Academic literature on the topic 'Patriarch Constantinople Peter the Great Russia'

Russian Orthodox Diocese of Finland, taking advantage of the church and international policy, illegally transferred to the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1923 and its relations with the Russian Church were interrupted for two decades. At the end of the Great Patriotic War, a movement for the reunification of the two churches began, but there was no unity within the Finnish Church on this issue, and the efforts of the Moscow Patriarchate’s hierarchy led to limited results. The article reveals the history of the participation of Petter Nortamo, a Finnish pastor who converted to Orthodoxy and tried to speed up the process of the return of the Finnish Archdiocese to the Russian Orthodox Church, unknown to Russian scientists. One of the characteristic features of his activity was the active involvement in this process of political parties and associations of socialist orientation, as well as the press (in particular, the Democratic Union of the People of Finland). The article disputes the reading of this story by the Finnish historian Juha Riikonen, who sees this primarily as a political background. Nortamo’s active contacts with Metropolitan Grigory (Chukov) and Patriarch Alexy I, his ordination to holy orders in Leningrad indicate that the church component was decisive in his activities. However, Nortamo’s efforts were not enough to solve the problem of the relationship between the Finnish and Russian Orthodox Churches, and his death coincided with the end of such attempts. The Patriarchate of Constantinople played a significant role in freezing the process of church reunification. To this day, the figure of Nortamo remains unknown in Russian historical science.

The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the nature of the “Moscow – Third Rome” theory. Particular attention is paid to the events that became key in the development of this theory, the statesmen who contributed to its formation, flourishing and oblivion, as well as the influence it had on domestic political and legal thought, which is manifested in the specific actions of the central characters of the historical scene. The author comes to the following conclusions: the theory of “Moscow - the Third Rome” had a strong influence on the political and legal life of the Russian state during the period from the reign of Ivan the Terrible to the reign of Peter I: a decision was made to crown the Grand Duke of Moscow as king, for which a special rite was developed crowning of the kingdom according to the Byzantine model, Moscow began to position itself as a protector of the Orthodox population, which led, in particular, to the capture of Kazan in 1552, the Byzantine system of “symphony of powers” developed in Rus’, the state was actually ruled by the tsar as a representative of secular power and the metropolitan as a representative of spiritual power, which was embodied in practice in the convenings of the Zemsky and Stoglavy Councils, which had the same legal force, the patriarchate was established in Rus’, while the enthronement of the first patriarch of Rus’ was carried out by the Patriarch of Constantinople, to unify the church rites of Rus’ and Byzantium, a reform of Patriarch Nikon was carried out, leading to a split and the emergence of such a movement as the Old Believers.

The article highlights the positive role of Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) as the successor of Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin) in the restoration of the patriarchal conciliar system of governance within the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia. Ecclesiological and administrative regulation of the Church’s life was disrupted under Peter the Great. The institution of the patriarchate briefly revived after the 1917 revolution, but this process was interrupted by the actions of the new Bolshevik government. Becoming the helmsman of the Church after 1925, Sergius, as the locum tenens of the patriarchal see, continued to revive the canonical administrative church system despite severe pressure from state authorities. This included overcoming the renovationist schism, strengthening church discipline, and restoring the order of worship. These efforts resulted in the second revival of the institution of the Patriarchate, which occurred during the Great Patriotic War at the Bishops’ Council in 1943. Patriarch Sergius’ works laid the foundation for subsequent stages in the restoration of the patriarchal conciliar system of Church administration in 1945 and 1988.

The article analyzes M.V. Lomonosov`s heroic poem, which is about Peter the Great’s visit to the Solovetsky Monastery. The founders of the Solovetsky Monastery are Saints Zosima, Savvaty and Herman, who settled on a deserted island in the first third of the XV century. Over time, the monastery not only grew, but became one of the most revered in Russia. It is visited by thousands of pilgrims; kings and boyars make rich donations. The first of the Russian tsars to visit the Solovetsky Monastery was Peter the Great (1694). This visit will be described by M.V. Lomonosov in his poem. To create the image of an ideal ruler, the poet uses historical realities based on the Kholmogory and Solovetsky chronicles. However, there is also a free interpretation of historical facts that contributes to the creation of a heroic image to glorify the Russian state. The “historical inaccuracies” made by the author are identified and indicated: the feat of Peter during a storm on the White Sea, the history of the construction of the walls of the monastery, the “Solovetsky sitting” of the monks who refused to accept the reforms of Patriarch Nikon.

The visit of King Petar I Karađorđević to the Turkish sultan is one of the eight visits in modern Serbian history. Seven meetings of Serbian rulers with sultans took place in Constantinople, except for one that took place in Bulgaria. In the visits made before 1878, the Serbian rulers went as vassals. The meeting between the Serbian king and Sultan Mehmed V Rešad in 1910 was the third in a row since Serbia became an independent state. King Petar I Karađorđević spent the second half of March and the first half of April 1910 travelling. First, he visited Russia, then Constantinople, Mount Athos, and finally Thessaloniki. The trip lasted a little over 24 days, six of which he spent in Constantinople. The Serbian delegation led by the king was warmly received by the sultan, the common people, and the Christian population living in the Turkish capital. Upon their return, the members of the delegation were convinced that Turkey would remain on the path of improving Serbian-Turkish relations, friendly agreement, and strengthening of economic relations. This intention was highlighted in the official statement of the Porte published on the occasion of the visit of the Serbian king. In the announcement, it was expressly emphasized that a complete agreement was reached at the conferences of the foreign ministers of the two countries and that the Turkish side will grant Serbian wishes for strengthening economic and trade relations. It was of great importance for the Kingdom of Serbia to remove the obstacles that existed until that time regarding the construction of the Adriatic railway. In addition, practical results were achieved because Turkish officials expressed their readiness for the greatest possible benefits that would contribute to the export of Serbian goods through Thessaloniki. The visit to Constantinople brought success in the issues regarding religion as well, because after four years of resistance, the Patriarchate and the Synod, just before the king's arrival, accepted the election of the Serb Varnava Rosić as bishop of the Veles-Debar eparchy. The meeting of the two rulers received great attention in the diplomatic circles of European countries, especially Austria-Hungary. The relations between Serbia and the Ottoman Empire, apart from the economic aspect, soon fell into the shadows due to the Albanian riots and rebellions that engulfed the entire Kosovo vilayet. In that case too, the Serbian state tried not to interfere in Turkey's internal affairs.

