The first heresies. Heresies and sects of the first three centuries of Christianity

The strengthening of Christian communities was achieved at the cost of a very fierce internal struggle, which for the most part took the form of disputes over dogma. But behind these dogmas there were different ideological currents that belonged to different national and class groups and reflected their interests.

Already in the 1st century. There were currents within Christian communities that fought among themselves. The Revelation of John mentions the Nicolaitan heretics, about whom, however, nothing definite is known. In the II century. In Christianity there was a fierce struggle between individual sects and movements. The most interesting are the Gnostic movements, including the Marcionites, and the Montanist movement.

The question of the role of Gnosticism in early Christianity is quite complex. The word “gnosis” in Greek means knowledge, knowledge, which among the Gnostics was reduced to the mystical knowledge of God. Gnostics are mystical philosophers who argued that a person can understand with his mind the secret of deity and the essence of the world. Historians of Christianity usually view Gnosticism as a side branch of this religion, as a heresy, a sectarian creed, which was soon suppressed by orthodox Christian theologians. On the contrary, other scientists, primarily A. Dreve, believe that Gnosticism did not grow on the basis of Christianity, but, on the contrary, Christianity on the basis of Gnosticism, that is, Gnosticism is older than Christianity. There is, apparently, some truth in both points of view: early Gnostic teachings (1st-2nd centuries) really influenced the formation of Christian ideology. For example, the philosophy of the Gnostic Philo of Alexandria, whom some consider the “father of Christianity.” Later Gnostic teachings, starting from the middle of the 2nd century. came to be seen later as deviations from “true” Christianity.

The essence of the teachings of the Gnostics, which grew on the basis of late Hellenistic idealistic philosophy, was the dualistic opposition of the bright, good spirit and dark matter full of suffering. The good great god, the spirit of the pleroma (το πλήρωμα - literally “fullness”), could not be the creator of such a bad world. The world was created by some subordinate, evil and limited god. Some Gnostics identified him with the Jewish Yahweh. There is no direct contact between the inaccessible good god and the base material world. But between them there is a mediator, the divine logos (word, meaning, reason), which can save suffering humanity and lead it into the kingdom of the bright spirit-god. True, this is not available to all people, but only to a select few, people of the spirit, “pneumatics” (from the Greek πνεύμα - spirit, breath).

The Gnostic doctrine of logos passed into Christianity, merging into the image of Christ the Savior. This is especially evident in the fourth gospel (“John”), permeated with a Gnostic spirit (“In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God...”; Chapter 1, Art. 1). But unlike Christians (Judeo-Christians), most Gnostics decisively rejected the entire Jewish religion, considering the Jewish god Yahweh to be an evil being, contrasting him with their bright great god and savior-logos. This rejection of Judaism was especially sharply expressed in the sermon of Marcion (mid-2nd century), who completely rejected the entire Old Testament. In the teachings of Marcion and other Gnostics, anti-Jewish sentiment reached its highest point. Christianity, however, did not follow this path, but, on the contrary, tried to reconcile the Jewish religion with the cult of the savior.

However, Gnosticism could not become the dominant movement in Christianity simply because it was the worldview of philosophically educated, sophisticated intellectuals, rich people, a teaching inaccessible to the broad masses. The common people needed a living image of a savior, and not an abstract philosophical logos and similar speculative speculations. But still, some of the Gnostic philosophy entered the Christian faith.

Another heretical movement, which also arose in the 2nd century, was an attempt to revive the fighting spirit of Judeo-Christianity in the 1st century. The founder of the sect, Montanus, a former priest of Cybele in Phrygia - however, very little is known about him - resolutely opposed any regulation of church life, against the growing power of bishops. He was a charismatic and preached on behalf of God himself (“I am the Lord God Almighty, who dwells in man,” he said), adhered to and demanded extreme asceticism and celibacy (although his followers did not comply with this requirement), and proclaimed the imminent second coming of Jesus Christ and the end of the world. It was a hopeless attempt to return Christianity to its original revolutionary-democratic path and stop the inevitable process of transforming Christianity into a peaceful religion beneficial to those in power. Montanism was widespread mainly in Phrygia. The prominent Christian apologist Tertullian also joined him, although he glossed over the revolutionary side of this teaching.

By the middle of the 2nd century. In Christian communities, wealthy slave owners and traders had already firmly seized power. They managed to suppress all democratic sentiments. In the struggle against Montanism, for strengthening the episcopal organization of the church, the doctrine of apostolic succession of episcopal power was created, that Christ himself, through the apostles, transferred power to the bishops and authorized them to lead the church in matters of faith.

After overcoming the mystical and eschatological movements of the 2nd century. in the 3rd century new sects appear. Of these, the Manichaean sect, which spread in the East, Iran and neighboring countries, is especially characteristic. It was a peculiar combination of Christianity and Zoroastrianism - a sharply dualistic creed. Named after the semi-legendary Mani (Manes, Manichaeus), executed in 276. The main thing in the teachings of the Manichaeans is the idea of the polar opposite of light and darkness, good and evil. The world we see, including people, is generated by the mixing of particles of light with particles of darkness. Jesus, embodied in a ghostly body, taught people to separate light from darkness, good from evil. Mani taught the same thing. The Manichaeans rejected the entire Old Testament and most of the New Testament. Their communities were divided into classes: the upper class - the “chosen”, the “purest” - participated in all religious rites, others only in some. After the transformation of Christianity into the state religion, the Manichaean sect was suppressed, but its ideas were later revived in the medieval sects of the Paulicians, Bogomils, and others.

The most militant was the heresy of the Donatists (named after Bishop Donatus), which spread mainly in North Africa in the 4th century. The Donatists rebelled against any compromise with state power and did not recognize bishops and priests who had stained themselves in any way, even in their personal lives. As the crisis of the slaveholding Roman Empire worsened, the Donatist movement towards the end of the 4th century. (when the Christian Church had already become dominant in the empire) took the form of an open uprising of the poor against the rich: this is the well-known movement of agonists (Christ's warriors), or circumcellions, who, with weapons in their hands, destroyed the estates of the rich. The government had difficulty suppressing the movement, but Donatist communities in some areas of North Africa survived until the Muslim conquest (7th century).

