The cathedral was opened by the king himself. The council was attended mainly by representatives of the clergy: Met. Macarius, 9 archbishops and bishops, many archimandrites, abbots, spiritual elders and priests.

There were also representatives of secular power: in his address to the members of the cathedral, the tsar names his brethren, all his beloved princes, boyars and soldiers. In terms of its significance, it was one of the most important cathedrals of the Moscow state.

The council was convened mainly due to the fact that many of the sacred customs were "worn out": much was done in the church by autocracy, the previous legalizations were violated, the divine commandments remained neglected.

In the leadership of the council, the tsar proposed first 37 questions, then 32 more. The royal questions and the answers to them of the council are the main content of the decisions (Stoglava). They cover the following topics:

1) about church services, namely about the ordinance and order of church services, about the serviceability of liturgical books, about the rules of icon painting, about the sign of the cross, about singing hallelujah and about some other church rites;

2) on streamlining the diocesan administration and court by establishing new bodies of supervision over the clergy, eliminating secular bishop officials from interfering in the sphere of purely spiritual court and organizing control over their judicial activities in other cases, eliminating abuses in the collection of various duties and levies from the clergy and laity ;

3) on the elimination of abuses in the management of monastic property and income and on the eradication of various vices of monastic life;

4) on the improvement of various aspects of worldly life (measures against barbering in connection with the sin of Sodom, against magic and witchcraft, buffoonery, pagan folk amusements, games of grain, etc.).

National issues were also touched upon at the council: the tsar announced to the council about his "needs and zemstvo disorders." He suggested that the cathedral consider the code of law and statutes, and if there is nothing in them that disagrees with the rules of the church and the previous laws, approve with their signatures (Chapter 4).

This also includes the decisions of the council on a new national collection for the ransom of prisoners (Chapter 72); about the hierarchical and monastic settlements and their relation to the settlements (Ch. 98); on non-conviction certificates (Ch. 67), etc.

It is also known that the tsar had in mind to submit to the council a number of very important questions: about parochialism, about the organization of the service, about estates and estates, about taverns, myts, etc., but these questions are not included in Stoglav, so that one cannot say whether they were discussed at the council or not.

Despite such an abundance and variety of questions posed, the council gave its answers in a relatively short time; the sessions, which were opened on February 23, ended by the beginning of May, since by May 11, the council decrees were communicated to the Trinity Monastery for viewing and returned from there.

Both in the selection of the material and in the very formulation of the questions, those turbulent currents of social thought that have agitated Moscow society since the emergence of the heresy of the Judaizers could not but affect. The two struggling parties among the clergy and cultured society - the Josephites and the non-possessors - had to clash not only at the council, but also during the period of preparations for it.

The convening of a council to discuss church disorders was not at all in the interests of the Josephite majority. The initiative in this matter could most likely come either from the metropolitan or from the environment of the party of non-possessors.

It is known that the metropolitan wrote to the tsar an extensive "answer" in defense of the patrimonial rights of the church. It could have been drawn up only before the council, because after the decisions of the council on the same subject, such a message was completely superfluous. This means that questions were raised about the secularization of church property, and the Metropolitan was asked for instructions as to why he wrote his "answer."

All these considerations speak in favor of the conjecture that the initiative for convening the council and its program came from the environment of non-possessors who, with the help of the Chosen Rada and with the assistance of the Metropolitan, outlined a wide range of reforms in the field of church and state administration.

The non-possessors, as it were, were preparing to give the Josephites a general battle, but the victory remained on the side of the latter; the majority of them turned out to be at the cathedral, and in many controversial issues they were supported by the metropolitan.

This outcome of the struggle also influenced the further fate of the few influential opponents of the Josephites: Artemy and Cassian lost their places, the first, moreover, was tried and exiled to prison.

It fell to the lot of those who were not at all interested in this to carry out the resolution of the council, and the metropolitan could not do anything without active support. Naturally, under such conditions "almost everything legalized by the cathedral was forgotten and everything went on as before, as if the cathedral had never happened at all, whose acts turned into a simple historical monument."