The influence of the Byzantine Symphony on state policy in Russia is considered. It is noted that the interaction of the Patriarch and the Tsar was aimed at influencing Christian morality to mitigate the power aspect of the autocracy's policy and the influence of the Tsar on the behavior of his entourage. The author analyzes the historical contradictions of this process that emerged during the reign of Ivan the terrible and Peter the Great, and the reasons for the abolition of the Patriarchate, and the consequences of the concentration of state and spiritual power in the hands of the autocrat. The factors influencing the reanimation of the philosophy and logic of the Byzantine Symphony in its transformed form - in relation to modern conditions-are considered.

The influence of the Byzantine Symphony on state policy in Russia is considered. It is noted that the interaction of the Patriarch and the Tsar was aimed at influencing Christian morality to mitigate the power aspect of the autocracy's policy and the influence of the Tsar on the behavior of his entourage. The author analyzes the historical contradictions of this process that emerged during the reign of Ivan the terrible and Peter the Great, and the reasons for the abolition of the Patriarchate, and the consequences of the concentration of state and spiritual power in the hands of the autocrat. The factors influencing the reanimation of the philosophy and logic of the Byzantine Symphony in its transformed form - in relation to modern conditions-are considered.

Aim. We show peculiarities of A. N. Tolstoy’s disclosure of the circumstances of the church schism in the 17th century, their impact on the society and the consequences to which they led; in addition, we present a detailed analysis of several images of Old Believers created by A. N. Tolstoy and pictures of their activities. Tolstoy’s description of the way of life in the sketes of the Old Believers, as well as their moral and spiritual state are commented on Methodology. Use is made of analytical and comparative methods of literary text research to reveal the topic. The images of Old Believers, monastics and the Patriarch are analyzed in detail. Special attention is paid to internal, spiritual problems of the population, moral loss, search for the truth by individual characters, and true spiritual support. Specific methods are clarified, thanks to which A. N. Tolstoy, following D. Merezhkovsky, managed to capture in an original way the main facets of the state of Russia in the era of Peter’s reforms. Particular attention is paid to the artistic detail and its role in revealing the characters’ lifestyles.Results. The study revealed stylistic features that help Tolstoy in his desire for a realistic depiction of the historical period. The problem of Tolstoy’s understanding of the influence of the church schism on the spiritual and moral, as well as the economic life of the country, is clarified. The images of schismatics, monastics and the Patriarch himself are analyzed and explained.Research implications. The study confirms that spiritual problems occupy an important place in the work of A. N. Tolstoy. The significance of the work lies in an in-depth and concrete understanding of the plastic embodiment of the declared topic.

The doctrine of Russkij mir is the result of a long historical process marked by the progressive distancing of Russian Orthodoxy from Constantinople. In 1448 the metropolis of Moscow proclaimed its de facto autocephaly and the bond of subordination of the Sacerdotium to the Imperium was strengthened. At the beginning of the 16th century, the monk Filofej from the Pskov region enunciated the theory of the Moscow third Rome and the transfer of the imperial capital from Constantinople to Moscow.  Since then the symphonic relationship between Church and Empire has been upset, no longer signifying the harmonious collaboration between them, but the prevalence of civil power over religious power, which will culminate in 1721 with Peter the Great's decision to abolish the Patriarchate established in 1589.  From then on the history of the Church will be that of the State. With the end of Bolshevism which marked the full subjugation of the Church, a new symphony was reconstituted between civil and religious power: the latter provides the former with the theological justification for the affirmation of Russkij mir, or the obsessive claim to also impose manu military the hegemony of Moscow and the supremacy of its Orthodoxy as the only way to eliminate Evil and impose Good in the reconstituted great Empire of Russia.

This article reviews the known facts on the work and concepts of Russian higher educational institutions of the 1650s-1700s. The author analyzes the polemics that unfolded in the XVII century and continues until today around higher education in Russia from Fyodor Rtishchev's School to Zaikonospassky Greek Schools created by Likhud brothers. It is noted that the idea of autonomous estate-inclusive university in Moscow, which was conceived by the Tsar Feodor III Alexeyevich and received privileges in the Grant Letter of 1682, was never brought to life. The author reveals the motives of resistance to introduction of regular education and recognition of rules of the rational science. It is demonstrated that breaking with the Russian traditional church rituals by Patriarch Nikon on the basis of false Greek scholarship caused doubts of the society on the utility of foreign regular science; and the desire of the devotees of Greek scholarship to prove that Latin education, unlike Greek, is harmful for the faith, nullified the attempt of Tsar Feodor III Alexeyevich to create a Moscow university for preparing secular and church personnel. Such struggle for the Academy resulted in the clash between rationalism of the enlighteners and authority of the church, which destroyed and suppressed the enlighteners, and discredited the church. In the XVII century, no Higher educational institutions were established in Russia; moreover, the Moscow academic staff was annihilated. In the context of the reforms of Peter the Great, the humanities education in Russia of the XVIII century was implemented Little Russian scholars, while natural scientific education – by Western scholars.