But if the Donatist agonists on dogmatic issues almost did not diverge from the dominant doctrine and their movement did not give rise to a deep split in the church, then it turned out differently with the heresy of Arius, the largest opposition movement in the church of the 4th century, after it had become dominant. The main center of Arianism was Egypt, especially Alexandria, where Hellenistic traditions were very strong. Arius was a priest in Alexandria. He did not accept the main dogma of the official Christian church about the God-man, according to which God the Son is consubstantial with God the Father. According to Arius, Jesus Christ was not born by God, but created by him, therefore, he is not “consubstantial” with God the Father, but “similar in essence” to him. The difference between these two words in Greek was expressed in one letter “ι”: “ὁμοιούσιος” and “ὁμοούσιος,” but this difference seemed extremely important at that time. After all, we were talking about the nature of Jesus Christ - the savior, and this was the basis of the foundations of Christian doctrine. Heated debates erupted around Arius' sermon. Arius was supported by a large majority of the population of Egypt, especially Alexandria, and it came to street fights.

Behind this, of course, lay political motives: the reluctance of the Egyptian people to tolerate the centralizing policies of the empire. But it was precisely for the emperor that the most important thing then was to preserve the unity of the state. Emperor Constantine, although he himself was not yet a Christian, took energetic measures to overcome the schism. He convened an ecumenical council of the clergy on this occasion (1st ecumenical council of 325 in Nicaea). The heresy of Arius was condemned, and Arius himself has since been considered in the Orthodox Church the most terrible heretic and sinner. However, Arianism continued to exist for a long time. It spread beyond the borders of the empire, it was adopted by the Goths, Vandals, Lombards, who later, however, converted to Catholicism.

Arianism was defeated, but soon the teaching of Nestorius (Bishop of Constantinople), close to it, appeared. Nestorius taught that Jesus Christ was a man who was only externally united with the second person of the Trinity - God the Son, and that therefore the Virgin Mary should not be called the Mother of God, but the Mother of Man or the Mother of Christ. The heresy of Nestorius was discussed at the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431). Nestorianism was condemned. However, it had a very strong influence in the East, where dualistic religions have long dominated. In the East, it remained as an independent religion for a long time; it played a major role in medieval Central Asia and is preserved to this day among certain small nationalities (Aisors, Maronites in Lebanon, “Syrian Christians” in South India).

In the fight against Arianism and Nestorianism in the IV-V centuries. an opposite current appeared on the same question about the nature of Jesus Christ. Representatives of this school of thought taught that Jesus Christ was not essentially human, that in him the divine nature so suppressed the human nature that Jesus Christ was in the fullest sense God. There were not two, but one nature in him - divine. This doctrine of the “one nature” of Jesus Christ gave rise to the Monophysite (from Greek (μόνος - one, φύσις - nature) sect, founded by Bishop Eutyches. It gained widespread influence in the Eastern Roman Empire in the 5th century. Despite its condemnation by the 4th by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), it was strengthened in a number of countries. This manifested the struggle of these countries for church and political independence from Byzantium. The Armenian Church, as well as the Copts and Abyssinians, still adhere to Monophysitism.

Another heretical movement, which also arose in the 2nd century, was an attempt to revive the fighting spirit of Judeo-Christianity in the 1st century. The founder of the sect, Montanus, a former priest of Cybele in Phrygia - however, very little is known about him - resolutely opposed any regulation of church life, against the growing power of bishops. He was a charismatic and preached on behalf of God himself (“I am the Lord God Almighty, abiding in man,” he said), adhered to and demanded extreme asceticism and celibacy (although his followers did not comply with this requirement), and proclaimed the imminent second coming of Jesus Christ and the end of the world. It was a hopeless attempt to return Christianity to its original revolutionary-democratic path and stop the inevitable process of transforming Christianity into a peaceful religion beneficial to those in power. Montanism was widespread mainly in Phrygia. The prominent Christian apologist Tertullian also joined him, although he glossed over the revolutionary side of this teaching.

Arianism was defeated, but soon the teaching of Nestorius (Bishop of Constantinople), close to it, appeared. Nestorius taught that Jesus Christ was a man who was only externally united with the second person of the Trinity - God the Son, and that therefore the Virgin Mary should be called not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Man or the Mother of Christ. The heresy of Nestorius was discussed at the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431). Nestorianism was condemned. However, it had a very strong influence in the East, where dualistic religions have long dominated. In the East, it remained as an independent religion for a long time; it played a major role in medieval Central Asia and is preserved to this day among certain small nationalities (Aisors, Maronites in Lebanon, “Syrian Christians” in South India).

Name Ecumenical received councils, which are convened on behalf of the entire Christian church to resolve questions about the truths of doctrine and are recognized by the entire church as the indisputable sources of canon law. There are only seven ecumenical councils that would be accepted by both the Western and Eastern Christian churches, although Catholics continue to gather their councils, calling them Ecumenical, to this day (there are already 21 of them). The need to convene councils was due to the accumulation of contradictions that required resolution at the level of introducing additional dogmas and condemning unlawful points of view that distorted Christian teaching.

I Ecumenical Council, held in the city of Nicaea (and therefore sometimes called Nicaea), was convened by Emperor Constantine I (306–337) in 325 in order to condemn the point of view of the Alexandrian bishop Arius. The fact is that the position of orthodox Christianity at this point was to recognize the equality of God and his son Jesus. Arius rejected such equality, appealing to simple common sense, which asserts that a son is never equal to his father. The Son of God is not a son in the essential sense of the word, but is a spiritual offspring of God. The relationship of blood connection between them was introduced precisely in order to emphasize the subordinate attitude of Jesus in relation to God the Father. Arianism, which by this time had found numerous followers in the Middle East and North Africa, was anathema as a heresy, since it denied the dogma of consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. In addition, the first seven provisions were formulated at the Council of Nicea Creed(a set of dogmatic rules outlining the essence of Christian doctrine) and a hierarchy of the main dioceses was formed. The Roman, Alexandrian, Antioch and Jerusalem churches were recognized as the most revered and respected due to their long origin and unshakable spiritual authority.