Literature

• Ilya Belyaev, On the Historical Significance of the Acts of the Moscow Cathedral in 1551, RB, 1858, No. 4;
• his, Instruction lists of the cathedral code of 1551 or S., 1863;
• I. Dobrotvorsky, Additional explanations for the publication of S., PS, 1862, p. 3;
• his, Canonical book of S. or non-canonical, PS, 1863, parts 1 and 2;
• Met. Macarius, History of the Church, vol. 6; I. Zhdanov, Materials for the history of the Stoglav Cathedral, ZhMNP, 1876, Nos. 7 and 8;
• L. N., Newly discovered handwritten S. 16 century, BV, 1899, Nos. 9 and 10; E. Golubivsky, History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 771-793 and 892.

Sources of

• Christianity: Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 3 volumes: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1995.

: the text of the monument itself contains other names: cathedral code, royal and hierarchical code(chap. 99). The decisions of the collection concern both religious-ecclesiastical and state-economic issues in the light of the fierce disputes of that time about church land tenure; contains clarifications on the relationship between the norms of state, judicial, criminal law and church law.

Collegiate YouTube

1 / 5

✪ Baskova A.V. / IOGiP / Stoglav 1551

✪ Hour of Truth - 1551od - Stoglavy Cathedral

✪ Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin on the Stoglava Cathedral

✪ Disputes about the Trinity and Stoglavy Cathedral

✪ Baskova A.V. / IOGiP / Cathedral Code of 1649

Subtitles

Stoglava's value

Stoglav is not only a collection of church rules and instructions, but also a multifaceted collection of secular law, the most valuable source of the socio-economic and political history of Russia in the 15th-16th centuries. It traces both the struggle between the Josephites and the non-possessors over church land tenure, and other conflicts in Russia at that time. Stoglava also contains vivid pictures of the life of the Russian people, customs rooted in the pagan era.

Stoglav recorded the order of worship adopted in the Moscow state: “ If someone does not bless two fingers as well as Christ, or does not imagine the sign of the cross, may it be damned, the holy fathers of the rekosh"(Stoglav 31); " ... it is not befitting the holy hallelujah tregubiti, but say hallelujah twice, and in the third - glory to you God ..."(Stoglav 42).

These norms lasted until 1652, when Patriarch Nikon carried out a reform of the church, which led, in particular, to the following changes:

• Replacing the two-fingered sign of the cross with the three-fingered sign;
• The exclamation "Hallelujah" during the time began to be pronounced not twice (augmented hallelujah), but three times (triangular);
• Nikon ordered the processions to be carried out in the opposite direction (against the sun, not salting).

The harshness and incorrectness of the reforms caused discontent among a significant part of the clergy and laity, which led to a split in the church into new believers (who accepted Nikon's reforms) and old believers (who did not accept the reforms).

Authenticity problem

In connection with the controversy about the authenticity and canonical meaning of Stoglav, the complexity, vagueness and illogicality of its structure and composition, the problem of the origin of its text is one of the main ones in the historical literature about Stoglav and Stoglav Cathedral. Until the middle of the 19th century, the opinion that Stoglav was dominated in literature was not a genuine cathedral code of 1551. Metropolitan Platon, not doubting the fact of convening the Council of 1551, doubted, however, that the provisions of Stoglav were approved at this Council.

In the preface to the first Russian edition of Stoglava, published in 1862, it was indicated that

this book (Stoglav) - was compiled by someone, maybe even a member of the Stoglav Cathedral (1551), but after the Cathedral, from rough notes that were or prepared only for consideration at the Council, but not considered (entirely), not in the form of church decrees, not approved by signatures and not made public for leadership.

This point of view was explained by the reluctance to recognize as authentic the decisions of the official body, which the Russian Church later found erroneous, and which guided the "schismatics".

Stoglav tried to solve the following pressing issues:

• strengthening church discipline among the clergy and fighting against the vicious behavior of church representatives (drunkenness, debauchery, bribery), usury of monasteries,
• unification of church rites and services
• the powers of the ecclesiastical court,
• against the remnants of paganism among the population,
• strict regulation (and, in fact, the introduction of a kind of spiritual censorship) of the order of correspondence of church books, writing icons, building churches, etc.

