Peter I remained in the history of our country as a cardinal reformer who abruptly turned the course of life in Russia. In this role, only Vladimir Lenin or Alexander II can compare with him. For 36 years of independent rule of the autocrat, the state not only changed its status from a kingdom to an Empire. All spheres of the life of the country have changed. The reforms affected everyone - from the homeless to the nobleman from St. Petersburg under construction.
The Church did not stand aside either. Possessing infinite authority among the population, this organization was distinguished by its conservatism and inability to change and interfered with the growing power of Peter. Inertia and adherence to the traditions of the priests did not prevent the emperor from making changes in religious circles. First of all, it is, of course, an Orthodox synod. However, it would be a mistake to say that this is where the change ended.
The state of the Church on the eve of the reforms
The reforms of Peter 1, in short, were caused by many problems in society. This also applied to the Church. The 17th century passeda sign of constant riots, including on religious grounds. Peter's father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, clashed with Patriarch Nikon, who carried out many reforms affecting some Christian rites. This caused outrage among the people. Many were unwilling to abandon the faith of their fathers and were eventually accused of heresy. Splitism still exists today, but in the 18th century this problem was felt especially acutely.
The key issue was the distribution of power between the king and the patriarch. This concerned, for example, the monastic lands and the order of the same name (that is, the ministry), which tried to regulate the management of the clergy. Such interference by secular authorities resented the patriarch, and this conflict also remained open at the time of the accession of his son Alexei to the throne.
Peter's attitude to the Church
In fact, during the time of Peter 1, the policy of his father continued in religious matters. The point of view of the new autocrat was largely formed under the influence of secular education, as well as the priests of the Kyiv Metropolis, which was annexed to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1688. In addition, he led a life far from Christian ideals and, in addition, managed to travel around Protestant Europe, where relationships with the clergy were organized according to a new pattern created after the Reformation. For example, it should be noted that the young king looked with interest at the experience of the English crown, where the monarch was considered the head of the local Anglican Church.
The highest church body under Peter 1 at the beginning of itboard - the patriarchy, which still had great power and independence. The crown bearer, of course, did not like this, and on the one hand he wanted to subordinate all the higher clergy directly to himself, and on the other, he was disgusted by the prospect of the appearance of his own Pope in Moscow. The guardian of the throne of St. Paul did not at all recognize anyone's authority over himself. In addition, Nikon, for example, strove under Alexei Mikhailovich.
The first step of the young tsar in relations with the Orthodox clergy was a ban on the construction of new monasteries in Siberia. The decree is dated 1699. Immediately after this, the Northern War with Sweden began, which constantly distracted Peter from sorting out his relationship with Orthodoxy.
Creation of the title of locum tenens
When Patriarch Adrian died in 1700, the tsar appointed a locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. They became the Metropolitan of Ryazan Stefan Yavorsky. Adrian's successor was allowed to deal only with "works of faith." That is to engage in heresy and worship. All other powers of the patriarch were divided between orders. This concerned, first of all, economic activity on the lands of the Church. The war with Sweden promised to be long, the state needed resources, and the tsar was not going to leave extra funds to the “priests”. As it turned out later, it was a prudent move. Soon the parish bells began to be sent to be melted down for new cannons. The highest church body under Peter 1 did not resist.
The Locum Tenens had no independent power. For all importantquestions, he had to consult with the rest of the bishops, and send all reports directly to the sovereign. At the time of the reform were frozen.
At the same time, the importance of the monastic order increased. In particular, he was instructed to take control of the ancient Russian tradition - begging. Fools and beggars were caught and taken to the order. Those who gave alms were also punished, regardless of rank and position in society. As a rule, such a person received a fine.
Establishment of the Synod
Finally, in 1721, the Holy Governing Synod was established. In its essence, it became an analogue of the Senate of the Russian Empire, which was responsible for the executive power, being the highest body of the state, directly subordinate to the emperor.