II Ecumenical Council, assembled in 381 in Constantinople, finally approved the Creed, introducing the five remaining provisions there. Representatives of the Christian clergy, gathered from all over the Roman Empire, had to make every effort to refute the claims of the followers of Arianism, who considered the Holy Spirit to be the product of Jesus alone. The Trinitarian dogma formulated at the Second Ecumenical Council included provisions on the equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as well as on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Some changes took place in the administrative structure of the Christian Church. The second most important church after the Roman Church was proclaimed that of Constantinople, which was the result of the strengthening of the eastern part of the Roman Empire with its capital in Constantinople and, accordingly, an increase in the importance of the bishop of Constantinople.

III Ecumenical Council passed the city of Ephesus in 431 under the sign of disputes about the nature of Jesus. The fact is that the Bishop of Constantinople Nestorius defended the point of view according to which Jesus was originally born a man, and his communion with the divine essence took place only at the moment of baptism. As a result of long disputes between representatives of various Christian communities, the teachings of Nestorius and his followers (later became known as Nestorianism) was condemned as a heresy, and the dogma was the assertion that Christ by nature was the God-man, therefore he could not have any separate human nature. Both natures of Christ - divine and human - form a single Hypostasis (Christological dogma). Despite the official condemnation at the Council of Ephesus, Nestorianism continued to actively spread to the East, acquiring a large number of followers among the Turks and Mongols. Supporters of Nestorianism made up a significant part of the Mongol tribes back in the 13th century, when the gradual displacement of Christianity from Asia by the growing strength of Islam began.

IV Ecumenical Council, which received the name of Chalcedon, was assembled 20 years after Ephesus, in 451, to condemn the heresy opposite to Nestorianism. Trying to protect himself from highlighting the human nature of Christ, the priest of Constantinople Eutyches leaned towards the point of view according to which in Christ the human and divine natures were fused together, with the dominant side being the divine nature - the teaching of Eutyches is therefore called monophysitism(from the Greek mono - one and phusis - nature). Having anathematized the Monophysit concept, the bishops who gathered at the Fourth Ecumenical Council formulated the position that Jesus Christ has two natures using the following formulation: these natures are united “unfused and unchangeable” (against Monophysitism) and “indivisibly and inseparably” (against Nestorianism).

V Ecumenical Council was again assembled in Constantinople, but already in 553. The main purpose of its convocation was the return of internal unity to the Christian faith, which was undermined by the emergence of the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies. After the previous council, at which the condemnation of Monophysitism was proclaimed, supporters of this movement argued that opponents, trying to discredit their teaching, had fallen into the Nestorian heresy. The followers of three Syrian bishops (Theodore of Mopsuet, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa), in whose texts there were really strong Nestorian motifs, were subjected to anathema in order to facilitate the return of the Monophysites to the bosom of the Christian church, which was the main result of this council.

VI Ecumenical Council was convened by the Patriarch of Constantinople in Constantinople in 680–681, and the main reason for its convocation was the emergence of a new movement in Christianity - monothelitism, which questioned the Christological dogma. The Monothelites argued that, despite Jesus having two natures, he had only one will, and this will was divine in origin. This position created a threat to the perception of Jesus as a holistic entity, harmoniously combining different natures, since it focused attention on the role of the divine component of the nature of Christ. At the council, monothelitism was recognized as a heretical movement, and a decision was made, satisfying the entire Christian world, according to which Jesus had two natures and, accordingly, two wills - divine and human, but his human will was submissive to the divine will, which completely excluded possible contradictions. Confirmation of the Christological dogma thus formulated was finally carried out only eleven years later, in 692, at a meeting of the highest hierarchs of the Christian church in the Trullo Chambers of the royal palace in Constantinople. Sometimes this meeting is separated into a separate cathedral, giving it the name of Trullo.

VII Ecumenical Council, which became the last of those officially recognized by the Orthodox Church, was assembled in Nicaea in 787 by the Byzantine Empress Irene. Its convocation was preceded by many years of persecution aimed by the Byzantine emperors at eradicating icons, allegedly being a legacy of pagan idolatry. At the Council of Nicaea, such views were rejected as heretical, the dogmatic essence of the icon depicting the divine face of Jesus or saints was proclaimed, and permission was officially proclaimed to use icons in the process of worship, to keep them in churches, etc.

In the traditional sense, the concept of “heresy” means any statement that contradicts the teachings of the Christian Church. Specifically in Orthodoxy, this is a deliberate distortion of dogmas, delusion regarding them and stubborn resistance to the Truth set out in the Holy Scriptures.

The attitude of the holy fathers to heresy

The Holy Fathers classify heretics as people who deliberately alienate themselves from religion and faith itself. What distinguishes them from true Christians is a worldview that is inconsistent with the orthodox opinion of the Church. In its depths, heresy is a hidden rejection of the teachings of Christ, outright blasphemy.

On a note! Ancient Christian writers consider the biblical character Simon the Magus to be the founder of heresy. The first mention of this man can be found in the Acts of the Apostles. The book indicates that Simon considered himself a grandiose being who performed miracles and the “True Messiah.”

When Peter and John arrived in Jerusalem, the Magus, seeing their divine power of bringing down the Holy Spirit on man, decided to buy this gift. The apostles rejected Simon and denounced him, so the sale and purchase of sacred sacraments began to be called “simony.” From ancient Greek this word is translated as “choice” or “direction”. Heresy was understood as a religious movement or school of philosophy. For example, in the Bible the Pharisees and Sadducees were called such.

Modern representatives of heresy preach views that contradict what is contained in the Bible

The Apostle Peter in his letters predicted the emergence of a movement opposite to Christian teaching. He said that there were false prophets before, and in the future false teachers will come, bringing corrupting and blasphemous knowledge. Peter predicted heretics, as those who had departed from Truth and God, would soon die and put them on a par with idolaters and sorcerers.

The concept acquires a certain semantic connotation in the letters of the New Testament apostles. Here heresy is considered to be in complete opposition to the true (orthodox) doctrine and gradually turns into a cruel denial of Revelation taught by God. In the New Testament, the concept is already more than just a line of thought; it deliberately seeks to distort the fundamental foundations of Christian teaching.
From the point of view of the science of asceticism - a section of theology that studies rebirth in the course of asceticism - heresy is an extreme error that does not decrease from the evidence of orthodox teaching and becomes stable. The term combines numerous vicious states of mind (pride, self-will, seduction).
Saint Basil the Great precisely defined the essence of all heretical teachings. He believed that such trends are alienating from Orthodoxy and distorting the dogmas set forth in the Holy Scriptures. The monk spoke about the great difference in the very way of believing in the Almighty Creator.
Bishop Nikodim notes: in order to receive the mark of a heretic, it is enough to doubt at least one dogma of the Christian Church, without affecting the foundations of the Orthodox tradition.
Saint I. Brianchaninov believes that heretical teaching secretly rejects Christianity itself. It arose after idolatry had completely lost its power over the minds of people. Since then, the devil has made every effort to prevent people from being able to fully surrender to saving knowledge. He invented a heresy by means of which he allowed his followers to have the appearance of Christians, but in their souls to blaspheme.