The title of the first chapter ("In the summer of the 7059th month of February on the 23rd day ...") seems to give the exact date of the work of the Stoglava Cathedral: February 23, 7059 (1551). However, researchers disagree on whether this date is an indication of the beginning of the sessions of the Sobor or determines the time when the Sobor Code will begin to be drawn up. The work of the Council can be divided into two stages - a meeting with a discussion of a number of issues and processing of material, although it is possible that these were simultaneous processes. This assumption is confirmed by the very structure of Stoglava, the sequence of the chapters and their content.

In the first chapter in general outline the program of the Council is outlined: The Council answers the questions of the tsar, who proposed topics for the council discussion. The participants in the Council, as follows from the text, limited themselves to expressing their opinions on the proposed topics. In the first chapter, the circle of questions of the Council is presented fluently, somewhat confused, sometimes answers are given, sometimes - no. The compiler did not have the task here to fully disclose the content of those "corrections" with which the Council was engaged. But although the compiler does not always give the Council's answers to questions, he acquaints with the documents in accordance with which decisions were made at the Council. According to the existing rules, the Council had no right to make a decision that was at variance with the canonical literature. Some of the monuments of this literature are mentioned in the first chapter of "Stoglav": the Rules of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Fathers of the Church, the Rules established at the Councils of the clergy, as well as the teachings of the canonized saints. This list expands in the following chapters.

Two chapters (5 and 41) contain royal questions that were to be discussed by all the participants in the Council. To draw up questions, the tsar attracted people from his entourage, primarily members of the "Chosen Rada". Two of them were ordained (Metropolitan Macarius and Archpriest Sylvester), and therefore their role was significant.

Chapters 6 through 40 contain answers to some of the king's first 37 questions. The continuation of the answers is contained in the 42nd and subsequent chapters. This gap is explained by the fact that the conciliar debate on the preparation of answers to the tsar's questions, apparently, was interrupted by the appearance of the tsar at the Council. During the day, or perhaps several days, the Council resolved issues jointly with the tsar. Apparently, this is connected with the emergence of the so-called "second tsarist questions", which are set forth in chapter 41 of "Stoglava". They concern mainly issues of worship and the morals of the laity. Royal questions can be divided into three groups:

1. pursuing the interests of the state treasury (questions: 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 30, 31);
2. denouncing disturbances in the hierarchy and monastic administration, in monastic life (questions: 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 37);
3. concerning disturbances in worship, exposing prejudices and non-Christian life of the laity (questions: 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 18, 21-29, 32-36).

The last two groups of questions are aimed at strengthening the moral side of the life of the clergy and the population. Since the state completely entrusted this area to the church, saw in it its ideological support, it was natural for the tsar to want to see the church as one, enjoying authority among the population.

Among the peculiarities of the structure of "Stoglava", the presence of the 101st chapter should be highlighted - the verdict on estates. It, apparently, was compiled after the end of the work of the Stoglava Cathedral and added to the main list as an addition.

The main provisions of "Stoglava"

The Code of the Council of 1551 affected the main aspects of church life; it collected and systematized all the norms of the current law of the Russian Church. The source material, in addition to canonical sources, was the Pilot books, the Statute of St. Vladimir, resolutions of the Council of 1503, epistles of the metropolitans.

The decisions of "Stoglava" concern bishops' duties, church courts, discipline of the clergy, monks and laity, divine services, monastic estates, public education and the charity of the poor and other issues.

Financial questions

Questions of morality and control over the life of the clergy

The Council was forced to admit the existence of well-known riots that defamed the Russian Church, and even threatened its future (these issues are included in groups 2 and 3 - see above).

Therefore, one of the most important innovations of the Council is the widespread introduction of the institution priest's elders(chap. 6). These were elected by the priests. The number of priestly elders in each city was determined separately, apparently, by the bishops at the tsar's command. The cathedral determined the number of elders only for Moscow - seven. This number corresponded to the number of cathedrals, that is, the central temples in terms of importance in the given district. Popov elders were supposed to serve in cathedrals. To help them, according to "Stoglav", ten priests were elected from among the priests. In villages and volosts, only ten priests were elected. "Stoglav" recorded that the duties of these elected officials included control over the correct conduct of services in the subordinate churches, over the deanery of priests.

