decrees aimed at the abolition of the Monastic order and the requirement to convene councils twice a year were not made public. The changes that occurred in relation to the previous confessionalisation period were of a radical nature. This applies particularly to the 6th Act, which repealed the decision of the Council in 1620 of the re-baptism of Catholics and essentially removed from the Catholic charges of heresy that did not fit in the era of confessionalism. At the same time, the “dvoeperstie” was declared “Armenian heresy”. The former symbols of the denomination were interpreted as heretical errors, which made it impossible to reconcile with the defenders of the old rite.
Publishing: 29/04/2019
How to cite: Belyakova E.V. To the Study of the History of the Councils of 1666 and 1666–1667 // Historical Courier, 2019, # 2 (4). Article 5. [Available online:] http://istkurier.ru/data/2019/ISTKURIER-2019-2-05.pdf
Links: Issue 2 2019
Keywords: confessionalisation; Old Belief; Councils of 1666 and 1666–1667; handwritten tradition