On a note! Heresies are divided into triadological and Christological. The first include monarchianism and Arianism, teachings that were condemned at the first Ecumenical Councils. This also includes the Sawellians, Photinians, Doukhobors, Anomeans, etc. The categories of Christological heresies include: Nestorianism, Monothelistism and Iconoclasm.

During the Reformation comes European rationalism, and after variations of Manichaeism and Nestorianism.

The essence and formation of heresy

The early Christian Church carefully ensured that the teaching remained in its original purity, resolutely rejecting various distortions of orthodox knowledge. Therefore, the term “Orthodoxy” appeared, which means “correct knowledge or teaching. Since the 2nd century, this concept has absorbed the strength and faith of the entire Church, and the term “heterodoxy” has since that time been used to designate something other than the words of Truth.

Heresy is complete opposition to the true (orthodox) creed.

E. Smirnov notes that in heretical views distorting the divine teaching of Christ there is a systematized sequence, moving from a general concept to a particular one. This happened because Christianity was accepted by pagans and Jews who were not ready to fully renounce idolatry and Judaism. Accordingly, there was a mixture of orthodox knowledge and those ideas that were in the minds of the newcomers.

This is where all the misconceptions regarding church teaching come from.

The Jewish heretics (Ebionites) sought to merge their own knowledge with Christianity, and soon completely subjugate it. The pagans (Gnostics and Manichaeans) wanted to create a symbiosis of orthodox teaching, Eastern religions and the philosophical system of Greece.
After the Church was able to reject the first stream of false teachings, other heresies came to replace them, which gained strength on the basis of Christianity itself. The subject of this deliberate distortion was the dogma of the Holy Trinity, and thus anti-Trinitarians appeared.
Further, heresies delve into more and more specific issues, for example, the Second Person of the One God. This heresy was called Arianism and appeared at the beginning of the 4th century.

On a note! Since the literature of false teaching was destroyed by the ministers of the Church, information can be found in the writings of those who exposed them.

Ardent fighters against the distortion of true doctrine include: Origen, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Clement of Alexandria, St. Augustine, St. Theodoret and many others. The Church also denies other forms of apostasy; it opposes schism and parasynagogue (a private gathering of clergy).

Anathema to heretics

Violation of Christ's commandments is associated with a person's personal desire and the harmful contamination of the poisonous filth of sinfulness. God created the Church in order to attract fallen souls to good deeds. A religious worldview allows a Christian to fall away from vice, growing spiritually and becoming like the One who personally showed an example of true being. Then it becomes clear that violators of Heavenly Law are necessary and are no exception.

All the fight against heresies that the Church wages is done only for the sake of human salvation

Sinfulness in itself does not become grounds for immediate separation from the Lord. If this happened, the Church would gradually become empty, and evil would increase on earth. This state of affairs pleases only the devil, and not the merciful God the Father.
Correction exists for wicked people, but this does not mean that there is no limit to the crimes committed. Excommunication can occur if a person begins to violate the Laws of God to one degree or another. Such punishments are used for correction and further unification with Christ. Excommunication does not aim to completely forget the sinner and does not want to deprive him of hope of returning to God.
Heretics deserve special criticism and condemnation, because they absolutely do not want to hear the voice of Christian knowledge, do not want to renounce error and purify their souls. By such behavior, a person demonstrates self-will and accepts some other faith, different from the orthodox one.
When the Church anathematizes a heretic, it shows that the person excommunicated himself because he personally refused to accept the Orthodox tradition as true. Sometimes heretics are called pagans who worship a newly created god and create an imaginary truth. It is very important for them not to believe in the teachings disseminated by the Church.

On a note! There is some difference between errors of judgment and heresy. They become heretics as a result of a long process, an incorrect movement towards excommunication. Even realizing their own mistake, such freethinkers continue to persist in their arguments.

According to the first messages of St. Paul shows what freedom the Gospel preaching enjoyed at that time. The missionaries went, at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, either to countries that had not yet heard the gospel preaching, or to cities where there were already Christian communities. Paul refrained from the latter: he made it a rule “not to build on someone else’s foundation”; if he stayed in Rome for quite a long time, it was against his wishes. But not everyone was so scrupulous. Hence, clashes arose between individuals, between different authorities, even between teachings. The doctrine introduced at the beginning was, of course, very simple: as I tried to show, it fit within the framework of the Jewish religious worldview. But the zeal of the first Christians was too ardent to remain inactive. In the field of thought, she showed herself to have an insatiable thirst for knowledge. The second coming of Christ, its time, conditions and consequences, image and duration, almost the location of his kingdom - all this aroused curiosity to the highest degree and caused that intense mental activity to which the Epistles to the Thessalonians testify. When the disputes about the obligatory nature of the Law and the mutual relations between the old Israel and the new church were over, the personality of its Founder, in turn, occupied the minds. How did He exist before appearing in the world? What place should be given to Him among the inhabitants of heaven? In what relationship was He before and is He now in relation to those mysterious forces that partly biblical traditions, but especially the speculations of Jewish schools, placed between the world and the infinitely perfect Being?

Both these and other questions gave rise to clarifications that grew, layered on the original grain of Christian teaching. This is what up. Paul called the superstructure (...) from which the highest knowledge flows (...). He allows for this further development of religious teaching and even works diligently in this direction. But he does not hide from himself that there are different ways of developing the original teaching and that, under the pretext of addition, it can easily be distorted.

This is exactly what happened in the Asian churches, as the epistles of St. Paul, addressed to them from Roman imprisonment. I am talking about the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. The first, apparently, had the character of a district epistle, individual copies of which were sent to different churches. It does not contain any local guidance. On the contrary, the Epistle to the Colossians precisely names those to whom it was intended. It is accompanied by a short note, the Epistle to Philemon.