Ethical requirements were also prescribed for icon painters, who valued humility, meekness, sobriety, and obedience to the law (Chapter 43).

The Council of 1551 made an important decision regarding the "double" monasteries, in which monastics of both sexes lived simultaneously: monasteries were assigned to strictly observe the separation of the sexes and comply with the communal rule. Also criticized was the uncontrolled vagrancy and begging of the monks.

Exposing the immorality of the laity

Stoglav orders to organize schools for teaching parishioners to read and write (Ch. 26). Meanwhile, Stoglav (Ch. 40) forbade cutting a mustache and shaving a beard:

The council decree condemned the atrocities and vestiges of paganism widespread in the people's life: judicial fights, buffoonery performances, gambling, and drunkenness. Another resolution of the Council concerned the condemnation of godless and heretical books (Ch. 42). These books announced: "Secreta secretorum", a collection of medieval wisdom, known in Russia under the name "Aristotle", astronomical maps of Emmanuel Ben Jacob, which we called "Six-winged". Also, a ban was imposed on communication with foreigners who, during the time of Ivan the Terrible, began to increasingly come to Russia.

Stoglav officially, in chapters 31-32, he legalized two-fingered addition when making the sign of the cross and augmented hallelujah in the Moscow Church. The conciliar authority of these decisions later became the main argument of the Old Believers. The conviction of the need for baptism through threefold full immersion(chap. 17). Which must be accompanied by the words:

Stoglav forbids the passage of servants without vestments and epitrachilos through the Royal Doors (Ch. 10). The criterion for the consecration of the church is called antimension, made either from woolen or linen fabric. Worship is carried out after the bell ringing (chap. 7) and the priest must be clothed in vestments and an epitrachelion (chap. 8, 10, 14, 15).

Marriage and wedding issues

Ecclesiastical court

"Stoglav" abolished "non-conviction" letters, thereby making all monasteries and parish parish clergy under the jurisdiction of their bishops. He forbade secular courts to judge clergy. Prior to this, the church court, entrusted by the bishops to boyars, clerks, foremen, caused constant complaints. But the Council could not even think about the abolition of these offices - after all, they also existed under Metropolitans Peter and Alexei. Therefore, it was decided to give the priests the right to participate in the courts through their elected elders and sotsky. But at the same time, the legislators completely forgot to define the role of these representatives.

Church land tenure

Apparently, this issue, although it was discussed at the Stoglav Cathedral, was not included in the original Cathedral Code. Later, an additional 101st chapter was added to its text - "The Verdict on Fiefdoms". The tsar's verdict with the metropolitan and other bishops on estates reflected the tsar's desire to limit the growth of church land holdings. The Fiefdoms Sentence consolidated the following five main decisions:

1. By the verdict, it is forbidden for archbishops, bishops and monasteries to buy estates from anyone without the permission of the king;
2. Land contributions at the commemoration of the soul are allowed, but at the same time the condition and procedure for their redemption by the relatives of the testator are stipulated;
3. The estates of a number of regions are forbidden to sell estates to people of other cities and donate to monasteries without reporting to the tsar;
4. The verdict does not have retroactive effect, does not extend its effect to transactions (agreements of donation, sale and purchase or will) concluded before the Stoglava Cathedral;
5. For the future, a sanction is established for violation of the sentence: confiscation of the estate in favor of the sovereign and non-return of money to the seller.

Notes (edit)

1. Mulukaev R.S.[Review] // Vestn. Moscow un-that. Ser. 11, Right. - 1987. - No. 1. - S. 77-79. - Retz. on the book: ISSN 0130-0113.
2. Rogozhin A.I., Safronova I.P., Yarmysh A.N.[Review] // Sov. state and law. - 1986. - No. 8. - S. 143-144. - Retz. on the book: Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries: in 9 volumes. - M.: Yurid. lit., 1984. - T. 2: Legislation of the period of formation and strengthening of the Russian centralized state. -

The cathedral was opened by the king himself. The council was attended mainly by representatives of the clergy: Met. Macarius, 9 archbishops and bishops, many archimandrites, abbots, spiritual elders and priests.

There were also representatives of secular power: in his address to the members of the cathedral, the tsar names his brethren, all his beloved princes, boyars and soldiers. In terms of its significance, it was one of the most important cathedrals of the Moscow state.