The synod in Russia meant positions such as president and vice president. Although they were soon canceled, such a step perfectly shows the habit of Peter I to use the practice of the Table of Ranks, that is, to create new ranks that have nothing to do with the past. Stefan Yarovsky became the first president. He had no prestige or power. The position of Vice President served as an oversight function. In other words, it was an auditor who informed the tsar about everything that happened in the department.
Other posts
The position of chief prosecutor also appeared, which regulated the relationship of the new structure with society, and also had the right to vote and lobbied for the interests of the crown.
As in secular ministries, the Synod has its ownspiritual fiscals. In their sphere of influence was all spiritual activity on the territory of the country. They monitored the implementation of religious norms, etc.
As noted above, the Synod was created as an analogue of the Senate, which means that it was in constant contact with it. The link between the two organizations was a special agent who delivered reports and was responsible for the relationship.
What the Synod was responsible for
The responsibility of the Synod included both the affairs of the clergy and matters related to the laity. In particular, the highest church body under Peter 1 was supposed to monitor the performance of Christian rites and eradicate superstition. Here it is worth mentioning education. The synod under Peter 1 was the last authority responsible for textbooks in all kinds of educational institutions.
White clergy
According to Peter's idea, the white clergy was to become an instrument of the state, which would influence the masses and monitor its spiritual state. In other words, the same clear and regulated estate was created, like the nobility and the merchant class, with its own goals and functions.
The Russian clergy throughout its previous history was distinguished by its accessibility to the population. It was not a caste of priests. On the contrary, almost everyone could enter there. For this reason, there was an overabundance of priests in the country, many of whom ceased to serve in the parish, and became vagabonds. Such ministers of the Church were called "sacral". The lack of regulation of this environment, of course, has become something of aout going out in the time of Peter 1.
A strict charter was also introduced, according to which the priest in the service had only to praise the new reforms of the king. The synod under Peter 1 issued a decree obliging the confessor to inform the authorities if a person confessed in confession to a state crime or blasphemy against the crown. The disobedient were punished by death.
Church education
Numerous audits were carried out, checking the education of the clergy. Their result was a mass deprivation of dignity and a reduction in class. The highest church body under Peter 1 introduced and systematized new norms for obtaining the priesthood. In addition, now each parish could only have a certain number of deacons and no more. In parallel with this, the procedure for leaving one's dignity was simplified.
Speaking of church education in the first quarter of the 18th century, one should note the active opening of seminaries in the 1920s. New educational institutions appeared in Nizhny Novgorod, Kharkov, Tver, Kazan, Kolomna, Pskov and other cities of the new empire. The program included 8 classes. Boys with primary education were accepted there.
Black clergy
The black clergy also became the object of the reforms of Peter 1. In short, the changes in the life of the monasteries boiled down to three goals. First, their number has steadily decreased. Secondly, access to ordination was hampered. Thirdly, the remaining monasteries were to receive a practical purpose.
The reason for this attitudebecame a personal hostility of the monarch to the monks. This was largely due to childhood experiences in which they remained rebels. In addition, the way of life of a schemnik was far from the emperor. He preferred practical activity to fasting and prayer. Therefore, it is not surprising that he built ships, worked as a carpenter, and did not like monasteries.
Wishing that these institutions would bring some benefit to the state, Peter ordered them to be converted into infirmaries, factories, factories, schools, etc. But the life of the monks became much more complicated. In particular, they were forbidden to leave the walls of their native monastery. Absences were severely punished.
The results of the church reform and its further fate
Peter I was a staunch statist and, according to this conviction, made the clergy a cog in the overall system. Considering himself the sole bearer of power in the country, he deprived the patriarchy of any power, and eventually completely destroyed this structure.
Already after the death of the monarch, many excesses of the reforms were canceled, however, in general terms, the system continued to exist until the 1917 revolution and the Bolsheviks came to power. Those, by the way, actively used the image of Peter I in their anti-church propaganda, praising his desire to subordinate Orthodoxy to the state.