These messages take us to the border region between Phrygia and the ancient regions of Lydia and Caria. Three large cities - Hierapolis, Laodicea, Colossae - were located here at a short distance from each other along the Lycus valley. Paul did not personally preach in this part of Asia; however, he was recognized here as an authority, a spiritual head; he probably sent one of his employees here. While he was in prison, Epaphras, one of the main ecclesiastical leaders of the area, visited him and informed him of the state of affairs within these communities. Paul decided to write those two letters that I have already mentioned; The extracts I quote below give an idea of the dogmatic difficulties that worried the minds of Asian Christians.

Last to the Colossians I, 15-20: (Jesus Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the first begotten of all creation; for by Him all things were created, that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible: whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers - all things were created by Him and for Him, and He is before all things, and by Him all things stand. And He is the head of the body of the Church; He is the firstfruits, the firstborn from the dead, that He might have preeminence in all things: for it pleased the Father that in Him all fullness should dwell, and that through Him He might reconcile all things to Himself, making peace through Him through the blood of His cross, both earthly and heavenly.”

Last to the Colossians Ch. II: “I want you to know what a feat I have for your sake and for the sake of those who are in Laodicea and Hierapolis, and for the sake of all who have not seen my face in the flesh. So that their hearts may be comforted, united in love for all the riches of perfect understanding, for the knowledge of the secrets of God and the Father and of Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will deceive you with insinuating words, for although I am absent in body, I am with you in spirit, rejoicing and seeing your prosperity and the strength of your faith in Christ. Therefore, just as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, being rooted and established in Him and strengthened in the faith, as you were taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware, brethren, lest anyone lead you away with philosophy and empty deception, according to human tradition, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Divine bodily, and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power; in Him you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the sinful body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in Him you were raised again by faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead, and you, who were dead in sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, revived along with Him, having forgiven you all your sins, having destroyed the handwriting of the decrees against us, which was against us and which He took from the environment and nailed to the cross, taking away the strength of the principalities and powers, imperiously subjecting them to shame, having triumphed over them with Himself.

So, let no one condemn you for eating or drinking, or for any holiday or New Year, or Saturday: this is a shadow of the future, but the body is in Christ. Let no one deceive you with self-willed humility and the ministry of angels, intruding into what he has not seen, being recklessly puffed up with his carnal mind and not holding fast to the head, from which the whole body, being united and held together by joints and bonds, grows with the age of God. So, if you and Christ died to the elements of the world, then why do you, as those living in the world, adhere to the regulations: do not touch, do not taste, do not touch (all this decays from use) - according to the commandments and teachings of man? - This has only the appearance of wisdom in self-willed service, humility and exhaustion of the body, in which there is neglect of the saturation of the flesh.

From these texts it is clear that the people against whom the ap. Paul, sought to introduce: 1) observance of holidays, new moons and Saturdays, 2) abstinence from certain types of food and rituals expressing humility, 3) worship of angels. Perhaps they were also talking about circumcision (II, 11), which the word humiliation apparently hints at. All this has quite a lot in common with Judaism, but this is no longer the polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians. We are not talking about the opposition between faith and the Law, but about special rites associated with a certain teaching, which they tried to establish as a further development of the apostolic preaching.

Behind this ritual reveals a special dogma, the predominant feature of which is the extreme importance attached to angels. The Apostle Paul does not go into detail; he rather expounds his teaching than examines the teaching of his opponents. But the insistence with which he asserts that everything was created by Jesus Christ and for His sake, that he had the first place in the work of creation and redemption, clearly proves that the Colossian teachers tried to belittle the importance of the Savior in the eyes of the Phrygian Christians. Further we will see how heretical teachings opposed angels to God, attributed to them the creation of the world and responsibility for evil, both moral and physical. Here the relationship between God and the angels is completely different. Angels are not the enemies of God, for they are worshiped and they are seen as completers of the work of salvation unfinished by Christ. However, these mediators between God and the world, this difference posited in the type of food, this humiliation of the flesh - all these are features that make it possible to bring together the false teachings that the ap. Paul was forced to eradicate in the Colossian church, with the ideas of the Judaizing Gnostic Sskt, which will soon appear before us.

This is the highest knowledge ... which the apostle teaches. The development of objective faith represents the development of the concept of Christ. It is easy to see that the expressions used in these epistles do not refer to the relationship between Christ and his heavenly Father. The expression "Word" was not spoken; Paul does not need him, because he is concerned only with the relationship between Christ and creation: they want to reduce Christ to the level of an angel, the apostle elevates Him above all creation and not only gives Him first place, but sees in Him the meaning, purpose and author of creation.

The doctrine of the church is connected with this high concept of Christ. The Church is the totality of beings to whom the work of salvation extends. God extends it as a free gift to all people without distinction of origin: Greeks and Jews, barbarians and Scythians, slaves and freemen. The church thus formed received everything from Jesus Christ: He is its justification, its life principle, its head, its leader. He came down from heaven to establish it, having completed the work of salvation on the cross; Having ascended to heaven, He continues in it the spread and completion of His work. He established within its bosom the various degrees of church ministry - apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers - in order to draw the saints to a common cause, into the sacred building that is the body of Christ. Through the action of Christ, through these instruments, we all grow in the same faith and knowledge, the object of which is still the same Son of God, we fulfill our calling, we reach the measure of the age of a perfect man, which is the possession of Christ in all His fullness.

Thus, in the church, every teaching comes from Jesus Christ, every advance in knowledge comes from Him and strives for a better knowledge of Him and His pleroma, that fullness of the Divinity that dwells in Him. The whole life of a Christian comes from Him and strives towards Him; this deep thought later found figurative expression in Alpha and Omega. John.

The danger that threatened this development of the doctrine lay in the vain philosophies of false teachers; changeable like the wind or the chance of a game generated by human depravity, they insidiously misled people who were not yet established in the true faith. Paul even hints that these theories, alien to tradition, tended to justify carnal sins.

The further course of events more than justified the apostle's fears. It is true that the documents which we have for assessing these first stages in the development of heresies take us back to a time quite distant from the era when Paul wrote to the Colossians; Moreover, they are more polemical than descriptive. From them, however, it clearly follows that long before the appearance of the famous Gnostic schools during the reign of Hadrian, teachings similar to them penetrated little by little everywhere, causing division between believers, perverting the Gospel and trying to turn it into a kind of justification for human weaknesses.