The council was convened mainly due to the fact that many of the sacred customs were "worn out": much was done in the church by autocracy, the previous legalizations were violated, the divine commandments remained neglected.

In the leadership of the council, the tsar proposed first 37 questions, then 32 more. The royal questions and the answers to them of the council are the main content of the decisions (Stoglava). They cover the following topics:

1) about church services, namely about the ordinance and order of church services, about the serviceability of liturgical books, about the rules of icon painting, about the sign of the cross, about singing hallelujah and about some other church rites;

2) on streamlining the diocesan administration and court by establishing new bodies of supervision over the clergy, eliminating secular bishop officials from interfering in the sphere of purely spiritual court and organizing control over their judicial activities in other cases, eliminating abuses in the collection of various duties and levies from the clergy and laity ;

3) on the elimination of abuses in the management of monastic property and income and on the eradication of various vices of monastic life;

4) on the improvement of various aspects of worldly life (measures against barbering in connection with the sin of Sodom, against magic and witchcraft, buffoonery, pagan folk amusements, games of grain, etc.).

National issues were also touched upon at the council: the tsar announced to the council about his "needs and zemstvo disorders." He suggested that the cathedral consider the code of law and statutes, and if there is nothing in them that disagrees with the rules of the church and the previous laws, approve with their signatures (Chapter 4).

This also includes the decisions of the council on a new national collection for the ransom of prisoners (Chapter 72); about the hierarchical and monastic settlements and their relation to the settlements (Ch. 98); on non-conviction certificates (Ch. 67), etc.

It is also known that the tsar had in mind to submit to the council a number of very important questions: about parochialism, about the organization of the service, about estates and estates, about taverns, myts, etc., but these questions are not included in Stoglav, so that one cannot say whether they were discussed at the council or not.

Despite such an abundance and variety of questions posed, the council gave its answers in a relatively short time; the sessions, which were opened on February 23, ended by the beginning of May, since by May 11, the council decrees were communicated to the Trinity Monastery for viewing and returned from there.

Both in the selection of the material and in the very formulation of the questions, those turbulent currents of social thought that have agitated Moscow society since the emergence of the heresy of the Judaizers could not but affect. The two struggling parties among the clergy and cultured society - the Josephites and the non-possessors - had to clash not only at the council, but also during the period of preparations for it.

The convening of a council to discuss church disorders was not at all in the interests of the Josephite majority. The initiative in this matter could most likely come either from the metropolitan or from the environment of the party of non-possessors.

It is known that the metropolitan wrote to the tsar an extensive "answer" in defense of the patrimonial rights of the church. It could have been drawn up only before the council, because after the decisions of the council on the same subject, such a message was completely superfluous. This means that questions were raised about the secularization of church property, and the Metropolitan was asked for instructions as to why he wrote his "answer."

All these considerations speak in favor of the conjecture that the initiative for convening the council and its program came from the environment of non-possessors who, with the help of the Chosen Rada and with the assistance of the Metropolitan, outlined a wide range of reforms in the field of church and state administration.

The non-possessors, as it were, were preparing to give the Josephites a general battle, but the victory remained on the side of the latter; at the council they were in the majority, and on many controversial issues they were supported by the metropolitan.

This outcome of the struggle also influenced the further fate of the few influential opponents of the Josephites: Artemy and Cassian lost their places, the first, moreover, was tried and exiled to prison.

It fell to the lot of those who were not at all interested in this to carry out the resolution of the council, and the metropolitan could not do anything without active support. Naturally, under such conditions "almost everything legalized by the cathedral was forgotten and everything went on as before, as if the cathedral had never happened at all, whose acts turned into a simple historical monument."

Literature

• Ilya Belyaev, On the Historical Significance of the Acts of the Moscow Cathedral in 1551, RB, 1858, No. 4;
• his, Instruction lists of the cathedral code of 1551 or S., 1863;
• I. Dobrotvorsky, Additional explanations for the publication of S., PS, 1862, p. 3;
• his, Canonical book of S. or non-canonical, PS, 1863, parts 1 and 2;
• Met. Macarius, History of the Church, vol. 6; I. Zhdanov, Materials for the history of the Stoglav Cathedral, ZhMNP, 1876, Nos. 7 and 8;
• L. N., Newly discovered handwritten S. 16 century, BV, 1899, Nos. 9 and 10; E. Golubivsky, History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 771-793 and 892.

Sources of

• Christianity: Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 3 volumes: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1995.

The process of strengthening state power inevitably again raised the question of the position of the church in the state. The tsarist government, whose sources of income were few, and whose expenses were high, looked with envy at the riches of churches and monasteries.

At a meeting between the young tsar and Metropolitan Macarius in September 1550, an agreement was reached: monasteries were forbidden to establish new settlements in the city, and to establish new courtyards in old settlements. Posad people who fled from the tax to the monastic settlements, in addition, were "taken out" back. This was dictated by the needs of the state treasury.

However, such compromise measures did not satisfy the state authorities. In January-February 1551, a church council was assembled, at which the tsarist questions, compiled by Sylvester and imbued with a non-acquisitive spirit. The answers to them amounted to one hundred chapters of the judgment of the cathedral, which received the name Stoglavy, or Stoglav. The tsar and his entourage were worried, "Is it worthy of the monasteries to acquire land, to receive various privileged letters. By the decision of the cathedral, the tsar's aid to monasteries with villages and other possessions was stopped. Stoglav forbade the monastic treasury to give money for" growth "and bread in" nasp ", that is, at interest, thereby depriving the monasteries of their permanent income.

A number of participants Stoglava Cathedral(the Josephites) met the program set forth in the king's questions with fierce resistance.

The program of the tsarist reforms, outlined by the Chosen Rada, was rejected in the most significant points by the Stoglava Council. The wrath of Ivan IV fell upon the most prominent representatives of the Josephites. On May 11, 1551 (that is, a few days after the completion of the council), the monasteries' purchase of patrimonial lands "without reporting" to the tsar was prohibited. All the boyars' lands were taken away from the monasteries, which they transferred there when Ivan was young (from 1533). Thus, the control of the royal power over the movement of church land funds was established, although the possessions themselves remained in the hands of the church. The church retained its possessions after 1551.

At the same time, transformations were carried out in the inner life of the church. The previously created pantheon of all-Russian saints was approved, and a number of church rites were unified. Measures were also taken to eradicate the immorality of the clergy.

The fate of the reforms of the 50s of the XVI century.

It is generally accepted that the reforms of the Chosen Rada were carried out in order to strengthen the social position of the nobility, as opposed to the conservative boyars that hinder this process. VB Kobrin managed to prove that practically all strata of society were interested in strengthening the state. Therefore, the reforms were carried out not to please any one class and not against any class. The reforms meant the formation of the Russian estate-representative state. At the same time, a reasonable balance was implied and implemented in practice in the distribution of power between a number of estates (Zemsky Sobors), the government (the Chosen Rada) and the tsar. It took time for this system to be approved. Due to a number of circumstances, the balance of power structures became unstable already in the first half of the 1950s. Reform activity was brought to naught in the 60s by external (Livonian War) and internal (oprichnina) reasons. The personality of Tsar Ivan - a man of statesmanship, but with a hypertrophied developed lust for power, and, possibly, on this basis with some mental deviations - also meant a lot here. Subsequently, as if to justify their actions, Ivan IV wrote that Adashev and Sylvester"They themselves ruled as they wanted, but the state was removed from me: the word was the sovereign, but he did not own anything." However, modern historians assign him a slightly different place in public affairs. "The participation of Ivan IV in government activities in the 60s does not contradict the fact that many reforms (perhaps even most of them) were conceived by the leaders of the Chosen Rada. The main merit of Ivan IV during these years was that he called for such politicians to rule. like Adashev and Sylvester, and, apparently, really obeyed their influence ", - VB Kobrin writes.

The break with the confidants did not come immediately. Their hesitation during Ivan's illness in 1553, strained relations with the relatives of the Queen Zakharyin and, possibly, with her herself, lead to psychological incompatibility. The desire to pursue an independent policy - external and internal - leads to political incompatibility. By the fall of 1559, reform activities ceased. In 1560 the denouement takes place. Sylvester was sent into exile: first to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, then to the Solovetsky Monastery. A.Adashev was sent to the army operating in Livonia, but was soon arrested together with his brother Danil. Only death (1561) saved the former head of the Chosen Council from further persecution.