This state of the church is evidenced by the so-called Pastoral Epistles, of which two to Timothy seem to refer to circumstances occurring in Asia. The identity of the preachers of heresies no longer remains unknown as in the Epistle to the Colossians; their names are mentioned. This is Hymenaeus, Philetus, Alexander. They pretend to be teachers of the Law; their teachings are fables of Jewish origin; they appeal to weak, curious minds, tormented by a passionate thirst for knowledge, especially women, and occupy them with empty and cunning questions, myths, and endless genealogies. In the practical part of the teaching, they instilled an aversion to marriage and to certain types of food. As for the resurrection, they considered it already accomplished, i.e. They did not recognize any other resurrection except the moral one. In addition to the danger to which faith itself was exposed in interviews with these imaginary teachers, here lay the source of disputes that weakened the bonds of love.

The Pastoral Epistles tell us about the grief of St. Paul at the sight of so many tares in his apostolic harvest. In other historical monuments that testify to heresies and the concerns they aroused in the highest leaders of the church, we encounter not only sadness, but also indignation. This includes: the message of St. Jude, II Epistle. Peter, Reveal St. John. Heretics are denounced as theorists of immorality, who turn divine grace, the Gospel, into an instrument of lust; The most terrible punishments await them from the righteous judgment of God. Here again we are talking about refined myths, skillfully composed; other details are also reprehensible, but it is characterized by more energy than clarity.

In the seven epistles with which Revelation begins, St. John also speaks with great excitement. Propaganda leading to immorality is rampant in Asian churches; it permits fornication and eating meat sacrificed to idols. The doctrine connected with this loose morality is not expounded at all; it is only characterized by a strong expression: “the depths of Satan.” False teachers claim to be apostles, but they are not; They consider themselves Jews, but they are “a synagogue of Satan.” They are called by name twice: these are the Nicolaitans.

Of course, it is not with such information that one can form a clear understanding of the heresies widespread in Asia during the Apocalypse; Tradition also does not shed any light on this. St. Irenaeus knows about the Nicolaitan heresy only from the text of the Apocalypse; he sums up what is said about them there with the words: indiscrete vivunt (live disorderly). Clement of Alexandria knows just as little. However, both authors unanimously connect the Nicolaitan sect with the name of Deacon Nicholas, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles; but this is by no means proven. The Nicolaitans are not the only heretics encountered by the author of Revelation. Polycarp said that John, a disciple of the Lord, once entered Ephesus into the bathhouse and, seeing a certain Cerinthos there, immediately came out, saying: let's run away from here, the building may collapse, for Cerinthos, the enemy of the truth, is in it. St. Irenaeus, who preserved this story of Polycarp for us, gives some details about the teaching of Cerinthos, and St. Hippolytus adds several features to his presentation. From their words it is clear that Cerinthus was, in general, a Jewish teacher, devoted to the observance of the Sabbath, circumcision and other rites. Like the Palestinian Ebionites, he taught that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary, that God (...) soars too high above the world to deal with it except through intermediaries. One angel created the universe, another gave the Law; this latter is the God of the Jews. Both of them are so much lower than the Supreme Being that they have no idea about him. During the baptism of Jesus, the divine power emanating from the Supreme Deity - Christ (according to Irenaeus), the Holy Spirit (according to Hippolytus) - descended on Him and dwelt in Him until the beginning of His suffering.

Twenty years after the appearance of the Apocalypse, Ignatius, bishop, was hastily escorted through the province of Asia. Antioch, sentenced to death for professing the Christian faith and condemned to be torn to pieces by wild beasts in Rome. In the letters that he was able to write to some of the churches in this area, he in turn deals with the state of dogmatic questions and warns the believers against the heresies that are spreading among them.

What first of all strikes him is the tendency towards partisanship and splitting. In Philadelphia, he saw with his own eyes meetings of heretics.

“Some of them wanted to deceive me because of the weakness of my flesh, but the Spirit does not fall into error, for He is from God, He knows where he comes from and where he is going, and exposes everything secret. I cried out in the midst of their speeches, I cried out in a loud voice: hold on to the bishop, the presbyters and the deacons. Some of them thought that I was saying this because I knew about their division, but He is my witness, for whose sake I wear chains, it was not flesh, not man who revealed this to me. The Spirit says and teaches: do nothing without the bishop, guard your flesh as the temple of God, love harmony, flee strife, imitate Jesus Christ, as He did the Father.”

These meetings were convened at the initiative of itinerant preachers who went from city to city, sowing tares. They didn't always succeed. So, on the road from Philadelphia to Smyrna, Ignatius met heretical preachers returning from Ephesus, where they had no success. In all likelihood, Ignatius knew these heretics before his arrival in Asia and tried to warn the local churches against a new enemy for them, to which he himself was already accustomed.

The teaching that was instilled in the listeners at these meetings is, first of all, branded with the name of Judaism. Of course, we are no longer talking about simple Jewish adherence to the Law, but about speculation in which three elements are intertwined: ritual law, the Gospel and fantasies, alien to both. Jewish rites, once championed for their own value and as a means of salvation, now serve as a guide, an outer shell, for some rather strange religious doctrines. Ignatius often returns to Sabbath observance, circumcision, and other rites that he considers outdated. He insists on the authority of the New Testament and the prophets: these latter are connected with the Gospel and are indirectly opposed to the Law.

The Christology of the heretics, the only part of their teaching about which there are clear indications, has the character of docetism. “Be deaf when they tell you about anything other than Christ, the descendant of David, the son of Mary, who was really born, who ate food and drink, who was really persecuted under Pontius Pilate, who really was crucified, who really died in the presence of heaven, earth and hell who was truly resurrected by the power of God the Father.... If He suffered only in appearance, like this. some atheists claim, i.e. unbelievers who themselves live only in appearance, then why am I in chains? Why do I want to fight beasts? Will I die in vain? These expressions refer not only to the reality of the Savior's death and resurrection; they embrace His entire earthly life. They do not mean the teaching of Cerinthus, which can be called docetism in an improper sense, but real docetism, for example. Saturnil and Marcion, for whom Jesus Christ throughout his earthly life had only the appearance of flesh.