The process of strengthening state power inevitably again raised the question of the position of the church in the state. The tsarist government, whose sources of income were few, and whose expenses were high, looked with envy at the riches of churches and monasteries.

At the meeting of the young tsar with Metropolitan Macarius in September 1550, an agreement was reached: monasteries were forbidden to establish new settlements in the city, and to establish new courtyards in old settlements. Posad people who fled from the tax to the monastic settlements, in addition, were "taken out" back. This was dictated by the needs of the state treasury.

However, such compromise measures did not satisfy the state authorities. In January-February 1551, a church council was assembled, at which the royal questions, compiled by Sylvester and imbued with a non-acquisitive spirit, were read. The answers to them amounted to one hundred chapters of the judgment of the cathedral, which received the name Stoglavy, or Stoglav. The tsar and his entourage were worried, “is it worthy of the monasteries to acquire land, to receive various privileged certificates. By the decision of the cathedral, the royal
assistance to monasteries that have villages and other possessions. Stoglav forbade the monastic treasury to give money for "growth" and bread for "nasp", ie. - at interest than
deprived the monasteries of a permanent income.

The centralization of the Orthodox cult began in 1549. A list of revered saints has been compiled, which did not include almost any of the appanage princes and princes of the former great principalities. Political maxims alien to Moscow views are excluded from the Lives. The canonization of new saints henceforth only by decision of the metropolitan and the consecrated cathedral.

Stoglavy Cathedral = Zemsky. Approved the code of law.

Metropolitan Macarius relied on the Josephite majority. The property of the church is unshakable. But internal church discipline has been strengthened.

Protopopes, priest's elders and ten's priests - supervise the parish clergy, the correspondence of books and the writing of icons.

The canons were approved based on the samples of the 15th century.

Learning to read and write - at the churches.

Two-fingered cross (Old Believers will refer to this in the 17th century).

Fixed sums for church sacraments (crown).

Strict order in monasteries (to drink "in moderation", monks and nuns cannot live in the same monastery, etc.).

The clergy are not under the jurisdiction of the secular authorities. True, in the hierarchical court were included the metropolitan boyars, elders, tenth priests, zemstvo elders and kisselovalniks.

But no amount of centralization got rid of heresies. In the struggle against them, the church and the secular authorities are united.

Heresies of Theodosius the Kosoy and Matvey Bashkin.

Union of the Church and the Secular Authority in Missionary Activity in the Volga Region.

A number of participants in the Stoglav Council (the Josephites) met the program set forth in the tsarist questions with fierce resistance.

The program of the tsarist reforms, outlined by the Chosen Rada, was rejected in the most significant points by the Stoglavy Sobor. The wrath of Ivan IV fell upon the most prominent representatives of the Josephites. On May 11, 1551 (that is, a few days after the completion of the council), the monasteries' purchase of patrimonial lands “without reporting” to the tsar was prohibited. All the boyars' lands were taken from the monasteries, which they transferred there when Ivan was young (from 1533). Thus, the control of the royal power over the movement of church land funds was established, although the possessions themselves remained in the hands of the church. The church retained its possessions after 1551.

At the same time, transformations were carried out in the inner life of the church. The previously created pantheon of all-Russian saints was approved, and a number of church rites were unified. Measures were also taken to eradicate the immorality of the clergy.

The meaning of Ivan's reforms 4

1. Contributed to the strengthening of the autocracy.

2. Created the foundations of the state apparatus of a centralized state.

3. Contributed to a change in the balance of power within the class of feudal lords in favor of the nobility.

4. The personal power of the king is strengthened.

5. An important step has been taken towards the creation of a class society. The estates received their own internal organization and their own self-government bodies. The authorities already had to not only dictate, but also negotiate with them.

6. As a result of the reforms, the nobles, as persons representing the power of the state, lost some of their rights and influence, but acquired new weight and significance as the top of the emerging noble class. With the growing role and importance of noble associations in the life of the country, the nobility, relying on their support, could take a more independent position in relation to their monarch.