There is no indication of eschatology (the doctrine of the end of the world), but the insistence with which Ignatius emphasizes the reality of the resurrection of Christ and the hope of a personal resurrection makes us think that the heretics also rejected belief in the resurrection of the flesh. This denial deprived Christian morality of its most weighty sanction. The words of the Epistle to the Philadelphians: “Keep your body as the temple of God” give reason to think that the new teachings led to immorality, but this argument is too weak. The new heretics endanger the church not so much by their licentiousness as by their spirit of partisanship.

The teaching that St. Ignatius counters this illegal preaching, which is poorly developed in his epistles. But in his opinion the Old Testament was a true, although imperfect, religion; it has now been cancelled. Martyr Ignatius does not turn it into a series of allegories, but sees in it an introduction to the Gospel. Ignatius' Christology presents several remarkable features. Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man: “Our God, Jesus Christ, according to the dispensation of God was conceived in the womb of Mary from the seed of David, but from the Holy Spirit; He was born and baptized in order to purify the water with His suffering.” Ignatius resolutely insists on His existence before the incarnation: “There is only one physician, physical and spiritual, begotten and unborn, God in the flesh, true life in death, from Mary and from God, first subject and then not subject to suffering, our Lord Jesus Christ.” . The teaching about the Word of God is also known to St. Ignatius: “One is God, who revealed himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his word spoken after silence, who in all things pleased him who sent him.” This phenomenon in time does not prevent Jesus Christ from being outside and above time, from existing before all ages with God the Father.

At this distant time, heresies grew on the soil of Jewish mosaicism. All false teachers are lawyers, devoted to circumcision, the Sabbath and other rites. But they taught not only about the obligatory nature of the Law: they should not be confused with the simple-minded Jerusalem scribes and their Pharisee disciples, absorbed in canon law and interpretations of it. They are strictly theologians who widely take advantage of the comparative indifference of their co-religionists to everything that does not concern the observance of the Law in order to indulge in their learned fantasies. But they don't stop there. To the already petty Mosaic rituals they add sharply expressed asceticism, virginity, eating only plant foods and abstinence from wine. Those of them who accepted Christianity connect with their “Jewish fables” the new data introduced by the Gospel, and try to instill them in the converts along with their rules of strict life. In general, these were the Judaizing Gnostics, who in the primitive church preceded the invasion of philosophical Gnosticism.

Candidate of Historical Sciences Irina Karatsuba, in an interview with Lenta.ru, talks about how the trade in church officials in the 14th century helped the rise of Moscow, how a “Judaizer” Moscow clerk wrote the story of Dracula, and how Russian heretics laid the foundation for dissident traditions in Russia.

Irina Vladimirovna, there is a version that Christianity was widespread in Rus' long before its official baptism in 988, and that supposedly the first Russian Christians were the heretics - the Arians and Nestorians. Is it so?

: One of the most important problems of Russian historiography, especially of the ancient period, is the extreme scarcity of sources. This makes our situation radically different, for example, from Western Europe, where many medieval documents have been preserved. And in just the 17th century we had seven major fires in the Moscow Kremlin, when the paperwork of Moscow orders burned out, and not only that. And so few sources have survived from the pre-Mongol period of Russian history that almost any interpretation of the events of that time has the right to exist. In any case, it is clear that, for example, the chronicle date of the baptism of Rus', which you mentioned, is conditional.

Why?

Because it is not based on any documents, but only on the chronological calculations of the author of our oldest chronicle - the Tale of Bygone Years. It could actually have been a year earlier or a year later - different historians have different versions on this matter.

By the way, where was Prince Vladimir himself baptized? In Kyiv or in Korsun?

The situation is the same here. Very bad with sources. The most correct answer to this question is that it is unknown to science and is unlikely to ever be known. I will only say that of all the existing options, the version of baptism in Korsun is the most unlikely; most likely, it probably happened in Kyiv or near Kiev, in Vasilevo.

The word “heresy” in modern Russian has a clearly negative connotation. Heresy means all nonsense .

Certainly. The use of this word in a purely negative sense came from the church environment. The current Moscow Patriarchate often calls everything that it does not like heresy. In fact, heresy is a deviation from the official church doctrine, its ideology and philosophy.

But it's not all that simple. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians of the Holy Apostle Paul there are these words: “For there must also be differences of opinion among you, so that those who are skillful may be revealed among you.” But “heresy” translated from Greek is “another teaching,” “another opinion.” It turns out that heresy is the very difference of opinion about the usefulness of which the Apostle Paul writes. Christianity itself began as a heresy within Judaism. Many heresies arose from the denial of not only certain dogmas, but also certain church practices.

Let's take Russian medieval heresies. What complaints did they have against the Orthodox Church?

If we talk about the first major heretical movement in Rus' - the Strigolniki, which appeared first in Pskov, then in Novgorod in the 14th century, they denounced the widespread spread of simony.

What it is?

This is the “appointment of shepherds for compensation” - the sale and purchase of clergy titles and positions. Despite the fact that simony was repeatedly prohibited by the first Ecumenical Councils, at that time it was common in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. By the way, it was the problem of simony that indirectly contributed to the rise of Moscow.

How?

Metropolitan Peter of Kiev and All Rus' in the last years of his life moved from Vladimir to Moscow and supported Prince Ivan Kalita in his confrontation with Prince Alexander Mikhailovich of Tver. This largely predetermined the outcome of the struggle between Moscow and Tver for supremacy in North-Eastern Rus'. But why did he make such a decision? Yes, because fourteen years earlier, when he was appointed metropolitan, a loud scandal broke out. Tver had its own candidate for this place, so a council was held in Pereyaslavl, at which the Tver prince and clergy accused Peter of simony. And only the intercession of the Moscow prince Yuri Danilovich, brother of Ivan Kalita, saved the bishop from shame and removal from the department. So the Metropolitan became an ally of Moscow.

Let's get back to the strigolniki. What does this word mean?

Almost everything we know about them is known from church documents in which the Strigolniki were vehemently denounced. Therefore, it is very difficult to judge the essence of this religious movement from them.

The same goes for the name. There are several versions on this matter: either from the type of activity of one of the ideologists of the barber movement, Karp, or from the custom borrowed from Catholics of cutting a tonsure on the top of the head. Again, there are no exact sources to definitively answer this question.

Was the Strigolnik movement rightly called “heresy”?

In general, yes. They strongly criticized and rejected many church dogmas, for example, about the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Strigolniki exposed the vices and ulcers of the Orthodox Church. Moreover, they raised the question of the appropriateness of the institution of priesthood in the church. At the same time, they referred to the Gospel of Matthew, which directly says: “Do not be called teachers, for you have one Teacher - Christ, yet you are brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven; and do not be called instructors, for you have only one instructor—Christ.”

Tell us about the heresy of the Judaizers, which appeared in Novgorod in the next century. Where does such a politically incorrect name come from?

In scientific literature they are more often called the “Moscow-Novgorod heresy of anti-Trinitarians” because they also denied the Holy Trinity (lat. Trinitas - note from Lenta.ru). They rejected the divine hypostasis of Christ and many other dogmas. Anti-Trinitarians appealed to many Old Testament traditions, so opponents accused them of apostasy and conversion to Judaism. Hence the more well-known name for this heresy - “Judaizers.”

Were there any differences between the Strigolniks and the “Judaizers” in terms of social status?

Yes, there were. The ideas of the Strigolniks were popular mainly among common people; at best, their followers could be clerks or priests of remote Pskov and Novgorod parishes.

The heresy of the “Judaizers” was a more elitist movement. After their leaders move from Novgorod to Moscow, she penetrates the grand ducal court. In Moscow, the “Judaizers” actively became involved in the political struggle between various boyar groups. The last years of the reign of Ivan III passed, and the question was being decided who would become his heir - grandson Dmitry, who was crowned king with him during his grandfather’s lifetime, or Palaeologus’ son Vasily from Sophia. In the end, as you know, Vasily won, and Dmitry and his mother Elena Voloshanka were thrown into prison, where they later died.

Elena Voloshanka, the daughter of the Moldavian ruler, was precisely an active participant in the court circle of “Judaizers,” which was headed by Duma clerk Fyodor Kuritsyn. By the way, he was one of the most educated people of the Moscow state. He is the author of the very mysterious “Epistle of Laodicea,” the meaning of which is still being debated. Kuritsyn wrote one of the first works of Russian fiction - “The Tale of Dracula.”

About Dracula?

Yes, about that same Dracula, about the Wallachian ruler Vlad the Impaler, who under his pen appears as an “evil” ruler.

Another prominent “Judaizer” was Metropolitan Zosima. He is notable for the fact that about twenty years before the Pskov elder Philotheus, with his idea of Moscow as the third Rome, in the preface to his “Exposition of Paschal”, he formulated that Moscow should be the new “city of Constantine,” that is, Constantinople. Therefore, the “Judaizers” were outstanding intellectuals of their time. Strigolniki, of course, looked simpler against their background.

Was it no coincidence that the largest heresies in Russian Orthodoxy arose and took shape precisely in the Novgorod-Pskov land?

Yes, it's no coincidence. After the Mongol invasion, on the site of the once relatively united Kievan Rus, three entities arose, each of which could rightfully consider itself its heir. The first is Mister Veliky Novgorod, from which Pskov later spun off, where, by the way, there were more democratic orders. The second is the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia, a loose confederation where nine-tenths of the territory were former ancient Russian principalities. And finally, the third is the Grand Duchy of Moscow with its despotic orders.

As a result, Moscow was able to strengthen, expand and subjugate Novgorod, Pskov, other ancient Russian lands, and not only them. But that was later, and in the 14th century the economy of Novgorod and Pskov was closely connected with Europe. Therefore, new trends in Western thought actively penetrated there.

By the way, about Western trends. Is it possible to compare our Orthodox heretics with European Protestants? And is it correct to call these movements the forerunners of the failed Russian Reformation? ?

I think they can be compared. Look, they really have a lot in common - they all fought against hierarchy, icons, and the commercialization of the church. Although, as you know, any analogy is lame. But typologically, in their criticism and in their positive program - humanistic orientation, the need to know the Holy Scriptures and independently seek the path to God - medieval Russian heresies, of course, were similar to Protestantism, which took place on our soil much later.

On the other hand, similar motives - criticism of the vices of the church, the search for the true Christ, calls for a return to early, catacomb Christianity - would later be among the Old Believers during the schism of the 17th century. And now these ideas are in great demand among the Christian liberal intelligentsia.

You mentioned the Old Believers. Is it true that the Bespopovites are considered the main heirs of the ideas of the Strigolniks?

Yes. For them, too, one of the main questions is whether a person needs an intermediary between him and God. And even the Monk Nil of Sorsky, one of the leaders of the non-covetous movement (which was by no means a heresy), in his “Charter on skete life” defines that if a confessor “has no spirit or is blind according to the Lord’s saying,” then “such a person is not confess." Then, in his opinion, one must pray to God, study the Scriptures and bring confession to the “damp earth mother.” But the Strigolniki did the same thing, and many centuries later the Old Believers were often guided by the rules of the “Charter on skete life”! Therefore, of course, there is a certain continuity here.

Have these heresies left any trace in Russian culture, in the spiritual practices of our church? Or was their legacy burned out with a hot iron?

Good question. They burned out, yes, but as the Decembrist Mikhail Lunin accurately formulated, “you can get rid of people, but never get rid of their ideas.” The example of the Old Believers, whom we just talked about, is a clear confirmation of this. The ROC MP had to lift their anathemas at a local council in 1971, and the ROCOR later even had to apologize for the persecution and violence.

Now in Russia there is a total clericalization, including of Russian history. Therefore, now they are trying to present medieval heresies as almost enemies of Russian Orthodoxy and the notorious Russian spirituality. But such an interpretation is unfair. Both the Strigolniki and the “Judaizers” sincerely fought for the faith of Christ and for the Church of Christ, and sought to restore the truth of the Gospel in the form in which it was presented.
There is another important point here. Very often we hear about the Moscow rigid political system and its elements - the unity of power and property, militarism, xenophobia and isolationism, which were formed in the 15th-16th centuries. But for some reason it is rarely said that simultaneously with Moscow despotism, forces took shape that opposed it, fought against it, spiritually and politically. We are obliged to know the history not only of the Russian state, but of resistance to it, of Russian dissent. And religious diversity was its most important part. Unfortunately, this experience is still little understood and in demand by us.